The Internet is definitely more of a literacy issue than a technology issue. “The Internet [should be seen] not as a technology but rather as a context in which to read, write, and communicate. The Internet is no more a technology than is a book” (Leu, O’Byrne, Zawilinski, McVerry & Everett-Cacopardo, 2009. p.265). The Internet is an access point to a 21st Century way of communication, reading, and information consumption. To view the Internet as a technology, or a tool, is to vastly underestimate its modern capabilities, ignore the functioning and connectivity of the modern world, and deprive students of valuable resources that will help them to assimilate into their careers and into modern society.
Leu et al. touched on the economic differences and test scores briefly when they wrote, “Children in the poorest school districts in the United States have the least amount of Internet access at home [and] the greatest pressure to raise scores on tests…and schools do not always prepare them for the new literacies of online reading comprehension at school” (p. 267). I think that moving forward, personal biases, such as the older generation of teachers and instructors who are technology averts, will begin to thin out as 21st Century students, like myself, being to make their way into the field. I hear about it now in public schools and even some colleges, where teachers don’t want to change they way they teach because they are tenured, have been doing it the same way for 15+ years, and just want to continue using the same method because it worked in the past. While it may have worked in the past, the world is ever changing and education should be as fluid as the real world. The second component that I find limiting the adoption of technology tools in the classroom is budgeting. Districts don’t allow enough funding to go toward technology integration, which is a difficult balance between tax dollars, population, and number of schools. I think that it will be difficult for the public school system to enable teachers to utilize technologies in the classroom until there is enough proven success from local private schools that perform as well or better on standardized testing. While standardized testing is another discussion, I believe it is what is holding back many schools from raising their technology standards because they don’t see the correlation of a partnered learning experience like Prensky (2010) suggests and a measurement of success statewide. I think from an Instructional Designer’s and future instructor’s standpoint, we can begin suggesting alternative ways to approach lessons that will begin to explore and showcase the benefits of technology and internet literacy so that others will be more willing to realize its place in the modern world.
This was a discussion post copied from my graduate school work in Learning Design & Technology at Purdue University.
References
Leu, D. J., O’Bryne, W. I., Zawilinski, L., McVerry, G., & Everett-Cacopardo, H. (2009). Expanding the new literacies conversation. Educational Researcher, 38(4), 264-269.
Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching Digital Natives - Partnering for Real Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, A SAGE Company.
You’ve seen the films: 2001: A Space Odyssey, Bladerunner, Terminator, AI, Wall-E, and countless others. At a time when computer technology was in its infancy, it was exciting to think about the possibilities of robot intelligence and their relationships with humans. However, in the 21st century, amidst a vast expanse of computer engineering and learning technologies, integrative robots are rather common. They build our cars, build our computers, search for the closest burger joint, and even assess our online shopping habits. As engineers continue to push the limits of what computers and robots are capable of, could we, some day in the near future, find ourselves educating robots? Would educators be involved in the programming of AI to incorporate self-learning? What level of educational theory is integrated into designing these types of robots? Starting with a blank slate allows developers the flexibility to hyper-focus the “mind” of the robot on specific tasks without the learning differences between students or distractions humans encounter in everyday life. Being able to do this inherently cures many of the difficulties educators encounter when trying to teach others. Companies, such as OpenAI in Silicon Valley, are constantly working toward robot learning and communication.
“With early humans, language came from necessity. They learned to communicate because it helped them do other stuff, gave them an advantage over animals. These OpenAI researchers want to create the same dynamic for bots. In their virtual world, the bots not only learn their own language, they also use simple gestures and actions to communicate—pointing in particular direction, for instance, or actually guiding each other from place to place—much like babies do. That too is language, or at least a path to language.” (Wired, 2017.)
However, when will robots stop learning? Will they be programmed to learn only to improve upon specific tasks or will their curiosity be boundless? If they are connected to the internet, they could potentially never stop learning. Of course, each robot will be limited to its design; the amount of memory it can store, it’s functionality and articulation, and its battery power will presumably all be limiting factors in what a robot can actually accomplish. But is it no longer preposterous to ponder about a day when robots educate us?
“In the end, success will likely come from a combination of [learning and programming] techniques, not just one. And [researcher Igor] Mordatch is proposing yet another technique—one where bots don’t just learn to chat. They learn to chat in a language of their own making. As humans have shown, that is a powerful idea.” (Wired, 2017.)
I just hope Will Smith is still around to save us from the takeover.
References
https://www.wired.com/2017/03/openai-builds-bots-learn-speak-language/
I came across two articles on Wired.com recently regarding virtual and augmented reality. I’ve heard of Oculus, I’ve seen participants willing to sacrifice their humility to become a spectacle at a Microsoft Store demonstration in the middle of a shopping mall, and I’ve seen Samsung commercials where teenagers get a good laugh from watching an older man experience virtual reality for the first time. However, these encounters have been in passing or mindlessly scrolling through social media headlines. I have never heard any concrete information about the progression of VR and I have never experienced it first-hand. Interestingly, though, developers seem to be tirelessly working toward the advancement of creating a virtual world, even though they aren’t quite sure of its application yet.
Google has become increasingly ambitious in the field and created a team called DayDream Labs which "has one job: make stuff. They take a straightforward question or hypothesis—How do you leave a comment in VR? What should people’s legs look like? Is virtual horticulture fun? —and build the simplest prototype they can to test it out” (Wired, 2017.). Mark Rolston, founder of Argo Design, is interested in producing products that augment reality. He claims that there's a "giant design opportunity [in] bringing more humanity to computing...that's what the promise of augmented reality is. Bringing computing into the situations we already find ourselves in naturally" (Wired, 2017.). His hopes are that computing will be able to project a digital reality on top of our existing world. It seems like a cross between the forgotten Google Glass and Star Wars. Google is also diligent in creating a more realistic virtual world. By removing controllers, Google is focusing on using the body to interact with computers in a digital environment, and they recently acquired the company Eyefluence to further develop eye-tracking capabilities.
But what are the practical applications for technology such as this? What are educational applications, or professional video, or even social media? Education could adopt virtual reality to enhance the experience of students engaged in situated learning, where they could perhaps interact with a virtual version of the environment. This could particularly interesting for medical students, who could have the ability to observe procedures that aren't as frequently performed or if there aren't any available patients. It could also immerse students in another culture or location, such as walking the streets of Beijing during the Chinese New Year or visiting the White House. I'm not quite sure how professional filmmakers would incorporate VR. Could movies be immersive? Is it a possibility that I could be standing next to Scarlet Johansen in her next film and be able to look around the scene? Could VR films replace 3D films? Being able to move throughout a film is probably not ideal, as you'd want to experience the narrative, not walk around their world. Or would you? Either way, I see video professionals becoming integral to the development of virtual reality, as their expertise in content creation will help to develop the alternative world.
Immersive social media seems like a real possibility, but is a little terrifying to me. Being able to live and interact in world that doesn't really exist is an outlandish thought. Could it allow users to virtually visit friends who have moved across country or family across the globe? Sure, but a video chat is effective at doing that now. I don't immediately see the benefits to social interactions in a virtual world, but I'm sure a need will be created. It's definitely strange to think that a whole new world could be created and exist in a set of circuit boards. It reminds me a of an episode of the X Files where a virtual shooter game was the gateway to another dimension dominated by a virtual character who was out for blood. I just hope it works out better for us than it did for Mulder and Scully.
References
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/google-daydream-vr-feels-human/
https://www.wired.com/2015/05/google-cardboard-virtual-reality/
