Technology has opened many doors in the modern world. We can communicate with virtually anyone in the world, instantaneously, through phones, email, social media, video chatting and other applications. It has changed the way we define community. The Oxford English Dictionary defines community as, “a group of people who share the same interests, pursuits, or occupation, esp. when distinct from those of the society in which they live” and as “an online facility, such as an electronic bulletin board, forum, or chat room, where users can share information or discuss topics of mutual interest" (Oxford English Dictionary, n.d.). The definition of community has extended beyond the confines of “A body of people who live in the same place, usually sharing a common cultural or ethnic identity. Hence: a place where a particular body of people lives" (Oxford English Dictionary, n.d.). In English 285: American Cyborgs I was able to research the implications that technology has had on education.

 

More than ever before, technology is playing a critical role in education. There are online databases that can access information from almost anywhere in the world, we can view multiple perspectives on the same topic from one device and we can access the most recent developments and discoveries on virtually any subject. According to one resource, technology is even changing the classroom dynamic. Teachers are having to settle into a facilitator role rather than being dispensers of information. Teachers are focused less on dispensing the information and more on setting goals, giving guidelines and providing resources and suggestions to students. Likewise, technology is changing the role of students by giving them a more active role in the learning process. When technology is properly implemented into the classroom, students are given the opportunity to make choices about “how to generate, obtain, manipulate, or display information" (Effects of Technology on Classrooms and Students, n.d.). Compared to a traditional instructor-led classroom, technology allows students to become more active in their education. It allows them to actively think about information, make choices, perform more skills and tasks, define their own goals, make design decisions and evaluate their progress more than a classroom without technology is able to (Effects of Technology on Classrooms and Students, n.d.).

 

According to an article on the Perdue University website, as the role of teachers is changing, schools and universities have begun changing their learning spaces to spur interaction and group work. Changing the learning environment puts technology back into the role of the enabler, rather than the instructor (How Has Technology Changed Education?, n.d.). It has the ability to stimulate group work and more in-depth, interactive learning, but is the classroom always the best place for technology?

 

Many of us have been sitting in a classroom or meeting and caught something out of the corner of our eye. All of a sudden, you can’t focus on the speaker, you have to look, so you investigate only to find that the person sitting two rows up and three seats over from you is watching the game online, the girl beside you is trying to pick out a dress for her next function, someone is on Facebook, someone else is sending emails and another is watching YouTube. All of a sudden, you think, “Am I the only one trying to pay attention?”

 

BBC News reported on a study done in 2012 about technology in the schools of countries participating in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD for short (Schleicher, School technology struggles to make an impact, 2015). The OECD is comprised of 34 industrialized countries. The organization is a forum that develops and promotes economic and social policies to promote free-market policies and trade (OECD Guidelines: OECD, n.d.).

 

The study showed that by 2012, 96 percent of 15-year-old students in OECD countries said they have a computer at home; 72 percent of students said they use some form of home computer at school. The study found that students who used computers moderately at school tended to have slightly better learning outcomes when compared to students who rarely used computers at school. The study also revealed that students who frequently used computers at school had worse learning outcomes when compared to other students (Schleicher, School technology struggles to make an impact, 2015).

 

Researchers discovered that technology in schools seemed to do very little in bridging the gap between advantaged students and disadvantaged students when it came to their skills and abilities. It also revealed no major improvements in reading, mathematics or science achievements for countries that chose to heavily invest in information and communication technology for educational purposes (Schleicher, School technology struggles to make an impact, 2015; Schleicher, School technology struggles to make an impact, 2015).

 

The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop conducted a study – also done in 2012 – that revealed children ages 3 to 6 years old “recalled significantly fewer narrative details” if they were being taught to read on an e-book versus children who were taught to read using an identical copy, in the physical form (De Bruyckere, Kirschner, & Hulshof, n.d.). Franki Sibberson, a third-grade teacher from Ohio said, “I once had a kid say, I didn’t know we were allowed to think when we read online.” Her theory is that students do not relate online reading, or reading from e-books, to being the same as reading a printed book (Heitin, 2016). Another study done by the Canadian Higher Education Strategy Associates found that most students actually preferred “ordinary, real-life” lessons and engagement with their teachers more than e-learning or education aided by other technologies (De Bruyckere, Kirschner, & Hulshof, n.d.).

 

The study conducted on schools in OECD countries reported that students who spend more than six hours online per day, outside of school, are at a higher risk of feeling lonely at school. The BBC News article, written by OECD education director Andreas Schleicher reports that the best way to create more equal opportunities in the digital world are to ensure that every child receives a baseline level of proficiency in reading and mathematics rather than expanding access to hi-tech devices and services (Schleicher, School technology struggles to make an impact, 2015; Schleicher, School technology struggles to make an impact, 2015).

 

In early October of 2018, I took a series of American Airlines flights from Columbia, S.C. to Dallas, Texas to Austin, Texas and back again. I noticed that the newer flights were much more luxurious. They were equipped with personal televisions, 3-prong western style outlets, humidifiers in the vents and the fake leather material that was only reserved for first-class seats in the past. The flight was quite frankly the nicest I have ever been on. That being said, I haven’t flown since I was in middle school, so I was quite impressed with how the standards had changed.

 

On this new, luxury aircraft, they showed a video of the safety procedures. As far as I could tell the flight attendant did not go through the procedures as I remember in the past or still saw on flights that lacked the personal televisions. The video was very well done. The speaker had a clear, smooth voice and it contained a lot of fluid movement as it changed from example to example. The problem is that the things that stood out most to me were the fluidity and components of the woman’s voice, not the actual safety procedures. Of course, I name can the basic procedures, so the implications may not be as severe for me as they could be for someone who has never flown before. What led me to this conclusion isn’t my belief that video cannot compare to being taught by a living, breathing human being standing in front of you, it was the number of people who weren’t paying the screen or the flight attendant any attention.

 

Today we are so flooded with screens that it can be difficult for us to reason why we should break our attention from one screen to go to another. There can be so much value in eye contact or a smile, but when we mask that with a screen it loses the personal touch and interest we have in the physical. While I found myself distracted by everything, expect the informational video, I noticed a few other passengers who never looked up from their phones. Part of the problem with a video is once you have seen it a few times and already know what is going to happen, you get bored, with the exception of your favorite movies and videos of course. When it is one-on-one human contact, many people feel more obligated to make eye contact and pay attention.

 

During my senior year at the University of South Carolina I took on an executive role with the Public Relations Student Society of America – PRSSA – chapter at the university. I was given the role of programming chair, which means I help to plan meetings and connect with confirmed and potential speakers. The University of South Carolina’s PRSSA chapter tends to have a lot of speakers, some in person and some over video-call. As programming chair, and prior to taking on the role of programming chair, I have noticed that members always seem more satisfied if we either do some type of development workshop, or we have a speaker who is physically present at the meeting. Both of these activities allow for immediate, hands-on learning which makes members more attentive. They make the members feel more engaged than the virtual speakers do.

 

Video-calling is a wonderful tool in communication, but it can cause people to be less attentive because they cannot make the same connection as they could if the person were present. Video-calling restricts this connection because there can be a technology or sound failure, the person may have to go immediately following their presentation or students feel annoyed when their question has to be relayed to the speaker versus being allowed to speak directly to them, streamlining the communication process. Throughout the remainder of my time as programming chair I am trying to combat this by offering workshops that give members skills to put them ahead of competitors when applying for jobs, trying to limit the number of virtual speakers we have, allowing time for members to interact with physically present speakers during and after meetings, and by making meetings and workshops as interactive as possible.

 

In my career I will use this knowledge and experience to incorporate more hands-on, interactive components to the work environment. If I am given a leadership role, I will avoid holding virtual meetings with my team to ensure there is engagement between all of us. As a boss, I would try and avoid virtual training where it is not necessary. When someone is trained on a computer it is easy to click through the reading or press play on a video and walk away, rather than absorbing the information. The culture of today’s instantaneous, multi-tasking, virtual world can be a benefit to communication. The technology can also benefit research and education in great ways, but technology should be a tool used in education rather than a replacement for physical leaders in education or something that forces physical leaders to become a tool to technology.