The second week in the E-Learning and Digital Cultures
course looked at the future – how is technology, particularly in the context of
education, predicted to change over the course of the century and beyond? I am
interested in this on a personal level, being curious about how technology will
develop, as well as in a professional sense: my job and certainly my career are
likely to change as a result of future developments.
Participants were initially required to watch several
videos, including two adverts from technology companies which presented visions
of the future. Here, technology is seamlessly integrated into everyday life,
with classroom walls and car dashboards and kitchen work surfaces acting as
touch screens, and families and colleagues sharing experiences and ideas in a
utopian community.
Apart from wondering how much all of this would cost, I
found the visions presented slightly disturbing – new and exciting they might
be, but they were also bland and seemed rather detached from the physical
world. In particular, the section in which the schoolchildren used glass
touchscreens to look at ‘dinosaurs’ in the forest made an impression on me:
using technology to explore and learn is not in itself a bad thing, but I
thought it was a shame that the children were ignoring the actual world around
them – the trees, grass, sky, wildlife – and viewing everything through a pane
of glass. On the other hand, the concept of sharing ideas and experiences is a
positive one.
The other three videos presented fictional narratives based
on future worlds where technological developments have profoundly affected the
way we live, but though these were interesting, the overwhelmingly dystopian
nature of all of the worlds was rather dramatic.
The core reading for the week1 looked at how the
use of metaphors helps us to relate to the internet and reflect cultural
values. Johnston looks at the commonly used metaphors of space and speed, destruction
and salvation often linked with the web (and ‘web’ itself is a metaphor), which
often encompass the same absolute values of utopian and dystopian viewpoints.
Another article by Bleecker2 looked at the concept of an ‘Internet
of Things’, in which objects blog and in so doing provide valuable information
– such as the location of lost luggage in the airport. I must admit that the
reference to luggage “that has lost its human” made me think of the Luggage in
Terry Pratchett’s Discworld series, running here and there on its numerous
little legs.
Two contrasting viewpoints were presented by Clay Shirky3
and Aaron Bady4, the one claiming that MOOCs herald a positive
educational revolution, with the other arguing that this is by no means certain
and that most MOOC providers are profit-driven businesses. Both have vested
interests in their respective positions, but I thought that both made valid
points. Personally, I have serious doubts whether MOOCs can or should replace
traditional university courses: the free model is not sustainable in the
long-term and the large numbers of participants aren’t conducive to in-depth
group discussion. Without access to the library resources that traditional
universities provide, MOOCs are forced to rely on free online resources that
may or may not be reliable. As a history graduate, I am sympathetic to the
humanities academics cited in Bady’s article who state that MOOCs cannot
replicate the general intangible intellectual atmosphere and discussion found
in a traditional university environment. Shirky does make the point that
contemporary higher education is now hugely expensive, and some students may
see obvious advantages in going down the online route. Neither writer refers to
the millions of people around the world who lack the Internet access necessary
to take a course online – the very same people who are likely to lack the means
to enter a traditional university.
It may be that the MOOC is a fad, and online learning may go
down the route of correspondence courses which surged in popularity a century
ago before dying out.5 Certainly MOOCs are known to have high
dropout rates, and according to a fellow course participant, those with Masters
degrees and PhDs are those most likely to stick at them and pass – perhaps suggesting
that the self-discipline and study skills needed to successfully learn online
are those which can themselves be learned best in more traditional study
environments. I think it’s notable that within a very short time of this course
starting, there were numerous forum posts arranging real-life meet-ups.
I’m still forming my thoughts on this issue, but I’m not
convinced that MOOCs and other kinds of online courses will either save or
destroy education. After all, the Open University in Britain did not spell the
end for traditional institutions. Unlike the correspondence course, I believe
e-learning of one form or another is here to stay – but I don’t think that it
can or should replace traditional education. Online courses have huge potential
for disseminating high quality learning and information, and for sharing
thoughts and ideas around the world; but the benefits of a traditional
university campus education are too many to be dismissed.
1Johnston, R (2009). Salvation or destruction: metaphors of the internet. First Monday, 14(4). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2370/2158. [Accessed 12 February 2013].
2Bleecker, J. (2006). A manifesto for
networked objects — Cohabiting with pigeons, arphids and Aibos in the Internet
of Things. http://www.scribd.com/doc/14748019/Why-Things-Matter.
3Shirky, C. (2012). Napster, Udacity and the
academy. shirky.com, 12 November 2012. http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2012/11/napster-udacity-and-the-academy/.
4Bady, A. (2012). Questioning Clay Shirky.
Inside Higher Ed, 6 December 2012. http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2012/12/06/essay-critiques-ideas-clay-shirky-and-others-advocating-higher-ed-disruption.
5Carr, N. (2012). The Crisis in Higher Education.
MIT Technology Review, 27 September 2012. http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/429376/the-crisis-in-higher-education/.
No comments:
Post a Comment