The texts this week truly spoke to me. I grew up in a household that valued technology but also restricted its use. There was one computer accessible in the family area and it was only used for class projects and computer games. Cable and video games were not available until I entered 6th grade. My parents allowed my Aunt and Uncle to purchase a PS2 for my brother and me. Reading through the articles I was struck by the different approaches to technology and I consistently thought about how this affects children as they age. Typically, there are social aspects to consider. For example, in the text Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out there are many references to technology affecting social lives but they do not address how this continues to affect these children as they become adults. The ability to discuss TV shows that “everyone” else has watched (the most relevant for me is Game of Thrones) is something that is glossed over but is relevant for children and adults alike.
Of course, a main thread throughout the articles was the place of technology and media in learning. Teachers and parents often dismiss the learning value in media that is not labeled as educational. Parents think this primarily because they do not think of the connections between social media and the workplace environment. This was highlighted in Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out but was reinforced in Digital Media Literacies: rethinking media education in the age of the Internet. The most interesting aspect of this article to me was that it is dated after only seven years. The article highlighted the differences between traditional literacy and digital literacy. Of course, some skills will not be tested officially but will be tested in social situations for personal privacy and security. “children need to know when they are being targeted by commercial appeals, and how the information they provide can be used by commercial corporations.” (Buckingham, 2007, p. 48) This relates back to the purpose of school; is school supposed to create competent individuals or complacent workers? Teaching students about how to keep their information safe (don’t send it automatically to Microsoft) is something that I do not believe is emphasized enough and I agree with Buckingham that it should be emphasized. Of course, technological literacy uses the same components as traditional literacy. “There are many different social and cultural practices which incorporate literacy, so, too, many different “literacies””. (Gee, 2010) It is not just about students being able to use computers and technology in a strictly educational way but instead using them to develop as a whole individual. These students need to be able to work with others and understand not only the material in context but also be able to apply their learning to other facets of their lives. There has been a major shift that education can not seem to keep up with. Children need more interaction with technology to reach their full potential as adults and adults need interaction with technology to make sure they do not fall behind. (Jenkins, 2009) The interesting thing to me, is that the increase in workload is ignored. When research papers were assigned a few years ago they would take around a month to finish since students of all ages would need to go to the library and physically research materials. Now, we are expected to synthesize materials in a week or less because these are available to us. This same shift has occurred in the work environment as well. Where employees used to “unplug” on the weekends not they are constantly connected and expected to respond to work related queries. There is no escaping it. Even with all of this societal pressure to integrate technology teachers must still send permission forms home for our students to use the internet (in purely educational pursuits) and parents still say no. Typically it is the fear of the internet that stops them from giving consent. The true core of all these articles is that online and offline life are no longer separate. Unless a person wants to cut themselves out socially it becomes very difficult to stay offline. Though these articles focused on “youth” it is so clear to me that there is very little difference between social expectations in the adult and child spheres. Unless children are exposed to digital media early and are consistently updated as the technology changes they will fall behind as adults. This is not only in social spheres but also in marketability for employment. Technology is already integrated into most aspects of our lives, it is up to us to make sure that our youth are aware of the benefits and dangers it presents before they discover it on their own. Works CitedBuckingham, D. (2007, November 1). Digital media literacies: rethinking media education in the age of the internet. Research in comparative and international education, pp. 43-55. Gee, J. P. (2010). A stituated sociocultural approach to literacy and technology. In E. A. Baker, The new literacies: multiple perspectives on research and practice (pp. 165-193). New York: Guilford Press. Horst, H. A., Herr-Stephenson, & Robinson, L. (2010). Media ecologies. In M. Ito, S. Baumer, M. Bittanti, D. Boyd, R. Cody, B. Herr-Stephenson, . . . L. Tripp, Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out (pp. 29-78). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: media education for the 21st century. Cambridge: MIT Press. Mizuko, I., Horst, H., Bittani, M., Boyd, D., Herr-Stephenson, B., Lange, P. G., . . . Robinson, L. (2008, November). Living and learning with new media: summary of findings from the digital youth project. chicago: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
1 Comment
This week we read several texts in which the power of machines was taken into consideration. More specifically, I was asked to read articles that typically focused on the power that is taken away and gained by machines and technology. It is important to note at this point that 'machines' range from the smallest of technological advances to the greatest of achievements.
The articles focused on humans gaining and losing power due to technology. In the book Do Artifacts have Politics? Winner states, "the ways human ends are powerfully transformed as they are adapted to technical means." (Winner, 1988) They went on to discuss how technology has been touched by people and politics. For example, Winner references bridges in Long island that are low specifically to limit bus traffic. Structures that we do not think twice about limit our lives and social interactions. This is very much like the creation of suburbs that required cars to live comfortably. This eliminated many families that were unable to purchase a car and instead needed to rely on public transportation or walking. While reading the articles I noted a very strong theme of social actions and reactions related to technology. How can technology make our lives easier and how did technology drive us apart? Eliminating the "undesirable" humans continued as a theme in the articles. Winner stated that Cyrus McCormick said technology would "weed out the bad element among the men" (Winner, 1988) . What was this bad element? Simply workers attempting to gain rights by striking and causing the company to lose money or time. This was also referenced in The Machine Versus the Worker. Marx stated, "It is the most powerful weapon for repressing strikes, those periodical revolts of the working-class against the autocracy of capital" in response to technology and machines. (Marx, 1999) In fact, this theme continues through many of our readings allowing for analysis of the underlying social issues that relate to technology. These texts seem to agree that technology works for the employer or owner but that the common man is left out of the deal and is dispensable. What is it about technology that separates the haves from the have nots? In the previous articles the separation was between the workers and the owners of technology. Though this is often true, the complete picture is not so simple. We are divided by technology and drawn together by it. Just as overpasses limit busses, technology limits people. Humans are left out and not appreciated when technology is concerned. According to the article “Technology won’t fix America’s neediest schools. It makes bad education worse.” technology is also dividing high achieving students from students in need. In addition to this article, I read through another which discussed bias in computer systems. I have found that typically when I discuss technology people tend to assume that it is unbiased. The article “Bias in Computer Systems” would have a very different opinion. In short, this article discussed how the programming of the airline reservation system allows for preference to certain airlines. In fact, that language is not strong enough since the text states that bias involves discriminating against specific groups or individuals. What a bleak picture! Technology is to blame. This is where I have an extreme divergence from the readings. I do believe that technology has the power to divide. If technology is left to its own devices and guidance is not provided then it does not help anyone but the owner of technology. I have seen technology thrust upon those who did not desire it and cause more trouble than it was ever worth. However, as a teacher who has been trained in technology I have seen the benefits with my own eyes. “In education, technologies amplify whatever pedagogical capacity is already there.” (Toyama, 2015). It is not the fault of technology that there are social divides. Technology itself is not the issue. It is the job of the creator and owners to make sure that the social impacts are examined before singing the praises of technology, especially when it comes to the education of our children. I have seen students light up and understand concepts because technology was used effectively. How can we expect technology to close gaps that we are not ready to bridge as people? Though these articles had a bleak outlook of technology and its ability to divide us socially, I look to technology with hope. To quote from one of the articles “freedom from bias should be held out as an ideal.” (Friedman & Nissenbaum, 1996) Humans make technology political and it is our responsibility to make sure that the divides that occur do not truly separate us and instead allow us to come together as one group moving towards a common goal. Educators and users of technology are responsible to not only use technology effectively but also to make sure that as much bias as possible is removed from the human aspect of technology. Works CitedFriedman, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (1996, July 3). Bias in Computer Systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, pp. 330-347. Marx, K. (1999). The Machine Versus the Worker. In D. MacKenzie, & J. Wajcman, The Social Shaping of Technology (pp. 156-157). Buckingham: Open University Press. Toyama, K. (2015, June 4). Technology won't fix america's neediest schools. It makes bad education worse. The washington post. Winner, L. (1988). The Whale and the Reactor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. |
Details
AuthorEllie E. Archives
November 2017
Categories |