Invisible, Inevitable, Paradoxical Technology

Jesuit schools have a long history of engagement with technology- from the telescopes and mechanical devices of the seventeenth century to the radio transmitters and computers of the twentieth. But today new technologies raise questions about core values of Jesuit education. How do we integrate both the technologies and the hallmarks of the Jesuit educational traditioncompassion, critical thinking, community, self-knowledge-when the technology seems to contradict those values? Can technology teach us? Can we teach technology? We cannot avoid the question because technology plays an unavmdable role in our lives. Most people would agree that technology has some effect on us, though not all would agree on the specific effects or on the valuation of those effects. Each of us can probably reel off anecdotes about our students\u27 dependence on technology, from the positive influence of computers on visual thinking to the hours wasted on video games. Are these new technologies merely tools and toys, or are they something more? What should faculty at Jesuit colleges and universities do about technology? How do we respond to key issues raised by technology\u27 Can we integrate technology better into the teaching, research, and human living that defines us as communities? Before we enter into a conversation about these things, I propose that we step back from those specific questions and ask something more basic about technology in general. First, I will review how we take technology for granted and the paradoxes that result from such a stance. Second, I will examine our reactions Lo technology when we do ponder it more carefully-these too ha\T their own paradoxes. Finally, I will return to the questions posed earlier about Jesuit schools and technology and suggest some answers based on those first two explorations. To put things differently, let us take a closer look at technology: how we don\u27t see it, how we do see it, and then how we might see it

Literacy and educational fundamentalism: an interview with Allan Luke

An interview on literacy at McGill University, 2003

Digital Technology and the End of Social Studies Education

In Fall 2000, when "Theory and Research in Social Education" (TRSE) first dedicated an issue to technologies in social studies education, Neil Postman contributed a View Point piece to this issue. Postman, who died in 2003, was an interesting choice because he was an outspoken critic of educational technology who believed that, as he said at the time, "the new technologies both in and out of the classroom are a distraction and an irrelevance." Taking his cue from Postman, the author addresses the issue of digital technology in social studies education by telling a story of his own. He offers a wandering narrative -- and an old-fashioned one at that -- common in the religious stories that Postman saw as the prototype for all cultural stories: the narrative of faith, tested by doubt, emerging reaffirmed. He also discusses two elements that he believes need to be far more present in social studies education, at the pre-service and K-12 level: (1) Clearer disciplinary perspectives; and (2) easier ways of working with data within these perspectives. Technologies, if carefully designed, can be helpful in both areas

Peeling Back the Student Privacy Pledge

Education software is a multi-billion dollar industry that is rapidly growing. The federal government has encouraged this growth through a series of initiatives that reward schools for tracking and aggregating student data. Amid this increasingly digitized education landscape, parents and educators have begun to raise concerns about the scope and security of student data collection. Industry players, rather than policymakers, have so far led efforts to protect student data. Central to these efforts is the Student Privacy Pledge, a set of standards that providers of digital education services have voluntarily adopted. By many accounts, the Pledge has been a success. Since its introduction in 2014, over 300 companies have signed on, indicating widespread commitment to the Pledge’s seemingly broad protections for student privacy. This industry participation is encouraging, but the Pledge does not contain any meaningful oversight or enforcement provisions. This Article analyzes whether signatory companies are actually complying with the Pledge rather than just paying lip service to its goals. By looking to the privacy policies and terms of service of a sample of the Pledge’s signatories, I conclude that noncompliance may be a significant and prevalent issue. Consumers of education software have some power to hold signatories accountable, but their oversight abilities are limited. This Article argues that the federal government, specifically the Federal Trade Commission, is best positioned to enforce compliance with the Pledge and should hold Pledge signatories to their promises

Emerging technologies for learning (volume 1)

Collection of 5 articles on emerging technologies and trend

Peeling Back the Student Privacy Pledge

Education software is a multi-billion dollar industry that is rapidly growing. The federal government has encouraged this growth through a series of initiatives that reward schools for tracking and aggregating student data. Amid this increasingly digitized education landscape, parents and educators have begun to raise concerns about the scope and security of student data collection. Industry players, rather than policymakers, have so far led efforts to protect student data. Central to these efforts is the Student Privacy Pledge, a set of standards that providers of digital education services have voluntarily adopted. By many accounts, the Pledge has been a success. Since its introduction in 2014, over 300 companies have signed on, indicating widespread commitment to the Pledge’s seemingly broad protections for student privacy. This industry participation is encouraging, but the Pledge does not contain any meaningful oversight or enforcement provisions. This Article analyzes whether signatory companies are actually complying with the Pledge rather than just paying lip service to its goals. By looking to the privacy policies and terms of service of a sample of the Pledge’s signatories, I conclude that noncompliance may be a significant and prevalent issue. Consumers of education software have some power to hold signatories accountable, but their oversight abilities are limited. This Article argues that the federal government, specifically the Federal Trade Commission, is best positioned to enforce compliance with the Pledge and should hold Pledge signatories to their promises

Pull and Push: Strengthening Demand for Innovation in Education

Examines policy, information, and cultural barriers that minimize the "demand pull" for educational innovation. Calls for encouraging early adopters, bolstering smart adoption, providing better information, and rewarding productivity improvements

Harnessing Technology: new modes of technology-enhanced learning: action research, March 2009

5 action research studie

Networked learning in higher education: Practitioners’ perspectives

There is a growing use of a variety of communications media to provide networked learning in higher education. The practitioners in the field vary from experienced educators who have many years’ experience to early adopters who have begun to use networked technology for teaching and learning recently. Using interviews informed by a phenomenographic approach, this paper investigates the varieties of experience of practitioners of networked learning. It reports initial findings that represent an early stage of analysis. The findings point towards a common philosophy held by current practitioners of networked learning but a lack of ‘rules of thumb’. Practitioners expressed ideas close to a new paradigm in education but were cautious about specific design outcomes meeting expectations. This finding raises questions about design and whether networked learning is yet stable enough a field to provide guidance on best practice. The paper also reflects on criticisms of the phenomenographic method, in particular its reliance on interview data, and offers some possible ways of dealing with the criticisms