Technology Overload

I share Lauren Hirsh's concern about technology overload, but would argue it is actually an information overload problem. This is already being seen in the workforce. The idea that technology can lead to productivity losses is the topic of "When more is too much: Operationalizing technology overload and exploring its impact on knowledge worker productivity." The article includes an instrument by which to evaluate technological and communication overload that could be adapted and deployed for students (Karr-Wisniewski & Lu, 2010, p. 1071).

Technology overload goes hand in hand with information overload, which is exploding at ate of 66% a year (http://youtu.be/j0fkrJgmQxs?t=6m38s). This concept is explored in detail by Wired magazine's founding executive editor Kevin Kelly in conjunction with his concept of the Technium, technology acting as a living organism as its size and capability increases.

Information overload is also explored by Shrivastav and Hiltz in "Information Overload in Technology-based Education: a Meta-Analysis" (2013).  They posit that technology is the delivery system for information overload and that is the actual, underlying problem. "The ubiquitous nature and ease of use of technology leads to a plethora of recorded information. Processing this varied and often redundant information has overloaded students, which is detrimental to learning" (Shrivastav & Hiltz, 2013, p. 1).


Karr-Wisniewski, P. & Lu, Y. (2010).  When more is too much: Operationalizing technology overload and exploring its impact on knowledge worker productivity. Computers in Human Behavior. 26(5). 1061-1072. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.008

Shrivastav, H., & Hiltz, S. R. (2013). Information Overload in Technology-based Education: a Meta-Analysis. Proceedings of the Nineteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Chicago, Illinois. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2013/ISEducation/GeneralPresentations/6/

Second Life is not ready for prime time

No examination of online education would be complete without at least mentioning immersive digital worlds, or "multi-user virtual environments (MUVEs)" (Warburton, 2009, pg 415). The one most commonly used in education at present is Second Life. Many Universities bought property or islands and set up virtual campuses in Second life years ago only for them to turn into virtual ghost towns. There are a few projects utilizing Second Life right now that show promise, especially in increasing student confidence. See more about how the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy is using Second Life at (make sure to watch the video): https://pharmacy.unc.edu/news/a-closer-look/using-second-life-to-help-students-in-real-life

Largely though Second Life is not living up to the dreams held for it in the mid-2000's. Warburton groups the barriers of Second Life into eight categories: technical, identity, culture, collaboration, time, economic, standards, and scaffolding persistence/social discovery (2009, p. 422-423). The technical barrier is the most insurmountable. While technology continues to get better, those that can afford such technology is limited. With education trying to be an equalizer, this presents a very difficult issue. The other side of the technology problem lies in the server capacity needed to maintain the virtual environment. The more popular it become, the larger the network load, the slower it becomes, the more it freezes and drops.  Another aspect of technical barriers to MUVE adoption is the technical ability of the user and their comfort level when “interacting through avatars” (Petrakou, 2010, p. 1020). Warburton posits that “increasing levels of connectivity, bandwidth and disposable personal time” will play a role in MUVE adoption.

We have some time to go before MUVEs become ubiquitous in education. All of the aspects of technical issues must be resolved. “Further research and practice is needed in order to develop, design and evaluate asynchronous interactivity within the virtual world” (Petrakou, 2010, p. 1027). Further evaluation will be needed to demonstrate the instructional value of "utilizing the spacial dimension" (Petrakou, 2010, p. 1024) otherwise a massive video chat platform would be just as effective. The value of WUVE will need to be established and I assume research having to do with the use of it to mask the perception of race and/or disability may become conversation point. At any rate, it is my opinion that Second Life is not ready for prime time.

Warburton, S. (2009). Second Life in higher education: Assessing the potential for and the barriers to deploying virtual worlds in learning and teaching. British Journal Of Educational Technology, 40(3), 414-426. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00952.x

Petrakou, A. (2010). Interacting through avatars: Virtual worlds as a context for online education. Computers & Education, 54 (4), 1020-1027. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.007

Review of "Using social media for academic good" by Stephanie Trunzo

Stephanie Trunzo's talk "Pedagogical Facebook and Twitter? Using social media for academic good" covered the use of several well-known technologies “where students are.” The main idea is that online courses are looking for ways to get students authentically engaged with the course material and classmates and one way to encourage that is to go to them instead of having them come to a learning management system. The questions from the NCSU audience show that many people, including me, are worried about privacy issues and information ownership. Benefits to using a facebook group for an online course per Trunzo:

• better engages students because discussion responses go to email so they don’t forget to go back and it keeps the conversation going.
• easier for students to add resources themselves
• closed invitation only facebook group provides student privacy

One of the technologies she used that I think could be easily implemented and could be useful for students include have a Blackboard Collaborate (formerly Elluminate) room available for the whole semester so students can use it to collaborate.  Another interesting things she talked about was her students’ desire for audio content. She does a weekly podcast, basically reading the written material she provides. This, to me, seems redundant. She mentions that it’s worth it to reach students with different learning styles and preferences. I would encourage instructors to have a variety of content (text, audio, video, image) that reinforces, broadens, and provides context for each other in each week instead of duplicating content. The use of twitter as course announcements was also interesting.

Collaborative editing tools are something I actually do not use much. I’m old fashioned in that I still use Microsoft Word and track changes. I’m not a huge fan of wikis. I think I have trust issues ;) I think the use of delicious “communal tagging” bookmarks for class readings are fascinating and could be implemented easily. It's something I will definitely mention to faculty.