One of the recurring conversations in this project has been around the question "what are emerging technologies" in higher education. We have returned to this question in most of our meetings, and the answer, like the technologies, is still emerging.
We seem to be fairly clear about the term technologies. We are understanding this quite narrowly to mean information and communication technologies. (Although I might be being presumptuous here. This is not something we have discussed. Perhaps we have different understandings?)
Our discussions have revolved around what we consider emergent. At first we grappled with definitions, but there are clear differences here.
Firstly, there seems to be agreement that emergent technologies are not just new technologies. Indeed this has been confirmed by our research. When we asked lecturers to tell us about the most innovative technologies they are using, the overwhelming response was learning management systems (LMSs), not a technology that is in any way new.
One line of argument is that emergent technologies are those that are in the process of being used more widely. They are emerging into the mainstream of academic practice. By this measure, most ICTs are emergent because higher education in South Africa has made little use of them until recently. If we observe more and more people using a technology, we call it emergent at the point where its use is gaining momentum, before it is ubiquitous.
A second line of argument is that emerging technologies are those that have emergent properties, so that the impact they have goes beyond just their use. Technologies are emergent when they are used in ways that do not simply replicate existing teaching practices, using technology, but transform teaching and learning. So making course content available for students to download instead of providing printed notes would not be emergent, but making materials available before class and then using the lecture time for more active learning might be.
I think that both of these definitions could be valid and interesting. The first is easier to research. One can count what is being use, how frequently and how widespread the use is. The second is more difficult because we would need to identify the emergent properties and those can be hard to spot, particularly in the educational context.
We seem to have settled on the following characteristics of emerging technologies, thanks to Veletsianos, rather than a definition.
Emerging technologies..
1. May or may not be new
2. Are evolving
3. Go through recognisable hype cycles
4. Are not yet fully understood
5. Are not yet fully researched
6. Are potentially disruptive, but this potential is as yet unfulfilled
(Veletsianos, 2010:13-17)
But there are concerns that these criteria might not be complete. I am also concerned that they capture neither of the two perspectives outlined above.
I hope that by opening up the debate we may be able to capture some of the conversations we've had and clarify our thoughts. I look forward to other contributions.
I still grapple with the notion of control. For me one of the main benefits of emerging technologies is the independence of any institutional systems. Do technologies loose their emerging nature once the institution appropriates them?
ReplyDeleteI find Jon Dron's notion of hard vs soft technologies very interesting.
He argues that hard technologies are constraining and limit the number of choices one can make and hence are orchestrated by rules and regulations. This makes them relatively easy to use but with the risk to stifle creativity.
On the contrary, soft technologies provide users more freedom to play with and are orchestrated by individual lecturers choices.
He argues that: “Soft technologies need skill and artistry. It ain’t just what you do, it’s the way that you do it. A bad technology, used well, can work brilliantly, while a good technology, used badly, can be useless. Most learning technology research concentrates on technology (including methods and pedagogies) not the talent and skill with which it is applied that is frequently more significant.”
However, he also stresses the point, that learners are different and that he belives, that an effective educational system should enable the learner to choose whether and when to choose. A learner should be in control of the amount of control he or she may exercise over his or her learning trajectory.
So this leaves me with my initial question: is there something in these emerging technologies, that promote lecturers' creativity? enthusiam? passion? or is it an individual lecturer's motivation/personality/teaching philosophy that allow them to use certain technologies in more creative ways? Is it structure or agency that makes the use of emerging technologies transformative?
References
Dron, Jon. 2011. “Soft things, hard things and invisible elephants.” Athabasca University Landing. https://landing.athabascau.ca/pg/groups/89415.
Dron, Jon. 2007. Control and Constraint in Choosing When. Hershey PA: Idea Group Publishing.
These are interesting ideas for our project Judy and Daniela. If we take Velestianos's understanding of emerging technologies then it does encompass more than tools - it includes emerging theories, concepts, practices too. In our current paper in preparation for the ICEL conference we are trying to grapple with how we understand emerging technologies and we intend to write a fuller paper on this too. I like Veletsianos's (2011:3) definition of emerging technologies as being ‘tools, concepts, innovations, and advancements utilized in diverse educational settings to serve varied education-related purposes’. I think this broad view is useful in that it does not make assumptions about particular tools or contexts being definitive in emerging technologies. It also appeals to me as it offers less of a 'technicist' definition.
ReplyDeleteReference
Veletsianos, G. 2010. A Definition of Emerging Technologies for Education. . In G. Veletsianos (ed.) Emerging Technologies in Distance Education. Theory and Practice. Edmonton: AU Press, pp1-22