Considering the graphic above, I am charged with determining my static or dynamic self. As it relates to content, am I static or dynamic? As an online learner you would expect me to be dynamic but it may surprise you to know that a good deal of online learning is based on static presentation. Yes, it is true that there is, or should be, a good mix of video and animation to aid in the learning process. If I am the determining factor, to tell the truth I just download the transcript. At the end of the day, I’m just an old school learner as it relates to content; I am as static as can be. As it relates to communication, am I static or dynamic? I love skype, chat and instant messaging. However, instant messaging is my preferable form of communication at work. I’d rather receive an instant response as opposed to waiting on a response. However, the “chat room” phenomenon was never my cup of tea; there were just too many people talking all at once and too fast jumping from topic to topic. (Talk about cognitive overload!) As an old school platform trainer, I am as dynamic as can be as long as it is a one-to-one conversation. As it relates to collaboration, am I static or dynamic? I was not a strong presence in the second life virtual world because it just looked like me flying around seeing and talking to other cartoon figures, but I prefer it to waiting on an email response. Also, I am not a big gamer but love gamification in the learning environment and believe multi-user environments can contribute significantly to socialization and learning. As an old school learner, platform trainer, and new school virtual and gamification realist … I am as dynamic as can be.
Technology is a very fluid field on which to hang your hat. It is difficult to hold water in your hand let alone hang a hat. But we must try, right? Thornburg (2013) indicates that the “Red Queen” is a phenomenon regarding two competitive technologies that results in the rapid development of both. Right now DVDs and video-on-demand is a Red Queen situation; two technologies that are currently developing. The reasoning behind this is that a large percentage of people do not have Smart, or online televisions, or the cost related “on-demand” services through their cable or dish networks. However, it is just a matter of time before video-on-demand will experience an increase in return. According to Thornton (2013), increased returns occur when there are a couple of innovations and one of them drives the other into extinction due to increased popularity.
To take it a step further, what about the obsolescence of cable and dish networks? My daughter and son-in-law currently do not have cable or dish services in their home. I remember those days as “six channel hell” with absolutely no entertainment during a 2am sleepless stint. How is it that two twenty something millennials could possibly survive without a cable or dish service? The answer is NetFlix; see what you want to see when you want to see it for $7.99 per month. Wow, why didn’t I think of that?
Human interface technology is not necessarily a new phenomenon but does have new found interest as it relates to education and workforce development. Benefit to the learner is one thing but teachers could also benefit from wearable technology. For example, a teacher would benefit greatly from information that tells them how a student learns and how much they learn (Kjaergaard & Sorensen, 2014). Despite the fact that we want more information about ourselves, we also want more information on how to better perform our jobs. With that, it stands to reason that wearable technology is not only beneficial for the self, but also for those who care about “the self” of others; i.e. physicians, teachers, and employers. Despite the question of ethical considerations regarding public details of private information, wearable technology as a whole just might be here to stay. One good example of wearable technology is Google Glass.
Google glass connects web-based technology directly to the human being (Rosenblum, 2014). Gone will be the days of fingers being permanently attached to a smartphone and increasing chiropractor visits for the infamous “head down” syndrome. (I just made up this “head down syndrome”, but you get the point.) Christensen (2013) defines disruptive technology as technology that disrupts the upward trend of an emerging technology. Thornburg (2014) takes the definition a step further by attaching cost and efficiency. Imagine the benefit of a teacher who is able to pull up student data information while at the same time teaching that particular student. Google glass will disrupt smartphones in this respect but not until it has passed Thornburg’s cost consideration. The convenience of google class is just not worth $1,500 when you know there will be cheaper versions available very soon.
Christensen, Clayton M. (2013). Disruptive Innovation. In: Soegaard, Mads and Dam, Rikke Friis (eds.). “The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd Ed.”. Aarhus, Denmark: the Interaction Design Foundation. Available online at https://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/disruptive_innovation.html.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). NMC Horizon Report: 2014 Higher Education Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
Kjaergaard, T., & Sorensen, E. (2014). Qualifying the Quantified Self; A study of conscious learning. Proceedings of the International Conference on e-Learning, 213-220.
Laureate, E. (Director). (2014). David Thornburg: Disruptive technologies [Motion Picture].
Rosenblum, M. (2014, March 7). Google Glass and the power of technology to change the world. Retrieved October 20, 2014, from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/media-network/michaels-rosenblog/2014/mar/07/google-glass-technology-changing-world
The problem with learning and technology is that one is in a constant state of change. Workforce development in new technology can be difficult in a trade-based environment. There are most likely entire trade departments that do not have access to a shared desktop computer. Trade-specific jobs are accustomed to “hands-on” activities but the online environment requires the use of technology that is incompatible with the trade “lab” environment.
Widespread use of smartphones now has technology at the fingertips of most of the population. Users can participate in online learning through the use of kiosk-like tablet technology which does not require user adoption. The learning activities listed in the following graphic can not only be accessed through tablet technology but also encourage the content, communication, and collaborative nature of online learning.
This may seem a bit off topic but what can I say; it is a course post.
Mark Twain said, “History doesn’t repeat itself. At best, it sometimes rhymes”. David Thornburg (2013) indicates that rhymes of history is one place to find emerging technology. A wonderful example of “rhyme of history”, is virtual reality. Consider technology involved with dating and the ability to live a fantasy of possessing the characteristics you believe to be appealing to the opposite sex. If you want long hair … you’ve got it; if you want hazel eyes … presto, they’re yours. Technology that has served this virtuality (this may not be a word but sounds good) has varied throughout history. I know what you are thinking but indulge me for a minute and analyze the following graphic.
Makes sense right? With any of this technology between you and a potential loved one, you can be the person you always dreamed of. There may be an entirely new branch of psychology to deal with people who start believing they are their “virtual’ self.
Thornburg, D. (2013). An amazingly incomplete emerging technologies bibliography. Lake Barrington, IL: Thornburg Center for Space Exploration.