Resisting Convergence

Online education may be the future of America’s youth. If implemented effectively, online education could save the domestic economy, training workers for specialized jobs through a low-cost delivery system.

However, for those of us who were brought up in a traditional education system, the benefits of online education are not so apparent. Yes, the efficiency and simplicity of the system will be useful for vocational training, but it remains unclear how the course and the delivery system used affect our preexisting pedagogies. We also wonder what new pedagogies will develop because of the introduction of E-learning and Web 2.0 applications.

Most students in college will agree that part of their education has moved online. NYU Classes and Blackboard are good examples of how parts of the classroom have migrated to the Internet. Teachers often request that individual reflections to readers be posted on “Forums” or “Discussion Pages”, readings can be posted in a “Resources” folder, and students can chat with each other through a site-hosted “Group Chat.” These applications become resources for students, not the whole of their education. However, if these applications were not forced upon the students through assignments, would they use them?

How many students use class-sponsored Group Chats? How many students have Blackboard downloaded as an app on their mobile phone? How many students download their readings to their portable devices, or even read required readings on a screen?

Let us explore a classroom that is void of technology. Some teachers request that students do not bring laptops to class, even though there are a plethora of sites and programs that make laptops a learning tool. Why do teachers resist technology in class?

In my first post, I explored human ambiguity towards technology. When addressing E-learning, perhaps humans have an unconscious fear of technological convergence. Our technology may have converged to make our laptops a learning tool, but our society hasn’t caught up to the idea that one machine can have multiple, often contradictory, purposes.

Our Internet habits alone demonstrate that we tend to appropriate a single task to each item. Why do we feel the need to have an E-mail, Facebook, and Twitter? One could argue that E-mail is for sending electronic letters, Facebook is for socializing with friends online, and Twitter is for sharing your second-to-second events. However, couldn’t any one of those sites serve all three purposes?

How about the use of Web 2.0 applications in class? When Professor Sarita Yardi and Professor Eva Kassens-Noor introduced Group Chat and Twitter, respectively, they found that the applications were useful in motivating students to collaborate outside of the classroom. However, Kassens-Noor found out that Tweets can only go so deep into critical thought, and Yardi found that sometimes, students’ chats digressed from anything class-related. Twitter and Group Chat have been ingrained in our minds as a social tool. When these applications substitute face-to-face discussion, the substance of discussion will become shallower, because these applications are used in our lives differently. Can we learn to use them as learning tools, or have we placed a fixed role on Twitter, Group Chat, and the like?

“Worship at the Altar of Convergence: A New Paradigm for Understanding Media Change” explains the “Black Box Fallacy,” and how it is believed that sometime in the future, every technological tool will be accessible through one “black box” (Jenkins, 14). However, we have the ability to access television, Internet, land-line calling, and gaming through one box, right now, if someone were to provide it. Game consoles like the Wii already connect to the Internet and play DVDs, and SmartTVs do the same tasks with voice activation. The technology that is already being produced is often one or two applications short of being the “black box.” So, why aren’t these black boxes mass-produced?

Perhaps the consumer is resisting convergence. We love the idea of putting separate technologies together into one box: take the Smart Phone. It’s our calendar, alarm clock, web browser, camera, etc. However, most people don’t even use their Smart Phone beyond the calling and web-browsing capabilities.

Perhaps the “black box” has not been mass-produced because there is a small economic demand for it. We already possess all of these separate technology pieces. Why would we go out and buy an expensive “black box” that does everything that we can already do? And what happens when each new version of the “black box” is developed. Will the public keep updating their system?

Perhaps it’s not even a choice for the consumer. Perhaps there is no demand for a “black box” because people do not realize that it is feasible. If a prototype is not revealed in tech conferences, how would the public know that it was possible? The absence of a prototype may be a deliberate move on behalf of tech companies and corporations. They see that there are many questions to answer about the availability and economic value of creating a “black box.” Why create the demand when you can’t promise the supply?

The convergence of our technology seems to have hit a roadblock, and it hit years ago. Each year, a new iPhone comes out, sells out, and the whole world is carrying it. However, we ask ourselves every year, what’s different? Every year, the iPhone disappoints, and Apple has resorted to touting its inner capabilities—faster processor, retina display, etc. Yet, every year people buy-in to the pseudo-innovation. And every year, developers fail to add a new application to our pre-existing technologies. It is not impossible to mix more applications into one technology. The consumer is the resisting force, in some ways. We have assigned rigid roles to our technologies. However, we should consider if the consumer is resisting because of an educated choice or because we don’t even know that we have a choice.

Works Cited

Jenkins, Henry. “Worship at the Altar of Convergence: A New Paradigm for Understanding Media 

Change.” Rpt. in Academic Writing, Real World Topics. By Michael Rectenwald and Lisa Carl. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. PDF file.