Strangled Essay – October 10, 2011 (Immigration)
Strangled Essay – October 10, 2011
Immigration Essay
Strangled, asphyxiated, your imagination should run free but your body lies in chains. Asymmetries everywhere surround you. To speak not only endangers you but also other ones that supported you. A PhD program should be empowering, and in many ways it is. I am a lucky one. Since the moment I was born I been lucky. My parents are together, and I don’t have any major complains. Yet, the American dream has been hard to obtain. I have been here most of my life, back home or here, I feel foreign in both states. Does the sign now really read no vacancies? I grew up reading the promise of America to the rest of the world. A beacon of light sat at top of a hill. A place of freedom where aristocracies had been abolished and social mobility was a clear possibility. I would love to contribute to this country, a country that I grew up believing in, it was constructed upon an idea of a civil rather than ethnic identity, where you were not defined by the color of your skin, your background, your culture, but rather by your desire to uphold the constitution and further the belief in a representative democracy where all man are created free and are endowed with unalienable rights. This is however to many only a fairy tale or a best possible outcome, as it is only possible with a great amount of effort, supports, and luck.
“I am not racist, but….” some say. Really, then why are we any different than any other group that migrated to America? Do you not believe that we can assimilate? Are you are afraid of losing the benefits that you have fought hard to create. America is a place where hard work is rewarded, where red lights at intersections are more than meaningless colored light blubs. The law is obeyed and so it should, but we must not forget that there are unjust laws as there are unjust men. Many of us came here escaping the fear of an uncertain tomorrow. Would we be abused, killed, or victimized in any number of ways if we went back to were we came from? Probably. As the puritans left England to explore this brave new world, this hemisphere, we are not different, we also wish to start anew and be given a new opportunity. In addition, helping some now may reap rewards in the future. How many patents are developed by human capital that migrated from all over the world, many of them hoping to call America their new home. Even for those how have successfully migrated, our country of origin remains in our thoughts or so it should because in many ways we are the lucky ones, and we most remember where we came from and do what we can to help those less fortunate.
It is my dream that other countries will develop so that those who migrate will do so for the excitement of exploring a new culture. However, if you continue to help us destitute immigrants worldwide, perhaps we will be able to obtain the strength to go back or send some of our income and knowledge back, but we need you to increasingly accept us. I love America and there is a place in my heart for it that will never go away. A great number of people have helped me along the way, yet many other immigrants have not been as lucky. As a Christian, loving your neighbor as much as yourself has always represented for me a guiding principle. Lets continue to love to work, and challenge ourselves as we have done many times before to achieve the best not only in educating new immigrants but also to instill in them the responsibility of passing on the favor, passing it on to the four corners of the world. This is the “evangelism” of love, compassion, and freedom that will help America strengthen its relationships across the world in the 21st century.
Yes, doing so may represent a financial sacrifice, a cost. Helping other takes time, and sometimes if someone doesn’t want to help themselves, when we extend a hand, they may even bring the boat down with themselves, yet many of us want to improve and extend our arms hoping for help. Take us the poor, the destitute, the meek, and help us someday return the gift, and perhaps pass it forward all across the world.
Again, I am lucky, like everyone else, I struggle every day to improve myself. Educational visas have helped me stay in America. America has paid for my BA, MA, and now my PhD, yet I do not have a permanent status. In this sense, I am a bit constrained, I cannot choose to be an entrepreneur and attend school part time while working in an innovative project. But, I am having a good time where I am, a good time because I am doing what I would like to do, to study subjects that may one day help me give back all that I have received. I don’t want riches, fame, but the ability to return the favor, the favor of knowing that my life was worth saving, and so are many others. There are just waiting for the right motivation.
Thanks,
From Alfonso Sintjago and many others immigrants like me.
Camtasia 7 Tutorial – Presentation
Camtasia 7 Tutorial – Presentation
October 10, 2011
Discussion
What was your experience like recording lectures with Camtasia?
I what ways did you find Camtasia limiting?
Overview
– Recording a PowerPoint presentation
- Pausing the recording (Ctrl+Shift+F9)
- Stopping the recording (Ctrl+Shift+F10)
– Editing a PowerPoint – Camtasia recording
- Timeline – How does it work!
- Different tracks
- Zooming in and out
- Playing and editing a section
- Adding additional resources
– Editing sounds
ChannelTechSmith
– How to use the PowerPoint Add-in Toolbar with Camtasia Studio 7
1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqe7GDdwQPI&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL281AA340A022BDEB
– How to set Editing Dimensions and Save Project in Camtasia Studio 7
– How to Cut and Split using Markers in Camtasia Studio 7
– How to use Markers to Create a Table of Contents in Camtasia Studio 7
– How to use Audio Enhancements in Camtasia Studio 7
– How to produce your Camtasia Studio 7 Videos.
– How to share your Camtasia Studio 7 Videos on the Web
Sophia.org – A Collaborative Learning Environment -“Teach What You Know, Learn What You Dont”
Sophia.org – A Collaborative Learning Environment –“Teach What You Know, Learn What You Dont”
October 6, 2011
Project Part A – EdPA 5501
Procedures Used to Collect Information: Most of this information was gathered from the Sophia.org website as well as from a one hour meeting with Dr. Angie Eilers, the Vice-President for Academic Outcomes for Sophia.org. Additional information was obtained from listening to recorded interviews of Don Smithmier, founder and CEO of Sophia.org, as well as a number of press releases.
Program Rationale/Philosophy: Sophia.org emphasizes the need to instruct students taking into consideration students’ different learning modalities. Unlike previous generations, today’s youth have grown up in a more interrelated and interconnected world, having access to personal computers, mobile phones, and the Internet. Today’s “digital natives” are used to consuming, and sometimes producing, different types of media. Some of them prefer to learn through the use of audio visuals. As technology plays a greater role in society, students stand to benefit greatly from learning how to use technology effectively. By harnessing the improvements of information and communications technologies (ICTs) in recent years, such as the increased access to broadband Internet signals, individuals are now able to access quantities of information that were previously only available to individuals who lived near a library or another information repository.
Today, information is everywhere and, as such, appropriately setting and using filters is pivotal for reducing information overflow. Sophia.org aims to both harness the potential of the Internet for increasing connectivity and social learning, while at the same time developing a Learning Management System (LMS), a learning taxonomy, and an educational resource ranking system that permits users to sort resources according to their topic and quality. As access to information becomes more prevalent, the adequate classification and application of educational resources becomes increasingly relevant for harnessing the potential of the Internet in transforming education.
To ensure a high level of quality in their educational resources, the site believes in the importance of specializing in the development of educational packages. Sophia.org does not intend to be the place where a person can learn about any subject. Instead, it does encourage the publication of similar resources that explain or illustrate an educational topic in different ways by different instructors. A different instructor may contextualize a lesson in an alternative way that may be more appealing to a particular student or may be helpful for another instructor when searching for finding ideas to improve their own lessons. The social environment and exchange of multimedia files available through social digital networks represent new opportunities that education is now able to harness through technology.
Program Goals/Objectives/Outcomes: One of the long term goals of Sophia.org is to reduce the achievement gap by improving access to, and the quality of, education. To accomplish this goal, Sophia.org provides teachers or experts with an environment through which they can share their knowledge and experience with the Sophia.org community using either a PowerPoint presentation, a video, text and images or an audio file. The site also provides an organizational framework to facilitate the development of learning packets. A growth in the development of learning packets, the increased grouping of packets in collections, and the increased development of topic oriented user groups through its LMS are some of Sophia.org’s most quantifiable goals. Along with the desire to increase the number of resources accessible through the site, another of Sophia.org’s major aims is for individuals to increasingly use the site. Sophia.org tracks changes in all of these variables through its use of site analytics. A visitor to Sophia.org can easily browse through different resources and find out the number of visitors and followers every resource has obtained. Site analytics also provide Sophia.org with the demographics of the individuals that visit the site. This is important for its goal to increase the diversity of users over time.
Attempting to develop a vibrant culture in the organization, Sophia.org hopes to become a major player in ICT for education, and become one of the top educational websites. Sophia.org aims to be one of the major players in terms of personalized online education multimedia repositories. Unlike other fields in which there is a clear industry leader, no clear front runner has solidified its position within this category on the Internet. Because of the diversity and volatility of website businesses, while Sophia.org is growing at a rapid rate it is difficult to assess which companies will grow to account for a larger share of this market in the future.
To improve the quality of education, anyone who opens an account in Sophia.org can develop a learning packet and classify it according to Sophia’s educational taxonomy. After a packet is completed, individuals who access it are able to rate the packet from 1 to 5 in terms of quality. In addition, the package may also be evaluated by topic field experts to receive an “academically sound” badge. To increase a sense of community Sophia.org encourages members to invite their friends, and comment on other users’ videos and profiles. Users are encouraged to develop their profiles and receive badges for completing tasks within Sophia.org (Community Organizer, Aced Packet, Class President, Librarian, among many others). Tutorials have also been developed to guide the packet producer through the different stages of creating an educational packet. In addition, to encourage both the participation of producers and improvements in the quality of resources, individuals are able to decide whether or not to share their educational packet under a creative common license (CClicenses), and users are also reminded that the packets they develop will remain their independent intellectual property, even if they decide to remove it from the website and to no longer belong to Sophia.org. Sophia.org is currently focused on improving the user community by increasing its size and making changes according to community’s feedback. In a co-constructive fashion, Sophia.org developed a number of features that it hopes will be helpful for community members, yet it intends to continuously improve and modify its features based on community comments and requests. Over time, through suggestions and increased recognition for the transformative impact of its innovation on the online education landscape, Sophia.org hopes to encourage a macro-change for the broader educational sector, harnessing the new possibilities brought by modern ICTs.
Setting: Sophia.org’s central office is based in located in Minneapolis, Minnesota yet their community is everywhere. Sophia.org is available to anyone in the world with access to the Internet. Sophia.org is currently not accessible in other languages aside from English, therefore limiting its current possible global impact. Being a globally accessible website, contributors to Sophia.org can be living anywhere in the world, and currently a considerable percentage of them live outside of Minnesota. As it is still in project in beta development, most of its users live in the Twin-Cities greater city. While Sophia.org is a beta project, it is common for Internet start ups to stay in a “beta” stage for years, despite being fully functional and active. Because of this, evaluating them in the beta stage is not only acceptable but could be highly beneficial.
Resources at Sophia.org are developed for students of any age. These resources are of different quality levels, and they use different types of media to teach different topics. The educational packets are classified using a complex taxonomy which includes: applied sciences, English/literature, humanities, learning strategies, mathematics, sciences, social and behavioral sciences, visual and performing arts, world languages. Within every one of these categories there are many sub-categories. For example, humanities includes: history, philosophy, and religion or sciences includes: biology, chemistry, earth sciences, physics, and space sciences. There are currently 9295 resources within Sophia.org (October 5, 2011). Since anyone can develop a resource, the setting of Sophia is both Minneapolis and everywhere.
Sophia.org Staff: While anyone can collaborate in the growth of Sophia.org, the website itself is hosted, and administered by a small number of individuals.
– Don Smithmier – Founder and Chief Executive Officer: Don Smithmier worked 14 years for Capella University, eventually rising to the job of Vice President. Capella was the first fully online accredited university (NSDQ:CPLA). During his years at Capella Smithmier was involved in marketing, business and technology leadership roles. He was the founder of Matter Worldwide, GoKartLabs, Rumble, and Sophia.org.
– Steve Anastasi – Chief Operating Officer: With over 25 years of experience as a software industry executive, Steve Anastasi joined the company in 2009 to help develop the Sophia platform. He is the head of the engineering and operations teams. He previously helped to develop various web applications including Best Buy’s e-commerce platform.
– Allison Gage – Senior Vice President, Business Development: Allison Gage is responsible for business development, market research, client services, and product strategy. Having arrived in the United States in first grade, she is interested in increasing students’ access to the tools that will help them realize their objectives. She was previously the Executive Vice President with Living Independently Group which she helped to grow nearly 600 percent in sales.
– Dr. Angie Eilers – Vice President, Academic Outcomes: With over 20 years of working in the field of education, Dr. Angie Eilers has observed the impact of technological changes on education and the capabilities of the Internet to extend and improve learning. Dr. Eilers is responsible for overseeing Sophia’s academic content to ensure its standards and integrity. Dr. Eilers’ research has focused on policy implementation and effectiveness, and educational reform.
– George Tattersfield -Vice President, Program Management: George Tattersfield has worked for over 30 years of experience with education and technology across the world. George was the co-founder of Guaranteach.com, an online adaptive learning company that was acquired by Sophia.org in May 2011. George works in the customization of Sophia.org and Sophia Pathways to meet the needs of teachers and students from different partner institutions.
Program Participants: The participants in Sophia.org include both volunteer instructors and students. Encouraging students and other community members to interact with the different educational packet producers, Sophia.org hopes to foster the improvement of resources over time. The importance of feedback is not only relevant for the larger organization, but also for the educational packet contributors and the students. After an educational packet is published, the author can obtain feedback from students and use it if they wish to upgrade the educational packet. The community hopes to increase the quality of the packages over time. Students and instructors can both create “collections” to further personalize learning for themselves or a group of students. By creating “collections” individuals can create a sequence of packets that can then be used to illustrate a point during a class module or help a student follow a sequence of activities during a week, a month, or a semester. Over time as the student spends more of his or her time in the community; he may encourage his friends, other students or educators to join the site. That student may also eventually consider developing his or her own educational packets for the rest of the community to use. Packet developers are also encouraged to borrow from other packets that have been created under an open license such as CC and its derivatives. To summarise, a Sophia.org participant is anyone who visits the website and uses the resources for whatever educational purpose suits them. Currently there are 7029 registered users, however, without a statistical analysis and access to the site analytics, it is difficult to gauge how many users are active. Also, individuals who are only visiting the site to use a resource are not currently required to register and would not be included in the total number of registered users.
Instructors: A person does not need to be an official expert to develop a Sophia.org educational packet, rather Sophia.org hopes that the best packets will gradually rise to the top of their search engine as a result of resource ratings.
Students: Students of any age are encouraged to visit and learn from using the resources located on Sophia.org. A resource can be recommended for a particular audience, (middle school, high school, college or post-graduate).
Reviewers: A registered member is encouraged to review others’ resources. To do so, a reviewer must specify his or her area of expertise in the different areas of study previously mentioned (humanities: history, religion, etc… or mathematics: calculus, statistics, etc…). A reviewer must select the fields he has experience in and describe the type of experience they have. They must also accept that they understand the importance and responsibility of being an academic reviewer.
Organization/Structure/Administration: While Sophia.org is an open learning environment where everyone can contribute, Sophia.org is not a wiki. By having closed packets instead of open collaborative packets the author can retain rights over his/her intellectual property. By having packets made by single individuals, a packet is not aiming to become the definitive source of the most comprehensive information, instead they are just one way of explaining a particular academic subject. Sophia encourages different resources to be created that teach the same subject but contextualize it in different ways. This individualization of resources could allow for the development of brand names or for the resources of one particular instructor to be followed by students. Students could potentially find their favorite instructor. A student could eventually develop a short list of instructors that best align with that student’s learning modality.
Sophia.org has a non-advertising structure. Because of this, unlike YouTube EDU, a contributor or an instructor is currently unable to benefit financially for having more students use or view his/her resources. However, since Sophia.org is currently in a beta stage, it is likely that some of these positions may change over time. At the heart of Sophia.org is an innovative leadership that challenges the status quo, promoting innovation to find the best ways in which technology can improve education and, by doing so, improve society.
Sophia.org Activities and Events: Learning in Sophia.org is asynchronous as learners are able to listen to a video and an explanation when it is most suitable for them. Feedback and its response are also asynchronous. The main activities which Sophia.org members are engaged in are the use of educational packets, and the creation of new educational packets. However, because these packets are openly available, the way in which they are used can vary substantially. These packets can be used by any learner during any time of the year. A teacher could create a collection of packets or provide a link for students to use particular resources. Students could also be assigned to create packets. Packets could be used by teachers to improve their lesson plans by adding additional exciting activities. Packets could also be useful for home schooled children. Since they can be accessed any time of the day, they can be used by students who are trying to review for an exam, or to better understand an equation before completing the science homework, among many other activities. These activities are not directly organized by Sophia.org, but are rather a repercussion of its open online environment.
Budget: As a non-profit, Sophia.org does not benefit from advertising revenues generated by its popularity and its number of visitors. Sophia.org is concerned about its financial sustainability but other successful websites have found ways to finance themselves through the sale of advertisements or the marketing of premium features. Sophia.org uses its own servers to store the educational packets. Sophia.org currently offers two for profit initiatives including access to thousands of math videos that were obtained from the acquisition of Gauranteach.com as well the use of its automated and personalized learning assessment software. Sophia.org is also marketing their platform for companies and educational institutions that wish to use it as their LMS. As a beta project, the income they currently generate through these ventures is currently marginal. As with other education related technology start-ups, Sophia.org is currently working towards securing their financial sustainability and future growth, because of this, the non-profit element of Sophia.org currently depends on grant funding. (All the following figures are estimates) Personnel costs account for most of Sophia.org budget, with over 250,000 dollars in yearly wages spent between its top five administrators and other employees. The servers and their maintenance have a yearly cost of 30,000 dollars. The rental space, which is shared with other Don Smithmier companies, costs 15,000 dollars a year. Another 15,000 dollars are spent in advertising. The overall estimated operation cost of Sophia.org is 310,000 dollars a year.
List of Questions – Wikieducator Interviews
List of Questions – Wikieducator Interviews
September 28, 2011
Thank you for deciding to contribute to this study. Below are some of the questions that we may discuss during the interview. The interview will be semi-structured and I am also interested in learning from you what you consider relevant. Feel free to expand on any point or make suggestions about other areas to explore. These questions are only an outline of potential topics. The questions will be refined and modified after a predetermined number of interviews to better address relevant issues. Some of the questions will not be addressed due to time constrains and availability.
Thank you for your collaboration,
———–
Alfonso Sintjago
How and when did you first become involved with OER? How has your involvement with OER changed over time? What attracts you the most about OER?
If the answer is different from the previous question, how and when did you first become involved with Wikieducator.org and the OERU initiative?
How does OER influence knowledge and technology transfers? locally and globally what, in your opinion, is the goal of the OER movement? Is the OER a social movement?
Do you consider Wikieducator.org and OERU an international movement or an international initiative. Why or why not?
What are some of the greatest obstacles facing OER? Should every country participate in the development of OER?
Should OER be produced in least spoken languages as well as major languages?
Would you say they are currently being developed in a large number of languages, which languages are most prevalent? How important is contextualization in the production of OER?
What license should OER be produced under (if Creative Commons, what type of Creative Commons)? What license do you publish most of your work under?
Are you currently employed? Does your employer support the development of OER?
How important is strong support from the university administration for the development of OER?
How important is grass roots support of local communities for the development of OER? Is Wikieducator.org sustainable? Which other OER supporting websites are, in your opinion, sustainable?
What are some obstacles that limit you from spending a greater amount of time developing OER?
What are some of the greatest obstacles the OERU and the Wikieducator initiative face? What are some of the initiative greatest strengths and greatest weaknesses?
What are some limitations of OER? Wikieducator.org and the OERU initiative?
Are most people aware of what OER means or are they passive users of OER?
What leads a person to become more active in the community? How does the community strengthen itself?
Is Wikieducator.org doing enough in terms of outreach? Is the OER community doing enough in terms of outreach?
How are the wikieducator.org and OERU community different from the OER community at large?
Should the term OER be a household or commonly known term? Have you taught your children about OER? Are your family and friends supportive of OER?
Are most of your friends aware of what OER are and are they supportive of the idea?
Have you met people within Wikieducator.org? Have these relationships extended between the online community? What has been the nature of these relationships?
To what extent do you consider OERU and Wikieducator.org to be an online community? What has limited it from growing?
If you do not mind me asking, how do you identify yourself; political conservative, liberal, independent?
How do you envision the OER movement to be in 2 years, 5 years, 10 years? What role with the OERU and Wikieducator.org play in the future of OER? What role does OER play within ICT4D?
How many hours do you devote a week to the development of OER? How frequently do you visit Wikieducator.org or affiliated websites? Which other websites do you visit?
Which OER sites do you frequently visit? How did the OERU idea develop? What has been your level of involvement with the OERU initiative?
What do you think is the greatest barrier for other universities when considering whether or not to join the OER movement?
What has the OER community done to increase awareness of OER? What other steps need to be taken?
What to you is the ultimate goal of OER? Are OERs sustainable? Why or why not?
Please explain your work within OER and what led you to choose this approach when developing education resources?What is your average day like? Have you recently participated in OER courses?
If there was one variable missing from the OER that is most hindering its growth and expansion, what would that be? What is the greatest piece missing in the OER movement?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How and when did you first become involved with OER? How has your involvement with OER changed over time? What attracts you the most about OER?
What are some of the greatest obstacles facing OER? Should every country participate in the development of OER?
How important is strong support from the university administration for the development of OER?
What are some obstacles that limit you from spending a greater amount of time developing OER?
What leads a person to become more active in the community? How does the community strengthen itself?
Should the term OER be a household or commonly known term? Have you taught your children about OER? Are your family and friends supportive of OER?
Are most of your friends aware of what OER are and are they supportive of the idea?
Have you met people within Wikieducator.org? Have these relationships extended between the online community? What has been the nature of these relationships?
If you do not mind me asking, how do you identify yourself; political conservative, liberal, independent?
Which OER sites do you frequently visit? How did the OERU idea develop? What has been your level of involvement with the OERU initiative?
What do you think is the greatest barrier for other universities when considering whether or not to join the OER movement?
What has the OER community done to increase awareness of OER? What other steps need to be taken?
What to you is the ultimate goal of OER? Are OERs sustainable? Why or why not?
Please explain your work within OER and what led you to choose this approach when developing education resources?What is your average day like? Have you recently participated in OER courses?
SSW – What Should be the Tech Initiative Next Year (9.27.2011)
SSW – What Should be the Tech Initiative Next Year (9.27.2011)
– Choice: What is your favorite technology? What technology makes your day better, makes you smile, or you cannot easily live without? What technology you do not like and/or impacts you in a negative way?
– What is technology to you? Does it include non-tangible objects or concepts such as democracy, bureaucracy? Thinking broadly about technology, how does it impact the classroom and the university?
– What technological skills do you believe a productive individual, or a well prepared social worker needs to be comfortable with using in the 21st century work environment?
– What level of sophistication should students have with technology by the time they leave college? How do we help them get there?
– What technological skills should faculty have? What services should be provided to help them get there?
– What is your opinion of the movement towards transferring some course modules from face to face learning to online learning? Should we increase or decrease our use of distance learning?
– Are faculty members apprehensive of sharing how comfortable they are with new technologies?
– Are faculty members thinking of innovative ways to incorporate new technologies into the classroom? How much time should the allocate to this concerns?
– Which technologies do professors and students need to succeed? What do they have in common and what are some differences?
– What should be the school of social work technology policy or goals for this year (2011-2012), the next couple of years (2013-2017), and the decade (2012-2022)?
– What resources do you adopt from the internet to then use within your classroom or academic work?
– What focus groups could we organize in the future? Copyright discussion? Technology and a balanced-life discussion? The possibilities for mobile technologies and recent technological developments?
– Do you incorporate video, audio, and pictures, and what is your viewpoint on their use and copyright?
Student Perception of Open Access and OER
Introduction to Focus Groups – Based on Krueger (2009)
Student Perception of Open Access and OER
9/24/2011
Topic
The Copyright of Educational Resources in the Current Society
Welcome
“Good morning everyone. Thank you for coming here today and taking the time to join our discussion of use and copyright of educational resources. My name is Alfonso Sintjago and I am a current graduate student at the University of Minnesota hoping to better understand what current technological developments mean for the future of education.”
Overview of the Topic
“As access to computers and the internet become increasingly ubiquitous in society, and increasingly impact education, it is important for researcher to know how the internet is being used by both teachers and students. By better understanding how the information available on the internet is used in the classroom, we can better formulate guidelines about best practices, and understand some of the conflicts educators are having as a result of the growing use of information and communications technologies in education”
“You were invited because of your experiences both as a student and a teacher using modern information and communication technologies. We understand that your experiences may include positive and/or negative accounts. Please share with us your experience so that we can continue to adapt our information and communication technology use within the classroom. When thinking of technology in the classrooms please think of both your experiences with traditional educational technologies such as the blackboard and paper books, and newer technologies such as mobile phones and laptops.”
Ground Rules
“We hope that you feel comfortable in sharing your opinion. Technologies are tools that help educators better reach and instruct their students. There is no right or wrong answer. Please share with us your point of view even if it is different from the point of view of other participants.”
“We are audio recording this session to make sure that we do not miss any of your valuable comments. The contents of this discussion will remain anonymous and your comments are confidential.”
“We have placed name tents by you so that we are able to address you by your name and so that you are able to comment on the points made by other members of the group, if you feel inclined to do so. You can choose if you want to add to, to expand, or express your disagreement with a comment made by another person in this room. Feel free to have a conversation with other members of the room about the different questions. We are interested in hearing from everyone in this room. If you feel that you may be talking a lot, give others the opportunity to also express themselves. If you have not shared much with the group, I may call on you to better understand your opinions. We are interested in knowing your ideas and opinions regarding this topic”
“If you have an electronic device such as a mobile phone, or an iPad, please turn the volume off or turn them off if possible. If you need to step out to answer a call feel free to do so. Also, feel free to get up and grab some refreshments if you feel like it. Thank you again for taking part in this conversation.”
Opening Question
“Let’s begin. Let’s learn a bit more about each other. Let’s go around the room and one at a time share with us your name, and how many devices you have in your house that you or your family members use regularly to connect to the internet?
….
“How many hours a day do you spend on the internet and on a computer?”
“Do you use images from the internet in your works, such as class power points, presentations?”
Introduction Focus Group Study – Open Access Journals – Perceptions and Concerns
Introduction – Focus Group Study
Open Access Journals – Perceptions and Concerns
September 24, 2011
I hope you are having a good day. Thank you for coming here today and taking the time to join our discussion of open access journals (OAJ) and open content (OC). My name is Alfonso Sintjago and I am a current graduate student at the University of Minnesota. I am hoping to better understand the concerns of graduate students regarding Open Access Journals and the role graduate students feel they play in society, in the future of academia and their own research.
As society becomes increasingly interconnected through the increased use of modern information communication technologies (ICT) and the cost of access to journals increases for universities and individuals, various educational organizations, researchers, and publishing companies have taken the initiative and changed their revenue model to increase access to society at large (to anyone with internet access). They decided to publish in and promote Open Access Journals and move away from the traditional toll access model where individuals and subscribers had to pay to access these resources. The transformation of the economic model was envisioned as a way to increase access, improve the quality of research, improve transparency, and reduce the costs for institutions to have access to these different journals and journal repositories.
Currently there are two primary economic models for Open Access Journals. While most of the smaller Open Access Journals are supported by grants or university programs, some of the larger ones are funded either by grant agencies, or the researchers themselves. Accounting for a significant but smaller fraction of academic journals, some universities have moved towards funding or paying the fees requested by some Open Access Journals for journal articles to be edited and published. Despite the best intentions of many organizations, editing is a time consuming and complicated task, and Open Access Journal publishers require these funds to pay their full time employees (if they do not rely on volunteers). While the Open Access Movement (OAM) hopes to transform academic publishing so that anyone in the world can access and contribute to the creation of knowledge, various questions remain to be addressed.
During this focus group we hope to learn more about your opinions on this subject. A large number of arguments for and against Open Access Journals have been presented previously in numerous studies. Yet these focus groups hope to obtain a better understanding of the concerns and opinions of UMN graduate students within the College of Education and Human Development (CEHD). You have been given an anonymous user name so that you can freely express your opinion. The preliminary findings of these focus groups will be presented during UMN Open Access Week, Oct 28, 2011 (z.umn.edu/openaccess2011). The data will remain anonymous unless you wish to be formally quoted.
We hope that you feel comfortable in using this technology. Please email me at sintj002@umn.edu if you are having any technical problems, or if you wish me to further elaborate on a particular question. There is no right or wrong answer. Please share with us your point of view even if it is different from the point of view of other participants. Since this focus group is being conducted online, all of the text will be saved for future analysis. You are expected to participate for an average of 15 minutes a day, but you are welcomed and encourage to comment on the post of other participants. You are free to add to, to expand, or express your disagreement with a comment made by another person in this focus group. Feel free to have a conversation with other members of the room about the different questions. In addition, we are interested in hearing from everyone in this focus group. These questions do not require a prior understanding of the issues or the intricacies of the Open Access Movement, Open Education (OE), or Open Content (OC). As most graduate students currently conduct a large portion of their research online, while you may not be familiar with the terms, you are likely familiar with ways in which to search for articles and barriers that you may or may not meet when trying to access information online. Through this discussion we hope to learn more about your opinion and experiences. Thank you again for taking part in this conversation. This focus group will last five days, but you are welcomed to continue answering questions after that deadline if you were unable to answer the during the original dates. Let’s begin…
What do scholars consider…. increasingly technology-oriented global ecology?
What do scholars consider to be the major world-wide education; and
development implications of an increasingly technology-oriented global ecology?
September 09, 2011
It is hard to ignore that we live in an increasingly interconnected world. With collaboration between individuals living anywhere on the planet using technologies that are increasingly accessible to most of the population, the rate of knowledge production and innovation has increased in recent years (Kelly, 2010; Kurzweil, 2005). Few would have imagined the extensive impact that modern information communication technologies (ICTs) such as the Internet, personal computers, and mobile phones have had in such a short time span (Jenkins, 2008). Nor would many have predicted that social networks built through technologies such as Twitter or Facebook would impact the political landscape of the Middle East, ousting deeply entrenched militaristic leaders. While new ICTs are spreading throughout the world, they are also becoming ever more invisible (Cobo & Moravec, 2011), as the young increasingly have a hard time imagining a world without them.
Technologies have transformed mankind’s experience before. Imagining a world without spoken languages, written books, chairs, light bulbs or candles, cars or domesticated animals, farming or medicine is difficult for most individuals. Many technologies have become an extension of us, of what it means to be human. Without technologies and without such technologies being transferred from generation to generation through our culture and educational system, man would still be gathering fruits and scavenging, living in a cave, and hoping to survive long enough to mate and raise a child. More influential than government, Thomas Hobbes famous quote might as well be rewritten as “[without technology], the life of man [would be], solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes, 1651).
However, as an unexpected side effect, we have transformed our environment to a point that we practically live outside of nature. Classifying technologies within their house, Kevin Kelly’s (2011) daughter counted over 6000 within their house alone! Technologies are everywhere and ever present, and we are spending more and more of our time interacting through ICTs rather than face to face. An average U.S. teenager currently sends or receives 3,339 text messages a month, 40% of US mobile users use smart phones, with China having the highest use of smart phone for Internet access (Nielsen Company, 2010). The Internet, mobile phones, and the personal computer are some of the technologies that are currently spreading most rapidly throughout the planet, affecting practically every culture in the world.
These are not the only technologies which are increasingly influencing mankind, as improvements in biotechnology and nanotechnology illustrate (Kurzweil, 2005). However, ICTs are likely the technologies that are most influencing human development today. As Richard Florida (2005) notes, the creative class is concentrated in certain areas of the world, mostly in developed countries and in urban places. In 2002, five countries, the USA, Japan, Germany, South Korea, and Russia accounted for 84% of the close to 300,000 patents recorded in the World Intellectual Property Organization (Florida, 2005). The primarily unidirectional transfer of technologies from economically advanced countries to the rest of the world raises concerns about the continued dependency of “developing” countries and, within them, the future of education.
Formal education has been the institution and the technology through which individuals primarily transferred their cultural values during the preindustrial and industrial society and through which memes (cultural units of knowledge) were transferred from one generation to the next (Cobo & Moravec, 2011). While this system of education was useful during the industrial era, as we move into the information and the innovation age, this rigid system of education may not be the most conducive for increasing students’ creativity and the ability to innovate. Restricted to certain tasks in class, today’s students may be learning more about the outside world through their personal interactions with ICTs outside of the classroom than during their time inside school. Different schools in the US have changed their teaching and learning philosophy to encourage students’ creativity but most continue using a test-driven curriculum.
In “developing” countries, as a foreign technology, the inclusion of new ICTs within education is not only another example of the directionality of the transfer of cultural values and the transfer of knowledge between “developed” and “developing” countries, but the price of including these technologies in the classroom is prohibitive and they generally have basic access issues problems with primary and secondary education. In addition, through colonization and a hierarchical interaction, over time local cultural values have been eroded and regarded as inferior by “developed” societies. Countries were encouraged to “modernize”, and increase their productivity. On various occasions endogenous cultures were suppressed by the use of force.
While critical theory and postmodernism encouraged a critique of north-south transfers of knowledge and a revalorization of local values and beliefs, the alleged superiority of modern technologies compared to traditional, indigenous forms of communication highlights how little some attitudes have changed. The increasing dominance of English is one of the changes that has spread through the use of modern technologies. Currently 25 languages are expected to disappear every year (BBC, 2010). While at times this is the decision of those that speak it, alternative ways of life are being lost as the world becomes increasingly isomorphic and interconnected. ICTs are being adopted by large segments of the populations of “developing” countries. However, is the transfer of all modern technologies positive for “developing” countries? How are modern technologies affecting both “developing” and “developed” countries? How could new technologies transform education? To enrich this discussion, below I highlight three different groups of scholars to allow the reader to better consider some of the implications of adopting modern ICT as well as some of the concerns both “developing” and “developed” countries would benefit from discussing regarding their adoption. This exam attempts to answer what scholars consider to be the major world-wide development and educational implications of an increasingly technology-oriented global ecology.
The first group of scholars is composed primarily of modernization or post-modernization thinkers, who have a generally positive view of the impact of modern ICTs, are supportive of the increased use of technologies within the classroom and outside of it, and emphasize how technology will continue to impact society. These scholars see the world as increasingly becoming homogeneous, and interconnected. When discussing ICTs for development projects, they are in favor of increasing access to these technologies and believe that children will learn how to best use technology through their interactions with it. In terms of education, they focus on transforming the current educational system by using technology to either improve or replace the current educational system. A second group of scholars, mostly composed of constructivist writers and some pro-ICT critical scholars focuses on the need to use modern technologies as a way in which education can be changed into a fairer or more productive system. They see the current educational system as not adequately addressing the needs of a segment of the population. In terms of development this group is wary of initiatives that are not inclusive of the local population in their planning. Local voices and concerns are more present in their works, as is a focus on using ICTs to help improve society. Rather than emphasizing the increased use of technology for technology’s sake, these scholars concentrate first on current societal problems and discuss how technology could help to alleviate some of these problems in an inclusive way as well as what tradeoffs are involved . A third, smaller group of scholars, is less supportive of the increased use of technology within the classroom. They are skeptical of the benefits of modern technologies and only support increasing the use of technology if it is clear how the technology will improve the human capital of the nation-state, why the money would be best invested there over other initiatives, and how it will not result in further erosion of local values, and culture. Unlike the second group, which contends that technologies can improve society, these scholars are more critical of this assumption and strongly critique some new technologies. This group includes critical scholars as well as classicists who are concerned that technology is increasing student distraction, negatively affecting both their ability to concentrate and spend time interacting with their neighbors and community members. Technology is seen as value-laden and with the potential to cause negative consequences in both “developing” and “developed” countries.
I now discuss each of these groups in more detail. The first includes modernization theorists, techno optimists, world-culture theorists, and pro-technology constructivists. While there are many relevant voices, this section focuses on Marc Prensky (2007), Ray Kurtweil (2005), Cristobal Cobo and John Moravec (2011), Frances Cairncross (2001) and Curtis Bonk (2011).
Marc Prensky (2007), a writer on innovation, technology and education, that has been influential in discussions about the education of tomorrow. Prensky (2007) predicts video games will increasingly play a role within education and argues that we need to harness their ability to captivate children. By solving problems and obtaining small, incremental rewards for tasks, students may remain more engaged than they do in a traditional K-12 setting. The ability to simulate situations, and take students on a virtual journey to places that they would otherwise only be able to visit in their imaginations is a promise of ICTs, and the future of a segment of the video game industry. Prensky (2007) explains how digital natives are different from digital immigrants as they only remember a world in which computers, television sets, music players, and the Internet were a segment of everyday life. By the time this generation enters the work force, they have spent a much larger amount of time playing video games and watching TV than reading (Prensky, 2007, p. 38). Because of these changes, digital media is becoming a second language, one understood much better by youth than by older generations. Digital natives are used to not only watching but also manipulating devices to a greater extent than their parents. “The key difference is that the Games Generation are active participants rather than passive observers” (Prensky, 2007, p. 47). Because of this, Prensky (2007) argues for the need to develop “hard fun” games, that go beyond hacking and slashing. This “serious play” will help improve student performance.
Some of the other topics discussed by Prensky (www.marcprensky.com) include the growing capability of mobile devices and their future impact on education, and how children will increasingly use videos to communicate. Prensky mentions how from 2005 to 2010 the number of videos that were uploaded to YouTube came close to reaching 100 million (Prensky, 2010). As more and more people are able to record media and upload to the Internet, individuals will increasingly be able to communicate their ideas through recorded videos. Because of these changes, teachers have increasingly encouraged their students to complete video projects. ICTs and Internet programs such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Google are used by students to inform themselves of the latest trends and news as well as fuel innovation. High quality videos (such as TED talks and RSA animate videos) are a way in which learners can be reached. Using Khan’s Academy thousands of students learn concepts through the use of video lectures (Prensky, 2011). One of the most important takeaways of Prensky’s work is not that students should only learn through video games, or that educational videos should replace all lectures, but rather that children have different learning styles and content should be produced to help students learn materials in the way that is easiest for them to learn (CISCO, 2008).
On the farthest end of modernization, some future oriented thinkers such as Raymond Kurzweil (2005) have influenced policy makers in countries world-wide in terms of ICTs as they emphasize the possibilities of technology and the way in which it can transform society. Kurzweil focuses on the exponential rate of improvement of technology and its implications. He argues that by 2029, computers will be capable of strong artificial intelligence or artificial intelligence that exceeds human intelligence (Kurzweil, 2005, Kindle 4877-4880). By 2099, $1000 of computing equipment will be roughly “equal to 10 to the 24th times the computing capacity of the human brain (Kurzweil, 2000, p. 220). According to Kurzweil (2005), however, by then humans will improve their bodies to the extent that it will not be possible to distinguish between humans and machines.
While Kurzweil’s writings, particularly his law of continued exponential improvement of technology, have caused controversy, most skeptics agree that technology will likely continue to improve at a rapid pace, and probably at an increasing rate. Along with other changes that Kurzweil (2005) believes will be beneficial, he mentions the impact ICTs are having on education, the possibilities that are now available through MIT OpenCourseWare and how education will become increasingly decentralized. He argues that:
“as with all of our other institutions we will ultimately move toward a decentralized educational system in which every person will have ready access to the highest-quality knowledge and instruction. We are now in the early stages of this transformation, but already the advent of the availability of vast knowledge on the Web, useful search engines, high-quality open Web courseware, and increasingly effective computer-assisted instruction are providing widespread and inexpensive access to education” (Kurzweil R. , 2005, Kindle 6410-6413).
To many futurists, the future of education is intrinsically linked to technological innovations. Because of the likelihood of a future faster rate of change, it is increasingly important for workers to be able to learn new skills and visualize different possible future scenarios to meet the demands of a more volatile market (Cobo & Moravec, 2011). More than a particular educational model, Cobo and Moravec (2011) consider that it is important for students to learn certain skills to increase their success in the workplace of tomorrow. For Cobo and Moravec (2011), as the rate of innovation increases individuals increasingly need to be able to think systematically, invest in simulative thinking of scenarios, be able to adapt to uncertainty, be able to create and manipulate alternate futures, acquire and respond to challenges and goals, understand and utilize existing information, construct and use knowledge that is applicable at the individual level, adequately utilize current and emerging ICTs, evaluate and analyze knowledge from different global tendencies, write and speak in an independent form, and assume the personal commitment of doing things well. By improving these skills, individuals in the future will be able to better adapt to a constantly changing world. Also the future will require individuals to be able to relearn and forget learning schemes when they are no longer useful. There is also a need to find one’s passion and what motivates a person to create to the best of their ability (Robinson, 2009). Cobo and Moravec mention how a recent study of the impact of the OLPC program in Uruguay, where 5,600 laptops were distributed, showed “45% of students learning from their peers, 36% on their own, and only 19% from their teachers.” (Cobo & Moravec, 2011, p. 48) To Moravec and Cobo (2011) establishing an environment where children can explore their own interests will allow them to find their passion and reach a greater potential.
In Invisible Learning, Cobo and Moravec (2011) mention some innovative programs that are using ICTs to increase access to education, however, the book focuses on the skills individuals will need rather than a particular type of education that will be better for learning these skills. Some of the innovative programs the book mentions are the DIY (Do-iT-Yourself) learning movement and the P2P University, where students are able to learn about relevant topics of their interest by forming small groups where they complete projects and share their experiences. While Cobo and Moravec (2011) explain that this model will not work for every field, it is another way through which students can prepare themselves for the 21st century.
As a writer for the Economist, Frances Cairncross (2003) explains through her book how ICTs are increasingly impacting society and changing our lives. To her, ICTs will reduce the distance between people, bringing about The Death of Distance. This increased connectivity will lead to more competition, the increased value of brands, more communities of practices as people of likeminded interests connect through the Internet (the growth of Wikipedia is but one example), the proliferation of more ideas, increased openness and access to information, the rise of English as a global language, growth of communities of culture, and global peace as democracy continues to spread internationally. In addition, as the world becomes increasingly interconnected, the premium paid for workers that have a particular set of skills will increase. “The Internet enhances the value of creative use of information”, along with other changes (Cairncross, 2001, p. xvi).
Apart from what other works have mentioned, Cairncross (2001) expands on the impacts of technology to private businesses. While a growing number of stores sell their goods to consumers directly through the Internet, Cairncross (2001) explains that most of the sales that are made through the Internet are between businesses, as the Internet has increased the efficiency of the market place, decreasing the cost of communications and information exchange. To her, these changes will greatly benefit “developing” countries, as they have a greater potential to increase their productivity and are able to “leapfrog decades of development” (Cairncross, 2001, p. 16). “Like all good revolutions, the technological changes that are rushing forward are essentially liberalizing. They bring to the mass of people what was once available only to the elite, and to the individual what was once available only communally.” (Cairncross, 2001, p. 265). She mentions that recent changes are bigger than the changes brought by the television and the telephone and the impact on our lives will be extensive as “really big technological changes permeate our home, our personal relationships, and our daily habits” (Cairncross, 2001, p. 265). In terms of education, she, as do the other scholars we discussed previously, believes that individuals will increasingly have the opportunity to study any subject from “astronomy to zoology” from their homes (Cairncross, 2001, p. 273). They will also be able to “seek legal advice, participate in a political debate, or bid in an auction” (Cairncross, 2001, p. 273). To her ICTs hold primarily the promise of solutions to problems and she believes the digital divide will diminish in the future. Once “good policies are in place, developing countries have a great opportunity. They have the potential to skip several stages of technological development and go straight to the most up-to-date networks” (Cairncross, 2001, p. 288). Finally “developing” countries hold the advantage of having most of the world’s youth, and within them lays the world’s promise.
A more recent book that discusses many of the recent applications of technology in education is Curtis Bonk’s The World is Open. In this book, Bonk (2011) discusses the multiple choices individuals to obtain an education have through ICTs today (Bonk, 2011). According to Bonk (2011), individuals increasingly have a multiplicity of choices they can select both in terms of lifelong learning opportunities and formal learning. To Bonk (2011), ICTs are extending education outside of the limits of the physical classroom, and students have the opportunity to learn through a program that best fits their learning needs and styles. He sees these developments spreading throughout the world. One of the changes he highlights is the recent growth of online education which currently accounts for most of the increase in college attendance. According to the Sloan Consortium, from the fall of 2002 to the fall of 2008, the growth of online learning fluctuated between 9.8% and 36.5% per year (Allen & Seaman, 2010). This rate is much higher than the 1.2% to 2.1% growth of the whole higher education industry. Online education has grown from accounting for 9.6% of student enrollment to 25.3% during the same years (Allen & Seaman, 2010). Because of the convenience it brings to the consumer and the diminished need of looking for sources or advice in ivory towers, the digital cloud and the tower converge, more and more people from any part of the United States or the world are attending school (Katz, 2008).
Apart from the growth of both private and public higher education as a result of ICTs, Bonk (2011) highlights how individuals are now able to attend classes as they are sailing across the world, downloading the materials when stopping at a port and then continuing their journey across the Atlantic Ocean. Illustrating the potential of virtual classrooms, Bonk (2011) explains There.com, SmallWork, Kaneva, and Second Life. Second Life, a virtual environment where individuals are able to create an avatar and express themselves in ways they couldn’t before by modifying their surroundings grew to having over 17 million users in just a few years. Bonk (2011) also explains how MIT and other universities have opened their contents to the rest of the world, and how, through the MIT consortium, thousands of courses are available to anyone with an Internet connection. Many prestigious institutions have followed suit, and while the student will not obtain a degree by building a portfolio, the student would be able to showcase some of the products or assignments that were completed thanks to the material that person learned independently through the Internet. While before an individual may have been unable to attend a course for not having the right test score, now a person could attend courses with some of the greatest minds by simply typing their name on a search engine or a video sharing website. Major companies such as Google through YouTube EDU, and Apple through iTunes U have encouraged individuals to share their knowledge with the rest of the world. This decentralization of education seems to be increasingly encouraged by a number of Internet sites such as UDemy.com, Sophia.org, BigThink.com, AcademicEarth.org, Nixty.com among others. It is difficult to tell whether other universities will follow suit, or whether access to other great minds will continue to be limited to those that can afford the costs of tuition or the cost of their academic publications. Some of the other changes Bonk (2011) mentions happening in education as a consequence of ICTs are the rise of e-books (including openly available classics and openly licensed books), and the availability of free software that allow individuals to increase their productivity when using a computer without increasing expenditures. He mentions the increased participation that learners can have through the Internet, the growth of electronic collaboration, the growing real-time mobility and portability of education, the development of networks of personalized learning, and other positive changes (Bonk, 2011, p. 9). Bonk (2011) hopes that through this new education framework “give[s] a few people back… [a] shared optimism about our collective future. Through the use of YouTube, Wikipedia, blogs, virtual works, social networking, and podcasts anyone can learn” (Bonk, 2011, p. 16) Other scholars that have a pro-technology and modernization or post-modernization view of society include Nicholas Negroponte, Richard N. Katz, Don Tapscott, Clay Shirky, and Nick Bilton among many others. However, this optimism in technology raises various questions. Will those that do not continue to increase their use of technology be relegated to second class citizens? Are we not to some extent already there? While technology can improve lives, our reliance on it should also be questioned.
This paper now visits a group of authors that find some benefits in incorporating more technology in their countries, but focus on doing so in inclusive ways, with a definite objective of increasing fairness in society. This section discusses the works of Warschauer (2003), Heeks (2008, 2010), Unwin (2010), Chapman and Mahlck (2004), and Kamenetz (2011).
Warshauser’s (2003) commonly cited work on the Digital Divide explains how many innovative programs had a diminished impact in transforming the community because of the lack of community consultation and integration in the project planning stages. While initial concerns over the spread of ICTs focused on access problems, to Warschauer (2003) the greatest difficulty in improving the living conditions of “developing” parts of the world is based on the need for technology adoption to be inclusive of local cultures. Analyzing previous failed ICTs projects as well as his own international experiences, Warschauer (2003) illustrates how including the local community in the decision making process can be of great benefit to the success of ICTs projects. Various innovative projects including setting up computer kiosks in India to captivate the imagination of youth and encourage the use of ICTs had initially only a limited impact since the computer’s content was not relevant to the local population.
Warschauer (2003) further illustrates his point by discussing how after winning a prize to develop an Internet ready community, Ennis, a small Irish town of 15,000 inhabitants had been given over $1,200 to spend on every resident. And while the proposal included a plan to give a personal computer to every family in town, when evaluating the different projects that had been implemented, “the three runners-up, which each received only one-fifteenth of the money that Ennis received, actually had more to show for their efforts to promote social inclusion through technology than did the winner.” (Warschauer, 2003, p. 4). The main reason these and other projects fail or have limited impact is because of the “lack of access to the additional resources that allow people to use technology well” (Warschauer, 2003, p. 6). From a policy standpoint, he argues for the need to focus on transformation, and social inclusion, not the technology. ICT projects will be more successful if they are effectively integrated into communities and societies by focusing on overcoming social development problems through the provision of equipment.
From his personal experiences visiting telecenters in Latin America, he noticed that a project organizer focusing on opening as many telecenters as possible as quickly as possible, was failing to do so because the local population were divided about the benefits of the program, as they felt their needs were marginalized during the implementation of the initiative. As a newcomer to the country, the project manager had decided to act in a nonpolitical, independent way, however, perhaps because of this; he had only been able to set up one telecenter: “by emphasizing numbers instead of people’s real needs, the project failed to reach either people or numbers.” (Warschauer, 2003, p. 201). By being “non-political”, he had “deemphasized the value of community participation and mobilization” (Warschauer, 2003, p. 201).
Other concerns that he expresses are the values and perspectives that are reflected in the design of the personal computer and the Internet. As an example, he explains how the seven-bit ASCII system could only represent 128 characters, leaving no room for many non-European dialects. While Unicode eventually reduced this problem, several design features were helpful in giving English and other languages “a head start on the Internet” (Warschauer, 2003, p. 203). In conclusion, he argues that “a common mistake made in ICT development projects is to make primary use of computer experts rather than of the best community leaders, educators, managers, and organizers.” (Warschauer, 2003, p. 212) Also because of the limited financial capability of the poor, alternatives, innovation and partnerships are needed to provide universal access. To him, through inclusive approaches to ICT4D, we may be “reducing marginalization, poverty, and inequality and enhancing economic and social inclusion for all.” (Warschauer, 2003, p. 216)
Another very prominent ICT4D scholar is Richard Heeks (2008) from the University of Manchester. In an article about the conceptual foundations of ICT4D, he mentions the need to further integrate a development perspective within the field, which has not been as prevalent as views from scholars in information systems (Heeks, 2010). Encouraging the increased use of Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach, where development is not measured by economic growth but by the variables of most importance to the local population, the article contends that “the absence or poor quality of ICT impact assessment to date derives from its lack of conceptual foundations” (Heeks, 2010, p. 625). Mentioning that ICT promotion has included a high level of “promise and hype,” ICTs initial contributions to development were marginal partly as a result of limited implementation experience. Because of these initial failures, ICT projects were seen as wasteful, but on the ground its implantation and its importance has continued (Heeks, 2010, p. 629). Heeks mentions that more information needs to be collected in terms of the “digital provide” or how those who do not have direct access to ICTs are also benefiting from the changes it has brought to the general population and nation-states.
Another interesting article by Heeks (2008) illustrates how gold farming in video games (playing online video games to sell virtual items to western clients) is allowing individuals in China to make a living and represents another way in which “developing” countries are benefiting from ICTs. While the article was criticized by some for presenting a repetitive and crowded workplace as a positive application of ICTs, working as a gold farmer is similar to many other employment opportunities in China. While this employment included a long work schedule it represents a way in which income is transferred from a “developed” country to a “developing” state (Heeks, 2008). Heeks (2008) has also emphasized how digital technologies such as the growth of mobile phones have extended the social capital of the marginalized. However, literacy continues to be a major concern in “developing”, requiring continued attention. According to Heeks (2008) creating ICT interfaces in local languages can help improve the access to technology and its ability to impact “developing” regions.
In Adapting technology for school improvement: a global perspective, Chapman and Mahlck (2004) address how some ICT projects have been more successful in effectively using technology in the classroom. Looking at ICT programs implemented in Brazil, Mexico, Palau, Jamaica, Ethiopia, Morocco, Argentina, Iceland, Germany, Czech Republic among other countries, the book illustrates the advantages and disadvantages of implementing top down programs over bottom up initiatives. Acknowledging the growing potential of the Internet to increase the amount of information that can be available to students, and transform “instructional content and pedagogical practice” the book argues that it is “only a matter of time before [New ICTs] spread widely across the developing world” (Chapman & Mählck, 2004).
The book also discusses how a new ICT may not necessarily be the best technology to use in a particular setting. Because of the large domestic populations of Mexico and Brazil, both of them have been able to implement effective educational television programs. Telesecundaria in Mexico and Globo’s Telecurso 2000 in Brazil were produced by the government and the private sector respectively, yet they both have contributed to educating the masses of their countries. Telecurso’s contextualized television broadcasts are seen by up to 400,000 students in classrooms throughout Brazil, and 300,000 Brazilian students of Japanese descent living in Japan have also benefited from the program, as well as students attending “classes in labour unions, civic centres, prisons, ships, buses and many other environments” (Moura Castro, 2004, p. 50). In the case of Brazil and Mexico, Moura Castro (2004) argues that older technologies such as television were more cost effective than the use of the Internet for teaching would have been. However, with perhaps a lack of foresight, the author contends that the “Internet is doomed to remain an elitist resource, available only to a small number of students. [The Internet] also remains an expensive technology for “developing” countries, even with falling costs over the last several decades” (Moura Castro, 2004, p. 45). While this may have been the case the initial years of the Internet, and may still be the case in areas of Brazil and Mexico, the Internet has grown rapidly in “developing” countries, and today many episodes of Telesecudaria and Globo Telecurso can be accessed through YouTube and other freely accessible Internet video sharing sites, increasing the number of individuals who can access well produced educational videos at any time. However, whereas technology improvements have increased access to the Internet, and new ICTs are becoming cheaper and more accessible on a regular basis, a country needs to develop projects that will have the broadest impact for the lowest price while at the same time anticipating what the improvements of technology may mean for the future of the program. Overall, reviewing the positive and negative aspects of technology, the authors contend that technologies are permeating through international borders, and the “opportunities are enormous”, but so are the challenges for the implementation of a nationwide project (Chapman & Mählck, 2004, p. 304). Technology can exacerbate inequalities and many “developing” countries would have difficulties in funding a technology access and adoption initiative at a national level. Because of these financial limitations it is important to build more public-private partnership endeavors.
Tim Unwin, professor of Geography and UNESCO chair for ICT4D, is another scholar who has encouraged greater focus on the history of development and geography within ICT4D. Through his work he has argued for the need to begin with needs of the people before identifying the technologies. He emphasizes the need for focus on justice and equality over economic growth. In a recent book ICT4D, Unwin (2011) argues that while “technology has indeed been used by elites throughout history, and is therefore most definitely not something that is in any sense neutral, there is nevertheless the possibility that new ICTs can actually also be used to enable poor and marginalised communities to change their lives” (Unwin, 2009, p. 38). While he believes in the power of the private sector of expanding access to ICTs, the market may not independently deliver on the needs of the poorest, and most marginalized. To him, unlike other ICT fields which focus on “what is and what can be achieved”, “ICT4D is about what should be done and how we should do it (Unwin, 2009, p. 42)”. Unwin (2011) also promotes the use of Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach as a way in which to better understand the role of ICT in development. In conclusion, the perspective of Tim Unwin is that “just as ‘development’ can have negative connotations, so too can the application of ICTs” (Unwin, 2009, p. 11). It is however his objective to help the marginalized to improve their lives through their use of technologies that prioritize local values and needs.
Anya Kamenetz (2010), is one of the spokespersons of the Edupunk and DIY U movement that heavily critiques the current educational system. To her, since the 1970s, in terms of access and national emphasis the U.S. educational system has stalled “while the rest of the world is roaring ahead” (Kamenetz, 2010, p. viii). In her book, DIY U, Kamenetz focuses on the capabilities for technology to disrupt the current system of education. “Increasingly this means students will decide what they want to learn; when, where, and with whom; and they will learn by doing” (Kamenetz, 2010, p. x). Costs of education have risen over the years while financial aid has decreased as a percentage of the total cost. “College tuition and fees leaped 439 percent from 1982 to 2007, after inflation.” (Kamenetz, 2010, p. 50) While Pell Grants used to cover most of the student’s tuition, today they cover only a “third of the cost of an average state institution”. In addition, over 60 percent of undergraduates now average $23,200 dollars (2008) in graduation debt (Kamenetz, 2010, p. 20).
Discussing alternatives, she mentions the ground breaking work of David Wiley along with other scholars who have supported the expansion of Open Education Resources and Open Access Textbooks. In addition she reminds the reader of the link of other critical educational theorists to ICT4D. For example Paulo Freire established the Central Laboratory for Educational Informatics in the 1990s which encouraged the use of televisions, microcomputers, and tape recorders to empower the poor. To her, while tuition costs could be reduced as a consequence of technological improvements; this is yet to be the case. Because of this, she advocates for those without the funds to educate themselves though open educational resources, by finding the right university or alternative program. Among the other scholars that she draws inspiration from are Ivan Illich, Clay Shirky, Yochai Benkler’s and other books which emphasize the open possibilities that are now available to individuals, as well as previous idealistic visions from critical scholars that never fully came to fruition.
While she mentions many of the promises of modern technologies, she focuses not on the number of alternatives for students as did Curtis Bonk (2011), but rather emphasizes the need to radically increase access by reducing the costs of education. Her arguments are in many ways similar to Moravec and Cobo (2011) but with a critical, rather than a post-modernist, approach. She is more interested in socio-economical change than in the transformation of society as a result of recent technological achievements. This group of writers likely represents the largest group of writers within ICTs and educational policy, however for the limitations of this assignment; I reduced the number of voices to only 5 representatives. Within this group there are many other interesting and influential scholars such as Robert Kozma, Arafat Hossain, Sir John Daniel, David Wiley, Wayne McKintosh, Jim Taylor, Stephen Downes, George Siemens, among many others.
A smaller but influential group of scholars which includes both technologically skeptical critical scholars and technology skeptic classicists focuses its arguments on the need to limit or regulate the use of ICTs in society and education. In regards to development, one of their main arguments is the need for funds to be allocated to solve more pressing matters such as increasing inequality, violence, national health crises, among other problems. One of the services where all states could invest more in is education. Education should not only allow an equality of opportunity, but also an equality of condition. Without leveling the playing field for children from the moment they enter schools, school will continue to be, to a large extent, agents of social reproduction. Modern technologies could help solve some of the problems faced by “developing” countries but they also promote certain values that may contribute to the erosion of local cultures. Because of this, some scholars advocate addressing current problems with as little technology as possible. Other technology skeptics focus on the way in which the cultural values of the societies which develop the devices are also eroding. What is more, children are increasingly distracted and underperforming in certain cognitive tasks such as writing. The scholars discussed in this section include Larry Cuban (2001), Thurber et al (1996), Nicholas Carr (2011), Dumbrill and Green (2007), and Neil Postman (2000). Some other scholars such as Jaron Lanier, Sherry Turkle, Mark Helpring, John Freeman, and Mark Bauerlein that are not discussed in this section have also published very relevant books and articles on this subject.
Larry Cuban (2001) has written extensively about K-12 school reform and was the author of a book, Oversold and Underused, where he analyzed the impact of technology in the classroom through a study of the Palo Alto community in California. While he does not consider himself a technology skeptic, he believes it to be important to question some of the assumptions made about ICT integration into schools. When researching in Palo Alto, he noticed a strong pursuit of technological advancement by individuals who were trying to find the next frontier, with an “unshakable faith in the capacity of technology to improve life” (Cuban, 2001, p. 25).
Hoping to further increase the use ICTs in the classroom, in 1997, the governor of California allocated $300 dollars per student to install computer networks in each of the state’s 840 high schools. Also annual funding of $45 to be matched by the district was authorized for the maintenance and upgrade of networks. The high level of promotion led to the development of digital literacy programs, keyboarding courses and courses on commonly used software. However, while the students did improve on certain basic skills, he argues that there has not been any transformation or major changes. In aggregate, he argues that “there have been no advances (measured by higher academic achievement of urban, suburban, or rural students) over the last decade that can be confidently attributed to broader access to computers” (Cuban, 2001, p. 178). He argues that ICTs have also only had a marginal influence on the curriculum of universities. “Because of the prevailing incentives embedded in academic rank, tenure, and promotion, the influence of the innovations on university teaching has been marginal” (Cuban, 2001, p. 182). Based on his findings of the limited impact of new ICTs in the classroom, he argues against blindly assuming that further investment in ICTs is worth the cost. It is important to be aware that while personal computers could help students by giving them the access that they need to solve many classroom problems, he believes that ICTs will not be as influential in solving serious social problems. Among them he mentions “extraordinary health and social needs growing out of poverty, crumbling facilities, unqualified teachers”, all of which, “have little to do with a lack of technology” (Cuban, 2001, p. 188). However, “pressed by parents, business leaders, public officials, and computer vendors, few school boards and administrators can resist the tidal wave of opinion in favor of electronic solutions to education’s age-old problems” (pg 192). “The questions asked are seldom whether to move ahead with new technologies but how, under what conditions, and to what degree” (pg 192). Often important needs are left unmet as the schools have to find the finds to sustain their technological investments. According to Cuban (2001), these financial decisions compete with teachers’ salaries, renovations of school groups, reducing class sizes, an additional foreign language for middle scholars, among others programs. Dealing with limited resources, investing in technology does not appear to be the most effective investment. To him the attempts to reduce the digital divide are closely linked to the economic situation of the region and the programs will probably continue as long as “there is economic prosperity” (pg 195). While perhaps in the future every student will have a computer, “without a critical examination of the assumptions of technology promoters”, these initiatives can be seen as “narrowly conceived innovation” (pg 196).
Another article that focuses on some of the negative impacts of ICTs but from an international perspective is an article by Thurber et al (2009) which emphasizes the western nature of ICTs and the cultural, transnational implications of adoption of these technologies. To them the personalized computer promotes many of the individualistic elements of western culture and their democratic values. Citing quotes from foreign professionals, such as Takashi Kiuchi, chairman of Mitsubishi Electric America, who stated that “The information highway is so tied to American culture that we can’t even understand what we’re getting into,” he emphasizes the western origin of the personal computer (Thurber et al, 1995, p. 3). Discussing other aspects of the internet, Thurber et al (1995) contended that aspects such as the noncentrality of computer networks, and their capacity to empower all users equally, “points to the individual, rather than the organization,” placing an emphasis on individual freedom (Thurber et al 1995, p. 4). According to Thurber et al (1995) increased exposure to the net would transmit values that are “alien” to many “developing” countries (Thurber, Pope, & Stratton, 1995, p. 4). To the authors, importing a technology is also importing values. While they do acknowledge that certain values such as “democracy” and “freedom” are not only western, they are major parts of western cultural identity. Also other parts of the computer such as the keyboard favor phonetic and alphabetic languages.
Because of the strong impact that the World Wide Web has on individuals, Thurber et al (1995) recommend that they consider carefully the implications of implementing an ICT project in their countries. “For cultures less tied to individualism than the West, or more interested in preserving a heritage, [ICT can] in itself be a formidable problem” and to consider “centralized systems” which may have a “better chance of preserving traditional values than a distributed one” (Thurber, Pope, & Stratton, 1995, p. 7). To them, when adopting ICTs it is impossible to avoid a cultural influence; because of this they advocate that policy makers may be interested in limiting the quantity and nature of the information flowing through their network. Also, countries should foster the sharing of information in local languages incorporating both sound and media when possible. They then criticize the net for its idealistic rhetoric and attempts to spread western values throughout the network. “Joining the international computer world thoughtlessly (or heedlessly) will require the adoption of western style thought” (Thurber et al, 1995, p. 1). However, while Thurber et al (1995) argued that countries should perhaps consider not using western ICTs, since their article was published, the growth in use of ICTs throughout the world has been extensive. While most Internet and users were English speakers when their article was published, today Chinese language penetration of the Internet is close to that of the English speaking world. According to worldinternetstats.com, English users account for 26.8% of the Internet, while Chinese users accounts for 24.2%. Growing 1,478% between 2000-2011 Chinese users could eventually represent the majority of Internet users in the world. During the same time frame, English speakers experienced a growth of 301%, a rate much lower than Spanish at 807%, and Portuguese at 990%. As a consequence more scholars are suggesting a more cautious involvement interaction with the Internet rather than withdrawing from it.
Dumbrill and Green (2007), focus on the need for ICT4D programs and other development programs to be sensitive to the different cultures in which the programs are developed. Rather than knowledge being transferred from “north” to “south”, the local community may have a different conception of knowledge and understanding which should be central to web learning projects. The authors discuss the need to understand different perspectives to understand the power relationships within knowledge, and the divide that resulted from colonization between Australian aborigines and colonists. Instead of focusing on giving access to the Internet to the local population, the focus should be based on increasing access to indigenous self-determination and sovereignty. To Dumbrill and Green (2007) aborigines continue to be subjugated as western knowledge is generally seen as superior to indigenous knowledge and their way of life. Unlike western knowledge that was imposed on individuals throughout the colonized world, indigenous knowledge has not been imposed on others. The article goes to explain that the indigenous constructs of the Medicine Wheel were fluid and they were all seen as equal parts of the whole. Knowledge is to them linked to all living things, “animal, plants, the ocean, and the sky” (Dumbrill & Green, 2007, p. 108). Because of key cultural differences and the history of western knowledge imposition on the aborigines, it is important to decolonize web-based education. To them, there is a categorical rule that must be followed: “Indigenous education needs to be placed back in the hands of Indigenous peoples, because as long as such education is controlled by non-Aboriginal educators and taught from a non-Aboriginal perspective, this knowledge will remain subjugated and colonized”. (Dumbrill & Green, 2007, p. 114)
Another scholar, Dr. Neil Postman, the author of The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School (1995), Technopoly: the Surrender of Culture to Technology (1992), and Building a Bridge to the 18th Century: How the Past Can Improve Our Future (2000) offers very critical views about the impact of technology in education. His contributions to education theory and policy are vast and they focus on the increased disappearance of the local socialization of children and interactions with community members and the disappearance of childhood. While before individuals learned from their peers, and members of their local community were integral to the formation of their values, today individuals are able to access information online without the supervision of their parents, they are learning things about the world and life before they are ready to learn them, and media has led us to be increasingly programmed.
According to Postman (1995), education includes primarily our experiences, and to him modern media, both the computer and the television teach primarily about consumerism, and give us no rest. Media becomes a narrative, and as technology has increasingly influenced our lives through the rise of rationalism and science, a group in society has become part of a religion, or a cult, following the “God of Technology”. When discussing the “God of Technology”, he mentions how:
“there was far more technological change in the nineteenth century than is likely to occur in the twenty-first. The nineteenth century gave us telegraphy, photography, the rotary press, the telephone, the typewriter, the phonograph, the transatlantic cable, the electric light, movies, the locomotive, rockets, the steamboat, the X ray, the revolver, the computer, and the stethoscope, not to mention canned food, the penny press, the modern magazine, the advertising agency, the modern bureaucracy, and, for God’s sake, even the safety pin.” (Postman, 1995,.Kindle 402-403)
To him, however, the “God of Technology” is closely linked to the “God of Consumership” and the importance of increasingly owning more goods. This to him is partly the result of technology as children begin watching advertisement by the time they are 18th months. Between the ages of 3 and 18th the “average American youngster will see about 500,000 television commercials, which means that television commercial is the single most substantial source of values to which the young are exposed” (Postman, 1995, Kindle 502-507). To him, this materialism, along with the enthusiasm of educators for technologies are among the elements that are bringing about an end to education. They are a sort of “Faustian bargain”. While they give access to information, they also are increasingly distracting today’s youth (Postman, 1995, Kindle 557-560). He mentions that technologies such as the combustion engine have had major draw backs as well as does television. In addition, as children are increasingly interacting with machines instead of people they will lose important values that are learnt in school such as collaboration, and interacting with their peers. While giving information is important, according to Postman (1995), schools and the Internet are increasingly emphasizing information over other valuable lessons. Today, we are submerged in information. Placing himself in a young person’s world, he is worried about the influence of having:
“260,000 billboards, 17,000 newspapers, 12,000 periodicals, and 27,000 video outlets for renting tapes, 400 million television sets, and well over 500 million radios, not including those in automobiles. There are 40,000 new book titles published every year, and each day 41 million photographs are taken. And, thanks to the computer; over 60 billion pieces of advertising junk mail arrive in our mailboxes every year” (Postman, 1995, Location 623-626).
This growth in access to information is difficult for adults to access, but it is even more difficult to handle for youth. As people learned to drive the car without instruction, he argues that there is little need for schools to teach individuals how to use computers. Also individuals are losing an understanding that a community used to be location based and based on compromise, on learning to understand your neighbors. A school is a place where “individuals must learn in a setting in which individual needs are subordinated to group interests” (Postman, 1995, Kindle 655-656). Citing Robert Fulghum’s (1989) All I Ever Really Needed to Know I Learned in Kindergarten, he explains how lessons such as share everything, play fair, put things back where you find them, don’t hit people, among others, we only actually begin to learn in kindergarten, but it takes many years for these values to become the foundation of a young adult. Therein, he believes lies the value of education, where is not about information, but about socializing individuals. Regarding technology one phrase sums it all “I know a false god when I see one” (Postman, 1995, Kindle 730-731). When thinking about the solution to some of these problems, in his book Building a Bridge to the 18th Century (2000), he discusses the need to sit and think deeply about life, rather than continuously collect information or develop technology without thinking of its ramifications and extended implications.
Similar to Postman’s (1997) critique, Neil Carr (2011) explains how individuals are continuously reading less and it is transforming the way our brains process information. When analyzing the influence of technology he discusses both the history of technology and neuroscience. While technology has increased access to information, multitasking studies have shown that we are getting distracted more often and this may be linked to our internal natural predisposition to be alert and aware of outside stimulus. While by shifting our attention quickly, our ancestors were more likely to survive an ambush when they lived in the wild, without deep reflective thinking and concentrating for long periods of time on information, less of this information will be stored in the long term memory of an individual. Without transforming information into knowledge, individuals will be less able to recall this information in the future and use it during their everyday work and life. He also mentions how the Internet is not the first technology to transform our society, but rather other technologies such as clocks, and the creation of the map transformed human notions of time and place, but because of our brains plasticity, as we reinforce certain mental pathways we also weaken other pathways in our mind.
Carr (2011) reminds us McLuhan’s advice that the “medium is the message”. By this it not only implies that the medium was in itself transformative, but that it also was incredible powerful; media captivates us to an extent that it changes our lives and according to Carr, our minds (Carr, 2011, p. 1). While other technologies held this transformative capability, the Internet is the latest technology that is transforming our living experiences. It is because of the plasticity of our brains “Media work their magic, or their mischief, on the nervous system itself” (Carr, 2011, p. 3). Explaining from his personal experience and that of his friends, who as writers were now having difficulties immersing themselves within text, Carr (2011) explores why this may be taking place. He expresses that while some of the changes may not be negative having information readily available has not only decreased his gas expenditures, but it has transformed the way he writes as well. No longer having the ability to immerse ourselves as easily within the literature, it seems that we may be losing linear thought processing, in exchange for a more anxious, faster, information gathering behavior.
Revisiting the history of neuroscience from its conception to today, he explains neuroplasticity and a list of studies that help to understand how our brain is reacting to this new medium. An important understanding is that it takes time for information to transfer from short-term memory to long-term memory. Without it being transferred to the long term memory part of the brain, that information is likely to get lost. Also, learning to read and write has been shown on brain scans to powerfully shape adult neuropsychological systems (Carr, 2011, p. 51). It is because of this effect on the development of our brain, that Carr (2011) wonders what are the effects of Internet browsing and other net behaviors. The results are mixed but youth is increasingly multitasking, and reading less than their parents. One of the changes that scientist have noticed by tracking eye movements is how few seconds individuals spend on a webpage. Regardless of the amount of text on a page, after a few seconds most click away. Also, reading is increasingly vertical. While skimming is an important skill, Carr (2011) argues that more and more we are choosing to skim over carefully reading. Carr (2011) highlights various changes brought by the internet and explains that new ICTs are not giving us worse but different brains. ,
He then explains how “intellectual technologies” such as the map and the clock transformed the way we understood our environment. However, he challenges sociologist Throstein Veblen’s arguments of “technological determinism” by mentioning that Japan was able to preserve traditional samurai culture for two centuries through the ban of the firearm. In other places such as Old Order Amish fellowships, they have to this day shunned motor cars and other technologies. Despite the rhetoric of inevitability and need for openness, he mentions that “all countries [have] put legal or other restrictions on the use of certain tools” (Carr, 2011, p. 47).
The Need for a Constructive Critically Oriented ICT4D Approach- a Future Oriented Perspective
We live in a world surrounded by technologies, literately, hundreds of thousands of them. Technologies such as writing, the book, the television have had a transformational impact on the life of man. Yet while a new type of drill or a new GMO may not have a transformative impact on education, information technologies have strong implications on culture and, through it, both on development and education. The internet and other recent ICTs, whether for better or worse, have transformed our culture, and the functioning of our minds. It is because of its transformative impact that educators need to research the best, most constructive ways in which different ICT technologies can be used . Modern technologies can have a major impact on the quality of life of individuals and they are increasingly impacting both formal and informal education. Yet, some education technologists go too far in emphasizing the need for transformative change; others question the rapidly changing nature of modern technology and have advocated for a reduction in its influence and impact. Classicists and technologically skeptical critical theorists can perhaps increase their influence by moving towards the ideological center. Unless a person currently lives in very particular environment, modern ICTs are likely directly impacting their lives. Choosing to live without the internet is not necessarily a bad choice, it is just different. However, having created the technology, should we not be able to better control its use rather than forbid it? The benefits of connecting can be tremendous, but countries should not be pressured into being increasingly global or modern. Education and culture should not revolve around a higher PISA score, SAT score, or increased economic productivity. Economic production is just one way of looking at the world. Amartya Sen and others have offered different lenses that should be increasingly used when thinking of development.
Research Topics: It is because of the rapidly changing nature of technology and its increasing impact that more research is needed not just within CIDE but within development studies, sociology, education, and technology, among other fields. For my dissertation I am currently considering three different possible questions. First, I am considering a re-evaluation of whether Open Education Resources are sustainable and how they will impact society at large in the next fifteen years. I am also considering evaluating what are the potentials for growth of low cost educational software in centralized application markets? Lastly, I might explore whether erosion of local cultures had worsened as a consequence of the increasing ubiquitous access to ICTs. All of these studies would be important contributions to ICT4 and CIES.
(End of Essay) – The appendix contains a couple of additional comments.
Appendix – Importance to CIES
As emphasized by the late ex-president of CIES, David Wilson, “the increased global presence of the field and its practitioners is important for the future because ICTs are making comparative and international educators known to a much wider audience, including academic colleagues, other educators, and policy-maker throughout the world” (Wilson, 2003, p. 28). When he mentioned: “where do we go from here?”, he felt that ICT could help the field to both conduct and share their research and projects more efficiently with the rest of the academic community and the world. My emphasis focuses on an amendment to that statement. ICTs are not only influencing and aiding research, but ICT4D should also be a major research field within CIES.
Additional Comment (Removed Due to Space Limitations)
In regard to the “Singularity” and its impact on education, perhaps innovation will continue to happen at an exponential rate, but hopefully it doesn’t. If we are still in control of our rate of technological innovation, perhaps we should consider slowing IT “development” down, and avoiding some of the uncertainty that will result from creating artificial intelligent machines that are in control of improving themselves. Even if we can produce them, as we could currently use our knowledge of nuclear power to send ourselves back to the Stone Age, it does not mean we should or will. We are, after all, highly intelligent beings. Before focusing so much on moving forward at a faster pace, we should worry about what we leave behind, not only in terms of others but also of ourselves. Taking a humanistic approach, most ICT4D scholars have been right in advocating an inclusive, participatory approach to technology adoption. Technology is not inherently good or bad, but it is also not neutral, carrying within it a particular ideology. Hopefully this perspective will increasingly gain support within the IT industry, policymakers, and modernization theorists. Development programs and educational institutions need to continue to be respectful of others ways of knowing and being.
Extended Research Topics Explanation: It is because of the rapidly changing nature of technology and its increasing impact that more research is needed not just within CIDE but within development studies, sociology, education, and technology, among others. Among these rapid changes that require additional study is the recent growing use of tablets and what they may mean for education. Currently being used by only 10% of the adult population of the United States, it is a technology that has yet to spread. However, as this and other forms of mobile technology become more prevalent it will be more important to study their impact. For my dissertation I am currently considering three different possible paths. Firstly, and this question has been answered before but it deserves a re-evaluation, are open education resources sustainable and how will they impact society at large in the next fifteen years? Using futures research methodologies, I am considering interviewing different leaders in Latin America about their opinions of Open Education Resources, their growth, and their future importance in education. An ethnographic study of the Open Education Resource community both online and in the Dominican Republic will also help in finding some of these answers. Another path that I am currently considering is investigating the potentials for growth of low cost educational software on platforms such as the Apple tablet. Again addressing issues of sustainability, cost of software has progressively decreased if one takes mobile devices into consideration. When reviewing the iPad and iPhone applications, most of the applications cost between zero and $5. The relatively low cost of these programs increases the possibilities for them to be purchased by an increasing number of individuals, particularly increasing access to individuals in the developing world. With Apple having sold their 15th billion iTunes application and more developers joining the mobile application development market, this new type of market may have managed to produce products that are both increasingly accessible and at the same time the prices structure continues to encourage developers to produce for this rapidly expanding market. Most free online games run on the 1% economic model. By providing extra items at a cost, they provide a free product to 99 out of a hundred users, yet because of the ability to reach millions of users at the same time, the market is still profitable for the producer. A final possible project of interest focuses on the erosion of local cultures as a consequence of the increasing ubiquity of access to ICTs. By visiting schools during an ethnographic study in the Dominican Republic it may be possible to analyze whether or not ICTs are contributing to the erosion of local cultural values and the isomorphism of the global educational system. All of these studies would be important contributions to the field of ICT and development, and CIDE.
Works Cited
Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on Demand: Online Education in the United States. Wellesley: Babson Survey Research Group.
BBC. (2010, September 14). Are dying languages worth saving? Retrieved July 10, 2011, from BBC News Magazine: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11304255
Bonk, C. J. (2011). The World Is Open: How Web Technology Is Revolutionizing Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cairncross, F. (2001). The Death of Distance. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Carr, N. (2011). What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains: The Shadows. New York: Norton and Company.
Chapman, D. W., & Mählck, L. O. (2004). Adapting technology for school improvement: a global perspective. Paris UNESCO.
CISCO. (2008). Multimodal Learning Through Media: What Research Says. San Jose: CISCO Public Information.
Cobo, C., & Moravec, J. W. (2011). Aprendizaje Invisible. Hacia Una Nueva Ecología de la Educación. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and Underused. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Dumbrill, G. C., & Green, J. R. (2007). Including Indigenous Knowledge in Web-Based Learning. Journal of Technology and Human Services , 103-117.
Florida, R. (2005, October). The World is Spiky. The Atlantic Monthly , pp. 48-51.
Heeks, R. (2008). Current Analysis and Future Research Agenda on “Gold Farming”: Real-World Production in Developing Countries for the Virtual Economies of Online Games. Manchester: Institute for Development Policy and Management.
Heeks, R. (2010). Do Information and Communication Technologies Contribute to Development. Journal of International Development , 625-640.
Heeks, R. (2008). ICT4D 2.0: The Next Phase of Applying ICT for International Development. IEEE Computer Society , 25-33.
Hobbes, T. (1651). The Leviathan. London: Andrew Crooke.
ITU. (2010). Global ICT trends. Retrieved Jun 20, 2011, from ITU – International Telecommunication Union: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/index.html
Kamenetz, A. (2010). Edupunks, Edupreneurs, and the Coming Transformation of Higher Education. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Katz, R. N. (2008). The Tower and The Cloud. Washington D.C.: Educause.
Kelly, K. (2005, February). Kevin Kelly on How Technology Evolves. Retrieved March 20, 2011, from TED – Technology, Entertainment and Design: http://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_kelly_on_how_technology_evolves.html
Kelly, K. (2010). What Technology Wants. New York: Viking.
Kleine, D. (2010). ICT4WHAT?—Using the choice framework to operationalise the capability approach to development. Journal of International Development , 674-692.
Kurzweil, R. (2000). The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence. New York: Penguin.
Kurzweil, R. (2005). The Singularity is Near. New York: Viking.
Moura Castro, C. d. (2004). Are new technologies better technologies? For whom? In D. W. Chapman, & L. O. Mählck, Adapting technology for school improvement: a global perspective (pp. 39-54). Paris: UNESCO .
Nielsen Company. (2010, October 14). U.S. Teen Mobile Report: Calling Yesterday, Texting Today, Using Apps Tomorrow. Retrieved October 14, 2010, from Nielsen Wire: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/u-s-teen-mobile-report-calling-yesterday-texting-today-using-apps-tomorrow/
Postman, N. (1995). The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School. New York: Random House.
Prensky, M. (2007). Digital Game-Based Learning. St. Paul: Paragon House.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon , Vol 9.
Prensky, M. (2011). Khan Academy. Educational Technology.
Prensky, M. (2010). Why You Tube Matters. On the Horizon .
Robinson, K. (2009). The Element: How Finding Your Passion Changes Everything. New York: Viking.
Sachs, J. (2005). The End of Poverty . New York: The Penguin Press.
Thurber, B. D., Pope, J. W., & Stratton, J. (1995, August 21). Computers, Telecommunications, and Western Culture. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Negative Space: http://www.hoboes.com/NetLife/CRIT/CWC/
Unwin, T. (2009). ICT4D: Information and Communication Technologies for Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Wilson, D. N. (2003). The Future of Comparative and International Education in a Globalised World. International Review of Education , 15-33.
What do IT Fellows Need to Know?
What Do IT Fellows Need to Know?
Updated 07/25/11
You can use this as a general training/reference guide.
Moodle 1.9
https://moodle.umn.edu/
General
- Manually giving students access to the site
- Specifying course site settings
Content management
- Uploading/deleting files
- Creating links to files on the Homepage
- Organizing files
Forums:
- Designing & building discussion threads
Groups:
- Creating groups for discussion forums
- Using Groupings feature to separate multiple course sections in one site
- Separating a site with multiple course sections into groups by section
Quizzes: –
- Uploading a single file, online text, advance uploading, and offline
- Setting up a quiz/quiz options
- Adding random questions
- Grading objective quiz questions
- Grading essay questions manually (this isn’t very common)
Gradebook:
- Setting grade book settings
- Adding an activity to grade book and entering grades
- Entering grades via the activity interface/directly into the grade book
- Methods of aggregating/sum, simple weighted mean, and weighted mean of grads
- Using extra credit in grade book
- Setting personal viewing preferences
Moodle transition from 1.9 to 2.0
http://www.oit.umn.edu/moodle/transition/
Note: Sheila can explain all this stuff to you.
- Identify the difference in features/functionality between 1.9 and 2.0 and forward official documentation to instructors if needed
- Understand OIT’s timeline for the transition process and make recommendations for transitioning sites from WebVista and from 1.9 –refer instructors to official OIT emails for this
WebVista
http://webct.umn.edu/
Note: UTTC isn’t offering any WebVista training since it’s being phased out, so you may need to have other IT Fellows give you an overview. IT Fellows don’t get many requests for WebVista support except for moving files out of WebVista into Moodle. OIT does have these online WebVista modules:
Instructor basics: http://uttc.umn.edu/training/courses/description/?designator=VTA151
Student orientation: http://uttc.umn.edu/training/courses/description/?designator=VTA4111
- How to transfer content (i.e. zip files and upload them to Moodle) and transfer quiz banks using Respondus (although Respondus is not an easy program to use – you can have the ISTs (Instructional Support Techs – the undergrads in Pete’s office) do this. http://www.oit.umn.edu/moodle/transition/tranfer-quizzes/index.htm
- Upload, update, delete files
- Adding/managing learning tools and resources to a site
- Managing gradebook
- Managing groups, discussions
Adobe Presenter
http://www.oit.umn.edu/umconnect/services-support/support-faq/presenter-faqs/download-presenter/index.htm
Note: Sheila can explain this stuff to you. Adobe Presenter (formerly known as “Breeze”) is a program where you download a plug-in into PowerPoint, which enables users to narrate PowerPoint presentations. The U isn’t going to support Presenter after Jan, 2012.
- Explain the phasing out of Adobe Presenter by Jan, 2012 (defer to official briefs)
- Understand that Presenter presentations can still be viewed, but not created after Jan, 2012
- http://blog.lib.umn.edu/oit/news/2011/05/changes_to_adobe_acrobat_licen.html
Camtasia Relay & Camtasia Studio
http://www.oit.umn.edu/class-capture/
Note: OIT is offering Camtasia RELAY as the Presenter substitute:
However, Camtasia RELAY is really a very limited tool – it doesn’t let you edit. Camtasia STUDIO is the better tool, but it costs $. ATS is buying some Camtasia STUDIO licenses, and each IT Fellow will be given a license. The online tutorials for Camtasia Studio are very good.
- Show instructors how to get Camtasia Relay and teach them how to use it
- Explain that Camtasia Relay is OIT’s centrally supported software for creating presentations
- Describe the difference between Camtasia Relay & Camtasia Studio
- Teach instructors how to create presentations using Camtasia Studio
Note: You can download a trial version of Camtasia Studio if you want to mess around with it – the official licenses should be coming soon!
http://www.techsmith.com/camtasia/
UMConnect
http://www.oit.umn.edu/umconnect/
UMConnect is a tool to have online meetings / presentations
Note: This is a tricky one with instructors may ask you to set up their meetings and provide tech support during the meeting. That doesn’t fall within the scope of IT Fellow responsibilities, but it can be an artful matter to communicate that. Ask other ITFs and Sheila for suggestions on how to respond. One thing to keep in mind is that if the meeting is not for use in a class with students (like if it’s for a meeting or presentation to people outside the U) you can recommend that they pay $ to have OIT set it up and run it (benefit – they don’t have to be concerned about the technology failing).
- Teach instructors how to set up, schedule, and record meetings using UMConnect
- Provide guidance on how to conduct an effective online meeting
- Teach the basics of online conference room management
Google Apps
Overall
- Understand the value and the limitations of Google Apps
Docs
- Teach instructors how to create a Google doc
- Teach instructors how to upload a Google doc
Forms
- Teach instructors how to create a Google form
- Explain how Google forms can be used in courses
- Teach instructors how to gather data from a Google form
NetFiles
http://www.oit.umn.edu/netfiles/
- Teach instructors how to access NetFiles
- Teach instructors how to upload files to NetFiles
- Teach instructors how to link to Netfiles files in Moodle
Survey Tools
Note: IT Fellows should play a referral role and not be responsible for teaching/managing/creating surveys since these tools are almost always used for research. Refer instructors to the department’s research associate or college’s office of research consultation. http://www.tc.umn.edu/~orcs
Fellows should be familiar with Google and Moodle’s feedback tools as they are more for polling students and less for gathering data for research projects.
- Be somewhat familiar with these survey tools:
- UMSurvey: http://www.oit.umn.edu/umsurvey/ (people generally aren’t a fan of this tool)
- CEHD Survey Tool: https://survey.cehd.umn.edu/
ChimeIn (Polling Software)
Note: ChimeIn is was developed by CLA – everyone at the U has access to it. Students can use any personal electronic device to ring in their responses. You may not get a lot of requests for it, but it seems like instructors have a lot of interest in this tool.
ChimeIn: https://chimein.cla.umn.edu/
- Show instructors how to get a ChimeIn account
- Teach instructors how to use ChimeIn
- Explain how ChimeIn can be used in a class
TurningPoint Clickers
http://www.turningtechnologies.com/responsesystemsupport/downloads/
Note: TurningPoint Clickers are used a lot in FSoS as they have their own sets of clickers. The other departments do not have clickers (they can borrow clickers from CLA, but CLA doesn’t always have enough to go around) so they could use ChimeIn instead.
UMWiki
- Apparently this is not a useful tool and IT Fellows don’t really get requests for it.
UThink Blogs
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/uthink/
Note: It seems like lately more instructors want a blog to publicly showcase student projects. The Web Team has plans to develop a template for these projects. You can refer these requests to Sheila. (If instructors are comfortable creating the blog on their own that’s fine).
- Teach instructors how to create a UThink blog
- Understand when to refer a blog project to the web team (basically whenever the instructor isn’t comfortable doing it themselves)
VideoAnt
http://ant.umn.edu/
- Teach instructors how to use VideoAnt
- Describe the challenges of using VideoAnt for course assignments
MediaMill
http://mediamill.cla.umn.edu/mediamill/
- Teach instructors how to upload footage to MediaMill
- Teach instructors how to edit footage in MediaMill
- Teach instructors how to share videos in MediaMill
- Teach instructors how to create derivatives in MediaMill
- Teach instructors how to share MediaMill content in Moodle
Skype
http://www.skype.com/intl/en-us/home
Note: Skype is not a University-supported tool, but IT Fellows are sometimes asked about it. It’s easy to use, but note that IT Fellows shouldn’t be expected to support hardware needs, network issues, or to facilitate sessions.
Soft Skills
Note: These skills will come over time as you get a sense of the instructors in your department.
- Understand the role and responsibilities of the IT Fellow
- Redirect instructors to other resources when requests for support are outside the scope of IT Fellow role and responsibilities (this means – instead of telling an instructor “no” to redirect by saying “That’s outside my scope, but here’s where you can go for support.”
- Reinforce to instructors that their role is to teach, not do (this can be tricky and it depends on factors such as power dynamics in the department, the level of expertise of the instructor, etc. The bottom line is to “meet people where they’re at.” If you’re in a situation where you feel like you’re being asked to do things outside your role, you can ask another IT Fellow what they think, and also ask Sheila.
- Recognize when to refer requests to Sheila/Pete/Yelena
Tech Support
- Explain (very tactfully) that IT Fellows do not support students, and why
- Point instructors to OIT websites for student tech support
- Identify various OIT Tech support options for University supported tools (WebVista, Moodle, etc.) that you can use to ask questions —- SEE BELOW!
- Explain (very tactfully) that IT Fellows do not support non-University supported tools (for example, if an instructor asks you help them with a Ning site – you won’t be able to provide support)
U-Wide Services
- Describe the services provided by Smart Learning Commons: https://wiki.umn.edu/SMART
- Understand eReserve: http://www.lib.umn.edu/services/eres-FAQ
- Refer instructors the eReserve support
- The Libraries’ Copyright info site: http://www.lib.umn.edu/copyright/welcome
Where Should Students Go For Tech Support?
Phone Tech Support Helpline
Call (612) 301-4357 (on campus, dial 1-HELP)
Online Chat Tech Support: Live Help
http://www.oit.umn.edu/help/contacts/index.htm
Mon-Fri 7:30am-8:00pm
Sat 12:00pm-5:00pm
Tech Stop: in person tech support
http://www.oit.umn.edu/tech-stop/
Visit Tech Stop in Coffman Union suite 101 on the East Bank or Coffey Suite 50 on the St. Paul campus.
Tech Stop location and hours:
http://www.oit.umn.edu/tech-stop/locations/index.htm
To schedule an appointment at the Coffman Memorial Union 101 Tech Stop, use our online appointment schedule form.
https://www.oit.umn.edu/techstop/appointment/insecure/guest.cgi
Moodle
Moodle Support – Help & FAQ
http://www1.umn.edu/moodle/students/help.html
Moodle Support – User Guides
http://www1.umn.edu/moodle/students/guides/index.html
WebVista
http://webct.umn.edu/students/
MediaMill
