Comments on: To Act or To Be Acted Upon

By: lukefernandez

lukefernandez — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 02:38:33 +0000

It’s not easy making sense of the specter of technological determinism or how we should act when we perceive it; your use of the ship metaphor and the reference to Mormon scripture offer some interesting framing devices to make sense of the problem. Some of what you say seems to resonate with Nicholas Carr’s criticism of Mumford in The Big Switch (c.f. http://www.gartner.com/it/content/603600/603609... p.22 ). It’s difficult to untangle exactly where you stand vis a vis Carr and Mumford in passages this short but they are nonetheless provocative. Following your framing devices (and without falling prey to a simple technological fatalism) how much can “I opt to act and not to be acted upon” when the technological wind (as Carr implies) is mixed in with larger socio-economic forces?

By: wwsiwyg

wwsiwyg — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:32:23 +0000

Is the marijuana or gambling example a fair analogy though? Are there a lot of good uses for marijuana (besides the medicinal cases) and gambling? You believe in the ban – does that mean altogether – so the educator who wants to incorporate a new learning opportunity cannot because the tool is banned? I might be reading you wrong, but it sounds as if you believe in restrictions and guidelines but it doesn't actually sound like you believe in the ban the way it has often been attempted.

By: John Hilton III

John Hilton III — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:23:35 +0000

Just like the “low-tech texting” I wonder how the plagiarism figures relate to plagiarism in a non-digital age. Technology is a tool — we choose if it benefits or harms us.

By: jonmott

jonmott — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:15:13 +0000

Jared & Joel–

Good points about not just accepting bad uses of technology as facts of life. We do need to help students understand what is appropriate and what is not and reinforce good behavior via appropriate incentives. And while we ought to come up with creative ways to leverage technology in the learning process, there are times when it's appropriate and ideal to turn the technology off. There some intimate learning conversations that technology would tarnish. We need to work these issues out in our own minds and then model good practices for our students.

By: Joel Galbraith

Joel Galbraith — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:31:29 +0000

Another enjoyable post. obviously there are bounds to acting and charting one's own course to reach the organizations goal. One doesn't want to appear to be out of step with the organizations goals.

I find it a bit disturbing that the same argument is commonly used by proponents of legalizing marijuana or gambling–i.e. “outright banning doesn't stop the inevitable, we should focus more on regulation”. I agree with your analogy and also prefer to find productive ways to use “disruptive” technologies…but somewhere also still believe in the ban.
-Joel G.

By: jaredstein

jaredstein — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:37:47 +0000

I agree with the proactive approach, and of course I'm all for learners using technology creatively, esp. for learning.

As I mentioned when we chatted today, I think it's equally important for technophiles to accept that there are situations and objectives where the technology can and should be turned off for the betterment of learning.

By: cahlansharp

cahlansharp — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:58:08 +0000

Great post. I agree: whining about technology's ill effects on students and learning is not (by itself) helping anything. And wistfully hoping to sterilize classrooms or students of tech is naïve at best.

Technology is changing the world, whether we like it or not. We need to work on pointing the hose in the right direction, not cutting off the water main.