virtual classrooms

I am a strong advocate for online learning, and just like anything it has pros and cons. I believe the pros greatly outweigh the cons. For me, I became pretty sick this semester and due to attendance policies and the necessity to come to school to take my tests I fell behind. With online classes I would have been able to keep up with everything at my house. Also, I would not risk getting my classmates sick if they can only see my through a computer screen. Another benefit is the fact that college students are totally swarmed with so many problems and tasks that some days we cannot complete that homework assignment on time. For an online class we would be able to work as quickly or as slowly as needed. Also, commuting would be obsolete and that would save me tons of money in gas because I drive 30 minutes one way to school, and that also requires me to wake up earlier than students who live on campus.
Some of the negative aspects would be the personal interactions. I feel one of the main problems with modern technology is the encouragement for less and less face time as possible. I hate the fact that text messaging is replacing normal conversation. An online classroom would amplify the isolation because going to class is sometimes the only personal time that some people participate in.

Hans Jonas keeping it real

I find Hans Jonas very interesting because he sees himself as a parent to technology. Jonas treats technology as if it’s out of our control. He thinks like a parent regarding technology because he has a responsibility to the future, and he’s preparing it for a world without him. Jonas believes that it is not the younger generations fault for our screw-ups, and he wants to protect the environment and nature from technological destruction. I admire Jonas’ outlook on technology because he is pessimistic towards innovation. We have learned that modern technological problems are caused by modern technology. Jonas explains that there is no limit to technology, and it is going to get bad because there is no end game and society is unrealistic if we believe we can control technological progress. It is a constant circle with one technology constantly replacing an older model. This constant growth of technology leaves behind moral and ethical dilemmas that are swept under the rug because of society’s unquenchable desire and dependence for new technology. Jonas is a realist, and I admire him for that. He is not caught up in the hype of innovation, and he believes as do I, that one day we will wish we did not bring this technological snowball upon ourselves.

Focal things and practices

Borgmann and Heidegger state that modern technology has harmful effects on humankind. Borgmann wants to limit our dependence on technology. He understands that is has beneficial aspects; however our society cannot limit ourselves to brief exposures and uses. We are dependent to spend as much time using technology without any regard to the negative impacts it is having on us. Modern technology causes commodities and these commodities go against Borgmann’s ideas of focal practices and things. These focal things are simple activities that do not require modern technology. Some of these focal practices are running, culture of the table, baseball, and reading. All of these focal practices and things can be very simplistic, but modern technology has tried to make each one of them a commodity. He believes that the use of focal things force engagement in the world. Focal things assist people’s lives in a productive way and definitely would help with the loneliness and depression caused by technology. Borgmann states that the simplistic things are those that focus on gathering information about the world in order to benefit humanity. This information gathering and benefits are done by highlighting important concerns of life. Borgmann illustrates that we can live functional lives without always relying on technology.

Our brains are outboards

Carr argues that memorization by the human brain has become obsolete. Since the internet allows society to access anything and everything at a given instant, we only need to memorize the location of the web page containing our pertinent information. Also, the idea that taking the time to memorize vast amounts of data is inefficient and not productive. Our brains have become outboards that just outsource our memory to the internet. These internet search engines provide a limitless aspect that our memories never had before. Carr’s concern is that we will become too dependent upon this outsource of memory to where it will become a necessity and not an aid for memory. Our brains are now similar to a hard drive of a computer. The brain is merely a hard drive to store data, and will soon become solely data storage and we will lose our ability to decipher and understand the data that we are memorizing.

Adjusted societies following the Borg’s footsteps

We discussed the ideas in Star Trek, and I did not have the time to watch all of it and then analyze so I goggled it (I know that is taboo to use Google in this class now) and learned about the Borg and their role in the movie. The Borg is trying to conquer all the species and then unite them by completely mixing their knowledge and technology together. This massive blend of society that would cause bland individuals is how Hans Jonas sees our society. He states that individuality has been absorbed into just the mass of society. It is troublesome that our society has similar features to that of the Borg. By forcing all of the species to be similar, the Borg are de-humanizing. This is also an ethical concern brought on by modern technology in our society. The complete assimilation of species would basically create robots that are almost identical to one another. I believe the Borg is used as symbols to the parts of our society that will one day cause our destruction.

PBS Special

The PBS special was very informative. It is crazy to think that our society has become so dependent upon technologu almost like a drug, that we now are calling it a definite addiction. Some countries, like Korea, have even labeled it as a mental condition. This is almost insulting to be apart of a society that will give excuses to people’s addiction of technology. I thought that having anxiety from not having internet or my phone not working was bad, but there are people who are completely addicted to forms of technology. We are comparing these addictions to those of drugs and alcohol, but technology is affecting some of our youngest and brightest. MIT students are being effected by this addiction to technology and are distracting themselves from their work. I feel this course has made me rethink my use of technology, but this special has made me rethink it even more. It defeinitely has made me question how dependent I am upon my technology.

The PBS special was extremely interesting. I thought the point that stood out the most to me is the point that technology "definitely an addiction." In Korea it has been treated as a psychiatric condition. I find that absolutely amazing. People are becoming addicted to technology just as people become addicted to drugs or alcohol. Even the brightest people in our country (MIT students) are being negatively affected by technology. A professor at MIT made an interesting comment about her student, she said she believes her students are doing themselves a huge dis-service. This special definitely will make anyone re-evaluate their use of technology. I do not think it will change any of our habits, but it will make us think about the role of technology in our lives.

Multitasking

You Are Not a Supertasker

Published on March 29, 2010 by Kelly McGonigal, Ph.D. in The Science of Willpower

This article was interesting in that it similarly confirmed what the Frontline PBS special reported about the multitasking abilities of people. A study at the University of Utah demonstrated the truth about multitaskers: those who think that they are very good multitaskers are typically the worst at it. They are subject to the psychological phenomenon known as cognitive bias in which a person overestimates their abilities. Cornell psychologists, Dunning and Kuger stated in the article, "Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it." This is so similar to the study conducted to the MIT students. They too believed that they were going to astound the researchers with their impressive multitasking skills. As the tests demonstrated, they were incorrect in their delusional assumptions. They were actually very poor at multitasking. Referring back to the University of Utah study mentioned in the article, it was proven that only 2.5% of the sample was able to effectively multitask, just 2.5%. Therefore, those who believe that they are good at multitasking are probably not and should stop trying to do so.

The Borg

After watching Star Trek, it has made me contemplate about the philosophical questions that the Borg brings about. It is disturbing to think that the goal of the Borg is to completely assimilate all species by incorporating their knowledge and technology into a collective. Essentially, it is eliminating a lot of what it means to be human. The Borg seemed to genuinely fail to comprehend what they saw as the narrow-minded resistance shown toward assimilation and its attendant loss of individuality of the other species. Freedom, self-determination, and individual rights were viewed as archaic concepts necessary only to less advanced, authority-driven cultures. As a result of assimilation, humans would lose the crucial concept of individuality. To assimilate humans like that would be to convert them into a collective of cyborgs. Humans would become a homogenous entity. Effectively, they would become one with technology. The video clip showed us the potentially powerful effects that technology could have on the human species.

Virtual Reality in the OR

'Virtual operating room ' to sharpen surgeons' smarts and skills

December 14, 2011

This article shows how virtual reality is being implemented to teach new surgeons. A simulator is being developed to give new surgeons the experience of an operating room with all its stresses and challenges. Therefore, the students will be exposed to this type of situation even before they perform an operation. The simulator aims to prepare new students and give them experience which is so critical for developing an effective method of operational procedure. The simulator trains students to develop effective hand coordination and motor skills. In addition, it tests cognition and the ability to methodically solve certain problems in a variety of clinical situations. The article dictates that it is basically the same method that new pilots use in plane simulators. The NIH is giving a $2.7 million grant to develop the operation room simulator. If this simulator proves to be effective in training new surgeons, then it would be a good investment. Giving budding surgeons more opportunities to experience many and different situations is beneficial for a healthcare community. In medicine, experience is the greatest teacher. The best surgeons are the ones who have experienced many operations. Hopefully, this simulator will aid the new surgeons in this crucial element.

Outsourcing Memory

Carr’s arguments concerning memory propose some interesting ideas. The arrival of the limitless and easily searchable data banks of the Internet has not only changed the way we view memorization, but the way we view memory itself. The Internet has become a replacement for personal memory, rather than an aid for it. Memory nowadays is viewed as artificial memory. According to Clive Thompson, the Internet is an “outboard brain” that is taking the place of inner memory. He says that “by offloading data unto silicon, we free our own gray matter for more germanely ‘human’ tasks like brain-storming an daydreaming.” Our memory has essentially been “outsourced.” Memorization is beginning to become obsolete since it is so easy now to retrieve information via the Internet. With Google, memorization has become jeopardized. Rote memorization is a thing of the past. How we view memory is comparable to the metaphor that portrays the brain as a computer. It is compared to a hard drive to store data. However, this view of human memory is incorrect. The human brain is much more than a place to store data; biological memory is constantly dynamic and perfecting.

Focal things and practices according to Borgmann

Borgmann agrees with Heidegger that modern technology has harmful effects on humanity. He proposes a reform to limit the ways of technology from dominating people’s lives and keep technology in the background. His reform of modern technology is to restore the use of focal things and practices. He argues that the use of focal things provide engagement in the world in a meaningful context. Focal things direct people’s lives in a productive way, and acknowledges the world and highlights the context of themselves and their related life activities. The simple kinds of things are those that focus on gathering information about the world and benefit humanity by highlighting important concerns of life. Consequently, focal things lead to focal practices. Focal practices challenge the human capacities for intellect, will, and effort. Focal practices promote engagement with the earth, society, and one’s self. According to Borgmann, these engaging practices are not related to modern technology, and they are required to challenge the harmful pattern of living technologically.

A look at philosophy of technology according to some teachings from Hans Jonas

Since technology is an important human endeavor, it definitely has a philosophy associated with it. According to Hans Jonas, modern technology is present in many aspects of man -- material, spiritual, and mental. However, I will describe those aspects in my own terms. There are many potential philosophical questions that can be directed towards technology. Technology is most obvious to us in the material aspect. There are many advances in technology, constantly replacing old ones with new. The actual, material technology is present all around us. It has definitely become essential to live in the modern world.

Spiritually, technology has somewhat become immortalized. With technology, man has been given "the power" to do practically anything. From flying to producing life-saving drugs, technology has given man the capabilities to accomplish things that have never been done before. With technology, there also establishes the need to apply an ethics towards it. Moral implications need to be examined with the use of the latest technological advancements.

Mentally, technology has a profound effect on our thinking. Some devices we cannot "just live without." We have become dependent and at times emotionally attached to some technologies. For example, Facebook can become very addictive. The latest updates need to be posted, links have to be shared, photos uploaded, etc. People have a difficult time trying to disconnect from Facebook.

According to Hans Jonas, "since technology has become the focal fact of modern life, how could there not be a philosophy of technology?"

Classes Online

Today we are faced with an oncoming part of traditional schooling, the advent of new online classes.  Currently, they are a 'do-it-on-your-own-time' thing where the teacher posts assignments/tests/quizzes online and the students complete them when they can.  But what if classes turned into the same thing as coming into school, but online?  What I am talking about is a virtual classroom where the class meets at a specified meeting time?  There are several pros and cons about this.  Pros: no getting ready and having to drive to school (which as a commuter of 30+ minutes every time I come to school that's a big deal), no need to feel nervous or scared of saying a mistake in class.  Cons: no physical interaction, (will never know who another student really is), equipment use of students (what if they don't have a computer?)

online classes

I find that online classes are sort of pointless. I feel this way for a few reasons... First I pay money to sit in a classroom and be taught. If i take a online class then I am paying the same amount of money to stay home and teach myself. Seems like a waste to me. Second, I sit at home many hours of my day during the school year because there is not much else to do because i don not have a job. For me going to class gives me a reason to get out of the house. Third, If all classes where online then I would not have many of the friends that I have now. If class were online my friendships would be much like that of my friends on Facebook. Forth, I am the type of student that needs to see and do. I would be very unsuccessful in my education if classes had to be taken online. Lastly I find using computers for everything very annoying. Taking classes on them would just add to my screen time. Online schooling/ classes is a bad idea.

Ethics in Technology Overview

Nearing the end of the semester, I would like to take this oppurtunity to say what I thought about the class, and then if anyone else would like to give their opinion, that would be great. I think that this class was very helpful in making me realize the controversys there are involving technology. They are everywhere. Technology is a fast growing entity that is a large part in everyone's life. This class has shown me different views on technology that I wouldnt of known about otherwise. Dr. Langguth has done a great job bringing these different views. He showed us movies and clips along with readings that furthered my knowledge on technology. Overall, I thought that this was a great class!!

Ethics of Technology in Review

Admittedly at the beginning of the semester I felt learning about philosophy was about as useful as a required course on how to do your laundry. When I heard "Digital World" and "Cyborgs" my line of thinking was more along the lines of http://youtu.be/mUihzNN0ees than Howard Borgman.

However, going through the course I've been able to acknowledge a few alterations in my perspective. Foremost, philosophy does have a purpose, as it helps us understand the ways in which outside factors effect the human condition and our society going into the future. While to be honest i still feel that technology, generally speaking is neutral. That line of thinking has shifted. Technology is built within the context of a society, and interpreted through the lens of that society, therefore the remnants of technology stabilize a culture to a point in time and bring that culture into the future. As an example, the atomic bomb. The culture that built it was at war, it was built for total war, to win at all costs. These messages are interwoven with the machine to the extent their inseparable. Therefore, while the bomb is not innately bad, the purpose for which it was designed and the culture in which it exists forces it as bad.

More-so their is a relevant concern for the ethics of technology, we must be concerned with the technology we make, what it continues from the societal context in which it's created, as our machines continue us long after we're gone, therefor we owe it to future generations to ethically develop technology, and ensure the survival of our species in a recognizable fashion.

Technology and Education

The other day in class, the 'guest' panel discussed the topic of technology and education. You would think that technology would improve education but I take the view that some of the mist brilliant minds developed with minimal technology. Technology I think becomes a handicap that impairs educational development when used by minds that are still forming. Children should be required to attend school and develop the skills and abilities school leaves you with. These skills and abilities would then allow people to use technology effectively and for the betterment of society. The last thing we need is for technology to assume the job of acting as guidance for humanity. We would then lose the human experience altogether.l

responses?

i have said what i thought about the memory scans, but it occured to me that maybe i was a little insensitive to some people's beliefs when i described it. i admit i truly don't understand why people are afraid of this technology and i really don't know why it will cause eternal damnation. maybe i am completely ignorant about why some people are afraid of it. so for those who disagree with me, please educate me. why do you think that the memory scans will cast you into hell?

culture asimilated through technology

In class we talked about the possibility of all cultures being asimilated into one technological society where there would be no differences in cultures or between people. I think it would be a bad idea to take technology to this level. God made everyone different for a reason and we have to learn to co-exist with one another. If everyone were to have the same perspective and knowledge of everything it would go against our purpose of living.

Children and Technology

Children as young as two years old have started to recognize how to use different technologies and have started to almost become addicted to them. Hearing that they know how to use an I-Pad better then their parents baffled me. The fact that they knew some of their colors and shapes from doing that also baffled me. Even though they might have learned something fairly quickly, I'm not so sure that it won't do some damage in the future. Some elementary schools have even thought about having online classes. Even if this were successful, it is not good for the delevopment of children's brains. Our brains don't stop growing until our early to mid 20's so it would have major effects on the brains of children obviously. Also, many kids would not have the will power or the attention span to finish and do well with online courses. This would be a horrible idea. Growing up, kids should focus on just being a kid and not on different technologies. Instead of being on the computer or playing video games, they should be playing outside with friends. They should be able to use various technologies when the time is right and at the appropriate age.

A pro to Virtual Classrooms

In our discussion Monday we gave many reasons why we were against virtual classrooms, but we did not really touch much upon what the arguments were for online classes. Obviously at the college level it is convenience, but at the grade school level the biggest pro is that there can be more direct and effective learning for each student. This means programs would be adjusted to fit the needs of the individual. This is a very useful way to learn if forming these programs to each and every child's level is possible. Though I do believe it is possible, I do not think this is something that can happen anytime soon due to the time that would be needed to perfect this system. Kids don't all learn at the same speed, and they don't all learn best in the same way. Targeting individual needs would be very useful, but I will never find the pros to out-weigh the cons.

Virtual Classrooms: There Has to Be a Point

I am writing this final blog post in response to today's classroom discussion about the advent of "virtual classrooms," in primary, secondary, and post-secondary education.  Online classes and even entire universities already exist at this last level, but the use of this technology for younger students is newer, and in my opinion, far more controversial and potentially damaging.  With concerns about the Internet's effects on young peoples' socialization already present, any push toward more screen time should be regarded suspiciously.  I question the reason for this push toward virtual education - what's the point?  At its start, such a program would probably be more expensive to develop, staff, and maintain than traditional brick-and-mortar schools.  Opportunities for social development would be crushed as the students lose their main reason to leave the confines of their houses.  This educational system would cause students' relationships with their computers to become codependent; they would be unable to function without access to the Internet.  Also, at least in the present market, social skills are an incredibly important part of the hiring process for many jobs as many employees work on projects in teams or with clients in customer service positions.  Is this an experiment that we can afford to let fail for an entire generation of young people?

Even at the college level, developing online courses for the sake of increasing technology use also seems slightly misguided.  For traditional students, why remove class from the classroom? These students need to develop the discipline to meet deadlines and be accountable for their work daily. For nontraditional students, the opportunity to learn outside the classroom while accommodating work and family can have benefits.  But, indiscriminately increasing the use of technology worries me. With the exponentially increasing pace of progress, the possible negative social and other consequences on our tech-immersed lives can be hard to predict.      

A High School Student's Take on Going Paperless

From Laela Zaidi on The Huffington Post

An A In Tetris


Posted: 11/28/11 05:59 PM ET Read more 21st Century Learning , Classroom Technology , Macbook , High School News .



Almost all students dread the everyday morning routine: Dragging ourselves out of bed and then suddenly sitting in a desk wondering how on Earth we had enough energy to make it from point A to point B. But my routine is different from many other students in the U.S. Instead of pulling out a notebook and pencils, my classmates and I pull out 13-inch MacBooks. With help from the generosity of the United Arab Emirates, our high school campuses have invested millions of dollars in laptops: We've gone "paperless." The decision was not based on an environmental cause, but rather was based on the fact that thousands of our textbooks were destroyed along with our high school in the Joplin tornado last spring. Now there's a rare use for pens and pencils, and hundreds of students are becoming absorbed in lit-up screens. This year, most teachers here at Joplin High are having a hard time motivating their students to complete and turn in assignments. Hour by hour, I sit down, open my computer, turn into a zombie, shut the lid, and head to the next class. Some periods there is hardly a need to even look at the teacher. To many students, beating a high score in Tetris sounds a lot more productive than wasting time doing an assignment that can easily be downloaded at home. If someone were to ask me a year ago if I would prefer a paperless campus, I would say that our current situation sounds like a dream come true. Who wouldn't want to ditch heavy textbooks for sleek laptops? In reality, I question the value of technology in the classroom on a daily basis.



Even before the tornado on May 22, technology was always a part of my learning environment, and it usually made education more fun. For years, Joplin's public school district has invested in "Smart Boards," an updated, touch-screen version of the traditional whiteboard. Smart Boards allow teachers to hook up a computer to a projector-screen in front of the classroom. In elementary school, we would play computer games or learn various concepts such as fractions, multiplying, and the rules of grammar. In middle and high school, the chance to use computers was considered a privilege. This year, Joplin schools have taken the idea of technology in the classroom further with the concept of "21st-Century Learning." This "one to one" (one laptop to every student) initiative is becoming more common in high schools, even elementary schools, across the country. It's hard to imagine justifying why technology doesn't have a place in the classroom. Organizing my homework, calendar, and assignments using a laptop is probably easier than ever before. However, this school year I've come to realize that the "one to one" initiative is not always synonymous with "a better education."



Using computers seven hours a day in class -- plus more time spent at home to study or do homework -- isn't exactly healthy. Most parents and educators wouldn't want to put their kids in front of a television screen for that amount of time, so why is it acceptable to do the same with a laptop? Don't we already spend too much time staring at screens instead of physically interacting with our families and friends? According to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, it's estimated that, on average, young people spend up to 7.5 daily hours in front of a TV, computer, or video game. These hours are outside the school day. But the biggest drawback to the laptop learning platform is a decline in the quality of education.



Last year, University of California, San Francisco scientists discovered that when rats undergo new experiences, such as exploring an unfamiliar area, their brains showed never-before-seen patterns of activity. However, it isn't until they enter a state of relaxation that these patterns solidify into persistent memories. Loren Frank, a professor specializing in learning and memory, said, "Almost certainly, downtime lets the brain go over experiences it's had, solidify them and turn them into permanent long-term memories." He noted that constant stimulation to the brain "[prevents] this learning process." Another study at the University of Michigan showed that people learn better after a walk in nature rather than after a walk in a city, indicating that the abundance of information from the city walk overwhelmed most of the participants. These days many people try to fill their downtime by scrolling through their phones, reading news articles, or engaging in other activities such as checking their Facebooks, Twitters, YouTube, etc. This is especially true at my school, where most kids feel the need to continously surf the web instead of study, and rarely are they told by teachers to stop. By the same token, young children and teenagers are being raised in a culture where instant gratification is valued more than taking the time to focus and learn. For example, in my Communication Arts class, I regularly wonder why there is a need to open up the literature book when Sparknotes.com is just one click away. Or instead of figuring out a problem, I'll type the question into Google. So if laptops are indeed disturbing learning, what should be done about it?



Now that much time and money has been invested in equipping Joplin High School with technology, it would only be a step backwards to reintroduce hard textbooks. In the end, there are still benefits to 21st-century learning (I mean, who doesn't want free access to a MacBook?). Because of our split-campus situation (where underclassmen, upperclassmen, and teachers have been placed in separate buildings), it is a blessing to be able to connect with teachers and students using email and video chatting as well as through each teacher's personal website. Computer programming classes are now taught over Skype, and there are more opportunities to take online courses that were previously never offered to students. But when it comes to the quality of education, more is not always better. Simply dumping more information on students through technology by advising them to visit numerous websites and watch tutorial videos, as many of my teachers do now, will not make for a smarter, more creative student body. Most of that information won't be retained anyway.



Before school boards make the irreversible decision to go "one to one," they should also keep in mind the cons of technology overkill. Instead, our high school needs to consider purchasing textbooks. Assigning students to read online textbooks or classical literature on a computer or study history on the web is difficult when, at home, Facebook is a click away. There is nothing "outdated" in encouraging students to visit a library, use paper to brainstorm and write an essay, or learn a language by interacting and having discussions with other students, rather than resorting to a computer.



Being a teenager, I can assure you that we have enough time with digital devices after school. Technology will never replace the personal touch that teachers use to motivate and inspire students every day. Unlocking the ingenuity, drive, and enthusiasm within a student tends to become virtually impossible when they all become Internet-absorbed zombies. If this is what 21st-century learning looks like, then maybe there's no reason for students to attend school. After all, there's not much to learn from Tetris.

PBS Frontline Special

Please view this PBS Frontline special before we meet for our final exam. The program lasts about an hour.

From Jefferson Petrey's Google+ post on the program:

"we see MIT students exhibit their 'awesome' multitasking skills while checking email, social networking, working on assignments - in the midst of lectures and classes - and then given a simple retention test - that exhibits these most-capable multitaskers to be profoundly delusional as to the true nature of their capabilities."

Electronic Eye: Another step towards cyborgs?

I recently read from an article about this electronic eye piece that is shaped and used just as a contact lens. This was just an idea 2 years ago, and now is a reality. This electronic lens will allow for multiple things, one of which, being capable of reading things from just that lens, making books or even computers obsolete. This lens has already been tested on animals and had been a success, only issue at the moment is that it is only one pixel big, and needs to be at least 100 pixels.



The real ethical question about this electronic eye: Is this making us more like a robot, or is it just a more convenient computer? This technology is still very primitive. The cell-phone was never imagined to text, use pictures, and use the internet, this new electronic eye may do much more than just simply read text.

http://www.popsci.com/gadgets/article/2011-11/terminator-eyes-might-not-be-far