The future of intelligence

This is Part 3 in a series of blog posts on the future of learning and technology. In my previous blog post I examined the debate about whether we are becoming more intelligent or less intelligent as a result of our prolonged and habituated uses of technology. I believe that if we are to fully apprehend the many issues and nuances of our relationship with future technologies, we first need to begin to appreciate the complexity of human intelligence(s) and the problems associated with trying to model these digitally.

Many commentators express concern about the negative impact technology may have on our ability to think critically, construct knowledge and read/research more deeply. The argument is that we are becoming increasingly dependent on search engines and other tools, that trivialise knowledge and simplify what we learn. A secondary argument is that there is a large amount of content on the web that is spurious, deceiving or inaccurate, and that user generated sites such as Wikipedia and blogs undermine the authority of professionals and academics.

Futurologist Ray Kurzweil's argument looks beyond these issues, holding that the tools we have available to us as a result of networked social media and personal devices, actually enable us to increase our cognitive abilities. He argues that we are becoming more creative and have the potential for endless cognitive gain as a result of increased access to these technologies. His position is reminiscent of the work of American cognitive psychologist David Jonassen (1999) and his colleagues, who proposed that computers were mind tools, and that our cognitive abilities could be extended if we invested our memories into them. Others, such as George Siemens and Karen Stephenson hold that we store our knowledge with our friends, and that connected peer networks are where learning occurs in the digital age. British computer scientist and philosopher Andy Clark, is of the opinion that we are all naturally aligned to using technology. In his seminal work, Natural Born Cyborgs (2003), Clark sees a future that combines the best features of human and machine, where we literally wear or physically internalise our technologies.

There are examples of how such cyborg existence might come about. Recently, demonstrations of Google Glass, eyewear that connects you via augmented reality software and gestural control to information beyond your normal visual experience, and Muse, a brain-wave sensing headband, have veered us in the direction of cyborg experience. I predict that other devices, wearable, natural gesture based, and sensor rich, will appear in the next few years, and these will be affordable to many. And yet, as science fiction writer William Gibson intoned, the future may be here already, but it's just not evenly distributed. He is right. A persistent digital divide exists between the industrialised world and emerging countries. Mobile phones may be proliferating rapidly, but Divides are also evident within western digital society where some invest in new technology, and a whole spectrum of other responses, from mildly enthusiastic to outright rejection are present in the population. There are even divides between those who can use the technologies and those who can't. Technology remains unevenly distributed, and will be for some time to come. But the digital divide will not stop the march of technology. What might wearables and non-touch interfaces achieve for us?

It is debatable whether wearable and invasive technologies will increase our intelligence. What such tools might be able to do though, is free us up physically, enhancing our visual capabilities, and enabling us to control devices hands free. They will also enable us to free up cognitive resources, by distributing our thinking and memory, enabling us to focus on important things such as creativity, intuitive thinking, critical reflection and conducting personal relationships, while the wearable computer navigates, searches, discovers, stores, retrieves, organises and connects for us. It will not make us smarter, but technology will enable us to behave smarter, work smarter and learn smarter. That's if we accept that ultimately, the success or failure of such tools is really down to us and us alone.

References
Clark, A. J. (2003) Natural Born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies and the Future of Human Intelligence. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. and Wilson, B. (1999) Learning with Technology: A Constructivist Perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Photo by Jussi Mononen


The future of intelligence by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Bring your own

Mobile learning is on the rise. It was inevitable that the mobile phone would be brought into the classroom, with or without 'permission'. Many children use their mobile phones in class even though school rules forbid them to do so. What would encourage schools to sanction the use of personal devices?

There has been a lot of discussion recently about Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) in schools. There are two camps forming. On one side, there are those who believe that children should not be permitted to use their own devices in the school because mobile phones are distracting, can cause behaviour management issues and can also lead for example to serious issues such as cyberbullying and sexting. There are also teachers who fear that allowing children to bring their own devices will amplify the socio-economic digital divide - a kind of Bring Your Own Divide. Some children will have the latest, expensive devices while others from less affluent families will have cheaper, less enabled devices, or none at all. Concerns have also been voiced about liability and the potential loss, theft or damage of devices while children are inside the boundaries of the school.

On the other side, there are teachers who believe that allowing children to bring their own devices into school will liberate learning. Supporters of BYOD argue that allowing students to use their own devices, with which they are familiar, will give them a head-start where they don't need to learn to use a tool before learning through it. Children already use their mobile devices for a large variety of social purposes, including networking with their friends, accessing peer-related information and sharing content (images, links, status updates). The argument is that it would be natural for children to use their devices for learning in formalised settings. Teachers who support BYOD argue that children will feel more comfortable using their own devices, that BYOD will teach children to take more responsibility for their actions, and that policing their use should not be problematic.

This is a simplified version of what is shaping up to be a complex debate, but there is a strong case for both sides of the argument. There are of course many grey areas too. Some teachers have no strong views about BYOD, but for those who are actually implementing BYOD in the classroom, there are claims of positive outcomes.

In a post at the end of 2011 I reported on my visit to Albany Senior High School in Auckland, New Zealand, who have been supporting a school wide BYOD scheme for some time. To get around the problem of the perceived 'digital divide' the school also provides laptops and other tools for children who don't have their own personal device. They have also discovered that giving children the responsibility to manage their own learning through their own devices has largely eliminated behavioural problems. Children cherish the freedom to use their own devices, don't wish to run the risk of losing their privilege, and therefore take the responsibility to keep within the school rules seriously.

What are your views on the debate? Do you know of schools that have successfully implemented school-wide BYOD?  Do you have stories of BYOD failure?

Image by Freefoto


Bring your own by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

The elephant in the room

Far too many futurologists, authors and commentators are ignoring the issue of the digital divide. Several books I have read recently on new and emerging technologies provide a healthy balance. They eulogise about the benefits, and are circumspect about the dangers of technology. Yet few acknowledge that many members of society are still technologically peripheral. The digital divide will not go away, but it cannot be ignored. Some even talk about the 'digital dividend', which to me sounds very much like a neat side step around the main issue. Avoiding the issue is not helpful. Call it what you want - digital exclusion, techno-marginalisation, analogue culture. It's the elephant in the room, and those who hold the purse strings are steadfastly looking away from it. Not everyone can participate in the digital society. Some people don't have mobile phones, and many more are not, nor ever will be, on Facebook, regardless of the hype Zuckerberg and his pals periodically peddle.

Some don't have access to the tools that enable this kind of participation. But to be fair, the digital divide is not always about lack of money, even though most accounts cite this as the prime cause. Some people avoid participation in the digital world even though they have the resources to fully participate. They become refuseniks, techno-luddites, laggards. Still others simply don't have the skills or literacies to meaningfully involve themselves in the digital society. It's not always about money. Not only are there the 'haves and have nots', there are also the 'wills and will nots' and the 'cans and cannots'.

Regardless of the causes - whether the divide is socio-economic, psychological or practical - the fact is, many people around the globe will not be subscribing to the digital citizen club any time soon.

Those of us who work at the 'chalk-face' are limited in what we can do to bridge the digital divide but we are not completely powerless. Many people choose to create that gulf between themselves and the connected world. For any number of reasons, they refuse to participate. Those who are lacking skill or confidence are another matter. We should make it our duty to help such people to gain the confidence they need, and that is exactly what many teachers are doing. The big challenge to all teachers and trainers now is this: How do we continue to develop 21st century learning, when there are always those few who are stuck (for whatever reason) in the last century?

Most of the problems are caused by lack of provision. Lack of broadband infrastructure. Lack of training opportunities. Lack of finance. The digital agenda of many western governments is falling sadly short of its intended outcomes, because the issues are far more complex than anyone could have imagined. Those in authority need to wake up and acknowledge that the digital divide is one of the key threats to lack of progress and that there are many causes. So just how long will it take until people wake up and notice the elephant in the room? Will they continue to ignore it until it fouls the carpet?

Image by Tom Clearwood


The elephant in the room by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

All together now...

Last week I sent out a call on Twitter for people to send me interesting education questions for me to discuss, or issues to expose. Over the next few blog posts I'm planning to respond to some of the conundrums that were sent back to me. The first question I'm going to comment on came via Craig Taylor who asked how we should address 'the disconnect between how learners are learning to learn during their formal education years and the lack of tools/opportunities.'

This is an important question for all teachers to consider, but before they can address such a disconnect, they need to be aware that the problem exists, and then acknowledge it. There is a divide for example, between the technology children have at home and what they are provided with in school. Often, for poorer families, there is no computer at home, or if there is, it is an old computer, possibly with no internet connection. Even for children who do have internet connected computers at home, there may be limited, or no access because their parents or older siblings may get first use. Children who can't access computers at home are often at a disadvantage because they can't complete all of their homework, or they have no connection to send their assignments in to their teachers via e-mail. At the other end of the spectrum are those children from more affluent families who have technology at home that is far superior to the technology provided in the school. This may not seem to be as much a problem as the first scenario, but it nevertheless causes problems for some children. Whenever I visiting school (in the UK or in other industrialised nations) I notice that the children greatly outnumber the available computers. It's common to see several children grouped around each computer, all struggling to see the screen and competing for the keyboard and mouse.

Another problem related to the above, and one that is rarely considered, is the issue of transition from Primary to Secondary education. If a child transfers from a technology rich primary school into a technology poor secondary school, where resources are limited and need to be shared with many more children, other kinds of digital divide are experienced. What are the answers to these disconnects? Are there any? Well, as always, we can learn from initiatives in other countries.

There have been attempts to address the problem of ICT provision in poor regions of the world. Nicholas Negroponte's One Laptop Per Child Project for example, was meant to be an answer to the digital divide. OLPC was an admirable project, but arguably and ultimately, it was has been less successful than was predicted. The low cost laptop was designed from the top down, with little or no consultation with those who would be the end users. Those who would be the main stakeholders were not consulted. It was essentially one man's crusade against poverty. Units were shipped out in their thousands, and although some were used, a large number of laptops gathered dust because no-one knew quite what to do with them. Ultimately, with declining government support and loss of sponsorship, the OLPC project downsized and laid off staff. It could be argued that OLPC was too far ahead of its time, but more realistically, the failure of the project was probably down to a lack of consulting and a failure to plan ahead.

At the 2010 IFIP World Computer Congress in Brisbane, I heard former Vice Chancellor of the British Open University Sir John Daniel compare OLPC with another project aimed at children in poverty - Sugata Mitra's highly successful Hole in the Wall initiative. Sir John said that the OLPC project resulted to a great extent on solo learning and discovery whilst Sugata Mitra's project involved young people learning together in small groups. The social aspect alone, he suggested, led to more success in learning outcomes and a richer experience. Either project could result in learning with no teachers present. The motivation to learn however, came not from having access to a computer, but from the curiosity of discovery within a social context, leading to opportunities to explore and gain knowledge together.

Whilst neither of the above examples actually offers a solution to the digital divides we witness between school and home, they do illustrate a very important point. Children learn more successfully when they are in small groups, and they learn more when they are interested and motivated. Perhaps the lack of computers in schools is having positive outcomes. Although it's not an ideal situation, there may be a silver lining to the cloud - with 2 or 3 children grouped around each computer may come the possibilities of richer social interaction and better connected thinking.

Image source by San Jose

All together now... by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Bridging the divide

The United Kingdom is one of the richest countries in the world, and yet, in the second decade of the 21st Century, it still has one million children without access to computers and 2 million with no access to the Internet. The digital divide is real. A Guardian article today reads:

"More than one million children in Britain live in homes without computers and a further two million have no internet connection at home, a charity said yesterday). The e-Learning Foundation said it feared the gap between rich and poor pupils' performance at school would widen unless more was done to ensure that every child can use a computer at home".

This has always been one of the most trenchant problems with technology. The divide between the 'haves' and the 'have nots' may be economic, but it has far reaching social, cultural and political consequences. Relatively, the UK is better off than most other countries in the world, but as the BBC News website reports, there are still a million children who are being left behind. As affluent as it is, the UK still cannot claim to have provided universal access to one of the most basic educational resources. The connection has already been made between access to home computers and learning excellence. It is patently clear that children who do not have home computer/internet access are at a disadvantage when it comes to completing homework, researching assignments and sustaining informal learning. In the last two decades there have been many initiatives in the UK and elsewhere to establish ubiquitous access to the web. It's an essential tool for learning. It seems these initiatives have only been partially successful, and we are still failing many of our children through lack of vision. What should be done next to bridge the digital divide?

Image source


Bridging the digital divide by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

The Lite goes on

I wrote yesterday that I had submitted a poem about the divide between the generations as a part of the workshop on the digital divide at ALT-C next week. Well isn't life interesting? My poem features the infamous Nintendo DS Lite. There is also a quip about Brain Training software. My son has a Nintendo DS. Both my daughters have one each (one is actually a lurid pink - the DS not my daughter). I even gave one to my wife for Christmas (look, stop it). But me.... I have never even touched one. Never felt the need to. Until today, that is.

This morning, sat smiling at me on top of my Faculty of Education standard issue desk, was a parcel. Contained therein was a free, spanking new, Nintendo DS Lite, complete with Brain Training software. Courtesy of HandHeld Learning 2008 - the conference that will be held in London in October. I had forgotten about it completely! Apparently if you registered as an early bird before the deadline, you were given one free to use at the conference. At the time I thought it was an excellent marketing ploy and an innovative idea. True to their promise, Handheld Learning sent me a DS Lite. Bummer. Now I will have to spend time getting to know how to use it. More time spent having to learn how to use these new fangled gadgets... I don't know. I think I'm turning into a grumpy old man.

Anyway, here's the link to the poem for you to (hopefully) enjoy.

Slamming about again

At ALT-C 2008 next week there will be several workshops, but one of those I will not miss is the one entitled 'Learning about the Digital Divide', run by Frances Bell, Josie Fraser, Helen Keegan (remember them doing the illustrious Web 2.0 slam at ALT-C Nottingham last year?) joined this year by Cristina Costa (the pocket dynamo of Web 2.0) and Frank Theissen. Out of last year's workshop came a number of interesting artefacts including the cult website Hood 2.0 - which incidently has a workshop in its own right this year! Last year was not only great fun, but also innovative and challenging. I chaired the session, and it was one of the most enjoyable workshops I have every presided over.

This year they have gone one step further and have created a Digital Divide wiki using Wetpaint in which they are inviting everyone and anyone to submit a 'Digital Divide' slam. I have sent one in already - it's a poem entitled 'Hooked' - about the digital divide between immigrants and natives. Check out the site and contribute if you have something you want to get off your chest.... oh, and see you there, I hope.

Only here for the fear

An item today on the BBC news web reports that British Telecom is commisioning the men in white coats (read psychologists) to study why some people avoid using the Internet. A quote from the report states: 'Early research done for the project suggests that, for some, using the net is as stressful as a bungee jump'. Well fancy that - how do they know? Let's push this experiment to the limit shall we? Let's get the 'subjects' to use the Internet (on wireless laptops or handheld) whilst doing a bungee jump, and let's get them to gargle with TCP for good measure. Then we can measure real technophobia. To heck with the ethics. (Only joking .... I wouldn't use the TCP).

It will be interesting to see what the men in white coats come up with in their findings, as to whether BT will be pleased about the outcome. I think we already know the answer to that don't we? After all, BT are paying.

Every child connected

Seems our cousins across the other side of the pond are having similar problems to us, at least in their schools. This post from Mike Hasley's Election 2008 blog says it all:

Instead of “No Child Left Behind,” our goal should be “Every Child Connected.” The digital divide in our country is worse than it was 10 years ago before our schools were wired. Most public schools still have students visiting computers only for a few hours a week in computer labs. With every major corporation in the world connecting its customers, employees, and suppliers, to 24-hour networks regardless of whether they are using computers, cell phones, PDA’s, etc. providing them access to massive data resources, there is no reason we can’t build a similar networked ability for our students, teachers, and parents 24 hours a day to access the greatest libraries of the world. This will accelerate the professional development of teachers to use the new technology as well as transform education from being something that happens primarily only in school buildings into an ongoing process that facilitates learning moments happening wherever and whenever possible.

The Who released a song with the lyrics: 'Meet the New Boss, same as the Old Boss'. This is certainly true in the UK this week with Brown replacing Blair.... and we all got fooled again. It might also, sadly, be true for the USA next year, at least in terms of policy if not gender....

Living in a post-modem world

Blimey. Talk about digital divides... yesterday the BBC [BBC News 24, 2 January 2007] reported that by the end of this month 13 million households in the UK will be connected to broadband. That's half the households in Britain for Tim's sake. It's all because there are over 200 broadband providers in the UK, all fighting for an ever dwindling population of customers, and all being so competitive that by the end of 2007 half of them will be dead in the water.

Got me thinking... if half of all UK households can now access high speed Internet what can we expect?

• Firstly, more people will be watching video and other megabyte hungry media on their pcs - does this mean the death of terrestrial broadcasting? Will YouTube replace Channel 4?
• Secondly, more people will pay to download music from the Internet and less will be going into town to buy CDs. Is the end of HMV and Virgin Records in sight?
• Thirdly, more people will be shopping on Amazon, E-Bay and other online retailers than before. Get your food delivered direct to your doorstep by Tesco or Sainsbury! (It's a shame we can't get our rubbish collected from our doorstep by the local council. They haven't been around for almost 2 weeks over the Christmas break and the wheelie bins are disgusting).

Yesterday Rupert Goodwins of ZDNet UK was interviewed by BBC News. He remarked that 'the Internet is non-geographical' (as he sat firmly on a seat in the Edinburgh studio). I think I know what he means, but then he went too far with 'everyone is now online'. I don't think so. My Mum and Dad are steadfastly non-Internet and so is my rabbit Charlie (although I am thinking of breaching privacy rules and placing a webcam in his hutch), and I reckon there are one or two others in the UK who are just not interested :-P. So we still have a digital divide and it's not just those who have and don't have broadband. It's also those who couldn't care less about the Web.