By Nestor B. Querido, CUOL Supervisor
This is the second in a three-part blog series about technology. Read part 1 here.
With all its appeal and wizardry, there is a flip side to technology – it can spawn unwanted consequences. We don’t fully understand what limitations technology might bring, but we imagine that it is for a good cause and hope for desirable outcomes. Technology, however, can transpire outcomes that are contrary to what it was originally intended for – the unforeseen or unintended consequences.
In the book The Surrender of Culture to Technology, Neil Postman wrote the following verses:
”…unforeseen consequences stand in the way of all those who think they see clearly the direction in which a new technology will take us. Not even those who think who invent a technology can be assumed to be reliable prophets…”
“My paragon of inventors, the discoverer of an art is not the best judge of the good or harm which will accrue to those who practice it.”
We have come to rely on technology. It’s like a rushing waterfall – once they’ve gone over the edge, there’s no turning back.
“My God, what have we done?” the co-pilot of the Enola Gay, Robert Lewis, wrote in his diary shortly after his plane dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. The Manhattan Project perhaps delivered an irreparable outcome. But on the other hand, was it just a matter of time before someone else discovered it first?
Our curiosity drives us to discover new things. But sometimes we see only the short-term benefits and overlook the long-term effects. We sometimes ignore the social and psychological impacts of our creation.
The successful cloning of a lamb called Dolly was announced in 1996. Immediately, many catechized the procedure. Anxious and concerned questions arose regarding the ethics of cloning.
Genetically Modified Food (GMF) or Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) now drive the economy, but we don’t know what these chemically induced and manipulated organisms can really do to our body.
Technological advancements can lead to significant environmental problems, such as polluted air emission and contaminated liquid discharges by big industries (from chemical to water pollution). The adoption of automobiles can lead to deaths and injuries from accidents. Some bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics, creating superbugs. These are all unintended consequences of inventions.
In academics, it may appear that the impact of technology is not as extreme as the effect of the atomic bomb, but outcomes of a different nature are surfacing today that cannot be ignored. For instance:
e-cheating is trending throughout the young generation. According to reports from the conferences I’ve attended, many students are using e-devices to cheat in school. They don’t even consider it unethical since it’s part of technology.
There has also been an unexpected decline in writing skill due to excessive “texting” lingo and online chatting. Many have relied on technology to improve spelling and grammar. Even the elegance of cursive writing is disappearing today.
There are also talks about the fact that students who do the majority of their reading online are less able to determine what is and is not a valid source. They are less skilled in critical reading.
In today’s environment, educators have to adapt to the shifting nature of learning in education. Let’s take MOOCs for example. According to Sanjay Sarma, who leads MIT’s MOOC efforts, the rational for MOOC was that it “…is a recognition that the lecture model needs an upgrade.” “Surely something’s got to change in 1,000 years,” he said, noting that the lecture model dates to at least 1088, when the University of Bologna was founded.
Today MOOCs are undergoing an overhaul – and they are proceeding fast. Matthew Pellish (EAB -Washington DC), the keynote speaker at this year’s CUOL AGM, shared information on the release of MOOC 2.0, which indicates that MOOCs are undergoing complete re-adjustment and refinement.
Pellish’s presentation, entitled Promise and Perils of Innovation, highlighted how MOOCs have moved from a perceived threat by higher education, to arguably innocuous in all counts. The interest in MOOCs peaked and then steadily dropped off as institutions realized that while enrolment was high, completion rates were drastically low (2 per cent of enrolment, on average). However, he stressed the importance of seeing online learning as an opportunity to expand learning resources toward a multimodal approach by “unbundling” the traditional packaging of courses and programs.
Pellish also pointed out that “online education just a few years ago was all about overcoming faculty resistance to teaching online, and now faculty are literally lining up to do this, leaving their jobs in some cases.”
Whenever a new invention surfaces, we implore for ideological, moral and ethical values, but we don’t really know what the eventual social and psychological outcomes will be. All of our technological roads twist and turn, and we can never see around the bend or through the fog. Whatever the outcomes, technology has become central to modern life. So where is our society heading?
Stay tuned next Monday for the third and final blog in this series. In my next blog, I will conclude with how technology in education is perceived. The current status of academics on technology and the outlooks are very cautious and restrained. Could technology be a hindrance or an advantage? You decide.