Tag Archives: wealth gap

Determining pros and cons myself of modern internet learning as self-determination.

02 Wednesday Nov 2016

Posted by in ECI 833

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Bear witness to all I have experienced in the connected age.

The progression of Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 to Web 3.0 all occurred in my lifetime as I was born in ’89.

1.0 to 3.0.jpg

Webevolve via Moreyne.com

“We used to look at the web as a place to “look stuff up” (1.0) vs. create/collaborate/connect (2.0)” – Alec Couros, on the evolution of the web.

As a child and as an educator…

I have evolved alongside it.

Used and abused it.

It began young, growing up alongside a techy, computer-loving father. Fast forward to grade six, when your search engine selection spoke volumes of your personality/popularity. I would use search engines to find tips and tricks on my favourite video games (like the original Pokemon Red, none of this augmented reality madness). Ask Jeeves… Yahoo! (which, personally, is just used for fantasy sports now)… AOL… AltaVista… HotBot (yes, it still works)… and the eventual winner: Google (get out of here Bing).

I lived with the doubters of the internet (I’m looking at you, mom). The rise of internet users rose like my height! (I would also argue my capacity for rational and logical thought grew as well, but that’s another debate)!

internet-users-in-the-world

Internet Users in the World via InternetLiveStats

And, alas, here we are. Progressed from the large encyclopedia that was the internet, full of content… to an organic, connected entity enabling critical thought and diversity of opinion on a monumental scale.

But what of its influence on me as an educator?

Living the amelioration of the internet likely leaves Logan largely linked and inclined to utilize Web 3.0 (more on that shortly, with a little less alliteration).

But what is Web 3.0? Heutagogical learning (nice pronunciation in class, Kyle). Self-directed learning. We went from creating, connecting and collaborating (2.0) to letting these creations and connections direct our own learning (3.0). Could this make the teacher obsolete? What about the unmotivated learners? Does the direction a teacher provides mean everything?

Jackie Gerstein mentioned: “The Web, Internet, Social Media, and the evolving, emerging technologies have created a perfect storm or convergence of resources, tools, open and free information access.”

What does that mean for educators and students? What challenges are presented?

Digital citizenship. Whether is be educators through practice and professional development on the proper utilization of the internet or teaching our students to do the same, both are encompassed by what #DigCit entails. This can potentially widen wealth gaps as some students may not have equal access to internet and devices. But this does not diminish the necessity of education revolving around Web 3.0 as Luke Braun mentioned in this tweet to the question of its implications on the wealth gap:

Progress and learning to best meet the needs of your learners is always paramount, students with more exposure tend to be more successful and privileged. So with the ever-changing landscape of the web, versatility and lifelong development is your friend as an educator to provide opportunities for exposure.

 

Agree? Disagree? Thoughts?

Comment.

– Logan Petlak

Advertisements

Good intentions and what is morally just make EdTech equitable.

16 Thursday Jun 2016

Posted by in ECI 830

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Equity versus equality.

Equity involves an attempt to level the playing field for all as exemplified in the picture below.

equality doesnt mean equity

Health Equity via CommunityView.ca

The importance of this concept was made more apparent in the presence of “straight pride week” posters and social media posts appearing recently in light of pride week… and people sometimes fail to make the connection that equality is not equality without equity. And despite the use of social media to spread this hate and discrimination, technology still can be used as a force for equity.

straight pride

Straight Pride Posters Removed via Worldnow

 

 

Equity, education, technology and well-intentioned actions.

Technology can be a force for equity in society. It can provide health and learning alternatives for those at risk or at a disadvantage and seek to level the playing field for individuals. These actions are practised with good intentions for helping others. Some emphasize that using these technologies widens the achievement gap between rich and poor students and that may be the case in some instances, exacerbating socio-economic divides. Well-intentioned actions (more on this next week) can lead to further issues and may place importance on skills related to certain forms of technology that may make individuals more equipped for life in another culture rather than helping them to develop their own. As it applies to education, every effort needs to be made to educate our youth to put them in the best position to be successful learners and citizens, and while there are potential repercussions, decisions made in good conscience/faith need to be encouraged while productive feedback is provided. Well-intentioned actions may be flawed, but with the students in mind and the potential for enhancement of their learning, the process of integrating these technologies is worth practising. Technology, apps, robots and devices are developed with the intention to serve a need in society and many of these needs today are to bridge gaps, regardless of the paycheck associated with it (there is a host of issues with that as well, however). Just as there are needs in society, there are needs in the classroom. Literary needs, language needs, even motor skill needs. 

Socio-economic divides, do these technologies actually help?

Technology in the classroom may not actually improve performance in classrooms. And the introduction of these new technologies when made available to all will likely only be used by those with the resources to acquire it. This doesn’t mean it isn’t worth creating or practising. By that logic, a new, expensive, potentially life-saving practice for heart disease shouldn’t be allowed or encouraged as it will further push the divide as rich people with heart disease will be able to live longer while those who cannot afford it may not be able to. Morally, all should have access to it, but is our reality consistent with this? No. And there is the potential that this technology can someday be made more accessible for all. But for now, one student, even if there are rich that has a learning disability and there is an app that helps them learn, it’s worth it. I understand the associated issues with what the creation and subsequent use of technologies provide, but what is the potential solution then? Equal/equitable access for all so that these technologies may not be privatised? Complete societal upheaval and restructuring? It’s not feasible. I don’t intend to be pessimistic, mind you, quite the contrary. The creation and use of these technologies for health and learning present an opportunity for learning and well-being… and when these occur, equity can follow and I am optimistic despite potential short-term gap widening, the benefits and morality of equitable tech casts a shadow over it.

 

The moral question I ask is: Is an act done with good intentions and is morally just, but has potential consequences, wrong?

A loaded question. And while bad decisions have been made in the past with good intentions, with the right research and preparation, the moral good that technology can provide in the learning and health for some outweighs the potential gap-widening problems.

Debatable, no doubt. Thoughts?

Logan Petlak