Online Learning in K-12 Schools

App4 gauldd

View more presentations from DouglasGauld.

What Is Emerging Technology, and Why Should We Care?

(Image Source:  http://media.photobucket.com/image/robot%20birth/mdudczak/470_robot20.jpg)

Dr. David Thornburg frames two definitions of “emerging technology” (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009). According to his own definition, emerging technology is that which is new to almost everyone, not yet widely adopted by any significantly large group in any context. He uses the Linux operating system, which is the standard in Brazil, as an example. According to Thornburg’s definition, this technology has matured by virtue of its adoption by a large demographic. But Thornburg also mentions Everett Rogers’ definition, proposed in his 1962 book Diffusion of Innovations, which allows an innovation to be called emergent in any community into which it is first being introduced (1995).


Rogers defines an innovation as “’an idea, practice, or project that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption,’” a definition that recognizes the local and personal character of novelty (Sahin, 2006, p. 14). In his book, Rogers uses the example of a failed attempt by the public health service in Peru to introduce the technology of boiling water to prevent disease to the village of Los Molinas (Rogers, 1995). Although this was common practice throughout much of the world at the time of its introduction to the villagers, this technology was, to them, emergent, new, just as the Linux operating system is currently new to most communities in the United States, where Windows is the standard. While these examples fit Rogers’ definition of an emergent technology, they fail to meet the higher (and, I think, less practically relevant) standard of universal novelty preferred by Thornburg.

Dr. Elliot Soloway’s three criteria for determining when a technology has moved from emergent to emerged—cost, reviews, and essential personal use—could be applied to either a universal or a more parochial context (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009). He considers a technology to be mature when the cost has dropped, when reviewers (both professional and amateur) have given their approval, and when it has become widely accepted as required. He sees this as occurring in four phases, separated by chasms that must be vaulted. First, early adopters (insiders and enthusiasts who might make up ten percent of a given population) embrace a new technology. Their reports of positive experiences might inspire an “early majority” to adopt the technology and they, in turn, catalyze adoption by a “late majority.” If the technology becomes ubiquitous, it is likely that some of the last, reluctant ten percent may even feel compelled to accept this new tool. This, according to Sahin (2006), is a variation on the bell curve proposed by Rogers, in which adventurous innovators represent 2.5%, early adopters are 13.5%, an early majority and late majority are 34%, and laggards make up 16% of those who will eventually adopt a fully emerged innovation.

Rogers defines adoption of a technology or innovation as “a decision of ‘full use of an innovation as the best course of action possible’” (Sahin, 2006, p. 14). What compels me and my peers to make this decision? The best reason would be that we see that the innate advantages of the innovation make it the best available choice. Another compelling motive for adoption is that the technology has become the standard. In this case, whether a technology has become a universal standard or merely the local standard in my community of practice, adoption would seem a logical course unless I have compelling personal reasons against it. Similarly, if I have adopted an emerging technology and believe that it should reach maturity as the standard, either locally or universally, my best arguments are based on the merits of the technology itself. For me, then, any innovation that is new to most members of the community of practice in which it is being introduced, and has merits which warrant and make likely its widespread adoption, is emerging. Any such technology that has become the standard in this community of practice can be said to have emerged or matured. Although Thornburg (2009) feels the characterization is unfair to the innovators who first develop and embrace new technologies, I must agree that “’Emergence’” is “in the eye of the beholder” (p. 4).

One technology that is just beginning to emerge in my community of practice is Promethean World’s ActivInspire presentation software (http://support.prometheanplanet.com/server.php?show=nav.19251&changeCountry=United+States). So far as I know, only one other teacher in my school (an innovator or early adopter, depending on whether we use Rogers’ or Soloway’s classification system) is using this tool in daily instruction. Although this software was released in 2009, it will be new to me and most of my colleagues, so I aim for early adopter status. In keeping with the pattern Soloway proposed, a peer’s positive review and demonstration convinced me to try a tool that may one day become the standard for classroom presentation (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009). Watching my colleague use this tool with Wacom’s Bamboo tablet and a digital whiteboard, I was able to experience the software’s advantages over what I now see as last-generation presentation software like PowerPoint (http://www.wacom.com/index2.php).

It would benefit my colleagues and me to see this emerging technology advance to maturity in my school and school system. If teachers in my school wish to use this tool now, they must get access to one of three digital whiteboards available in the building or purchase a tablet input device and they must petition our system’s technology department for permission and access codes to install the program on classroom computers. If the system accepts this software as the standard, it, like PowerPoint, will be automatically installed on all school computers and requisite hardware will be provided.

In order to make this happen, however, early adopters must, as my colleague has, promote this software amongst peers with a sort of missionary zeal. Sadly, the administration of our school system could fairly be characterized as technological laggards, so it is unlikely that the early majority, or even a significant portion of the late majority, will have the support they need to make this transition easily, despite the obvious advantages and intuitive nature of the software itself. I was using PowerPoint with an LCD projector (my own) for eight years before the school made enough projectors available, as it currently does, for only half of our teachers, a fact which has discouraged many in our potential late majority from using digital presentation at all.

I believe that a technology is emergent so long as it is on the rise, but not yet the standard, in a local community of practice. In my school, PowerPoint can still be said to be emerging, despite the introduction, among local innovators, of a likely successor application. Understanding the local nature of emergence is necessary to craft an effective strategy for fostering its adoption in a community. Part of this strategy can be a bandwagon appeal. If all other school systems, or the most successful schools, in Maryland are using an innovation, our system’s administration might be more likely to adopt it. However, one should not assume that just because this innovation has fully emerged elsewhere that local authorities will embrace it. The more geographically or sociologically remote the community in which the technology is standard is, the less likely it is that this peer influence will be effective. David Thornburg may assert that Linux is the standard in Brazil, but this fact is unlikely to carry much weight in Baltimore, where this information only adds to the exotic and somewhat frightening prospect of change (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009).

In this case, the virtues of the technology itself are more likely to be persuasive. Recognizing that, despite its establishment elsewhere, Linux is alien to the local powers-that-be, we must consider the intrinsic advantages of local adoption. Our promotion should consider the values and priorities of the target community. Most American school systems today are plagued by crippling budgetary constraints. This seems more compelling than mere pedagogical concerns in determining system policies. Here, the advantages of free, open-source software are evident. How much could we save by eliminating software costs on Microsoft’s Windows and Office software alone, simply by using free, open-source alternatives? Of course, this rapier cuts both ways. If the system has already invested in a mature technology, it becomes more difficult to sell an innovation that would render the former investment obsolete, especially if we must convince those who recommended and authorized the previous investment.

The fact that Promethean World offers its ActivInspire presentation software free of charge is a selling point. On the other hand, support hardware, such as digital whiteboards and tablet input devices, are costly. Perhaps selling the schools on the free software first would get a camel’s nose under the proverbial tent. Once they had installed the software on our computers, it would be easy to argue that we were losing value by not having the hardware necessary to fully exploit it. Then, those who supported installation of the software would have a political stake in promoting purchase of the hardware. This, along with the vaunted intrinsic advantages of digital whiteboards and the bandwagon appeal of their growing adoption by county systems and innovative city schools, might be enough to make standard the tools my colleague has struggled to assemble in his classroom.


References


Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.


Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). New and Emerging Technologies. Baltimore: Author.

Sahin, I. (2006). Detailed review of Rogers' diffusion of innovations theory and educational technology-related studies based on Rogers’ theory. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5(2), 14–23.

Thornburg, D. D. (2009). When is a technology emergent? Lake Barrington, IL: Thornburg Center for Space Exploration.

Godfrey Gauld (my father) on English and the Future

ENGLISH AND THE FUTURE
Words are the primary tools used for human thinking and for communication with others. If I use a wood chisel to drive screws it does not do the job well and it is no longer satisfactory for shaping wood. If I persist in this carelessness with tools it becomes difficult to do any work at all and impossible to do accurate work. If I persist in using the wrong word, because it comes easily to the mind, is popular, is novel, or is impressive, it is not long before real thought becomes exceedingly difficult and accurate thought, impossible. What is important for both thinking and communicating thought is that no word has more than one meaning and that the meaning be precise.

There are two kinds of English used to day. The difference is the understanding of the meaning of the verb “will”. In the more rational form of English the verb “will” has only one meaning. It is used to express the subject’s decision or intention. I call this form of English 1will English. In the other form of English the verb “will” has three meanings: the decision or intention of the subject, the command of the subject by the speaker, and to form what has been called “simple future”. I call this form of English the 3will English.

Both forms of English have past and present tenses. These are indicated by inflection of the verbs. There are special forms of every verb that signal the hearer or reader whether the action or condition described is occurring in the present or occurred in the past. In neither form of English is there a verb form (inflection) to indicate the future. In 3will English the verb “will” is used instead of inflection to indicate that an action or condition is to be thought of as certain to occur in the future.

In 1will English the future is dealt with by stating present and past conditions and actions that may influence the future. It is left to the reader or hearer to decide what the future may be. The future is not determined by fate or by the speaker. The verb “will” expresses only the will of the subject. The meaning of the verb “will” is consistent with the meaning of the noun “will”. There is a word, shall, that expresses the will of the speaker for the actions or conditions of the subject. That is, the speaker assumes control over the actions and conditions of the subject. Notice that the control is only assumed. The future is not fated nor is it determined by the speaker. The will of thinking beings is recognized. Because our experience is that present or past conditions are, at least in principal, knowable and future conditions are not, 1will English corresponds to the situation in which we must make our decisions. In 1will English there is no confusion about the meanings of “shall” and “will”.

In 3will English the future is what the speaker says it is. Because our experience is that the future is unknowable, 3will English does not represent the situation in which we must make decisions. Furthermore, it suggests that we are not responsible for our future because our future is as the speaker, or fate, or God has decided: our wills are not important. There is also the problem of having three meanings for the same verb, two of which are inconsistent with the meanings of the noun “will”, the adjective “willing”, and the adverb “willingly”. For example: "He will go but he will not." This can mean that in the future he does go but not willingly. It can also mean that the speaker has the authority to order that he go but “he” is determined not to. In 1will English the second idea is rendered as, He shall go but he will not. Shall expresses the will of the speaker regarding the behavior of the sentence’s subject. In this case the subject is “he”.

There are situations in which intent is not involved. The 3will English treats these situations by using “will” to form a future tense of the verb. For example, “The tree will fall.” The tree, of course has no will. Things with out wills are treated the same as beings with wills. In 1will English the expected falling of the tree might be expressed as, “I think that the tree is going to fall.”, “It looks as if the tree is going to fall.”, or simply “The tree is going to fall.” The possibility of the tree falling in the future is expressed by stating present facts or referring to current observations.

The 3will form of English dominates today. It is this English that is used most consistently on radio and television. Advertisers, media personalities, and politicians prosper in situations where their visions of the future are not questioned. Furthermore more information and thought is involved in using 1will English and this can result in a pause in their pronouncements that might be interpreted as uncertainty. Because languages with future tenses often do not indicate the past or present conditions upon which their predictions are based, a translator may have to guess what the author meant in order to translate into 1will English because this English deals with the future by stating present or past conditions.

The most effective use of language, as is true of the use of any tool, cannot be learned entirely by observation; some instruction and study is essential. Today this is not happening because most educators do not realize, and have never been taught, that realistic English does not have a future tense.

One can infer that the language ability evolved because that ability was a help in surviving long enough to reproduce. We use language to make decisions that affect our survival and chances of reproducing. This is not now the only use to which we put our language ability but it is very important. The way we make decisions is to tell ourselves stories. The starting place of these stories is present conditions. The story line is based on our experience of how things have happened and on the decisions we are making. The best decisions are those resulting fro thorough review and criticism of the stories we use to make them. The structure of the language in which we tell our stories may have an important influence on the quality of our decisions.

If the story is told in a language that treats future events as being certain to happen, the planner may be led to believe that the story is the only possible outcome of the contemplated decisions. The planner may not recognize faults in the story because the language treats the future as being as certain: as certain as the past. These languages have future tenses. They assume that time is like a book where that which has not yet been read is written just as that which has been read was written before it was read.

If the story is told in a language that treats future events as expectations based on experience, present conditions, and expected future conditions, the planner is led to recognize the faults and uncertainties in the story. In these languages the book is only written up to the present and it is the responsibility of the planner to write the most plausible ending possible. English was such a language. Misuse of the word “will” is destroying this advantage.

Until the early twentieth century the word “will” was used to show decision or intent. In “Today’s English” and the “anything goes” dictionaries it now has three uses. It is used to indicate the “simple future” as in “The package will get there.” It is used to give a command as in “You will report for K.P.” It is still used to show the decision or intent of the subject as in “He will run for public office.” I call this misuse of the word because it results in false and self contradictory statements. In ancient times we would have said, “The package is going to get there.” and “You shall report for K.P.” There was no confusion and we preserved the advantages of understanding that the future is not determined by fate.

Evil has been defined as anything that cause a person to be thought of as a thing. Because our wills are inseparable from our sense of self, using the word “will” to describe the future of things is to treat people as things and to deny the importance of our wills?

If one expects a return to the English where the future is expressed by stating present expectations they are going to be disappointed but it can do no harm to adopt this form. Among other considerations is that if the future is described as if it were inevitable, there is not enough information to say why the future events are expected. A translator must infer what decisions and events resulted in the future described in the fatalistic language.

One can learn to use a language by observation but, as is the case with most tools, some instruction by one skilled in the use of the tool is necessary to get the best results. English is a popular language because, unlike many other languages, most users of English listens for what is meant, not what is said. It is popular to ignore or even adopt uncommon meanings for words and language structure in the name of cultural diversity or as a fad. Ignorance on the part of educators is also important. Precision of communication and thought have suffered.

You can read this only because you have language. There would have been no evolutionary advantage in an organism having language, or thought, or any kind of consciousness if all events, present past, and future, had been fixed in the beginning. The Greeks and Romans believed in fate. The idea of fate is very useful to those who’s prosperity depends on the idea that their underlings wills don’t matter. A future tense suggests that the future has been decided by fate and since this is a useless, and even dangerous idea, it is better that English does not have a future tense.

Using the word “will” to indicate a fated future event leads to misleading and often false statements. An example is, ”he will go but not willingly”. If his will is not to go, how can he go willingly? What is happening is that when we learned English we associated the word “will” with future events and no one explained to us that the speaker was saying what they expected to happen and giving the reason for the expectation. They were not saying what was inevitable. Note that one must use a Latin root to express the idea of fated. Eventually those that did understand died and there are few to explain to us. If “will” is accepted as an “auxiliary” to form an English future tense we have no way of telling if the speaker is indicating the subjects decision or the subjects fate. All confusion is easily eliminated when we realize that the way that the future is dealt with in English is to say what is expected and why it is expected. The expectation is in the present and the reason for the expectation is in the present.

In ”Today’s English” people are treated as things. For example, “It will rain tomorrow” and “He will travel tomorrow”. Either “It” has a will or “He” doesn’t. If we expect rain, we can state our expectation by saying “It looks like rain.” or “It is going to rain.” If “He” is compelled to travel by some authority we should say, “He shall travel” or if “He” is compelled by circumstances, “He must travel”. If we know “He”s’ mind it is accurate to say “He will travel”.

Many times we find the word “will” used where it serves no useful purpose. An example is “Trespassers will be prosecuted”. Why not “Trespassers are prosecuted”. I have trouble understanding why any trespasser would decide (will) to be prosecuted. He may have changed his mind by the time he is caught and decided not to be prosecuted.