In studying the entries posted on the Learning Technology Timeline, I was surprised at some of the Òentries of the future.Ó While I am well aware that the timeline would be a little lackluster without exciting Òwhat if . . .Ó scenarios devised by students like myself, I couldnÕt help feeling a bit wary of the confidence some students have in the rate that technology will progress, and that this progression will bring with it positive impacts on learning.
The first entry that caught my eye was the invention of a 3-D university in the year 2005 (http://www.lis.uiuc.edu/~chip/projects/timeline/2005williams.html),in striking contrast to the first opening of a university ever, The Academy in 387 BCE (http://www.lis.uiuc.edu/~chip/projects/timeline/387bwilliams.html). It seems highly unlikely to me that a truly effective online university will be under operation in only three years. I am curious how such real-time interaction would be possible when the best webcams now are still delayed, often from five minutes ago. While I do believe that this time lapse will be much improved in three years, I donÕt know that up-to-the-second automatic refreshment capabilities will quite be in existence yet.
Furthermore, human interaction in learning is critical, and I donÕt know how an in-classroom experience can be simulated, ever, as mentioned by other postings. While one day professors may broadcast lectures from their own offices (they might already, for my knowledge of the subject), I donÕt see how important student-to-student contact canÕt not be sacrificed using this method. More timid students who donÕt have the nerve to speak up about not understanding an assignment canÕt appeal for help short of sending an e-mail. And if discussion capabilities using microphones and speakers (a la conference calls) were implemented, how would professors ÒcallÓ on students to speak one at a time? Even if students could claim identity to a certain animated figure on their monitor, will it ever be possible to look a professor in the eye when asking a question? I think that the transmission of knowledge from one person to another should not have to be mediated by static, delays, or any problems of the sort that computers potentially pose. The resolution of all of these problems in three years to a perfect extent seems a little too optimistic, from my point of view.
It also appears that many of the entries on the timeline were submitted by people who apparently wouldnÕt be too upset to see books (as we know them) go. One entry claimed a Òban on booksÓ would be levied in less than fifty years (http://www.lis.uiuc.edu/~chip/projects/timeline/2045larson.html). While it is highly likely that palm pilot-like devices may hold veritable libraries one day, I hardly see the printing of books ending anytime soon, especially with the book-binding renaissance that we discussed in lecture. What would happen to all of the research done that is housed in libraries? How many years would it take to scan all of this information into a huge, all-encompassing supercomputer of books?
I also was hesitant in believing this prediction because of its claim that Òthe ban is for the bestÓ because of all of the paper that will be saved in the long run. Were computers not supposed to do the same thing, and instead produced more paper waste? Will people find it easier to print their books anyway and read them off of a hard copy rather than read them on their personal e-gadgets? Even when I plan on staying home for an evening, I never read anything more than a page without printing it first. Following this point and perhaps gearing up for my least favorite prediction of all, I will now turn to the timeline entry of ÒThe New York Times Ceases Printing on NewsprintÓ (http://www.lis.uiuc.edu/~chip/projects/timeline/1854seymour.html#future). Had this entry been inserted in the timeline fifty years later, I would have agreed. But next year?! People forget the conveniences of newpapers- they are light, they are cheap, they are disposable and easy to manipulate. Online newpapers are ridiculous to navigate in comparison. And the authorÕs comment of being able to Òremove every mention of George BushÓ infuriated me, and IÕm not even a republican. With a hard copy of a newspaper, a person is forced to at least bypass articles that do not appear of interest in pursuit of ones that do. Still, the articles a person may not choose to read are still unavoidably on the page. The ability to Òput blinders onÓ and only read about what one wants to see (via specific computer setttings) has enormous cultural and political ramifications. Imagine if an art major only wanted to read articles about theater and Monet exhibits and had her computer rigged in that manner. Is it really a good thing that she is actively blocking knowledge of the world around her, especially in the current state of our country, post-September 11th? There is a certain extent to which technology should allow people to only hear what they want to, and I think that "learning" should also include learning about things that might not always interest us, but are essential to know as educated citizens.
In summation, the examples I have chosen from the timeline show that technology has the potential to increase isolation in learningÑ learning about each other, learning about our world. The effects that this isolation will have on learning are yet to be determined. Will people learn faster when they are one-on-one with a computer most of the time? Will micromanagement leave people clueless about the world around them? These are some questions that we will only be able to answer with time. My critique of the examples I selected from the timeline has an equal shot of being right on the mark, or not lying anywhere near it. Nonetheless, what one can imagine for the future of learning can potentially be accomplished with the marriage of technology and the human mind. We must keep in mind that especially when it comes to learning, technology can only go as far as humans allow it to.
If people want e-books that are the size of a calculator, they will be created eventually. But if an online image of oneself in a virtual classroom is too much for the average person to bear, chances are, it won't last long in the rapidly changing techno-educational world.
page last updated: Spring, 2002