Photo by Martin Weller from 25 Years of Ed Tech
After reading the first third of Weller’s book, I found it to be a very interesting and engaging read for all of us who are interested in learning about the evolution of technology. Even better, for all of us who have experienced first-hand many of the changes mentioned in the book, either as students, instructors or both.
I could not help but to travel back in time when I was probably in Grade 5 or 6 and the first computers became available in my school. There was only one computer lab for the entire school, at the time those big boxes on the tables represented the latest and most amazing technology there was. I am pretty sure nobody in my classroom knew at the time what a transforming world was ahead of us. I remember clearly how amazed I was while walking into the computer lab for the first time. Those floppy disks were super cool, MS-DOS was the software of the future and that dial-up tone, while very annoying, was the sound that transported me to an alternate world, the internet.
To me, one of the most compelling arguments in Weller’s book is the development of Wikipedia. He described it as something that was seemed as “an unworkable idea” (p. 41). I share the same sentiment because I remember clearly how time-consuming and work-intensive it was to go to a public library and do a research project. When Wikipedia became available it seemed too good to be true. It didn’t make things easier, simply made them more available to those who could afford a computer and internet at home. Things that seemed impossible started to become readily usable. We knew so little that with the passage of time Wikipedia, while still a useful and practical tool, would not be considered a reliable source anymore.
References:
Weller, M. (2020). 25 Years of Ed Tech. Athabasca University Press. Retrieved from: https://www.aupress.ca/books/120290-25-years-of-ed-tech/
Hi Luis,
Thanks for your post. Yes, I remember those giant floppy disks! Now, I wish I had kept one as a momento…
The staying power of Wikimedia is quite something, especially when considering all the other tools and technologies mentioned in the book – many of which didn’t catch on. I assume it’s the community of editors and contributors that keep it alive and the continued demand!
I have found many of the links and images have helped in my own research even though I may not end up using the actual Wikipedia source itself.
I remember the beginnings of Wikipedia and how it was not seen as something we could legitimately use as a source. We were warned not to use – that it would not count as a source when we were graded. Wiki was ok to use as a starting point to lead you to other more legitimate sources. I use wiki usually for music related information – band names, songs, location et al. Using wiki even as a first stop, for me, is time consuming. Perhaps it is the journalist in me, always questioning the legitimacy of the information before me. The past few years have highlighted the battle between sourcing real news and believing fake news. Wikipedia is still an incredible phenomena, all that information in one spot with live contributors. It is unfortunate that as an open source contributive platform, the information cannot be trusted. I wonder why wiki is still around.