Bob's Blog

ETEC 644 Contrarian Paper reblog

For the sake of anyone who cares to read (or ignore) it, here is the "contrarian technology" book review I wrote last year. To be honest, it was written not only as a class assignment, but also as a reply to some other of my fellow students who felt the need to scold me for not embracing every new IT idea that came down the pike.  :)

Slack, Jennifer and Wise, J. Macgregor. (2006) Culture and Technology, Peter Lang Publishing, New York  N.Y.

            Recently, while watching an NBA playoff game on laptop through ESPN, an ad for Honda ran continuously, giving me the chance to see it repeatedly. Ironically, it wasn’t about their cars at all, but about research into robotics and alternative energy. What first caught my attention was the beginning, where scientists who worked with robots explained why we all were so afraid of them (fear of the unknown and bad science-fiction movies) and why we shouldn’t be (they weren’t too clear on that one). About halfway through, of all people, Deepak Chopra appeared in his guise as New Age Guru, and said, “Technology itself is neither good nor bad;  it is how we use it that makes the difference.”  I guess at that point I was supposed to breathe a sigh of relief that Honda had the technology well in hand, and we didn’t have to worry, especially if they have Mr. Chopra advising them about how to use it for good.

I’m not sure what the point of this ad was, except that everyone I witnessed in it needs to read Slack and Wise’s book at least twice. In a succinct 196 pages, the authors have presented not only a baseline look at technology in relation to culture, both past and modern, but explain in a clear manner the varying aspects of how technology is viewed and reacted to by academics, scientists, and philosophers, and the rest of us (not to mention the Unabomber). Their contention is that not only do we not understand the consequences of technology, we are actually embracing those consequences without much consideration of the costs versus the benefits.

They first challenge the notion that technology is a thing that can be measured by adding up devices or use statistics. Technology is a process, perhaps surely consisting of inventors or inventions, but a movement nonetheless, which can be defined in terms of science, or progress, or something else, but it is not a separate thing from culture itself. In this view, they are not alone. Poser (2009) talks extensively about a culture’s necessity to invent technology to survive mankind’s deficiencies, i.e., culture determines technology, and cannot be separated. Borgmann (2010) goes a step further by describing the “commoditization of technology” which can make it commonplace, and therefore a result of everyday use. While Poser says that we have developed technology to help meet our needs, the authors contend that we now develop and use technology to go beyond this and overcome the bodily limits of space and time. We have transportation to whisk us off for a quick weekend across the globe, a cell phone to make the reservation quickly, laser-eye surgery so we can sightsee better, new body parts so we can live longer and travel, computer screens and the Internet so as to be in two places at once, and just perhaps overcome the final limit, death. To question the necessity or the value of all this progress is modern heresy.  Slack and Wise then add the concept of convenience. We invent things to make our life more convenient. However, this leads to the never-ending race; the more conveniences we have, the more we are expected to do or experience.,

Next is the notion of causality. The two extremes of technological opinion are that we invent our technology and control it (cultural determinism), or that our tools are out of our control already and are running us (technological determinism). Also, there is a vague middle-ground opinion which is a little of both. For sake of simplicity, let’s say that Bill Gates would be a cultural determinist, while Theodore Kaczynski (the Unabomber) is a technological determinist. These two camps are constantly at odds with each other. Gates believes that technology is progress; Kaczynski believes that this kind of progress will kill us all. In between is a vast pool of the populace that has to use technology, but isn’t sure about it and what it all means. When the process is combined with the political arena, as it invariable is, the debate turns into heated discussion or worse, violent ecological protest or bombs in the mail.

Slack and Wise contend that politics has always been a major determinant of opinion on these issues, along with big businesses such as today’s Big Oil. World’s Fairs are sponsored by government and private sector cooperation to show how progress is inevitable and is good for us. Hammer (2010) goes back even further. In a discussion of how Roman technological prowess equaled world power, he shows how the Roman elite’s sophisticated technological re-creation of massive land and sea battles for the entertainment of the Romans kept the populace in-check. By sharing the “fruits of power”, it gave the Romans what they wanted:  an illusion that they, too, were a part of the big picture. However, the elite’s hold on power was eventually weakened in this way, for by bringing the action to the people, those people lost interest in anything but the next big Circus Maximus race or Colisseum fight and abandoned political leaders of any kind for authoritarian central rule.

In her article about Life magazine between 1936 and 1941, Webb (2010) notes that new photographic technology and printing techniques allowed a large picture magazine to be possible. This, in turn allowed some of the best photographers of the day to take pictures mainly of other marvels of American technology.  The ironies abound, especially when she notes dryly:

Contemporary commentators viewed technology as a positive force. Even though technology was responsible for automation that had thrown many out of jobs, and even though it could not forestall the downturn, it could still provide an avenue out of the Depression. In 1930, the Reader’s Digest noted, “We need not fear that we shall progress too fast. The overwhelming danger is that we shall not progress fast enough. “(p.199)

The authors’ final contention is that in reality, the world of technology cannot be defined as inherently good or bad, or determined or not, or really by any other definition except technological culture. This, they admit, even renders the title of their book an anachronism, since culture and technology are not separate, but like interwoven strands. We live, we plan, we vote, technology is invented, either by necessity or not, but it’s there, an inescapable part of our culture. What will happen as a result is often anybody’s guess. We all have and use cell phones. When we use one, we never think about the Chinese laborer who made it, the shipper who sent it, the trade deficit in the U.S. because of it (now $40 billion and counting), the low wages of the Wal-Mart employee who sold it to you, the government monopolies that allow the airwaves to use it. There are repercussions and results from all these stages that contribute to sending a ripple effect through the cultural waters. Cell phones help us communicate, save lives for people in remote areas who need help, enable us to work faster and longer, and give us the impression we are connected with the world. They also possibly emit dangerous radiation, contain toxic contaminants that are not always recycled when thrown away, are a major distraction in schools and the workplace, and can be used to trigger terrorist explosive devices.  I seriously doubt that Mr. Chopra could render this technology solely for good, even if he wanted to.  Robots are robots and how they will change us remains to be seen. 

At the last, Slack and Wise advise us that we can at least identify the negative aspects of technology and try to work through the political system to set limits on what we see is going wrong. Can technology be undone and abandoned?  Consider this: we still listen to music, but when’s the last time you heard it on an 8-track tape cartridge? The authors challenge us to be ready to take the next step.

 

Citations:

Borgmann, A. (2010). Reality and technology. Cambridge Journal of Economics V. 34 No. 1 (January 2010) P. 27-35, 34(1), 27-35.

Hammer, D. (2010). Roman spectacle entertainments and the technology of reality. Arethusa V. 43 No. 1 (Winter 2010) P. 63-86, 43(1), 63-86.

Lewis, W., Agarwal, R., & Sambamurthy, V. (2003). Sources of influence on beliefs about information technology use: An empirical study of knowledge workers. MIS Quarterly, 27(4), 657-678.

Mayhew, A. (2010). Clarence ayres, technology, pragmatism and progress. Cambridge Journal of Economics V. 34 No. 1 (January 2010) P. 213-22, 34(1),

Poser, H. (2009). Technology and necessity. The Monist V. 92 No. 3 (July 2009) P. 441-51, 92(3), 441-451.

Webb, S. (2010). Prowess unlimited: The portrayal of science and technology in life, 1936-41. Journalism History V. 35 No. 4 (Winter 2010) P. 194-204, 35(4), 194-204.

Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807-840.

 

 

Session 8 Rubric add

There were formatting problems when I tried to transcribe over one of the examples for my own use, and the same when I posted it.  I have redone it and simplified the scoring.

Session 8 E-learning delivery: motivating students.

 

These next two paragraphs will be incorporated into my lesson for discussion purposes:

Some of the reasons that the American and French Revolutions took a different turn have clear origins.  The colonies were far away in a new land;  Britain's hold on them was tenuous, so the Americans held large political sway, especially over the crown loyalists.  The British class system had melted away in the colonies , in favor of religious freedom and entrepreneurship.  Times were ripe in America for Locke's "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property (changed to "happiness" by Thomas Jefferson). America was isolated. Britain had gone through it's Parliamentary revolution in a previous century, and eventually rejected Parliamentary rule in favor of a return to the monarchy. So many Britains had seen successful revolution in their own country, and were convinced the Americans would win, and be left alone.

France, however, was locked in the  middle of a constant struggle with other monarchies on the European continent. There were severe budget problems and food shortages.  The nobility and the religious aristocracy owned pretty much everything, while the lower classes were taxed incessantly.  Rousseau was more of an action avocate, but the people did not need much motivation to revolt.  However, there had been no meetings of the Estates General for many, many years, so there was no structure to take over government. Not withstanding this, other monarchs on the continent were afraid revolution would spread to their countries; after all, the French had been executed, and so were actively involved at trying to return France to monarchial rule.  So. many great Enlightenment ideas went by the wayside as the factions fought each other

 

 

I guess that by trying to put together a class like I am doing, I am reaching for the stars but bumping into the moon. That is, not only is this something I would really like to do, but that I am really interersted in. However, I also realize this may not be the case for everyone.  So, as I do when I'm trying to teach social sciences in high school (when I get the chance), I like to take these classic ideas and relate them to something comtemporary, so as to avoid the repititious " Locke said this" and "Rousseau said this". After all, as Bob Dylan once opined, "the great books have all been written, the great sayings  have all been said." Not that these things are unnessary to study, but they should be looked at from a more modern view in this complicated world we live in. So, in the topic replies, I would like to see some independent thought on how some current regimes and revolutions match up. I might stimulate the asychronous discussions with a comment "are Egyptians asserting their natural rights", or "why is the U.S. so vitally interested in human rights all of a sudden when it was glad to ignore Khaddifi for 30 years as long as the oil kept coming?" Will new regimes respect the rights of "life, liberty  and the pursuit of happiness?"

 

Rubric

IDEAS:

                          3                   

                                                                 2                                                        1

Topic questions answered;                  Topic questions answered;                 Failed to answer

kept focus throughout                           kept focus usually                              topic

                       3                                                               

                                                                2                                                         1

Uses relevant, quality prose                Support starts to but does not          Limited or unclear

that supports main ideas                       fully validate key issues                      details

                        3                                                                                                                                              2                                                          1

Analyzes; leads with ideas;                 Primarily analyzes; some over use    Mostly retells the

cogently summarizes                           of summary                                             events

                         3                                                                                                                                          2                                                          1

Discusses proof and ideas fully           Discusses proof to some degree;       No or little discussion;

and deeply; reveals comprehension        reveals basic understanding              no comprehension

ORGANIZATION:

                          3                                                                                                                                          2                                                          1

Strong sense of direction;                Usually a good sense of direction;       No direction;

key points stand out clearly             most points can be determined            no clear points

CONVENTIONS:

                           3                                                                                                                                             2                                                          1

Errors, so few &/or minor,      Enough errors to distract the reader,             Errors distract the

do not distract the reader.        yet message remains clear                            reader; mar message

Documentation is correct.        Documentation has one consistent error.   Documentation is flawed

 

TOTAL SCORE: = 18

 So far, Noemi and Eman have agreed to the presentation. This is probably going to be in the last week of the session, the way things are going.  I guess a one-week deadline will happen, like Monday to Sunday night.  After that, a 1-point daily deduction penalty will occur. The account has already been set up by Dr. Leh.

Thanks to everyone who has helped with this.

Session 7 Plan for Online Discussion Activity

Student Handout:  Guidelines for Asynchronous Online Discussion

From Session 5 of my class we will have a Blackbord discussion on the topic, "Why do you think the American and French revolutions, while based on the same philsophical ideas, went in such different directions?" This will be asynchronous, so you may reply any time, as long as you reply twice:  once to my topic question, and once on another student's comment, before the Sunday midnight deadline. Dr. Leh will set up a Blackboard account for this purpose. I would like Noemi, Eman, and Amal to respond.

Learning Objective:  to try and take the evolving ideas of the Social Contract and the Natural Rights of Citizens and make a historical comparison. Also, since these ideas are still comtemporary, I would like the students to make comparisons of recent revolutionary events, such as in Egypt and Libya, and see if what is happening there corresponds to the ideals of Locke and Rousseau.

You will do the following:

Read the material on Locke and Rousseau in Session 5 (I will try to expand it soon).

Watch the PowerPoint on the French Revolution, and investigate the links found in it.

Go to Blackboard>Discussion Board>Asynchronous Online Discussion, Poli. Sci 10.

Reply to the topic I will put on the Board.

Reply again to another student's comments by the deadline.

(Rubric coming soon)

 

The topic replys need only to be a few sentences, and do not require a PhD in Political Science to write, and I will not grade them in that fashion. The replys do, however, need to be a thoughful opinion given the world situation then, and now, such as: the distance between the American colonies and England, versus the same-country revolution in France; how Americans viewed themselves and the world; the state of the economy in France; and, in a contemporary thought, the reasons why Egyptians view their rights as natural, if they do, and the proximity of Libya to Egypt and what that means in terms of revolutionary activity.  Feel free to investigate wikis such as Wikipedia or any other source that will give you a better backround on any of this. Do autocrats and dictators repect natural rights? Do they contract with their people, or do they declare that the people freely love and enter into a social contract with a leader who is more than willing to kill them with his army to show how he returns their respect? I, and I think the rest of the class, would be very interested in the personal experiences of others in their own place of origin.

I also realize that political discussions are often heated and can please get disrespectful, so please observe proper netquette, such no caps as if shouting, and no personal slurs. I reserve the right as the sole monitor to edit or delete comments that violate these rules.

Sesson 6 "Good Start" Revision

A.  My URL is the same as it has been:    

Link:   http://boppingwithbob.thevctributes.com   

Look under "Portfolio"

B.  

Session 5:  The Social Contract                          John Locke                Jean-Jacques Rousseau                      Selected readings                    Power-Point on the French                    Revolution                    Topic reply by students   1.1. When presented with the ideas of a transactional content and the natural rights of citizens, students will be able to make comparisons between the U.S. and French revolutions and also identify the contrasts 1.1.1 Upon identifying content characteristics from this week’s assignments, students will be able to understand the path that political philosophy took to the 18th century, and how contemporary ideas mirror that philosophy.

Student-Content:  Students will read the selections, and watch the Power-Point presentation.   Student-Instructor:  Students will continue their discussions on the topic reply, and exchange e-mail   Student-student:  Opinions on the discussion board. In addition to topic replies, student are free to pose their own questions for comment.

C.  Hello, and welcome to Political Science 10. I am Robert Murphy, and if you are getting this e-mail, you are signed up for the course. We will be using Blackboard this quarter, so if you have problems accessing the course, please e-mail me. In fact, you can e-mail me anytime concerning anything in this class. I will try to answer in one or two business days. Or, you can call me at (951) 555-5555 , leave a message , and I will get back to you.

D: I am asking you to take a short survey on your technological experience. The link is here:

                     http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/932M8L2

 

At the end of the course, I will also be asking for your opinion of the class.  That link is:

                     http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JFVY6FF

 

These surveys are optional, but I encourage you to answer them.

I hope you enjoy this class!

Bob

E. My understanding  is that some us will get together, probably online, to deliver the lessson. I don't mind who they are; I hate to just pick three people.

F. Probably in the last week of instruction, or finals week.

 

I have not made changes to my class with these updates, but I will try soon. I will also divide my two required responses as one response to my topic, and the second one to another student who has commented.

I am so pressed for time this quarter that it is frustrating for me. There are so many things I would like to do with this class. I especially appreciate the feedback everyone has given me. I'm still trying to figure out how to get to know the students without a blog. I haven't included one because frankly, I don't think I would know how to manage one. I'll have to investigate Blackboard more to see if I can do blog-type info there. I only learned surveymonkey last night, and one problem I am having is that in the multiple choice, I can't make it so you can only check one box. If anyone has the answer, I'd be happy to find out.

Best,

Bob

Session 4 e-Learning Delivery Plan.

I am not going to be able to deliver my course this quarter, and I may have difficulty delivering even one or two of the units. My difficulty is that as a substitute teacher, I don’t have a ready audience. In fact, doing a research project last quarter in Dr. Baek’s class at a school I used to regularly sub at very nearly cost me my job, since it took up Internet and e-mail time that cut into watching my classes. As it is, I am now banned from the school. Be that as it may, however, I need to discuss with Dr. Leh how and what I will be doing. I would like to complete at least two sessions for delivery.

 

The good start mentioned in the Waterhouse book for me would probably entail some checklists similar to what’s in Chapter 10:

 

Getting Started:

 

Course syllabus

Course schedule

Course policies

Welcome e-mail which confirms registration

Statement on LMS

“How to” access and use Blackboard

Check website link

Check instructional links

Student profile survey (nor sure how to do this)

 

I have not been using a blog for my class, so without one, I’m unsure how to solicit student biographical information other than perhaps through Blackboard. I could change my first Blackboard topic to an introduction of some kind.

 

Manage and motivate students through online discussion:

 

I have posted Blackboard topics each session that the students would be required to answer.  They are designed specifically to stimulate opinion and thought processes the students might not have considered before. I would act as intermediary to guide discussion. However, it would all be asynchronous. I think when one is dealing with political opinion, it might be best to avoid direct group interaction in a synchronous fashion. Frankly, it could be difficult for me to handle.

 

Link to my website where the class is:     

http://boppingwithbob.thevctributes.com

It's under portfolio and final project

Session 3: Online Instruction Evaluation

 I am choosing a class I took at UCR Extension to finish my Clear Credential in Social Science, Advanced English Language Development. This class was a very unsatisfactory experience for a variety of reasons, but I will try to explain in terms of the CSU Chico rubric why this was so.

Learner Support and Resources

The instructor in this course used Moodle, which I found hard to navigate, especially since he hadn't bothered to update the session information and due dates from his previous session, or give us any information on how to use Moodle itself. No course-specific resources were offered. I would rate this as below Baseline.

 

Instructional Design and Delivery

The course goals were vague, and the activities to help students develop critical thinking were non-existent. The course was presented to us as basically a weekly exercise in reading a lot and writing a lot, and at the end, teaching some ELD lessons in a real classroom, should we be able to do that. There were no visual or audio enhancements to liven things up.

 

Innovative Teaching with Technology

What technology?  No multimedia elements, no MP3's, no links.  We were are our own. As for new teaching elements, the instructor handled this class as if he had done it a hundred times before, and wasn't going to change now. He reminded me of some older classroom teachers who have their courses "down pat" the way they like it, and they will continue to be that way forever. The only technology was the email we used to send him our work. He did use the announcement feature of Moodle to occasionally let us know our work so far was "great, but a lot of us were behind, so hurry up!" (my words)

 

Online Organization and Design

As I mentioned earlier, the syllabus had old dates on it, and they were never updated until the week had passed, almost as an afterthought. Our weekly work consisted of reading at least three chapters from our textbook, and answering 7 to 9 questions about them, all of which took expository writing of some kind (translate: hours of work). Although we had a list of others in the class and he encouraged us to "get to know each other and collaborate! (sic) ", no one did, I think because he was not very friendly to begin with, and we were all too busy. There were no design elements to speak of; this was very akin to just sticking a syllabus on a site.

 

Assessment and Evaluation of Student Learning

There really were no stated learning objectives. Feedback from him was sporadic. I spent one whole weekend catching up on a week's assignment to make things current, and he only acknowleged my email to up date my completion log after 3 tries on my part. (I still believe that he probably lost the work, which would not be surprising, since he made us cut and paste our weekly submissions onto our e-mail, so he could print them all out to be read, something I probably should have mentioned under course design and innovative use of technology.)

 

Faculty Use of Student Feedback

There was no soliciting of feedback from us, period. Since all of us either needed this class to get our clear or advance in teaching, we were a captive audience of students, and he knew it. He didn't want or need any feedback from us.

 

I think the one basic thing I would make sure I had in my class would be engagement and personability, something that our CSUSB professors accomplish very well, as do the student designers in this class.  This goes a long way as far as I am concerned. Ongoing feedback, usually by e-mail that is returned by me in a maximum of two business days, as Dr. Newberry does. Then I would make sure that at least the design has some boredom relief, either though mp3 or visual aids. My PowerPoint for example has sound effects when you get a right answer, and a link for further information. I don't think you need to be a whiz on the computer to effect good design. I know my class design could benefit from some good tinkering right now.

I also abhor the idea that you have a captive audience.  As stated in my syllabus, my Political Science class would be a cognate class for non-majors, and a beginning class for new majors. While I don't want the virtual classroom to resemble a frat party, I do think that it is a bad idea to assume your students "need this class" so you have no obligation to explain things or solicit feedback to make the class more user friendly.

I would be happy to take any of the classes offered, in the planning stage or not, from my fellow students, all of whom have taken the time necessary to make all the positive things work. Thank you for your effort, because it could be a lot worse!

ETEC648 eLearning Delivery and Evaluation Session 2

The rush to standardization by various organizations in higher learning appears to be a race without a specific finish line, in my opinion. That is to say, the ongoing efforts  to make sure all the bases are covered in the conversion to digital learning has been a process  begun some years ago by the “pioneers” of online learning, whose views and suppositions now become either historical precedent or debated rhetoric, depending on your orientation and point of view.  The three standards and rubrics we are examining by three separate entities  are logical outgrowths of that era, and so are subject to the same “opinionated” discussion, and conceivably will continue to be,  as the online era morphs into some future form. The question is how these standards are used and adopted, and by whom.  In all three cases, the stated purpose is to provide a meaningful format of evaluation for online and/or hybrid courses, so that the student receives the maximum benefit from the instruction offered.

The Quality Matters Program for grades 6-12 uses an assigned point total over a series of standards to see how a course matches up to their ideal. It also introduces the concept of Alignment, to make sure that “critical” course objectives are tied together.  The higher the total, the better the course. The Blackboard Exemplary Course Program addresses similar elements, but breaks down a course into four categories: Exemplary, Accomplished, Promising, and Incomplete, with a description of each. The Cal State , Chico example basically asks the question “What does a high quality course look like?” and answers it through a series of standards ranked Exemplary, Effective, and Baseline.  For the latter two, the assumption is that the standards are for any level of course.

All three of these schemas basically express similar themes of learner support, instructional design, innovation of technology, assessment criteria, and ADA compliance. Blackboard’s criteria, which has been in existence since 2001, appears to be the most comprehensive, followed by QMP.  CSU’s example is short but to the point, and by far my choice for best one,  perhaps because I prefer criteria to be in that form. From my standpoint, the simpler the better.  QMP’s criteria strikes me as being the same as a high-school quiz, where you get a grade. Blackboard is like a district writing prompt rubric, written much too specifically and, in trying to be comprehensive, actually limits itself.  CSU in its simplicity, seems to be the most flexible, and by implication, the most useful.  It is important to remember that these rubrics are mainly written for faculty and adjunct instructors, many of whom, although not particularly technology savvy, may not be very receptive to being “graded” similarly to how they assess their students. In the private sector, an instructor can basically be anyone, and the evaluator of your online class is probably going to be your boss.  In a university setting, however, the evaluator is likely to be an office of technology and the Dean of your college, which presents a different political perspective on how the criteria is used. Another aspect is that while the rubrics all purport to be student oriented, for an online class exercise,  the first two seem to be very similar to the types of criteria handed out in syllabi for brick-and-mortar classes, with a few communication aspects such as e-mail  thrown in. Indeed, specific  technologies are really not spelled out, just required for use. This is, course, because no one can really predict what technologies will be in use in the far, or even the near, future.

At the last, I think as always, the bottom line is funding. No private or public sector institution wants to lay out a bundle of cash to commit to online learning without some sort of criteria. Ironically, perhaps fifteen years ago, when only a few “crackpots” were mentally mulling over the online possibilities of learning, no one particularly cared except the individuals involved. Now, with online learning becoming the latest craze, things are different.

Recently, the University of California announced their intention to do a pilot project for online learning. I imagine that as I write, the monitors of learning in Berkeley are working on their own set of criteria, which, for them I'm sure, will only apply to UC professors.  I await this effort with interest.

 

Since I don't really have anyone to team up with, if I would try and deliver my class this quarter (and I really wish I could), I would have to do a lot. My narratives about each philosophical movement need to be carefully written so that they convey the ideas, but are not too didactic.  I want to write them myself, not borrow, because I think I can portray the content in an interesting way (I hope!). Only one of my PowerPoints is real;  the other still needs to be created.  I need to separate my syllabus and schedule as my professors at Cal State have done, and lastly, even though I have created assessment elsewhere, I will need to do it again here. I'm also not sure I have done enough engagement, or put enough effort in the feedback network needed to reassure students  that I would be available if they needed the help. Interpreting political philosophy can be a daunting task without aid.

Session 10: Final Project ETEC 541

I'm not sure if any one from the class is getting to this belatedly, but here is the link to my final project for 541 on my (primitive) website.  I only had time to get it to Dr. Newberry, but not upload it to the website, so here it is, typos and all :) . This is really the completion of the class, so I wanted to say thanks to all my classmates, and for helping me with my work by viewing all the great stuff everyone else did. Good luck to all! 

Bob Murphy

Link:   http://boppingwithbob.thevctributes.com   

Look under "Portfolio"

Session 9: Projects

I am in the midst of assembling my final project, but since our blog post is open this week, I would like to present a book review on technology I produced last year. If you are in rapture with the latest technology of anything, you may not want to read this, but it is certainly something to think about.

 

Robert J. Murphy

Spring 2010

CSUSB

 

Slack, Jennifer and Wise, J. Macgregor. (2006) Culture and Technology, Peter Lang Publishing, New York  N.Y.

            Recently, while watching an NBA playoff game on laptop through ESPN, an ad for Honda ran continuously, giving me the chance to see it repeatedly. Ironically, it wasn’t about their cars at all, but about research into robotics and alternative energy. What first caught my attention was the beginning, where scientists who worked with robots explained why we all were so afraid of them (fear of the unknown and bad science-fiction movies) and why we shouldn’t be (they weren’t too clear on that one). About halfway through, of all people, Deepak Chopra appeared in his guise as New Age Guru, and said, “Technology itself is neither good nor bad;  it is how we use it that makes the difference.”  I guess at that point I was supposed to breathe a sigh of relief that Honda had the technology well in hand, and we didn’t have to worry, especially if they have Mr. Chopra advising them about how to use it for good.

I’m not sure what the point of this ad was, except that everyone I witnessed in it needs to read Slack and Wise’s book at least twice. In a succinct 196 pages, the authors have presented not only a baseline look at technology in relation to culture, both past and modern, but explain in a clear manner the varying aspects of how technology is viewed and reacted to by academics, scientists, and philosophers, and the rest of us (not to mention the Unabomber). Their contention is that not only do we not understand the consequences of technology, we are actually embracing those consequences without much consideration of the costs versus the benefits.

They first challenge the notion that technology is a thing that can be measured by adding up devices or use statistics. Technology is a process, perhaps surely consisting of inventors or inventions, but a movement nonetheless, which can be defined in terms of science, or progress, or something else, but it is not a separate thing from culture itself. In this view, they are not alone. Poser (2009) talks extensively about a culture’s necessity to invent technology to survive mankind’s deficiencies, i.e., culture determines technology, and cannot be separated. Borgmann (2010) goes a step further by describing the “commoditization of technology” which can make it commonplace, and therefore a result of everyday use. While Poser says that we have developed technology to help meet our needs, the authors contend that we now develop and use technology to go beyond this and overcome the bodily limits of space and time. We have transportation to whisk us off for a quick weekend across the globe, a cell phone to make the reservation quickly, laser-eye surgery so we can sightsee better, new body parts so we can live longer and travel, computer screens and the Internet so as to be in two places at once, and just perhaps overcome the final limit, death. To question the necessity or the value of all this progress is modern heresy.  Slack and Wise then add the concept of convenience. We invent things to make our life more convenient. However, this leads to the never-ending race; the more conveniences we have, the more we are expected to do or experience.,

Next is the notion of causality. The two extremes of technological opinion are that we invent our technology and control it (cultural determinism), or that our tools are out of our control already and are running us (technological determinism). Also, there is a vague middle-ground opinion which is a little of both. For sake of simplicity, let’s say that Bill Gates would be a cultural determinist, while Theodore Kaczynski (the Unabomber) is a technological determinist. These two camps are constantly at odds with each other. Gates believes that technology is progress; Kaczynski believes that this kind of progress will kill us all. In between is a vast pool of the populace that has to use technology, but isn’t sure about it and what it all means. When the process is combined with the political arena, as it invariable is, the debate turns into heated discussion or worse, violent ecological protest or bombs in the mail.

Slack and Wise contend that politics has always been a major determinant of opinion on these issues, along with big businesses such as today’s Big Oil. World’s Fairs are sponsored by government and private sector cooperation to show how progress is inevitable and is good for us. Hammer (2010) goes back even further. In a discussion of how Roman technological prowess equaled world power, he shows how the Roman elite’s sophisticated technological re-creation of massive land and sea battles for the entertainment of the Romans kept the populace in-check. By sharing the “fruits of power”, it gave the Romans what they wanted:  an illusion that they, too, were a part of the big picture. However, the elite’s hold on power was eventually weakened in this way, for by bringing the action to the people, those people lost interest in anything but the next big Circus Maximus race or Colisseum fight and abandoned political leaders of any kind for authoritarian central rule.

In her article about Life magazine between 1936 and 1941, Webb (2010) notes that new photographic technology and printing techniques allowed a large picture magazine to be possible. This, in turn allowed some of the best photographers of the day to take pictures mainly of other marvels of American technology.  The ironies abound, especially when she notes dryly:

Contemporary commentators viewed technology as a positive force. Even though technology was responsible for automation that had thrown many out of jobs, and even though it could not forestall the downturn, it could still provide an avenue out of the Depression. In 1930, the Reader’s Digest noted, “We need not fear that we shall progress too fast. The overwhelming danger is that we shall not progress fast enough. “(p.199)

The authors’ final contention is that in reality, the world of technology cannot be defined as inherently good or bad, or determined or not, or really by any other definition except technological culture. This, they admit, even renders the title of their book an anachronism, since culture and technology are not separate, but like interwoven strands. We live, we plan, we vote, technology is invented, either by necessity or not, but it’s there, an inescapable part of our culture. What will happen as a result is often anybody’s guess. We all have and use cell phones. When we use one, we never think about the Chinese laborer who made it, the shipper who sent it, the trade deficit in the U.S. because of it (now $40 billion and counting), the low wages of the Wal-Mart employee who sold it to you, the government monopolies that allow the airwaves to use it. There are repercussions and results from all these stages that contribute to sending a ripple effect through the cultural waters. Cell phones help us communicate, save lives for people in remote areas who need help, enable us to work faster and longer, and give us the impression we are connected with the world. They also possibly emit dangerous radiation, contain toxic contaminants that are not always recycled when thrown away, are a major distraction in schools and the workplace, and can be used to trigger terrorist explosive devices.  I seriously doubt that Mr. Chopra could render this technology solely for good, even if he wanted to.  Robots are robots and how they will change us remains to be seen. 

At the last, Slack and Wise advise us that we can at least identify the negative aspects of technology and try to work through the political system to set limits on what we see is going wrong. Can technology be undone and abandoned?  Consider this: we still listen to music, but when’s the last time you heard it on an 8-track tape cartridge? The authors challenge us to be ready to take the next step.

 

Citations:

Borgmann, A. (2010). Reality and technology. Cambridge Journal of Economics V. 34 No. 1 (January 2010) P. 27-35, 34(1), 27-35.

Hammer, D. (2010). Roman spectacle entertainments and the technology of reality. Arethusa V. 43 No. 1 (Winter 2010) P. 63-86, 43(1), 63-86.

Lewis, W., Agarwal, R., & Sambamurthy, V. (2003). Sources of influence on beliefs about information technology use: An empirical study of knowledge workers. MIS Quarterly, 27(4), 657-678.

Mayhew, A. (2010). Clarence ayres, technology, pragmatism and progress. Cambridge Journal of Economics V. 34 No. 1 (January 2010) P. 213-22, 34(1),

Poser, H. (2009). Technology and necessity. The Monist V. 92 No. 3 (July 2009) P. 441-51, 92(3), 441-451.

Webb, S. (2010). Prowess unlimited: The portrayal of science and technology in life, 1936-41. Journalism History V. 35 No. 4 (Winter 2010) P. 194-204, 35(4), 194-204.

Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807-840.