Group items tagged

until these contingencies harden into technological necessities and become nearly unchangeable in future generations. There’s an old story that is basically true: Ordinary Roman carts were constructed to match the width of Imperial Roman war chariots because it was easier to follow the ruts in the road left by the war chariots. The chariots were sized to accommodate the width of two large war horses, which translates into our English measurement as a width of 4′ 8.5″. Roads throughout the vast Roman empire were built to this spec. When the legions of Rome marched into Britain, they constructed long distance imperial roads 4′ 8.5″ wide. When the English started building tramways, they used the same width so the same horse carriages could be used. And when they started building railways with horseless carriages, naturally the rails were 4′ 8.5″ wide. Imported laborers from the British Isles built the first railways in the Americas using the same tools and jigs they were used to. Fast forward to the US Space shuttle, which is built in parts around the country and assembled in Florida. Because the two large solid fuel rocket engines on the side of the launch Shuttle were sent by railroad from Utah, and that line transversed a tunnel not much wider than the standard track, the rockets themselves could not be much wider than 4′ 8.5.”

“So, a major Space Shuttle design feature of what is arguably the world’s most advanced transportation system was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of two horses’ arse.” More or less, this is how technology constrains itself over time.

In addition to the primary drive of preordained development (force #1), and in addition to the escapable influences of technological history (force #2), there is society’s collective free will in shaping the technium (force #3).

What we saw instead was that DigiTech enabled teachers and students to do the same things faster and more efficiently, albeit after some teachers had invested time and effort in learning how to use different technologies.

We conclude this paper by drawing on Veletsianos (2016 Veletsianos, G. (2016). Emergence and innovation in digital learning: Foundations and applications. Edmonton: AU Press, Athabasca University.) to suggest that a focus on ‘emerging technologies’ and ‘emerging practices’ in digital learning could be a useful way forward. As Veletsianos (2016 Veletsianos, G. (2016). Emergence and innovation in digital learning: Foundations and applications. Edmonton: AU Press, Athabasca University.) argues, ‘emerging technologies’ and ‘emerging practices’ transcend disciplines and, moreover, what makes practice and technology emerging is not the technology, but rather the environments in which technologies and practices operate. Emerging technologies and practices, therefore, are foregrounded in the belief that technologies and practices shape and are shaped by sociocultural environments.

As Veletsianos (2016 Veletsianos, G. (2016). Emergence and innovation in digital learning: Foundations and applications. Edmonton: AU Press, Athabasca University.) argues, DigiTech is not yet established in education.

(if you’re not familiar with it, growth mindset is the belief that people who believe ability doesn’t matter and only effort determines success are more resilient, skillful, hard-working, perseverant in the face of failure, and better-in-a-bunch-of-other-ways than people who emphasize the importance of ability. Therefore, we can make everyone better off by telling them ability doesn’t matter and only hard work does

Good research shows that inborn ability (including but not limited to IQ) matters a lot, and that the popular prejudice that people who fail just weren’t trying hard enough is both wrong and harmful.

A rare point of agreement between hard biodeterminists and hard socialists is that telling kids that they’re failing because they just don’t have the right work ethic is a crappy thing to do. It’s usually false and it will make them feel terrible. Behavioral genetics studies show pretty clearly that at least 50% of success at academics and sports is genetic; various sociologists have put a lot of work into proving that your position in a biased society covers a pretty big portion of the remainder. If somebody who was born with the dice stacked against them works very hard, then they might find themselves at A2 above. To deny this in favor of a “everything is about how hard you work” is to offend the sensibilities of sensible people on the left and right alike