Platforms and Norms

If it is the case that technologies carry implicit norms and values, often ones that go unrecognized, perhaps the most implicit of all is the norms and values that belong to the various operating systems and platforms that, for many of us, simply run "in the background" without being noticed.  I believe this is one of the reasons why so much of the discussion of Apple's OS, Windows, Android, iOS, and Linux appear like discussions of religion!  You simply cannot convert an Apple user to Windows, and Android fans (and I count myself among the biggest) will not even think of switching to an Apple iPhone (as an Android fan, I cannot help but note the recent news: Android is now on 44% of U.S. phones).  I use the term "platform" rather than "OS" because it is clear that the web as a whole is taking on a larger role in our computing lives and there are many "platforms" out there that have become a bit like operating systems, i.e., they seem just like the air we breath.  Facebook is perhaps now at the level of a platform, so too Twitter.

I have been a huge fan of This Week in Google and through this webcast I have begun reflecting on what are the values and norms implicit in various platforms.  For anyone who pays attention to tech discussions, a clear starting point is Openness vs. Proprietary.  Steve Jobs, in fact, had a recent rant on this issue.  One complaint about the Android OS is that it is open in the sense that anyone can download the code, compile it, and put it on any device they want.  Obviously, the run of the mill end-user will not have the knowledge and skills required to do this, but still, if you want to mess with the Android OS, it is there for you.  Obviously this is not the case with Windows, OS X, iOS, WebOS, etc.  But there is another OS that has been around for a long time that operates on just this notion of openness.  I am referring, of course to Linux.  One of the consequences of an open platform is that developers can improve it either by contributing to the source code or by writing programs and applications.  Another consequence is that, in theory, a user can have as complete control over their platform as is possible.  But that obviously takes time and one has to learn a great deal of programming in order to seize that control.

I have been a proponent of open platforms.  I have an android phone, I use OpenOffice and now LibreOffice.  I have recently decided, however, to put my position (religion!) on the line and I have switched to Linux.  I am using the recent Ubuntu 10.10 release and I have switched all three of my computers (i.e., my Asus netbook, my Dell desktop, and my Dell desktop in the office) and have been running Ubuntu for about a week.  As this test goes on, I will share more of my experiences.  Let me just give a few initial impressions:

1. The installation was extremely easy, intuitive, and quick.  I did a complete install on my netbook, while my other computers are dual-boot.  I was up an running in no time, including access to my home wifi network.  All of this went without a hitch.
2. I was sad to find out that there is no current version of Microsoft's Silverlight software for Linux.  The main effect is that I cannot watch Netflix on demand.  If we did not also have a Mac at home, this would be a deal breaker for me.  This is not necessarily a problem with Linux, but a problem with Netflix.  Perhaps HTML5 will solve this problem, as Microsoft has indicated that it is moving away from Silverlight toward HTML5.
3. Twice, I had to go online and get help for problems.  The first had to do with installing Tweetdeck, which runs on Adobe Air, which does not have a 64-bit Linux version.  The upside is that the Linux and Ubuntu communities are extremely helpful.  The downside is that I ended up typing commands in the terminal that I did not understand in the least!  It worked, but I have no clue at the moment what those commands did or what they meant.
4. The Ubuntu UI is sleek, fast, intuitive and I am really digging it.  I installed the "Unity" desktop on my netbook, and Ubuntu is now committed to this desktop interface going forward.  I am still getting used to it, but it does manage the small real estate of the netbook screen quite well.

I have been learning more and more about Linux commands and code and this has helped me make my system my own.  It is a time commitment, but so far I would argue that Ubuntu 10.10 works easily "right out of the box."  And now I have taken the plunge completely into the Open Source Community!

"Social" in the Classroom

I was sent an invitation from Peterson's Interactive Marketing for a "webinar" on "Social Media in the Higher Education.  While the purpose of this webinar was to help colleges and universities work with social media to contact prospective students, it got me thinking about the use of such media in the classroom, or at least related to the classroom.  My friend, Christopher Long has been working on this issue for some time and has a lot more knowledge than I do in this area.  However, whenever we talk about this question, we usually end up in an argument.  He is usually up on the latest tech that could be used in education and his blog posts often link up the use of technology with opening up pedagogy.  The argument we have been having for about five years brings together the classic topic of community vs. society and the question of student engagement in their own learning.

Let me say at the outset that Chris and I have been good friends for a long time, and we have disagreed on a wide variety of issues.  Our disagreements have been, at least for me, extremely fruitful and productive.  This is only the case because of a deep and abiding friendship that allows disagreements to take place without ever calling the friendship into question.  This friendship has been extremely important in my development as a thinker, and I thank him for that.  So I am not just dumping on him, rather, I take his position very seriously and as a challenge to my own thinking on this matter.

To my mind, there are two related issues that need to be addressed in relation to technology and pedagogy. The first is that, as my friend H. Peter Steeves always insists, technologies are never neutral in the sense that they come with their own norms and values.  That is, each technology has the structure of "in-order-to" that may be explicit or implicit.  A calculator is "in-order-to" calculate numbers.  It is extremely unhelpful in writing an essay, posting a blog, or watching TV.  It is not always clear at the outset what norms and values are implicit in a technology, and sometimes the recognition of those values comes too late.  Let me give a small example: I have become addicted to my smartphone (I recently got duped into buying a Motorola I1 running on Boost Mobile's IDEN network...DO NOT BUY THIS PHONE...I love the Android operating system, but IDEN is not a workable data network and neither Boost nor Motorola are interested in upgrading this network or this phone to a more recent version).  I thought that I loved being able to receive and send email wherever I am and whenever I want.  But I have noticed one thing: I have stopped responding to email almost entirely.  The reason?  Somehow when I read an email on my phone, I assume that I have "dealt with it."  Writing long emails on a phone is a huge pain in the rear end, and so, having read the email, I realize that I do not take the next step and respond when I am at a computer.  This is a norm that is built into this technology and one that is not immediately recognizable when you buy the smartphone.

I worry, then, about what norms and values are implicit in the various forms of technology that we might introduce into the classroom.  For example, technologies that allow all students to participate equally in discussion seem to open up the pedagogical space in a more democratic fashion.  Yet is this the case?  Is democracy simply the ability to say whatever comes to my mind at any time?  Perhaps more significant is the question of whether opening pedagogy in general is more "empowering" to students.

When I was in graduate school at the New School for Social Research, I had a professor, Reiner Schurmann, who had a tremendous impact on my learning and my thinking.  Any of his students can attest to the fact that Schurmann's classroom was not "open" in the sense that participation in almost any form was not encouraged. In fact, whether it was a lecture course or a seminar, Schurmann always lectured. In addition, he presented interpretations of texts that were extremely "strong" and did not seem to invite question or dialog. The result of this is that students were presented with a model of how one goes about reading and interpreting a text and, perhaps more importantly, they were presented with a clearly stated position against which they could argue.

One worry I have is that many attempts to democratize the classroom cover over the authority of the instructor and, therefore, work to coerce students rather than liberate them.  Instructors do have authority: we set the syllabus, determine the appropriate forms of communication, write assignments, assign texts, schedule the topics to be discussed, and above all assess our students in some way (usually in the form of grades).  Therefore, not all the participants in the classroom are equal and this fact should never be covered over.  Modern capitalist societies have long thrived on a coercion that is "freely" accepted by a democratic populace.  In fact, capitalism thrives on the dual notions that choice equals freedom and a plurality of voices equals democracy.  What obviously gets lost in all of this is the question of whether facts and knowledge are important.  In an age when creationism passes for science, when the human impact on global climate change is an opinion, and when presenting all opinions on an issue passes for objectivity, we should be extremely cautious of our pedagogical strategies.

I raised one point in the initial post of this blog that is worth raising again, many of us who are interested in helping our students have a mind capable of critical reflection on self, society, and the world came to this position on the basis of some very old pedagogical styles.  We should be extremely careful not to deny to our students the very tools we received and used to arrive at our own critical positions.  Openness is not necessarily letting every voice speak with equal authority or the lack of authority.

What does this have to do with technologies in and in relation to the classroom?  We are now back to the implicit norms and values of technologies.  If information becomes opinion, if critical reflection becomes "my feelings" on an issue, then students are robbed of the tools of critical reflection.  Will the on-line community sort this out?  Won't the "cream rise to the top?"  Perhaps, but then why do nearly 20% of Americans think that President Obama is a Muslim?  And that number is up from a year ago!  How can critical reflection on information and disinformation be encouraged?  These are questions for which, I argue, there is not technological solution, but an old fashioned one.

Finally In-Sync

Part of the what I hope to do in this space is to show how I found the technology to make my life easier.  I know that perhaps I am not the most tech-savvy person in the world, but still I get frustrated at how difficult it can be to find what should be simple information.  Here was my task, which seemed simple enough: I have a computer at home, one at the office, and a netbook.  My computer at home was running Windows Vista, of all things!  My netbook and the office computer were both running Windows XP.  I wanted a way to keep all my document files in sync on all computers, and to do this without having to remember to do anything.  That is, I wanted it to happen in the background and I knew I could not rely on my memory to keep things up to date.  The first thing I did was to upgrade both my Vista machine and my netbook to Windows 7.  Yes, my netbook is running Windows 7 and is happy doing it!  Along with my update to Windows 7, I downloaded Windows Live Essentials.  This allows one to Sync computers in just the way I wanted, while also keeping copies "in the cloud" that can accessed from any computer that as internet access.  However, the new version only allows syncing between computers running Windows 7.  I still have my office computer, which runs XP (until our IT people decide to switch to Windows 7), and this computer cannot, therefore, sync with the other two.  The solution to this problem came from an article on Lifehacker.com.  I downloaded Syncplicity and followed the instructions carefully.  Syncplicity is free and also offers 2GB of storage with the free version, 50GB with the paid version.  I had already decided only to use this option for documents, so the 2GB limit is fine with me.  Here, then, is my current setup: my home computer and netbook, both running Windows 7, sync through Windows Live Essentials, while my home computer and office computer (running Windows XP) sync through Syncplicity.  The result? Any time I open my documents folder on any of these computers, I am sure that I have the latest version that I had worked on on any of my computers.  Plus, I have the additional benefit of having access through the web to any of my files from any computer.  This is exactly what I wanted, namely a way of keeping all my computers in sync without me having ever to do anything manually!

I will add that there are also ways to do this through Google Docs.  Syncplicity also has the ability to sync with Google Docs, and there are plug-ins available for OpenOffice (my word processor of choice) that allow you to work directly with Google Docs.  However, I have found that the formatting of a document is not maintained as the file goes through Google Docs.  The solution outlined above, however, keeps the formatting identical accross all instances of the file.

Certainly one can find this information on the web, but I put it here because it took me several hours and several failed attempts to come to this solution.  Hopefully, I can help save someone else a great deal of time!

What is This Blog About?

I am a professor of philosophy at DePaul University.  Recently, two sides of my life or personality have come into a sort of conflict.  On the one hand, I am excited by and interested in technologies of all sorts (lately, this focuses around my Android phone!).  On the other hand, I am getting tired of the University, the press, and some members of the techno-intelligentsia telling me that certain forms of technology will "revolutionize" my classroom.  Often, I am told, old forms of teaching (primarily lecturing) are not delivering the kind of education my students need or, even more troubling, can handle.  We have all seen how this last point works: current students have been "raised on the internet," and therefore need an interactive atmosphere in which they are contributing and also following out threads and links of their choosing.  I recently heard an episode (though I am not sure it was a recent episode) of This Week in Tech that included Don Tapscott.  I am a huge fan of the entire TWiT Network and listen regularly to many of the shows.  But the critique of the lecture centered classroom offered in relation to the possibilities opened by new technologies got me thinking: I am a semi-troglodyte!  That is, while I am not a full-blown trog in that I love, use, and appreciate a whole host of new technologies, I hesitate to accept that I should "revolutionize" my classroom (and my scholarship, for that matter) simply because there are new technologies out there.
     One thing that I think is often forgotten when it comes to the idea of revolutionizing education is that those calling for such revolutions did so on the basis of an education they received.  That is, perhaps we should recognize that all of us received the very tools of analysis, critique, careful reading, etc., that we deploy in the name of making our students' lives better from the very kind of education we now want to overthrow.  Not all revolutions are progressive.  In fact, most are reactionary.  Perhaps we should pause to contemplate whether, in revolutionizing higher education in some ways, we might be robbing our students of tools that will be necessary for them to think through new revolutions.
     On the other hand, I have many colleagues who remain suspicious of almost all forms of technology.  There is good reason for this.  As Martin Heidegger argued in "Question Concerning Technology," each technology, and, perhaps, technology as a whole, has a way of making the world and things in it appear.  We should be cautious about that way of appearing, since technology seems to thrive on making all things into "data" that are completely fungible and lose their moorings to a world.  However, I do not share this blanket rejection of technology.  There are things I want to do (collaborate with colleagues, present students with different learning tasks) that can only be done with the advancement of web applications, software, and hardware.  So I am a semi-trog, not a full blown one.
     In this space, I hope to reflect on new technologies and their relation to higher education, specifically to the humanities.  I also hope to reflect on these larger questions concerning what effects technology has on our ability to do philosophy, to continue the goals of a liberal arts education.  And, I hope to use some of my experience with actual technologies to help those who, like me, just wish technology would finally make our lives easier, not more confusing!