Victoria
Conference
Deconstructing Technology
Good morning. My name is Denis Hlynka. I am from the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg. My topic is “Deconstructing technology”. Our conference theme which informs my discussion is “Best Practices.” I shall be discussing with you a part of my on-going research into the conceptual nature of educational technology and its interface with pedagogy. My topic may seem blatantly theoretic and not at all oriented to a theme of “best practices” which seems immediate and pragmatic. On the contrary, we need to look at the various theoretic underpinnings as a basis for “best practice.”
Let me begin with a story that is going around. A University professor was presenting his research results on the topic of teaching on-line courses. Ladies and gentlemen, he began, I have two pieces of bad news to report. The first is that the experimental group, which received asynchronous, on-line web-based learning showed no improvement whatsoever in their ability to write a paper. The second piece of bad news is that the control group, taught by conventional methods, showed no improvement either.
The story is symptomatic, perhaps, of what is happening today as we attempt, as never before, to integrate technology into teaching. My task, for the next 45 minutes is to explore some of the ramifications of our rush to network, to web-ize our courses, and to internet our teaching. What are some of those best practices? Certainly on-line teaching and learning seems to be one. Another is the value-added textbook provided by such publishers as McGraw Hill, who is sponsoring this conference. Once a text was just a textbook. Today it can include a website, a set of powerpoint transparencies, an accompanying CD-ROM, or maybe two(!), an instructors edition explaining how to teach the chapters, a set of multiple choice and T/F exam questions, and an offer to customize the text with a photograph of your own university, should you desire. Indeed, before one adopts a new textbook, you almost need a sabbatical just to get through all the information offered.
I will begin by showing you the hype with which the new information technology is presented to us; then I shall counter that hype with alternative examples; then I shall examine two all too common metaphors we use when we talk about information technology. The one argues that technology is a tool. It is up to us to learn how to use that tool for good. The other argues that technology is a skill. We must learn (and teach our students) the basic skills of the 21st century: how to use a zip drive; how to program using “flash”; how to set up and maintain your own web page. I will argue that technology is not a tool; and that technology is not a skill.
Because…Technology is far more that.
I shall illustrate my arguments with a variety of media and technologies: video clips, audiotape excerpts, Powerpoint, quotations from texts and literature, and a clip using real audio.
let me explain the reason for this line of argument. In other words, what is the value to spend time exploring the reasons for the existence of technology.
+
Analysis contributes to clarity. It is important that
we know what we are working with. Technology in post-secondary education
deserves to be thought out carefully and logically.
+
The medium is the message (McLuhan). If we are going to use
technology effectively, it is imperative that we understand its hypnotic and
addictive nature.
+
We live in the
“house of technology” (Franklin).
+
What I am talking about, I like to refer as the Canadian
discourse on technology. The direction I am pointing towards is a uniquely
Canadian approach, Unlike the American model of the inevitability of technology
for efficiency and effectiveness, Canadian thought moves in other directions. The ideas of Mcluhan, Harold Innis, George
Grant, John Grierson, Northop Frye all see technology as more than a tool or a
skill, but as a controlling culture and system which needs to be understood.
Let’s begin by looking at …
One way information technology is misunderstood is that we get lost in the hype.
The contemporary literature bombards us with the promise of the new technology. Look:
“We are blessed with the emergence of the World Wide Web as one of the most important economic and democratic mediums of learning and teaching.”
Badrul Khan, Web Based
Instruction (1996)
And
“The internet is, by far, the greatest and most significant achievement in the history of mankind. More impressive than the pyramids? More beautiful than Michelangelo’s David? More important to mankind than the wondrous inventions of the industrial revolution? Yes, yes, and yes.”
Hahn and Stout, The Internet Complete Reference
“For the first time in history, children are more comfortable, knowledgeable, and literate than their parents about an innovation central to society.”
Don Tapscott, Growing
Up Digital (1997).
A brief search of the literature will show that we have always been enamoured of our technologies.
For example, Thomas Edison put forth this prediction in 1916:
I should say that in 10 years
textbooks as a mode of teaching will be as obsolete as the horses and carriages
are today. Teaching by the motion picture camera will be a matter of course in
all our schools.
Or this quote:
"That instantaneous highway of thought between the Old and New
Worlds." A desciption of the Intenet? Not at all.
This is a n 1858 description from Scientific American describing …the transcontinental telegraph.
Even more telling was the activity of the "Radio Boys". Here an entire
series of novels was devoted to the teenage fascination for radio, beginning in
1922. These books were often prefaced by noted radio pioneers who often
highlighted the importance of youth in taking the lead, even ahead of
adults. In 1926, one of these prefaces read:
In the brief span of three years, radio has inundated humanity in a wave
of enthusiasm which has no parallel in history. Its influence is active
along the sandy edges of the Sahara, under the burning sun of Asia, on
the pampas of South America, and beneath the antipodian skies as well as
the more highly developed communities of Europe and North America…
Who is responsible for this unequalled expansion? The American boy.
Boys instilled with the enthusiasm, vigor, cleanness of mind and
straightforwardness of
purpose…have been responsible for the gigantic grip radio has exerted upon us
all.
The comment is clearly sexist, and clearly dated. BUT what is important is the sense of deja vue which must permeate our reading. Remember Tapscott’s comment. Obviously he seems to be mistaken.
Even our models of information technology change and innovation are implicitly positive The traditional model for the diffusion of innovations comes from Everett Rogers. This is a five step process of awareness, interest, evaluation, trial, and adoption. I want to suggest to you a dysfunctional model that attempts to explain what happens when technologies don’t work. The pattern of adoption of such a pessimistic model of technological innovation run something like this: (1) claims that the new medium is “best” and different than previous technologies, which leads in turn to (2) mass purchasing of the said new technology by schools or institutions, followed by (3) lack of proper training, which in turn results in (4) mis-use which eventually results in (5) non-use as the equipment sits unused, until finally (6) a new technology comes along making the previous technology obsolete. The cycle begins again.
So we are in a double bind. On the one hand, we want to try to slow down mass lemming like purchases on the one hand, and on the other hand, we need to persuade the unwilling that the new technologies can really make a difference to teaching. The fragile and expensive educational system does not need more unused equipment, nor does it need teachers/trainers who use 19th century tools for a 21st century world.)
Why does this happen? At least one reason is that we have a narrow conception of what technology is. Understanding instructional and information technology criticalLet’s turn next…
Is
technology a tool?
Webster’s dictionary is always the most useful source: and, for those of you who don’t know:
Webster’s dictionary is available on-line at www.m-w.com. In fact, you should
have in your conference binders a popular article I put together for the UM
Bulletin that identifies a whole group of basic, useful websites which should
be on everyone’s virtual desktop. But back to webster. Webster say a tool is
·
an instrument
used. An implement
·
a means to an
end
Technology on the other hand is
·
a systematic
treatment of an art
·
applied science
· a way of doing something (practice)
Even this brief definitional examination shows clearly that there seems to be something very different between “technology” and “tool”. (Clearly technology is not a tool. )
Technology is not a tool. I realize that there is always a reluctance to accept such a statement at face value, So let me flip to the field of art for a similar well known example, which may help get across what I am trying to say. The surrealist painter Magritte (18xx-19xx)produced a famous work which is called this is not a pipe.
SHOW VISUAL.
Magritte is trying to elicit a similar argument that I am. On the one hand we look and say, of course this is a pipe, Magritte is wrong. But on further reflection we can argue, no this is not a pipe because it is only an image of a pipe. At a third level we look at the relationship between image and text. Why does the visual image seem to take precedence over the text. Why do we assume that the text is wrong? Why not assume that the visual is wrong, but the text is right. The interplay between text and image becomes critical. At a fourth level… well, I’ll stop there.
My point is simply this. When I say “technology is not a tool” , I am arguing for a critical exploration of what technology is doing to us.
Is
technology a skill?
The department of education and training in the province of Manitoba has mandated technology as one of four foundation skills: communication, problem solving, human relations, and technology. I don’t think technology belongs in that list. There are skills involved in each of the first three of these. Each can be performed “competently”. But not technology.
Why is technology not a foundation skill? For the simple reason that technology is not a skill. A skill is something that can be sharpened, honed, improved. A skill is a as “a learned power of doing something competently.” (Webster). Consider the three traditional foundation skills: reading writing and arithmetic. These are clearly skills. You can improve your reading abilities. You can hone your writing skills. You can improve your computational/arithmetic competencies. But technology? How do you “do technology” competently? How do you “technolgize?” The idea is meaningless. You can of course become more skillful in using technologies, but that is not at the same level of the traditional basic skills.
You can improve your reading using technology; your writing using technology; and your arithmetic skills using technology. Likewise, technology can be used to assist in communications, problem solving and human relations. It seems, indeed, that technology is a kind of foundation for all of the other skills. Technology does not seem to fit on the same level or plane as either the three Rs or the three other contemporary Manitoba foundation skills. If anything, it is something more than this.
So, our first argument is that technology can’t be a foundation skill, because it really isn’t even a skill. A second argument is this: technology may not be foundational either. “Foundational” implies universality. Indeed, the classic 3Rs are universal. Although the origin of the popular song
Readin’, ‘ritin’. And ‘rithmetic
Taught to the tune of a hickory stick
is probably American, the idea has spread that the three basic and foundational elements of being educated are precisely that: “reading, ‘ritin’ and ‘rithmetic.” This has become a truly foundational and universal statement of education. It is telling, of course, that the phrase carries with it the seeds of its own deconstruction. In fact, there are no 3Rs. In fact the words begin with r,w and a. The only way these can be seen as Rs is if one is illiterate. Any literate person knows that “readin’. ‘ritin’ and ‘rithmetic” connotes not learning, but the opposite! Still, the concept, even when deconstructed, is so strong, that it is universal.
The same cannot be said for the four Manitoba foundation skills of communications, problem solving and human relations and technology. These are local terms, determined by Manitoba Education. Only Manitoba has these “four foundation skills”. This is hardly foundational, if it is limited to a population of some one million people in a world of several billion! In short, technology would seem to be neither foundational, nor a skill.
Yet there is no doubt that the skill metaphor is a very dominant one. It consumes us; it takes over even when it is seemingly irrelevant. Let me explain what I mean with a short excerpt from the Hollywood movie City Slickers with Billy Crystal. In the scene you are about to see, three city slickers are taking a holiday on a western ranch. Are we paranoid about learning what we think are basic skills, which really turn out to be trivial. Is it true that to not know these essential skills somehow makes one inadequate, a technopeasant. Watch.
PLAY EXCERPT.
You can see how the skill metaphor is a very controlling one, even when it is irrelevant, as it so often is.
So, technology is not a skill; technology is not a tool. What is it? I want to argue that the idea of technology cannot be captured by a single metaphor. Rather we need a kaleidoscopic view of multiple metaphors. In the time that I have left, I shall briefly sketch not all, but some alternative ways of defining technology.
Here is another way to perceive technologies. Technologies can be an extension of human functions. Philosopher Don Ihde calls these “embodiment technologies. Embodiment means that technologies are embodied in the individual. Perhaps the paradigm case can be found in objects such as eyeglasses.
Notice first that glasses are not tools. We don’t talk about glasses as tools. Why not? Well, because they are used differently than tools. Glasses become an extension of our capacity to see. The ideal for the technology of glasses is to become as invisible as possible, so that they are unnoticed by the user. The user can be aware of the technology in several ways: Perhaps the frames don’t fit; perhaps the nose bridge bites; perhaps the prescription of the glasses is too weak. All of these draw attention to the technology. For many, the ultimate “invisible” embodiment would be contact lenses. But for those who feel that contact lenses scratch or annoy, even this technology is not invisible. The technology becomes an extension of the body, a term Marshall McLuhan used to describe media as “extensions of man”.
Some instructional technologies obviously function as embodiment technologies. The pen extends our ability to write. The word processor functions as an extension of one’s ability to produce documents. Notice that the characteristic of transparency is an ideal to be sought for.
When a new version of a word processing package becomes so complicated with so many functions, icons, and commands, they are no longer intuitive, and become less transparent.
Teleconferencing in all its versions, whether audio or video, represent another “embodiment” technology. It is interesting to watch the lack of transparency present in a poorly run videoconference, where the users are all too aware of the cameras and whiteboards and videoconference paraphernalia.
So, we have discovered something interesting: if a technology is a tool, then visibility is a characteristic. One doesn’t attempt to hide a tool or implement. But, if technology is an embodiment technology, then transparency is desirable
Another type of technology can be classed as hermeneutic technologies. Hermeneutics means interpretation. In communications situations, we are especially interested in textual interpretation, based on reading. Speaking semiotically, “reading” and “texts” quickly expand beyond traditional textual readings.
Technology is a text which requires interpretation. The very technology we choose in teaching provides a built in bias. Technologies are not neutral. This is the famous message of Mcluhan’s cryptic phrase “the medium is the message.” Let me attempt to show you a musical explanation of “the medium is the message.” I want to play you a song from a 1920 musical by Sigmund Romberg titled The New Moon. The highlight of the musical is when the male lead realizes that if he is going to defeat the enemy, they need to build an army. Here is Gordon MacRae singing “Give me some men, who are stout hearted men and I’ll soon give you ten thousand more…” I want you to listen carefully to the lyrics, because I am then going to attempt to show you that the entire meaning of those lyrics change…merely by changing the medium. If my demonstration works, then the medium really will change the message. So let’s listen first to Gordon MacRae, building his army. Incidentally, you are listening to a recording from a very old and scratchy LP.
PLAY TAPE.
Now let’s make a couple changes. First Gordon MacRae’s tenor is replaced by the soprano voice of Barbra Streisand. Second, We move from the stirring martial rhythms to a cool jazz. The lyrics are totally unchanged. But if McLuhan is right, you will see the difference too. Again, not a word is changed, but when Barbra Streisand sings “Give me some men”, you quickly get the idea that she is not building an army. Listen…
So what is the point of all that? First to illustrate that the medium indeed is the message, and second to identify the importance of considering technology as a non-neutral text which requires interpretation. Sometimes that interpretation is complex and involved.
Let me give you an example of textual interpretation in action:
Let us take the opening sentence from the Charles Dickens classic short novel entitled “The cricket on the hearth”
It may be that this hermeneutic interpretation is one of the major omissions in the conversation of those who advocate technological solutions to education. Technologies are ways of presenting texts. But these texts are not literal transmissions such that what you see is what you get. On the contrary, the texts transmitted via technologies are vague, open to interpretation, slippery, and uncertain. One of the major tasks of trainers, instructors, and teachers is to work within the ambiguity of technological text
Best Practices
The theme of this conference today is “best practices”. The phrase is a little deceiving, because we know, through years of research, trial and error, that THERE IS NO ONE BEST WAY. We once thought that perhaps there was a master medium, but we have learned that there is no such thing. Television was supposed to change training and learning once, but the TV camera has not replaced any of you. Programmed instruction was supposed to take over in the 1950s. But it didn’t. It all prompted BF Skinner, founder of PI to comment: Any trainer who can be replaced by a machine should be. And then there was the bumper sticker, which read: Are you taking a job away from a machine?
So, we seek a better way; not the best way. Because even though there is not a best way, each medium of communication offers unique potential. What we need to do, is to continually search for that unique contribution that a medium can make to the instruction and training we deliver.
(Imagine, for example if I could have captured, say on video, my thinking about technology 20 years ago. If such were possible, the uniqueness of such a video would be to break the time-bound nature of other presentational techniques
SHOW VIDEO EXCERPT)
The question is not which is best, but which is better for a particular situation, at a given time. What is better today may no longer be better tomorrow.
So, what is technology? And what does this have to tell us about best practices?
Technology is clearly an elusive term. It is a broad, powerful and meaningful one. Technology is a state of mind. Technology is a kind of procedure. Technology is a culture. The human with technology is sometimes called a cyborg; yet a human without technology is not yet a human. Technology is a paradox.
What is evident is that the term “technology”, let alone its hybrid cousin “information technology” is a complex and deep construct. To dismiss technology as merely some sort of skill, some sort of ability to format computer discs or produce web-pages and understand a spreadsheet… this is not technology at all. Such a definition trivializes and demeans one of the most significant of human characteristics. If we dumb-down technology to a mere set of five or six basic time-bound current best uses of computers and their peripherals, we are not teaching technology, nor technological skills, nor technology literacy.
What is technology? Technology is form and function. Technology is cinema, from the silents, to the talkies, to Cinerama and Imax. Technology is the culture of television which Newton Minnow once called a “vast wasteland”, to the best of TV news, documentary and public service. Technology is what allows literature to exist from Gutenberg’s first printing press to today’s e-books. Technology is the contemporary kitchen with fast frozen foods, microwaves and dishwashers, and technology is the long gone cellar of home canned products. Technology is how and where we live, and how we make our environment user-friendly. Technology extends our senses in unbelievable ways. We swim faster than the fish; we move faster than animals; We fly higher than birds. Technology is our culture, our science, our religion, our hopes and our dreams. Technology as a mere foundation skill? No way. Technology as tool? Never. Technology as a set of competencies? Of course not. Quite simply, Technology is us.
_________________________________________________________________
Alternative Introduction
My purpose this morning is to suggest several alternative metaphors, or ways of perceiving technology. We will counter tool technology with toy technology, environmental technology, embodiment technology, hermeneutic technology, and finally, alterity technology.
Some of you may already be wondering how a discussion of what sounds like the philosophy of information technology matters to you who are not only practitioners, but also leading edge practitioners. Technology is not a tool? So what? There are several answers to this. First, as Canadian physicist Ursula Franklin has said, we live in the “house which technology has built.” That house is always in a state of renovation. You don’t just renovate without knowing why you are doing it. Second, as another Canadian, Marshall McLuhan has said, the medium is the message. We need to know what the implicit messages are from the new technologies. Third, it is interesting to note that this theoretic/critical/philosophic view on technologies is uniquely Canadian, and is what some have called the “Canadian discourse”. While the American discourse is grounded in a hands-on do-it-now philosophy, the Canadian discourse asks why? And what happens if...? Finally, analysis contributes to clarity. If my presentation today helps to see technology in a different and clearer light, then so much the better for practice.
Appendix:
Just two words to deal with. Although it is necessary to deconstruct technology within the context or theme of this conference: Best Practices.”
First we shall examine each term: deconstruct and technology. Then we shall look at common metaphors of information technology, and attempt to show how these metaphors are limiting. Other metaphors with other meanings will be suggested. The purpose of all of this: to open up the conversation of the many implications of the technological revolution as it impacts higher education.
Deconstruction is more than mere analysis. Deconstruction is a postmodern term which basically is an attempt to show that the very concepts under analysis contain the seeds of their own downfall.
The concept we want to deconstruct is technology. Specifically, I want to choose two metaphors which are very common today.