TECHNOLOGY IS A TOOL?

Presented by: Sharissa, Carrie and Cherie

TOOLS-R-US- JONATHAN B.KINGSOURCE: JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS APR 1994

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

“Jonathan King is Associate Professor of Management at the College of Business at Oregon State University. His primary research interests are in moral philosophy and systems theory. His most important publications are “Common Knowledge of the Second Kind” (1989) and “Learning to Solve the Right Problems” (1993),Journal of Business Ethics.”-http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00871671

ABSTRACTOur modes of understanding do not correspond to the complex issues

confronting us in our modern technological society.

BIG ISSUES

1.Risks of people using powerful technology with the intended objective of exploiting others.

2.Risks of unintended disasters, where systems-- not individuals or groups--- run amuck.  

3. Risk of allowing our tools and technologies to shape our intentions.  

“Soft” systems methodology: used when dealing with matters of high complexity, ill defined problems.

offers direction to exert moral control over our tools and technologies.

Goal is to address subjectivity in our decision making process

CHOICESRational Choice Theory(RCT):  framework for understanding social & economic behaviour

---ex:  how the individual calculates what is in his best interest and acts accordingly

“best interest”/ “self interest” is a variable, rather than a given“self-interest” as a variable opens a pandora’s box-ethical relativism.

RCT takes seriously the subjectivity which is the crucial characteristic of human affairs” by trying to contain it through objective methodology.  

Objectivism vs Relativism

There is no escaping the subjective determination of our subjective preference

PARADIGM SHIFTWe need to un-learn and re-learn how to do things knowing that we are using our subjective brain.

Learning how to learn & unlearn: playing with paradigms

Signs

Lists

Tools as scripts

In and out of boxes

Coping with self-justifying processes

Abductive logic provides distance from self-justifying circles

BACKGROUND Some of top box office movies of the

late 80’s and early 90’s include: Terminator (1984) & Terminator 2 (1991)

Jurrasic Park (1993) The Matrix (1999).

Back to the future II (1989)

TECHNOLOGY IS (NOT) A TOOL?

Arntzen, Krug, and Wen

You caught a tool to get to a tool. The educator used a tool to introduce you to the idea of educational tools. In the tool you looked around and saw your classmates tooling furiously on their tools. Arntzen, Krug, Wen (2008)

INTRO

KEYWORDS/PHRASES

overuse of the term tool

curricular conundrum (confusing and difficult problem)-complex

boxes and wires

technology is a means not an end

digital natives, net-

generation

digital immigrants

social and cultural context

deskill

morals and ethics

social responsibility

professional development

KEY IDEAS

•ICT is acknowledged internationally as emerging and increasingly important in Education (21st c. learning)

•We want teachers to engage in and use ICT therefore we need to use specific terminology to describe it so they can do this effectively

•ICT has two parts media and technology and the social, cultural contexts

•Digital technologies are more than simple machines or tools (complex)

•For digital natives (net-generation) and digital immigrants, devices hold very different social and cultural meanings and values

QUESTIONS

•Is overly simplified terminology helping or hindering educators’ acceptance, critical engagement and accommodation of ICT into educational settings?

•Does the over-generalized term provide educators the information they need to critically assess and discuss the educational merits of ICT?

•Does it prepare educators to discuss the social and cultural meanings and implications in their students’ lives?

SUGGESTIONS

• Substantial professional development needs to be provided in order for educators to feel comfortable implementing ICT in their practice

•It is the all or nothing view that needs to be challenged and changed

•Engaging and critical inquiry needs to take place to reduce anxiety and encourage comfort and curiosity

•Need to know how and why moral and ethical (responsibility and accountability) issues affect societies (eg. cyberbullying)

•Need to teach social responsibility in the context of ICT

•It is not simply about the term tool it extends far beyond

•It is an ongoing curricular conundrum

“I teach high school math. I sell a product to a market that doesn't want it but is forced by law to buy it.” — Dan Meyer

Dan Meyer is a high school math teacher.

VIDEO

USING WEB 2.0 FOR EDUCATION PROGRAMS ON GLOBAL

CITIZENSHIP: ADDRESSING MORAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES

Moll and Krug (2008)

CRITICAL POINTS OF THE ARTICLE Description of changes made to POT course at UBC, where social software platform was developed to support the teaching and learning of global citizenship in the teacher education programs. Carrie was a student in “POT 1.0” Sharissa and I were students in “POT 2.0” Perhaps others had a different experience with POT course at SFU or McGill

Argument that educators and students need to engage with and be informed about ICT literacies, particularly the moral and ethical issues associated with using Web 2.0 applications for learning.

PROJECT GOAL

For teachers and students to learn collectively about what it might mean to be a global citizen in an era of expanding worldwide knowledge-based societies and increased access to and engagement with ICT

KEY TERM: GLOBAL DIGITAL CITIZENSHIP

http://freerice.com/about

KEY TERM: GLOBAL DIGITAL CITIZENSHIP

KEY TERMS: ICT LITERACY VS. DIGITAL LITERACY ICT Literacies vs. Digital Literacies

KEY TERMS: WEB 2.0, (WEB 1.0) AND WEB 2.0 VIRTUAL SPACES Web 2.0 – begs the question, how does it differ from Web 1.0? Focus of my key term project is Web 3.0

 WEB 2.0 AND LEARNING

Method:An Internet-based platform was developed using several open-source software applications to support large group lectures and biweekly small group meetings as part of the Principles of Teaching course in the UBC Bachelor of Education program.

Example: Exam Questions E-portfolio (wordpress as living documentation of our learning artifacts)

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP AND ICT LITERACIES Specific changes to POT course in terms of ICT: developing a social software platform that facilitated opportunities for learning such as collaborative weblog and wiki spaces and networking capabilities

using a thematic approach to teaching learning theories and practices – large group lectures plus case studies during small group inquiry sessions.

Example: inquiry session students used RSS feeds and social bookmarking to gather information and tagging and a wiki to share ideas for lesson plans on climate change issues.

EDUCATIONAL POLICIES, PRACTICE AND WEB 2.0 To avoid heightening any perceived disjunction between educational theory and practice, the strategy was to engage teachers and students in methods to develop ICT literacies and to provide opportunities to conduct their own critical inquiry about established and emerging moral and ethical ICT issues

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR STAKEHOLDERS

ICT moral and ethical issues are extremely complex, dynamic need to be viewed in educational, community, and societal contexts.

Web 2.0 can be used for good or for evil…

Integration of ICT literacies across curriculum, and to recognize these literacies as a vital component of what it means to be a global digital citizen.

ACTIVITY Now you get to work

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION USING POPPLET APP1. What “tools” are necessary to be a successful teacher in

the 21st century? Please refer to both articles.

2.Of those, what “tools” are required to create POT 3.0?

DEMONSTRATION OF POPPLET

ACTIVITY! 1.     Groups will be divided into three groups.

2.     Within each group you will be divided into two smaller sub-groups.

3.     One group will work around an iPad with one question.  One will group will work around the other iPad with the other question.

4.     Using Popplet, you will brainstorm your ideas for the question (please choose a colour for your group’s brainstorm).

5.     After 5 minutes groups will move to the other iPad and brainstorm their ideas in a different colour.

6.     Groups will move back to their original iPad and discuss similarities between what they wrote and what the other group wrote.

7.     Each sub-group will report out the similarities to the whole group.

CONCLUSION

Activity wrap-up

How does this relate to previous readings? Cyberbullying 21st century learning Others?

Technology is a “Tool”? Vs Technology is (Not) a “Tool”?