Month: May 2022

The world we live in has changed, and there is no denying that global temperatures are on the rise. Educational technology (Ed-Tech) is also evolving rapidly and continuously shapes the way we learn in new ways. The impact of Ed-Tech on the environment, both positive and negative, should be considered as we move forward in time. 

As part of LRNT 521, we have paired up to explore the impact of digital learning in various contexts. My partner for this research, Shazia, will be exploring the positive environmental impact of Ed-Tech on her blog, while I will highlight some of the negative impacts in the list below:

• Ed-Tech relies on digital devices which are constructed from a variety of metals, contributing to the consumption of non-renewable resources. 
• Production of digital artifacts and devices uses considerable energy consumption. It is estimated that 70-80% of a lap tops energy use in its lifecycle happens during the production of the product itself. 
• Data processing and storage at data centres and server farms use significant power and water to function. 
• “Recycling” and disposing of devices and hardware comes with an environmental cost leading to increased pollution, contamination and toxic waste. 
• Not only do devices consume energy while in use, but they also drain energy when idle, adding to overall energy consumption. 
• Technology-induced energy savings results in more widely used technology, increasing energy consumption through a ‘rebound’ effect (Huang, A., 2011; Macgilchrist, F., 2021; Selwyn, N., 2021). 

References

Huang, A. (2011). Applying sustainable systems development approach to educational technology systems. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 40(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.2190/ET.40.1.c 

Macgilchrist, F. (2021). Rewilding technology. On Education. Journal for Research and Debate, 4(12). https://doi.org/10.17899/on_ed.2021.12.2 

Selwyn, N. (2021). Ed-tech within limits: Anticipating educational technology in times of environmental crisis. E-Learning and Digital Media, 18(5), 496–510. https://doi.org/10.1177/20427530211022951

After completing the Unit 3 readings, we were asked to reflect on the impact structures may have on our digital presence and digital identity plan. Most notable for me is my varying presence within different learning structures. 

The development of my digital presence and identity within my MALAT cohort is my greatest priority and challenge at this time. Our learning environment is structured as a Fully Online Learning Community (FOLC), a social-constructivist model in which our reality and environment are co-created in a digital space (van Oostveen et al., 2016). Here, in this space, we are engaged in deep and meaningful learning experiences that occur at the intersection of social and cognitive presence (Research Shorts, 2017, 1:27).

This framework supports learning from my peers. It requires my contribution and collaborative efforts, which speak to my digital identity and digital presence plan to be an active contributor within the learning community.

I believe that this learning framework will be foundational to learning within different learning structures as I journey through this program. I am less involved in some learning structures, such as sets; however, I believe that by the end of this program, I will cultivate my digital presence and identity across all learning structures while developing strategies to capitalize on the benefits afforded in each.

References

Research Shorts, (2017, May 24). Creating a powerful fully online learning community [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/yk1kVbMfbXE

van Oostveen, R., DiGiuseppe, M., Barber, W., Blayone, T., & Childs, E. (2016). Developing learning communities in fully online spaces: Positioning the fully online learning community model. Higher Education in Transformation.

As part of our LRNT 521 course, we have been asked to develop a visual network of where and how we are situated. Through the process of developing this visual, I found that I was having a hard time distinguishing between communities and networks. Upon reflection, I believe that I have a relatively small network that is defined by my desire for community which is evident in this visual representation. Furthermore, there is considerable overlap within and between my community ‘hubs’, which is not surprising given that I tend to keep my connections smaller, purposeful and meaningful. I do have a LinkedIn account, however, I am not very active on that platform so I would say that my network is small in that particular digital environment. On the other hand, my “informal professional network” is much greater in scale (across geographical distance and sectors), yet I would still say that I have some level of individual relationship with each person that I consider within this category.

Dron & Anderson (2014) describe networks as “primary knowledge conduits of the world; throughout our lives we learn from the people that we know” ( p. 131). This statement reflects my view of learning as a lifelong endeavour that takes place in and outside of formal educational boundaries. When I look at my network, even though many of my groups and communities are not places of formal learning, I can say honestly that I have learned (and continue to learn) from each of them. The overlap of my networks can be classified as sub-networks that I can identify based on context and learning needs (Dron & Anderson, 2014, p. 135). These, along with my greater networks and groups are dynamically forming and dissolving and because of that, this visual representation of my networks is a snapshot in time. It would be interesting to revisit and repeat this exercise at some point. 

Updated May 9, 2022 for clarity

Reference
Dron, J. & Anderson, T. (2014). Teaching crowds. AU Press. https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781927356807.01