Module Four Blog Post

Second Life as a Disruptive Technology

Dr. Thornburg describes a disruptive technology as a “new technology with the same functionality of an existing technology, but it functions more efficiently, and then obsoletes that technology” (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009).  The distinguishing feature of a disruptive technology as opposed to an evolutionary technology is the complete direction change that said technology causes.  Second Life has the potential to be a disruptive technology in education and abroad.  Traditional educational environments are curriculum biased and teacher centered in that the student has minimal input in the development of said course.  An educational class developed through Second Life has the ability to be personalized on a learner to learner basis.

            A major social benefit of Second Life in an educational environment would be the capacity to get each individual involved in daily activities.  Every teacher has or will have a class containing students that are introverted and prefer to internalize as opposed to actively participating in a traditional environment.  Second Life will/could provide the opportunity for students who resist public participation to participate in their learning though an avatar.  In that way I believe Second Life could (but certainly has not on a large scale to date) completely change the direction of a traditional classroom environment.  I am not sure Second Life will ever see its full potential as a disruptive technology in education.  One of the main drawbacks to second life in the classroom is compliance with CIPA.  Public schools not in compliance are apt to lose federal funding; therefore many web based chances are not taken by technology departments.

            I would predict that Second Life / virtual worlds will continue in an evolutionary pattern for the next 10 + years.  Virtual worlds will expand and will evolve before being displaced by a new technology.

Reference

Laureate Education, Inc. (2009). Emerging and future technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Nuthall, K. (2008) US: A disruptive technology arrives. Retrieved from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20080117162121373

Module Three Blog

When I need to talk to someone about something important or if I want to share something special, I prefer to do it face-to-face.  I would even venture as far to say that I prefer face-to-face communication for just about all forms of communicating regardless of the important or frivolous nature of the conversation.  The intimacy of a face-to-face conversation allows the participants to gauge the flow of said conversation.  Participants are also able to gauge body language, an important nonverbal cue in any conversation. 

                

I am not the only one who likes the nature of face-to-face conversations.  In person, face-to-face conversations have been a mainstay of communication throughout history.  At the end of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first century face-to-face conversation faced stiff competition from instant messaging (IM), text messaging, and email.  IM, texting, and email ensures that individuals can stay more connected today than ever before.  However, the communication/connections made through IM, texting, and email lacks a certain personal connection that one can only receive in a “face-to-face” manner.  The development of “face time” on mobile phones and video conferencing tools such as Skype and ooVoo holds potential to rekindle the face-to-face more intimate means of communication.  My wife and I each have family members that live in different states.  We lean heavily on video conferencing technologies, particularly Skype and ooVoo to communicate with our family in a more personal manner than the common and emotionless text or IM.  Video conferencing technologies are an evolution in instant communication with a rekindling of a more traditional personal face-to-face communication.