Top Banner
Tools of Engagement or Disengagement? J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D. Cedarville University 2006 CCCU Conference on Technology Cedarville University June 2, 2006
32

Tools of Engagement or Disengagement? J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D. Cedarville University 2006 CCCU Conference on Technology Cedarville University June 2, 2006.

Dec 27, 2015

Download

Documents

Colin Merritt
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Tools of Engagement or Disengagement? J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D. Cedarville University 2006 CCCU Conference on Technology Cedarville University June 2, 2006.

Tools of Engagement or Disengagement?

J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D.

Cedarville University

2006 CCCU Conference on Technology

Cedarville University • June 2, 2006

Page 2: Tools of Engagement or Disengagement? J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D. Cedarville University 2006 CCCU Conference on Technology Cedarville University June 2, 2006.

Hope in Technology?

• Technologies typically carry contradictory tendencies

Uniformity Individuality

Page 3: Tools of Engagement or Disengagement? J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D. Cedarville University 2006 CCCU Conference on Technology Cedarville University June 2, 2006.

Technology & Values

• “Technologies are amoral”

• Difference between moral neutrality and value neutrality

• Technologies carry inherent values that shape culture

• Technologies have consequences

= “Technologies are value-free”

Page 4: Tools of Engagement or Disengagement? J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D. Cedarville University 2006 CCCU Conference on Technology Cedarville University June 2, 2006.

Understanding Values

• By examining the technologies our students consider essential to their lifestyle, we can see how the values promoted by those technologies are reflected in our students.

Page 5: Tools of Engagement or Disengagement? J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D. Cedarville University 2006 CCCU Conference on Technology Cedarville University June 2, 2006.

Which Technologies?

• What technologies have the most influence on our students?

Page 6: Tools of Engagement or Disengagement? J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D. Cedarville University 2006 CCCU Conference on Technology Cedarville University June 2, 2006.

The Web for Information

• “. . . the Internet, more than any other medium, allows readers to self-select” (Mindich, 2005, p. 33).

• Mindich (2005) notes “how personal the news has become. . . . E-mail, Instant Messenger, and countless Web sites give us a ‘daily me,’ tailored to our particular tastes” (p. 77).

Page 7: Tools of Engagement or Disengagement? J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D. Cedarville University 2006 CCCU Conference on Technology Cedarville University June 2, 2006.

The Web for Information

• egocasting – “the thoroughly personalized and extremely narrow pursuit of one’s personal taste” (Rosen, 2004-2005, p. 52).

• “The world of egocasting is a “world where we . . . can consciously avoid ideas, sounds, and images that we don’t agree with or don’t enjoy” (Rosen, 2004-2005, p. 67).

Page 8: Tools of Engagement or Disengagement? J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D. Cedarville University 2006 CCCU Conference on Technology Cedarville University June 2, 2006.

The Web for Information

• Sustein, Republic.com (2001) – “‘People should be exposed to materials that they have not chosen in advance. Unplanned, unanticipated encounters are central to democracy itself’” (quoted by Rosen, 2004/2005, p. 68).

• “[O]ne of the most important functions of the press” may be “to bring people in contact with ideas that they do not agree with” (Mindich, 2005, p. 104).

Page 9: Tools of Engagement or Disengagement? J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D. Cedarville University 2006 CCCU Conference on Technology Cedarville University June 2, 2006.

Google

• These personalized technologies foster an impatience for what research demands. The more convenient our method of research, the weaker our resolve to meet the challenges posed by difficult and inconvenient methods of research. Aura now resides in the technological devices with which we access information (adapted from Rosen, 2004/2005, p. 70).

Page 10: Tools of Engagement or Disengagement? J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D. Cedarville University 2006 CCCU Conference on Technology Cedarville University June 2, 2006.

Social Networking

• “Real communities require a level of work, sacrifice, and accommodation that virtual ones do not always share” (Mindich, 2005, p. 90).

• “On the Internet, we are more likely to drop our virtual neighbors completely to get someone else who will agree with us” (Mindich, 2005, p. 91).

Page 11: Tools of Engagement or Disengagement? J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D. Cedarville University 2006 CCCU Conference on Technology Cedarville University June 2, 2006.

Social Networking

• “For [William A.] Galston, the ultimate problem with the Internet in terms of its civic and political ramifications is that its communities are so easy to exit” (Mindich, 2005, p. 91).

• Sunstein (Republic.com) “argues that our technologies—especially the Internet—are encouraging group polarization: ‘As the customization of our communications universe increases, society is in danger of fragmenting, shared communities in danger of dissolving’” (quoted by Rosen, 2004/2005, p. 68).

Page 12: Tools of Engagement or Disengagement? J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D. Cedarville University 2006 CCCU Conference on Technology Cedarville University June 2, 2006.

iPods

• “Technologies like TiVo and iPod enable unprecedented degrees of selective avoidance. The more control we can exercise over what we see and hear, the less prepared we are to be surprised” (Rosen, 2004/2005 p.67).

• Rosen (2004/2005) refers to such technologies as the remote control, TiVo and iPods as “ultra-personalized technologies” (p. 64).

Page 13: Tools of Engagement or Disengagement? J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D. Cedarville University 2006 CCCU Conference on Technology Cedarville University June 2, 2006.

iPods

• “[B]ecause the iPod is a portable technology, just like the cell phone, it has an impact on social space . . . . Those people with white wires dangling from their ears might be enjoying their unique life soundtrack, but they are also practicing ‘absent presence’ in public spaces, paying little or not attention to the world immediately around them” (Rosen, 2004/2005, p. 66).

Page 14: Tools of Engagement or Disengagement? J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D. Cedarville University 2006 CCCU Conference on Technology Cedarville University June 2, 2006.

iPods

• Devices such as iPods and cell phones have “an increasing potential for immersing people in private as opposed to collective worlds” (Gergen, 2002, p. 230).

Page 15: Tools of Engagement or Disengagement? J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D. Cedarville University 2006 CCCU Conference on Technology Cedarville University June 2, 2006.

Cell Phones

• Rosen (2004) raises the question, “[H]ow has the wireless telephone encouraged us to connect individually but disconnect socially, ceding, in the process, much that was civil and civilized about public space” (p. 26)?

• “Today . . . being accessible means answering your cell phone, which brings you in contact with your caller, but ‘out of contact’ in the physical social situation” (Rosen, 2004, p. 39).

Page 16: Tools of Engagement or Disengagement? J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D. Cedarville University 2006 CCCU Conference on Technology Cedarville University June 2, 2006.

Cell Phones

• “Kenneth J. Gergen . . . has argued that one reason cell phones allow a peculiar form of diversion in public spaces is that they encourage ‘absent presence,’ a state where ‘one is physically present but is absorbed by a technologically mediated world of elsewhere’” (Rosen, 2004, p. 41).

Page 17: Tools of Engagement or Disengagement? J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D. Cedarville University 2006 CCCU Conference on Technology Cedarville University June 2, 2006.

Cell Phones

• The result, according to Kenneth Gergen, is “the erosion of face-to-face community, a coherent and centered sense of self, moral bearings, depth of relationship, and the uprooting of meaning from material context: such are the dangers of absent presence” (Gergen, 2002, p. 236).

Page 18: Tools of Engagement or Disengagement? J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D. Cedarville University 2006 CCCU Conference on Technology Cedarville University June 2, 2006.

Cell Phones

• Cell phones, etc., are “used as a means to refuse to be ‘in’ the social space; they are technological cold shoulders that are worse than older forms of subordinate activity in that they impose visually and auditorialy on others. . . . We have allowed what should be subordinate activities in social space to become dominant” (Rosen, 2004, p. 38).

Page 19: Tools of Engagement or Disengagement? J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D. Cedarville University 2006 CCCU Conference on Technology Cedarville University June 2, 2006.

Cell Phones

• “Our constant accessibility and frequent exchange of information is undeniably useful. But it would be a terrible irony if ‘being connected’ required or encouraged a disconnection from community life—an erosion of the spontaneous encounters and everyday decencies that make society both civilized and tolerable” (Rosen, 2004, p. 45).

Page 20: Tools of Engagement or Disengagement? J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D. Cedarville University 2006 CCCU Conference on Technology Cedarville University June 2, 2006.

Disengaging Effects

• “ultra-personalization” (Rosen’s egocasting)

• Emersion in one’s private world (Negroponte’s “Daily Me”)

• Selective reinforcement/selective avoidance

• Loss of unanticipated encounters and exposure to different ideas (Sustein, Republic.com)

Page 21: Tools of Engagement or Disengagement? J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D. Cedarville University 2006 CCCU Conference on Technology Cedarville University June 2, 2006.

Disengaging Effects

• Impatience for “messy” processes

• Reliance on the easy technological solution, rather than difficult personal effort

Page 22: Tools of Engagement or Disengagement? J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D. Cedarville University 2006 CCCU Conference on Technology Cedarville University June 2, 2006.

Disengaging Effects

• Loose connection to virtual communities (Galston)

• Refusal to be in social space; absorbed in the technologically mediated world

• Loss of connection to real, face-to-face communities (Gergen’s “absent presence”)

Page 23: Tools of Engagement or Disengagement? J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D. Cedarville University 2006 CCCU Conference on Technology Cedarville University June 2, 2006.

Emerging Technologies

• Concept Maps – Brain-based learning

• Wiki -- Creating a shared body of knowledge

Page 24: Tools of Engagement or Disengagement? J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D. Cedarville University 2006 CCCU Conference on Technology Cedarville University June 2, 2006.

Concept Maps

• Concept maps were developed by Joseph D. Novak in 1972 at Cornell University

• They are “based on the learning psychology of David Ausubel” (Novak & Cañas, 2006, p. 2).

Page 25: Tools of Engagement or Disengagement? J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D. Cedarville University 2006 CCCU Conference on Technology Cedarville University June 2, 2006.

Concept Maps

• Concept maps were developed by JosephD. Novak in 1972 at Cornell University

• They are “based on the learning psychology of David Ausubel” (Novak & Cañas, 2006, p. 2).

Page 26: Tools of Engagement or Disengagement? J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D. Cedarville University 2006 CCCU Conference on Technology Cedarville University June 2, 2006.

Concept Maps

• Learning takes place by assimilation of new concepts into learner’s existing cognitive structure.

• In constructing a concept map, “the learner or team of learners is very actively engaged in the meaningful building process, an essential requirement for meaningful learning to occur” (Novak & Cañas, 2006, p. 20).

Page 27: Tools of Engagement or Disengagement? J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D. Cedarville University 2006 CCCU Conference on Technology Cedarville University June 2, 2006.

Wiki

• Students are treated as incipient scholars

• Expected to make contributions to the shared body of knowledge

• Promotes teamwork in a real social setting

• Have to negotiate product

Page 28: Tools of Engagement or Disengagement? J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D. Cedarville University 2006 CCCU Conference on Technology Cedarville University June 2, 2006.

Resources

• Baker, J. W. (1995, August). Christians in a technological culture. Paper presented to the Faith-Learning Institute, Cedarville University, Cedarville, OH. Retrieved May 29, 2006, from http://people.cedarville.edu/employee/bakerw/integrat/techcltr.htm

• “Concept maps become educational tools.” 2005, July 10. Springfield News-Sun, [Associated Press wire service article], p. 8D.

• Gergen, K. J. (2002). Cell phone technology and the realm of absent presence. In D. Katz & M. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance (pp. 227-241). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Page 29: Tools of Engagement or Disengagement? J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D. Cedarville University 2006 CCCU Conference on Technology Cedarville University June 2, 2006.

Resources

• Levy, S. & Stone, B. (2006, April 3). The new wisdom of the Web. Newsweek, 147 (14), 47-50, 52, 53.

• Lum, C. M. K. (2006). Notes toward an intellectual history of media ecology. In C. M. K. Lum (Ed.), Perspectives on culture, technology and communication: The media ecology tradition (pp. 1-60). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.

• Mindich, D. T. Z. (2005). Tuned out: Why Americans under 40 don’t follow the news. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

• Negroponte, N. (1995). Being Digital. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Page 30: Tools of Engagement or Disengagement? J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D. Cedarville University 2006 CCCU Conference on Technology Cedarville University June 2, 2006.

Resources

• Novak, J. D. & Cañas, A. J. (2006). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them. Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01. Pensacola, FL: Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition. Retrieved May 12, 2006 from http:// www.cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/RsearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf

• Rosen, C. (2004, Summer). Our cell phones, ourselves. The New Atlantis, No. 6, pp. 26-45. Retrieved May 29, 2006, from http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/6/TNA06-CRosen.pdf

Page 31: Tools of Engagement or Disengagement? J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D. Cedarville University 2006 CCCU Conference on Technology Cedarville University June 2, 2006.

Resources

• Rosen, C. (2004, Fall/2005, Winter). The age of egocasting. The New Atlantis, No. 7, pp. 51-72. Retrieved May 29, 2006, from http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/7/TNA07-Rosen.pdf

• Weaver, R. M. (1948). Ideas have consequences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

• Whiteley, S. (2005). Memletics concept mapping course. [Grayslake, IL]: Advanogy.com. Available from http://www.memletics.com/mind-concept-map-course/default.asp

Page 32: Tools of Engagement or Disengagement? J. Wesley Baker, Ph.D. Cedarville University 2006 CCCU Conference on Technology Cedarville University June 2, 2006.