Affordances

In the course on emerging technologies, we've been learning about different types of technologies, but also new ways of inspiring, evaluating, sharing and organizing learning. While the realization of what's possible (and what will be possible) in the 2.0/3.0/4.0 world is breath-taking, I've been disappointed with the same old deification of technology that I so often experience in conversations with techies. It's as if the glitter and shimmer of possibility blinds people who are too close to the technology. There are many "affordances", yes. However, if we're going to buy into the dream that computers can make learning more accessible to all, then we better take a good look at who's got computers ... and computer skills ... and who doesn't, and we better start correcting that massive imbalance. At the very least, we need to recognize the "costs" that technology has on society, information and learning too. No, not to suggest that the Ludite way of life is preferable, but to keep our eyes open about who and what we're leaving behind if we rush too quickly towards the glitter and shimmer. It's taboo to question anything too sexy and prevalent, but when I look around, I see the impact of all sorts of decisions that were made in the name of progress that don't seem so progressive in retrospect. Let's at least, as we incorporate more and more technology into learning, have the courage to look, to really look, at the downsides. Not so that we don't move forward, but rather than we move forward with sure feet and so that we don't have to turn around and mop up our messes because we didn't stop to think.

The "costs" to me are situated mainly in the exclusion of those very people who need access to real, deep and independent learning the most. These people may be marginalized by language, literacy, education, poverty ... those things that are usually called part of "social capital". Another "cost" is in the realm of artful, sophisticated use of language. My generation was taught how to read extensive and narrative texts, complicated novels and research documents. We were taught to write in a variety of styles. It involves a certain mental engagement with ideas that cannot be fed nor expressed in Twitter-land. My children have not learned the same skills, and while their global access to people and places and Facebook "friends" may have increased, their access to old great literature, and the embedded archetypes and wisdoms, is greatly reduced because they can't persevere in taking in or producing written thought. The "all things quick and easy" mentality that is "afforded" us by technology may yet return to bite us in the rump.

At the same time, I am more and more convinced of the incredible value of underlying principles of the 2.0 world. Once the course is done, I aim to take all the technologies I've been exposed to and see which I can use for the courses I'm designing. I'm also going to spend some time to see how I can combine inquiry-based learning (for adults) and online learning, using the principles of connectivism. Also, I want to bring the principles of connectivism into a classroom version of a course on emergent curriculum for adults. Mostly, emergent curriculum is created for children, but the 2.0 world seems ideal for bringing it into the adult learning world as well.