Module 6

Dr. Soloway, in the pod-cast, discusses the things or “atoms” that are the tangible object – the computer, the cell phone, the i-pad, etc.  However Soloway also points out that the “thing” is not as important as the “service” in today’s tech oriented, digital society.  This required a change not only in the perspective of what one needs to have but in the meaning or definition of what is technology.  In the past technology was a thing – the technology enhanced classroom, the new technology purchased for our school, etc.  We appear to believe that the technology (all by itself) would make something happen.  From my experience I have seen some professors do wonderful things in the technology-enhanced classroom and some do things that are absolutely useless, however I have never seen the classroom teach all by itself.  It is important to recognize that technology (as a thing) can facilitate something positive, but all by itself – technology as a thing – does nothing (positive or negative).

I have been watching “Watson” (the IBM Computer) on Jeopardy this week.  Watson is an atom-based machine/computer.    On Tuesday’s program Watson appeared brilliant compared to his human competitors...until final jeopardy.  Both human competitors had the correct question and Watson was wrong!  So what happened?  The answer to final jeopardy item required multiple pieces of information:  A US city (the category), has 2 airports, a war hero and a major battle!  While the two humans were able to process all these factors and come up with the correct answer, Watson did not! So while the IBM team behind Watson conquered the ability to recognize “natural language” the complexity of the high level cognitive thinking process requiring access of multiple items from one’s long-term memory (storage) – still was not doable.   So my conclusion --- while I was watching the show (the first 20 minutes), I was feeling pretty low about the future of the human mind, but after a good night’s sleep to reflect on the outcome of final jeopardy – I have concluded it is essential that we do not promote or accept a world in which technology is seen as the dominant force in education, economic, health or any other segment of societies function.  Clearly it is a resource but it is not the ultimate perfect brain. 

So how does all this related to the global divide and the haves and have-nots?  Clearly Soloway, the Bloomberg Report and even the European Information Society European information society have a perspective.  However until we live in a utilitarian society we need to recognize individualization, choice and differences – both those of free-will and situational constraint. I am all for fairness and equality and equal access to help others learn, grow, and achieve their dreams.  But I am not certain why equality to technology is any different than equality to health care, education, or financial wealth?  Are we looking for a society based on equality or uniqueness or variation?

 I also think we sometimes use concerns about barriers to technology as an excuse to not look at more process or service oriented issues.  Both in my own experience and in the experiences I have heard others share throughout one of the greatest barrier is the lack of the atom-based things, with little attention to what will be done with the things – once they are purchased.  Therefore I think Soloway is on target in saying we need to embrace the services and not the items of technology.  In this shift, the emphasis is re-focused to the human to human interaction and not the machine.

Additional reading:

The Digital Divide Workshop: http://www.digitaldivide.net/