Thinking About Technology
•
6 likes•1,459 views
Presentation for a guest lecture for a colleague's Media History and Contemporary Issues course. She wanted me to cover technological determinism and social constructivism, as well as through in some content about my research on multitasking and online reading.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (19)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (13)
Similar to Thinking About Technology
Similar to Thinking About Technology (20)
More from Randy Connolly
More from Randy Connolly (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Thinking About Technology
- 1. How to think about technology Determinism, Constructivism, Momentum
- 2. Randyconnolly Professor, dept. computer science Mount royal university Calgary, canada
- 4. The common way of seeing technology is that it is akin to a cue ball impacting or altering the rest of society
- 5. In this perspective key technological inventions have transformedthe world. Thus new technologies need to be analyzed to understand the wide changes they will enact.
- 6. This approach to technology is generally referred to as Technological Determinism
- 7. (society, politics, economy, psychology, etc) Independent Variable Dependent Variables Technological Change determines
- 8. It is understandable why computer professionals find technological determinism attractive. We are the people helping to invent new technologies
- 9. It is also understandable why media professionals find technological determinism attractive.
- 10. It feeds our clear desire to be socially relevant
- 11. … and our desire to believe that we computer geeks (or media people)are the driver of social change, and not politicians, business people, or celebrities.
- 13. Most current historians and sociologists of technology firmly reject technological determinism theoretically inconsistent because it is empirically under-supported and
- 14. The well-established academic field of science, technology and society (STS) studies has time and time again found that when examined carefully most technologies rarely have had the effect that was expected or had the transformative impact people claim.
- 17. Some examples …
- 18. First some fine examples of bridges in the United States in the late 19thcentury. To begin, let’s look at a high technology of the 19thcentury: bridges.
- 21. Now, contrast those to some bridges built in the United Kingdom at the same time.
- 29. Again, contrast those to some bridges built in the United States at the same time.
- 34. British bridges were “treated as monuments symbolizing progress already achieved, the whole ethos surrounding their American counterparts was one of expectations of future progress.” --Arnold Pacey, The Maze of Ingenuity: Ideas and Idealism in the Development of Technology Both these bridges were built in 1890 and cross a similar width of river, one in Britain, the other in the United States
- 35. The hot new technology of the 1850s?
- 41. What was the point of all this decoration?
- 44. 1893 World’s Fair Chicago -Edison DC (internal) -Westinghouse AC (External)
- 47. 1912 Stanley Steam Car
- 51. Sholes original typewriters were plagued by the bars jamming when typist typed too quickly. Remington (which bought Sholes), solved the problem in the 1880s with qwerty keyboard (i.e., made it harder to type quicker) and also allowed salesmen to quick type TYEWRITER. Example of alternate keyboard arrangement that is significantly quicker to type on.
- 52. “Because small, random events that happen early can be magnified to have great importance later, the eventual outcome can depend quite sensitively on circumstances –it is path dependent. … Such path dependence implies that the outcome can not be predicted with any certainty ahead of time.” Robert Pool, Beyond Engineering: How Society Shapes Technology(1997)
- 53. Technological determinism visualizes competing technologies as a marble in a bowl: gravity forces it towards the same destination regardless of the path it take (and thus technology is predictable)
- 54. Constructivist historians see technologies like a marble poised on top of an upside down bowl: the path the marble takes (and its resulting destination) can be quite different. Its path can be quite complicated to understand, and requires examining factors such as: the dissemination of scientific discoveries, existing technological infrastructure, market judgments, organizational decisions, actions by key individuals, etc.
- 55. however
- 56. While the path a technology takes will depend on a wide variety of factors made near the beginning of a technology’s development, it eventually follows a path that is constrained and difficult to veer from. Some people have called this technological momentum. A technology develops momentum or has inertia due to established interests (financial, educational, biases, social practices, etc) and it can be very difficult for a technology to shift or change drastically after that early stage.
- 58. Most technological deterministic impact prognosticators do their work by looking at the functional capabilities of a given technology and then imagining the impact of those functions.
- 61. The introduction of anti-lock disc brakes have not reduced accidents at all, because drivers tend to drive faster and tailgate more closely due to the improved braking technology and also partly because of increases in the intensity of traffic due to unexpected changes in urban geography.
- 63. The introduction of household technology did not end up creating, in the words of Ruth Schwartz Cowan, less work for mother, but in fact more work because of a series of social changes that could not have been predicted if one limited one’s analysis just to the functional capabilities of the household technologies.
- 65. it is always a mistake “to assess the impact of a technology on the basis of inference from capabilities instead of on the basis of evidence”
- 67. If we do examine the evidence we will see that the intrusion of ICT into reading is NOT improving human knowledge but doing the opposite
- 69. Are there differences in the reading experience between paper and screen?
- 70. There is evidence that YES readers’ comprehension levels are significantly lowerwhen reading materials on the screen in comparison to reading paper materials
- 71. EvelandJr, W. P., & Dunwoody, S. (2001). User control and structural isomorphism or disorientation and cognitive load?: Learning from the web versus print. Communication Research, 28(1). Liu, Z. (2005). Reading behavior in the digital environment. Journal of Documentation, 61(6). Macedo-Rouet, M., Rouet, J. F., Epstein, I., & Fayard, P. (2003). Effects of online reading on popular science comprehension. Science Communication, 25(2). Ji, S. W., Michaels, S., & Waterman, D. (2014). Print vs. electronic readings in college courses: Cost-efficiency and perceived learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 21. Ackerman, R., & Lauterman, T. (2012). Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time pressure. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5) DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J. A. (2007). Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3). Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research.
- 72. Why are comprehension levels lower?
- 73. Scanning while Consuming electronic text
- 74. Research into actual behavior when consuming text online provides clear explanation for diminished comprehension
- 75. Early research into web usability quickly uncovered a very important fact about how people actually read on the web
- 77. How long do you spend visiting a web page? You’re looking at the answer
- 78. The evidence for this is verystrong It has been empirically verified via server records, eye tracking in labs, and monitoring software.
- 81. The science for this is very well validated empirically Users are reading at best 20% of the text on a web page.
- 82. Are academics any different?
- 83. NOPE
- 84. Reading time: Paper 10-15 min
- 85. Reading time: acrobat pdf 1-2 min
- 86. users rarely have even remotely accurate insight into their actual scanning behaviors
- 87. Academic’s self- assessment of their pdfreading time 5-10 min
- 89. One absolutely vital feature of most current electronic reading devices is that they contain within them substantial potential for distractibility.
- 90. This potential distractibility lowers comprehension levels and lowers task completion probabilities.
- 91. It is becoming progressively more common for people to multitask, especially in regards to different media technologies.
- 92. Who cares? Some have argued that younger digital generation can multitask successfully
- 93. unfortunately The evidence tells a different story
- 94. For instance
- 95. Bowman, L. L., Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Gendron, M. (2010). Can students really multitask? an experimental study of instant messaging while reading.Computers & Education, 54 (4) Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Bowman, L. L. (2012). Mobile media use, multitasking and distractibility.International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning (IJCBPL), 2(3), 15-29. Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(37) Aguilar-Roca, N. M., Williams, A. E., & O'Dowd, D. K. (2012). The impact of laptop-free zones on student performance and attitudes in large lectures. Computers & Education, 59 (4) Fried, C. B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers & Education, 50(3), Junco, R., & Cotten, S. R. (2012). No A 4 U: The relationship between multitasking and academic performance.Computers & Education, 59(2), 505-514. Lee, Y., & Wu, J. (2012). The effect of individual differences in the inner and outer states of ICT on engagement in online reading activities and PISA 2009 reading literacy: Exploring the relationship between the old and new reading literacy.Learning and Individual Differences, 22 (3) Judd, T., & Kennedy, G. (2011). Measurement and evidence of computer- based task switching and multitasking by ‘Net generation’ students. Computers & Education, 56 (3), Brasel, S. A., & Gips, J. (2011). Media multitasking behavior: Concurrent television and computer usage. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(9). Yeykelis, L., Cummings, J. J., & Reeves, B. (2014). Multitasking on a single device: Arousal and the frequency, anticipation, and prediction of switching between media content on a computer. Journal of Communication Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers & Education, 62. Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(4) Wood, E., Zivcakova, L., Gentile, P., Archer, K., De Pasquale, D., & Nosko, A. (2012). Examining the impact of off-task multi-tasking with technology on real-time classroom learning. Computers & Education, 58(1).
- 96. the evidence is very consistent Heavy media multitaskers(of any age) have lower grades, less self-regulation, lower motivation levels, and lowered learning
- 97. So is this just something that only those young kids are doing?
- 98. NOPE
- 99. How frequently will this person switch her attention between devices?
- 100. About every 2 to 5 seconds Attention lengths of 5 seconds for laptop, and 2 seconds for TV
- 101. Multi-tasking on one device? Task switch happens about every 19 seconds
- 102. Are we aware of how frequently we task switch?
- 103. NOPE
- 104. Test subjects underestimated their attention switches by 88%
- 105. In An overview of the evidence researchers concluded that availability and usage of ICT had a direct and negative impact on literacy , knowledge, grades , and creativity (even after controlling for other factors)
- 107. please is this almost over?
- 108. YUP
- 109. In all these cases the expected social impacts of a technology ended up being wildly wrong because either the prognosticators believed in a naïve technological determinism
- 110. or Because the prognosticators Used simplistic future models Based on the technology’s Functional capabilities
- 111. The first step Then we should take when Thinking about social consequences Of technology is to remember how rarely technologies achieve their promise, and indeed, how many do the opposite.
- 112. The SECOND STEP IS TO RECOGNIZE THAT TECHNOLOGIES DO HAVE AN EFFECT ON PEOPLE AND SOCIETY. MOMENTUM EXISTS … UNFORTUNATELY, THE PATH TAKEN BY A TECHNOLOGY IS OFTEN NOT THE ONE INTENDED, OR ONE THAT IS EASILY UNDERSTOOD.
- 113. The third step Is not relying on anecdotal evidence, marketing hype, or hasty web-based journalism When looking for evidence about social effects of technologies.
- 114. There are many excellent evidence-basedacademic journals that should be your source for information about social consequences of new technologies.