Hey! Here is a fun chance for me to update my thoughts on this weeks readings. Originally my post was focused on how we use technology in innovative ways, allowing us to reduce our focus from “maintenance chores.” This saved time and effort can be offset by the amount of time spent by an individual (or institution) on initially implementing them. This is something that I have found in another aspect of my life: martial arts. Bear with me.
In my experience finding the perfect block or strike is less important than working hard to make the one you have polished. This means that while it would be fantastic to know the “best” or most blockiest block, a movement that is practiced endlessly is far more effective than a good block that isn’t given the same amount of practice. In the same way, a good system does not always need innovation for the sake of change. AND NOW I SOUND LIKE DOLORES UMBRIDGE
This does not mean that innovation should be stopped, it just means that due time should be given to each modality before it is thrown out the window. Especially when these new systems do not look at the old ones to parse out what is working and apply that to the new generation. This is the equivalent of the adage “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.” The difficulty in this is that stagnation is tricky to escape. This leads to arrested development followed by catastrophic overhauls. The ideal condition would be gradual systemic change, which sound a bit oxymoronic.
Generally I agree with Colin’s assertion that technology is neutral. It is usually the application of the technology that is questionable. The rush to integrate new ideas is exciting and often try to mass produce before the infrastructure is ready. This is especially dangerous with volatile or potentially dangerous technologies.The problems that are caused by new technologies are probably most apparent in the psychological example of the hype cycle:
How human is that? Inflated expectations and disillusionment. This is like the description of a bad date. In the case of the Turnitin resource, we see that while the intended use is to increase writing quality, the technology is being used in a way that exceeds its capabilities” to detect plagiarism.
Now educational technology seems pretty low calibre when compared to nuclear devices and datamining but it can have lasting effects on how people learn throughout their lives. While having a fluid system that allows for flexibility in regards to the learner, a system that tries to reinvent itself every few years is bound to cause problems.
JUST A THOUGHT: Maybe technology is evil, as it is actively throwing digital sticks in my spokes. IE this post.
But honestly this could be an example of trying to adapt to another unfamiliar system.
DUN. DUN. DAAAAAAAAA
References:
A Guide for Resisting Edtech: the Case against Turnitin
Knewton Is Gone. The Larger Threat Remains
EDCI 335 - Learning Design 