s00306095-edes104 - Tumblr blog

s00306095-edes104 · 3 years

Text

Can digital technologies solve all of our problems?

Digital technologies are rapidly swarming over the world, with a pace to be unabated and only accelerated. Technologies have advanced within day-to-day life and have made our life easier and solved many of our problems such as better healthcare due to advancements in resources and implementations of fit bits (Smith, B., Sverdlov, A. 2018), although as the technology becomes smarter it may not solve all of our problems. Due to technology, 43% of businesses surveyed indicate that they are set to reduce their workforce due to technology integration (Kelly, K. 2011). By 2025, it is expected that the current tasks at work by humans and machines will be equal, and a large share of companies are expected to make changes surrounding their locations, value chains and size of workforce due to technology.

Having digital technologies within our life allows for wonderful solutions such as new opportunities to provide training and support for those who are working in rural and remote areas (Ramsden, R., Colbran, R., Christopher, E. and Edwards, M. 2021), medical advancements and enhancing productivity of drug development. However, the success of their implementation will require well‐trained and qualified individuals with necessary medical and statistical expertise (Smith, B., Sverdlov, A. 2018). Although digital technologies advancements for health, retail, finance, marketing, transportation, production and security, combined with other technological advancements creates the basis for further disruptive digital technology-dependent technologies, such as additive manufacturing and robots (Roos, G., & Shroff, Z. 2017).

Source: https://www.medtecheurope.org/environmental-and-social-sustainability/environment-medical-technology/

Due to the rapid implementation of digital technologies within the workforce, there will be a harsh impact on the labour market. The jobs existing prior to the advancements will be destroyed as new technologies arise as the older jobs become ineffective and unprofitable. These jobs will be replaced by more productive jobs in the existing sector or will be replaced by completely new jobs in emerging sectors of work. Therefore, digital technologies are removing jobs but allowing new jobs to arise and to provide the technological training for it.

Source: https://www.techslang.com/robots-taking-over-jobs/

Frey and Osborne (2017) claim that between approximately 45% and 65% of all jobs are at risk of being eliminated due to automation (as cited in Roos, G., & Shroff, Z. 2017). Most job losses will be due to routine-biased technological change, elucidating that although there is demand for routine tasks, there is a decline in the demand for human labour to execute these tasks. As technology advances it may be beyond the humans ability to learn thus resulting in the number of jobs will have fewer levels of employment.

Digital technologies provide wonderful solutions as seen currently within the COVID-19 pandemic, by allowing the economy to move on as most jobs and education has moved digital, as well as allowing effective and efficient research and allowing humanity to communicate on a common mode of technology. Although as technology enhancements are combined together, they can create forces that will destroy occupations in whole.

To prevent the destruction of jobs, we should be focusing on humanity as a whole and the effects. We are taking advantage of technology too fast without thinking of the long term outcomes for humanity. We need to think about our future, rather than the short term impacts.

References:

Kelly, K. (2011). What technology wants. New York: Penguin Books. Chapter 13 and 14.

Ramsden, R., Colbran, R., Christopher, E., & Edwards, M. (2021). The role of digital technology in providing education, training, continuing professional development and support to the rural health workforce. Health Education, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/he-11-2020-0109

Roos, G., & Shroff, Z. (2017). What will happen to the jobs? Technology-enabled productivity improvement – good for some, bad for others. Labour & Industry: A Journal of the Social and Economic Relations of Work, 27(3), 165–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/10301763.2017.1359817

Selwyn, N. (2016). Digital downsides: exploring university students’ negative engagements with digital technology. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(8), 1006–1021. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1213229

3 notes · View notes

s00306095-edes104 · 3 years

Text

Are digital natives a myth or reality?

According to Prensky, a ‘digital native’ is an individual born after 1984 who has supposedly lived their whole life immersed within digital technologies therefore being fluent with the digital language, and those born before 1984 are considered digital immigrants thus having an accent from the past (Prensky, 2001).

Personally, I believe the notion of “digital natives” are a myth. To be born into the digital world is not a choice, not all people in the age criteria for digital natives have access to technology, or their use of technology is limited. Therefore, those who don't have a recurrent access are unable to develop the fluency of the “new language” (Prensky, 2001). At first, I agreed towards the existence of Digital natives and the opposing, digital immigrants, although when I thought about the whole of society I realised it was false. In my experiences I am surrounded by those who speak the digital language, but in our world there are many who don't encounter access to technology due to factors such as having low socioeconomic status. Furthermore, those born before 1984 have equal capabilities to fluently learn the new language of digital technology.

Source: https://www.thesmithfamily.com.au/poverty-in-australia

A research was conducted in South Africa (C. Brown L. Czerniewicz, 2010) to explore various factors around the idea of “digital natives” in terms of issues surrounding access to resources of Information and communication technologies. The students were surveyed 100 questions towards access, use and demographic information. The research has shown that despite Prensky’s established age criteria for digital natives, the research within the South African University has debunked the prominent factor of age as only 26% believe to have “grown up digital” and an alarming 22% claim to have lack of experience and opportunity as they have no direct access to technology. The digital natives criteria are only seen as 26% of the population, and those opposing the criteria meeting a similar mark of 22%.

To be fluent in the digital language does not require you to be born after 1984. A research taken (Romero, M., Guitert, M., Sangrà, A., Bullen, M. 2013) conveys 58% of their students born before 1984 work efficiently with technology. The skills required to become fluent in the new language is through direct access with technology and recurrent use. Those who are thought of as “digital immigrants” (Prensky, 2001) are also “surrounded by opportunities to engage in new, technology-mediated forms of social participation” (Smith, J., Skrbis, Z., & Western, M. 2013) in which they have similar opportunities to learn the skills. Therefore, they are people who can efficiently manoeuver technology regardless of whether they were born into the digital world

Source: https://pixabay.com/photos/search/feedback/

Digital natives are a myth. There is no age criteria that determines complete access to technology as well as the expectations of having direct access to technology. Certainly there are more opportunities post 1984 with technology, but that doesn’t mean that those born prior don’t have the capability and facilities to learn another “language”. The current ideologies and characteristics of the “digital natives” don’t consider a holistic overview with the inclusions of socioeconomic status and geographic location.

We as educators will need to realise that not all students are “digital natives” and that not all teachers are “digital immigrants”. We all have our own potential and our own personal unique relationship towards technology. We need to be prepared for those with different levels of skill with technology and how to adapt towards it.

References:

Au-Yong-Oliveira, M., Gonçalves, R., Martins, J., & Branco, F. (2018). Telematics and Informatics. The social impact of technology on millennials and the consequences for higher education and leadership, 35 (4), 954-963.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.10.007

Brown, C., Czerniewicz, L. (2010). Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. Debunking the ‘digital native’: beyond digital apartheid, towards digital democracy. 35(4), 357-369.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00369.x

Kirschner, P.A., De Bruyckere, P. (2017). Teaching and Teacher Education. The myths of the digital native and the multitasker, 67, 135-142.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.001.

Smith, J., Skrbis, Z., & Western, M. (2013). Journal of Sociology. Beneath the ‘Digital Native’ myth: Understanding young Australians’ online time use, 49(1), 97–118.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783311434856

1 note · View note