Enhancing technologies

When we make use of a piece of technology it becomes an extension of our bodies, and allows use to do things we could not previously do, or allows us to do things better (Miller, 2011).

When our tools are complex, customisable, objects, e.g. a mobile phone, we are able to use them for many different purposes, and each individual will use them differently. We enhance ourselves in personal ways.

There is a common view that Technology Enhanced Learning presupposes that we will all use the same technologies in the same ways.  That is, we can all be trained to enhance particular abilities by using particular technologies in particular ways.  There is little accounting for individual differences in how we already / will use these tools.

To illustrate this, I will recount an ongoing situation that I am currently experiencing within my workplace.  The tool in question is the VLE – a highly customisable tool.  According to our Quality Manager, all of our lecturers must use it both for disseminating information, and as an interactive teaching tool.  The reason stated is that ‘FE staff look up to HE staff and expect them to be better’ which equates to ‘HE staff must be using the VLE to at least the same standard if not better’. Having explained that many HE staff do not use the VLE for interactive teaching because they use alternative tools that reflect what is commonly used in their industry and the tools that their students already / will use in their future professions, they could only fall back on the argument of FE looking up to HE.

This seems to be a case of ‘we have provided this tool and you will use it even if it is not the best tool for you and your students’.  And an expectation that all staff can enhance their students experience by using the same tools in the same ways regardless of individual needs and preferences.

No recognition is given for the innovative use of other technologies, even where these have been recognised and highlighted by external authorities as examples of good practice. How can this type of directive possibly enhance teaching or learning? And how does foregrounding the expectations of FE staff improve the quality of teaching and learning in HE?

Bayne, S. (2014) What’s the matter with “technology-enhanced learning”? [online]. Learning, Media and Technology. 40 (1), pp. 5–20. [Accessed 16 January 2015].

Miller, V. (2011) The Body and Information Technology. In: Understanding digital culture. London: Sage. pp. 207–223.

 

Review of week one

I remember watching the film about memory, and the one with the robots in the car, but for the life of me, I can’t remember the third video! My memory is unreliable; I do rely on technology to remember things – calendars / tasks. This week, I have been trialling a Livescribe Echo pen which has been recording meetings for me, word for word, but in a way that I can instantly access (remember) a particular part. Already I am missing the pen and my enhanced memory after having only used it for a few days. memory1

But in a few years time, we will be able to do so much more. Jason Sosa (2014, 7m50s) demonstrates that technology has now reached a point where our memories can be reconstructed, erased and/or implanted by artificial means; potentially useful in treatments for post traumatic stress, alzheimers or dementia. He also demonstrates images that have been reconstructed using MRI scans of brain activity – we can actually see what another person is experiencing / thinking. Imagine if we could record these on a memory stick? We would never have to take notes in a lecture / meeting again. We would have perfect recall.

memory3

This week has also introduced me to concepts new to me, transhumanism and posthumanism, and I am looking forward to examining these in more depth.  I am particularly fascinated by the ethical dilemmas surrounding the introduction of new technologies and how they are integrated into our society.

Spooky happenings – just published this blog and checked in on Twitter to find that Google have patented an AR device using some very odd gender stereotypes (O’Kane, 2015).

Magic leap

O’Kane, S. (2015) See the beautiful, nightmarish patent illustrations for a Google-funded augmented reality device. Available from: http://www.theverge.com/tldr/2015/1/17/7559473/google-magic-leap-patents-drawings [Accessed 18 January 2015].

Sosa, J. (2014) The coming transhuman era. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ugo2KEV2XQ#t=478 [Accessed 16 January 2015].

 

Initial thoughts on critical posthumanism

The concept/philosophy shares many similarities with transhumanism. However, it also acknowledges that humans have a cultural history that informs their future development, and that this history will continue to have import.

The critical posthuman is not the endstage in human evolution. It is an acknowledgement that we have expanded our conscious minds to account for more than humans. We are not anthropocentric, we are biocentric. In Hayles (1999) opinion, we are already posthuman.

To be continued as my cognitive posthuman schema evolves…

Hayles, K.N. (1999) Towards embodied virtuality. In: How we became posthuman: virtual bodies in cyernetics, literature and informatics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. pp. 293–297.