The thing that made me start wondering this was my experience of playing my sons’ video games that are very fast, cluttered with an overwhelming amount of 3D graphics, and requiring the player to quickly press many different button combinations. I was one of the game addicts of the 70′s and 80′s, beginning with pong, then spending lots of time in arcades playing Miss Pac Man and Centipede, and finally playing Mario Brothers at home on my own Nintendo machine. However, I can’t seem to deal with the speed and amount of information flying at me in the current video games.

Dr. Mayer (2009) contends that the human brain does not evolve as quickly as technology and, therefore, there is no physical change in humans’ brains. His explanation for the ability of humans to seemingly multitask is not the result of a higher capacity limit, but a more efficient use of tools to handle the increased amount of input.

Although I admit that his explanation may be true, or partially true, I disagree with his rejection of the possibility of human cognition changing due to exposure and use of technology simply because that is the way it has always been. He stated that humans learn in the same way that they always have, that it is what it is. I think that past reality is a poor rationale for any phenomenon because it doesn’t take into account new factors that may contribute to a completely different present reality.

I believe there is enough evidence that human cognition may be changing to warrant a research study.

Now that I have had my rant, I will return to a nice, 2D game of Bejeweled!

Mayer, R. E. (2009).Multimedia technology to facilitate learning. Baltimore: Author. DVD: Laureate Education, Inc.

The concept of the digital divide, introduced in the mid 1990s, has been described as unequal access to the Internet provided to different cultural and socioeconomic groups (Banerjee & Hodge, 2007, p. 229, ¶2). This limited description may be strengthened by including the disparity in access among social groups to technology resources such as computers and to learning experiences that develop technology skills and knowledge. Banerjee and Hodge introduced the idea of a second digital divide as a disparity in patterns of technology usage among various cultural groups, indicating that an increase in funding for technology to provide more hardware, software, and training does not guarantee increased or critical use of technology. While they noted that the digital divide, understood in the traditional sense as a disparity in access to physical resources, appears to be closing, they contended that focus should shift to patterns of usage and the factors that influence the development of these patterns (p.242, ¶5). Bell, Judge, & Puckett (2006) discussed the term, digital equity, as a more all-encompassing term including “equal access to technology resources, effective use of technology for teaching and learning, access to high quality, culturally relevant content, and opportunities to create new content” (p. 52, ¶2).

Another aspect of the digital divide focusing on usage was the determination that large quantities of time using technology did not necessarily indicate high quality use in terms of critical thinking and creative work. Although young non-white Internet users without GEDs or high school diplomas were reported to use the Internet often, they used it most often for playing online games, while users with higher levels of education used it mostly for doing research, making purchases, and communicating with others (Bell, Judge, & Puckett, 2006, p. 242, ¶3). Differences were demonstrated within cultural groups as well as between them, indicating significant gender divide in all racial categories, with females using the Internet more for active pursuits such as communication and research, while males were shown to use it more often in passive ways such as gaming and accessing news and sports information (Bell, Judge, & Puckett , 2006, p. 243, ¶1).

These studies demonstrate that it is not enough for us to focus on distributing technology resources equitably. We must look closer, talk to people, understand their cultures and the challenges that they face, in order to help them use technology resources in ways that empower them.

Banerjee, S., & Hodge, A. (2007). Internet usage: A within race analysis. Race, Gender, and Class, 14(3/4), 228-246.

Bell, S. M., Judge, S., & Puckett, K. (2006). Closing the digital divide: Update from the early childhood longitudinal study. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(1), 52-60.

Thomas, D. (2008). The digital divide: What schools in low socioeconomic areas must teach. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin.

Another thing that occurred to me is that, when we think of emerging technologies, we usually think of high-tech, electronic contraptions. Kitchen utensils doesn’t spring immediately to mind, at least until now. The Pyrex commercial reminded me to think about simple innovations as well as complex ones.

Usually the “rekindling” part of McLuhan’s Tetrad is difficult for me, but I think that this particular technology illustrates the concept beautifully.

I was in Hawaii for a Walden residency the week this assignment was due. I planned to watch one of the movies on the airplane, but my little netbook does not have a DVD drive, so I could not just rent it. Therefore, I went to the ITunes store, rented Blade Runner, and downloaded it. It cost $2.99 to rent a movie for 30 days.

I believe the current competition between DVDs and video on demand is an example of Red Queens I believe that the market will continue to support both technologies, and that neither will be driven into extinction by the other. Eventually they will both be driven to extinction, according to McLuhan’s tetrad, because every technology carries the seeds of its own obsolescence. However, I predict that it will be some completely new technology that drives them both into extinction.

As explained in the concept of Red Queens, DVDs and video on demand are the only two viable competitors in the home movie market. Video cassettes still exist and are rented, but I believe these will go the way of the floppy disc, and eventually become extinct. Movie players are not mostly DVD, without VHS support. The increasing popularity of laptop computers, and the capability they have to play DVDs but not VHS tapes, will contribute to the extinction of VHS.

On the other hand, in spite of the convenience of video on demand, eliminating the need to go anywhere or to have a DVD drive, I do not believe that DVDs will be driven to extinction by video on demand. One reason for my faith in the DVD industry is my Grandma. She has a DVD player and has been using it for years, albeit with some difficulties along the way, but she vows never to touch a computer. Most people have the ability to watch DVDs. Fewer people have the tools necessary to play videos on demand.

Another reason that I believe DVDs are not at risk is that, although videos on demand are convenient and mobile, even on laptops without DVD drives, people often like to view movies on their TV sets with larger screens. Although some people have newer TVs with the ability to download video on demand, more people have regular televisions accompanied by DVD players.

I think that both DVDs and video on demand are in the enhancing and obsolescing sections of McLuhan’s tetrad. They enhance the movie watching experience by making any movie available at any time, and allowing the movie to be viewed in locations other than a theatre or home. They are rapidly making VHS tapes obsolete because of their enhanced quality, durability, and mobility.

Thornburg (2009) explained disruptive technologies as completely new tools that change how things are done, and are not gradual extensions of older technologies. The new, disruptive technologies suddenly appear without warning, making other technologies obsolete. Thornburg used the example of the transistor as a disruptive technology that replaced the vacuum tubes. Although this was a technological improvement that benefitted many people, it can be surmised that many people in the vacuum tube industry were not pleased. Many people may lose their jobs because of the disruptive effect of technologies that replace the ones they depended on for their livelihoods.

I believe that the use of virtual worlds in education may frighten many people because the concept is so unfamiliar and so dissimilar from traditional educational paradigms. It may threaten people who have taught or been administrators in schools for many years. Carmody (2008) reported that Christensen, Horn, and Johnson advocated disruptive innovation as a way to “move from a monolithic school structure where topics are taught in a one-fits-most way”. They pointed to standardization emphasized in schools as a deterrent to providing differentiated education that best meets the needs of all students, and disruptive innovation as a way to change the system and break through the barriers created by long-standing tradition. Toffler (1970) stated that the traditional, industrial-age school environment characterized by students sitting in rows, one-way direct instruction from teacher to student, and progression through grade levels in a repeated organizational pattern, prepares today’s students for a past age, rather than providing them with relevant skills and knowledge for their futures (p. 399). Instead of teacher-centered classrooms characterized by lectures, modeled after the “old top-down hierarchical structure of industry” (p.408), Toffler advocated using student-centered teaching strategies including role playing, simulations, discussions, and authentic learning experiences. Second Life may provide an excellent framework within which we can apply these teaching strategies.

Second Life is a disruptive technology in technology because, not only does it replace the physical teaching environment with a virtual one, it replaces the traditional, industrial-era educational paradigm with a student-centered, experience-based paradigm. I can’t predict how many years Second Life has before it is replaced by another disruptive technology, but I do agree with Rosedale (2008) that its influence will continue to increase, and that fear of this technology is futile because its increasing ubiquity is inevitable. While I don’t think that Second Life should replace all face-to-face or online instruction, I value the opportunity it provides for people to create things and experience things that would be impossible in the physical world, as Rosedale (2008) pointed out. Another social benefit of Second Life discussed by Rosedale was its immense diversity, and the ongoing communication and collaboration among people from many different countries and cultures, speaking many different languages.

Rosedale, P. (2008). Second Life [Video]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/the_inspiration_of_second_life.html.

Thornburg, D. (2009). Evolutionary technology Vodcast: In Laureate Education, Inc. Emerging and future technology.

Toffler, A. (1970). Future shock. Random House: New York.