Stone 2011 three views of technology in liberal education

© Sharon L. M. Stone, 2011
Three Views of Technology in Liberal Education
by Sharon L. M. Stone
When thinking of what a well-educated person should know about technology, we
usually begin with skills: how to operate the hardware, install the software, download files from
the Internet, organize documents and messages, and find information through search engines.
And when applying technology skills to higher education, we tend to think of certain activities
such as writing papers, creating spreadsheets, running statistical tests, and even collaborating on
projects through either network-based or web-based platforms.
However, there are other concerns, especially for a student in the liberal arts tradition.
These concerns include questions about how humans and machines interact with each other and,
perhaps, change each other. How does a person interested in social justice respond to the
growing digital divide? How dependent should engineers and architects and nuclear physicists
be on simulation programs? Does that sort of technology make our world safer or more
dangerous?
In higher education, students need to engage with technology on multiple levels and from
multiple perspectives. A simple orientation to the digital landscape, while still necessary, is no
longer sufficient. The power for learning and collaboration available to students through digital
technologies is valuable enough to merit systematic study for the purpose of achieving mastery
of these tools; the potential for harm to both individuals and societies as a result of the infusion
of technology into our lives, however, should also be examined and understood. This paper will
discuss how technology issues fit into liberal education from the perspectives of utility, power,
and vulnerability, and will make recommendations for essential general education requirements
that will support student development and undergird their future studies in arts and sciences,
graduate school, or professional programs.
The scholarship of opportunity
As a matter of disclosure, I should note that I have a generally happy relationship with
technology. However, this was not always the case. When I was growing up, anything related to
computers was taught in math departments, and I could never find the same fascination with
numbers as I had with words. I avoided elective math classes, but did try a BASIC1

Stone – Three Views of Technology 2
programming class. I never quite understood why everyone else was so electrified by the results
of the code we had written. I came to the conclusion that programming – and all technology –
was for people more attuned to the mathematical world than I.
Then the advent of desktop computers and word processing brought beautiful, wonderful
words to the computer screen. Now I could see the point of technology. Not only was I able to
type, revise, and save documents, I could also write macros thanks to my shallow delving into
programming. The computer would obey my wishes, filling in names and addresses at a two-
keystroke command. Then came the mouse and Windows and color monitors, and, heaven help
us, the Internet! Graduate school also became a possibility for me because the degree program I
wanted to enter was offered online. So I spent hours at my computer desk in Japan and attended
class at California State University, learning how to build online educational environments and
collaborating with students from six or eight different time zones.
Today the online environment has evolved so that the need for expensive course
management systems is no longer necessary. Or, at least, not as necessary. For a while,
Blackboard and WebCT owned the virtual educational landscape by providing platforms wherein
students and teachers could meet, exchange files, and keep track of grades. However, there were
limitations, usually related to the server space a college needed in order to maintain the platform.
The solution to the space problem was – and is – to purge content files a few days after the end
of each semester. All discussion transcripts, readings, and submissions simply disappear –
unless the users have the foresight to copy and save them to their personal computers.
Now, with the advent of what are known as Web 2.0 tools, much of the same educational
activity that used to require Blackboard can now be done through other means. One of these is
the wiki.2 Wikis are flexible and easy to create; they also allow groups to collaboratively write
papers and create presentations. I must admit that I reacted with hostility the first time a
professor required use of a wiki. I simply could not appreciate the wiki’s facility for
collaborative writing and editing. I initially resisted the idea of writing text that my classmates
could change or even delete. After all, I wanted to be graded according to my work, my
contributions, and my ideas. If others inserted themselves into my sacred text, how would the
professor know which of the many voices was mine?
The thing I couldn’t see at the time was the relevance wikis have to the real world. How
often is my work really my work alone? Students spend a great deal of time working for a grade,

but not learning how to work with others. Content knowledge is important, but it should be
balanced by the wisdom gained from solving problems with other people. This is the sort of
democratic pooling of resources originally intended by Ward Cunningham.3
If truth be told, scholarship has always been based on conversations among learners; it
just used to take much longer to share ideas and respond to them. Technology has enormous
utility in this regard – that is, its availability, flexibility, and adaptability to a variety of settings.
It supports what I call the scholarship of opportunity. I’ve been able to upload files to a wiki
during class to share with my professor and classmates, even though I hadn’t known ahead of
time that those files were going to be relevant to our discussion. In other words, the wiki
allowed for spur-of-the-moment integration of learning. I also can write papers from several
different computers in short chunks of time as I move from work to class to home. Rather than
wasting ten or fifteen minutes waiting for a meeting to begin, I can access Google Docs, write a
few sentences, and leave them in the cloud for future retrieval.
This idea of the scholarship of opportunity mimics the old habit of scribbling notes on
napkins, except that the scribbles are already digital. Students today can save time, collaborate
with peers, and generate writing when the ideas are fresh – all thanks to digital technology.
However, contrary to popular belief, the current generation of undergraduates – often called
“digital natives”4 – really doesn’t know how to transfer its considerable skill with social media to
the academic environment.5 These students need professors to guide them and professors need
to acquire competence with digital tools in order to integrate them with the learning experience.
The two sides of power
The speed and flexibility of digital technology contribute to its utility, but these attributes
also feed into its power. Information is now a global commodity. Being able to find, store,
retrieve, and transfer information to the appropriate people in the appropriate settings gives an
individual an enormous amount of power in our society. This can also augment the power he or
she already has.
For example, the collaboration discussed above in the context of a single classroom or
campus can also occur across geographical boundaries. It can occur across time zones. With the
assistance of translation programs, it can occur across languages. Once, collaboration in the
virtual environment required a great deal of imagination on the part of the participants. Most

discussion took place asynchronously through textual messages. Although this asynchronous
format is still powerful, especially as a bridge across time zones, the human experience of it can
seem pretty austere. Now, meeting platforms have video capability and most network
infrastructures can support the huge amounts of data zipping back and forth between cameras
and computer screens. Researchers can collaborate or prepare for joint presentations without
meeting in person. This saves money and time, two additional sources of power.
The power of technology to support individuals with disabilities also is incredible. I first
encountered this type of power during my master’s coursework. As I mentioned above, I
attended class from eight thousand miles away and routinely collaborated with fellow students in
the U.S., Europe, and Africa. However, I witnessed the breaking of another barrier the semester
we had a teaching assistant who was blind. She monitored our discussions, often guiding our
understanding of the readings. When we had technical difficulties, she help us troubleshoot to
find a solution.
Another person in my classes had multiple disabilities resulting from complications after
brain surgery. We chatted frequently because he also had taught in Japan and missed living
there. His disabilities included fine motor difficulties, vision problems, difficulty swallowing,
and some cognitive difficulties especially relating to language. However, he finished the
program with help of both the online format and assistive technology. I met him in person at
graduation. The impression his tenacity made on me has influenced my choice to work with
college students with disabilities.
Yet just as is true with other avenues to power, technology can be used to oppress as
readily as it can be used to liberate. There has been much discussion about the digital divide and
the barriers those without access to technology face with regard to civic involvement or
employment opportunities. The logic of the argument that those without information technology
cannot succeed in the information age seems incontrovertible. And, in response, the likes of Bill
Gates and George Lucas6 have sponsored programs aimed at improving schools through gifts of
technology.
The result of such philanthropic efforts has been to change the nature of the digital divide
itself. Now the problem is pedagogical and sociological rather than material, where teachers in
lower-income districts use technology to fill time rather than to support students’ creative
thinking.7 Technology also lends power to malice. Bullying through social media has become a

major concern of parents, educators, and students. Unfortunately, such behavior does not
diminish as students age: each of the types of cyberbullying appearing in schools has also been
documented on college campuses and in the workplace.8 The third problem with the power of
technology is economic. Technology can allow the relocation of factories or supply lines to
other countries; it can, in some cases, even replace individual workers. This can become an
irreversible shift as technology evolves and those with no access to it cannot acquire the skills
needed to use it.
Each of these problems involves the ethical dimension of technology. Students in liberal
education today will soon be leaders in education, law, business, and government. They need to
grapple with these issues now so they can understand the ramifications of their decisions in the
years to come. They need to realize that giving computers to schools is not enough when the
sociological factors that underlie teacher expectations and practice have not changed. They need
to recognize that misinformation and disinformation can harm not only individuals, but the
functioning of a diverse and accepting society. Finally, they need to weigh the impact of the
kinds of business decisions that used to be “tough calls” – but are now immeasurably easier
because of technology.
The soft underbelly
Yet, for all of the power it grants, technology also creates a zone of vulnerability. Every
reader of myths or fairy tales knows that a dragon cannot be successfully attacked from above.
However, a well-placed strike at the soft underbelly will bring even the most cunning, fearsome
dragon to his end. Although fanciful in nature, this metaphor aptly describes our own situation.
Because of the power of our technology, we can see everywhere, hear everything, and travel to
any place around the globe. And we have become dependent on digital technology for all these
activities. Everything today – literally everything – depends on some kind of microchip. This is
a dependence that goes beyond any need for electricity. Even if the lights stay on, an
interruption in the network will bring universities, legislatures, hospitals, and armies to a sudden,
ungainly stop.
We’ve seen stories in the news recently where entire governments have entered this sort
of limbo as the result of cyberattacks by unfriendly neighbors.9 Modern hospitals have moved to
electronic record-keeping and depend on networks for appointments, lab tests, x-rays, and even

food service. When a network goes down, doctors cannot prescribe medications. Even an
attempt to circumvent the system by writing ink-and-paper prescriptions will fail because the
pharmacy also relies on digital networks for all inventory, tracking, and drug interaction
information. Banks are equally vulnerable, as are our very identities. Students need to
understand the gravity of these threats and learn how to guard against them. Students need to
realize that e-mail lasts forever, that their whereabouts can be tracked through the photos they
post on Facebook, and that the emergency for which their supposed account administrator needs
their passwords is really a trick to gain control of their personal information.
But beyond security issues, some believe continued interaction with digital technology is
dangerous to our brains. In his book, The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains,
Nicholas Carr warns that, yes, the medium is the message10 and, further, it alters the thought
patterns of the messenger. He offers historical examples of how the advent of pivotal
technologies changed not only ways of communicating, but also the skills needed to think in
ways compatible with the new form of communication. For example, Gutenberg changed the
global economy by making printed books affordable; he also changed societal and educational
patterns when reading became a common skill. The desktop typewriter transformed every author
into a printer of sorts, but it also reportedly changed the style of Friedrich Nietzsche from fluid to
forceful.11 It’s more than simply exchanging one tool for another. Certain technologies actually
change the way their users think.
The question Carr and others12 raise is this: To what extent are we really the masters of
our creation? Carr has plenty of critics.13 But the truth remains that something is qualitatively
different in 21st century society compared to 18th or 19th or even early 20th century society.
Perhaps it is better now. But voices like Carr’s are insistent enough to merit consideration. Are
we really better human beings for all our powerful inventions? Do we control them, or do they
control us? Liberal arts students in the 21st century should grapple with the sorts of issues Carr
raises.
Settling on the best course of action
In this paper, I have attempted to show how beneficial, as well as how dangerous,
technology can be. A common assumption seems to be that students in the 21st century are so
accustomed to digital technology that they don’t need guidance in using it for academic

purposes. Another common assumption follows, which is that highly intelligent students can
somehow, perhaps intuitively, navigate the treacherous shoals of cyberspace. Yet students still
fall prey to phishing scams. And they still lose assignments they insist they submitted because
they didn’t understand the inner workings of Blackboard.
To overcome these challenges, entering students should be required to take a basic
technology course, perhaps offered in the format of a freshman seminar. This course would
cover the instructional technology used by their institution, including the course management
system, wikis, and blogs. But it would also teach best practices for research in the library’s
electronic databases and how to best organize one’s files on a personal computer. Students
should also learn the basic structure and limitations of networks, so they understand why services
slow down at certain times. And they should receive in-depth instruction in security measures so
they can protect themselves now, and in the future translate that knowledge to the workplace.
In addition, a liberal arts university should require an upper-level course in the ethics of
technology. In such a course, students would read and discuss the sorts of issues mentioned
previously, applying theoretical frameworks from various disciplines to problems such as
oppression and liberation through technology, the digital divide, globalization aided by
technology, the economics of technology, and political ramifications of free or restricted
technology. This approach would allow for the integration of ideas from students’ major areas of
study with the most current of events.
In the end, we must realize that technology does not exist for its own sake. Further, it is
more that just a new tool in the hands of a new generation. It is powerful, useful, and dangerous
and merits special consideration by the academic community.
1 At the risk of casting doubt on the scholarly value of this essay,I direct the interested to this Wikipedia entry about
BASIC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASIC Although later sections need support from citations, the introductory
paragraphs reinforce my observations about the mathematics-based nature of the early technology. Also, see this
early web page (November 25, 1996) from the University of Michigan-Dearborn web site:
http://groups.engin.umd.umich.edu/CIS/course.des/cis400/basic/basic.html
2 Wiki is a term from the Hawaiian wiki-wiki meaning, “quick.” The idea is to create pages anyone,especially non-
programmers, can edit so that content can be built quickly and democratically. Take a look at an early wiki history
at http://wiki.org/wiki.cgi?WhatIsWiki You may also find the related site, at http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiHistory to
be helpful background reading. Notice that the page design is text-based and quite austere. Today,the availability
of service providers such as Wikispaces (http://www.wikispaces.com/) gives users the option to create attractive
pages that include text, pictures, embedded videos, and podcasts.
3 See the http://wiki.org/ site in note 2 above.

4 For the digital native/digital immigrant argument, see Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On
the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. Prensky’s claim appeals to emotion and intuition yet has little basis in research. Many have
criticized his theory for this reason (see note 5 below).
5 For a critique of the digital native/digital immigrant theory,see Bennet, S., Maton,K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The
‘digital natives’debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology,39,775-786.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x Also see Hargittai, E. (February 2010). Digital na(t)ives? Variation in
Internet skills and uses among members of the “Net Generation.” Sociological Inquiry,80,92-113. doi:
10.1111/j.1475-682X.2009.00317.x
6 Bill and Melinda Gates are strong proponents ofa multi-pronged education improvement agenda that includes
innovation (i.e., technology)as well as teacher supports and educationalresearch grants; see their web site for
descriptions of their projects and philosophy at http://www.gatesfoundation.org George Lucas founded Edutopia 20
years ago to support educationalimprovements, both through technology integration and through other strategies
such as project-based learning and teacher development. His foundation web site is http://www.edutopia.org/
7 For a discussion of the “didactic divide” in districts with students oflower socioeconomic status,see Fulton, K., &
Sibley, R. (2003). Barriers to equity. In G. Solomon, N. Allen, & P. Resta (Eds.), Toward digital equity:Bridging
the divide in education (pp. 14-24). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
8 Willard, N. (2010). Educator’s guide to cyberbullying, cyberthreats & sexting. Center for Safe and Responsible
Internet Use. Retrieved from cyberbully.org. Also see the University of Wisconsin law schoollibrary web site for
resources on campus and workplace cyberbullying:
http://www.law.wisc.edu/newsletter/Law_Library_and_IT/Resources_on_School_Workplace_an_2010-09-17
9 The intertwined economies of countries like the U.S. and India are the subject of this Wall Street Journal blog post:
http://www.livemint.com/2011/10/27211951/A-new-partnership-in-cyberspac.html?h=B Banks and government
agencies share this vulnerability. And,because of our interconnectedness,through fiber optics as well as formal
trade agreements, an attack in one location can affect others around the globe. This additional blog entry in the
Washington Post highlights the problems security experts face because of the hidden nature of such threats:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/post/cybersecurity-and-the-missing-sense-of-
urgency/2011/10/12/gIQAhlE3LM_blog.html
10 Carr agrees with Marshall McLuhan’s dire prediction about the changes electronic media promised, in 1964, to
bring to American society. See the original work in an updated volume: McLuhan, M. (2003). Understanding
media: The extensionsof man, critical edition.W. Terrence Gordon (Ed.), Corte Madera, CA: Gingko.
11 This observation was made by Nietzsche’s friend, Heinrich Köselitz, according to Carr. See Carr, N. (2010). The
Shallows:What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains, New York, NY: W.W. Norton, pp. 17ff.
12 Sherry Turkle is a professorof the sociology of technology at MIT and has written extensively on the
psychologicaland ethical challenges those who work in virtual worlds encounter. In Simulation and Its Discontents,
she chronicles the shift in thinking patterns among scientists and designers who began their careers using physical
models but now routinely relegate model-building to computers and simulation programs. Turkle, S. (2009).
Simulation and Its Discontents, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
13 Steven Pinker, a professorof psychology at Harvard University, is one notable example.

Stone 2011 three views of technology in liberal education

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Empfohlen

Empfohlen (20)

Stone 2011 three views of technology in liberal education