There has been much digital ink spilled on Twitter, and this is not likely to be seen above the noise of everything else that is out there, but I have noticed something interesting in the critiques of both Twitter (CPU, and C|Net) and the Semantic Web (OLDaily) combined with some thoughts as to the differences between ICT integration in different cultures (elearnspace).
What it all seems to come down to is that even though new technologies might be “really cool”, the extent to which they will catch on might related more to how much effort is required on the part of the parties involved. It’s not going to be easy to twitter all the time, because that means being tied to the twitter device, it’s SMS addition on steroids and it’s no fun to twitter alone so you are going to have to convince at least one other person. So far that hasn’t been an issue as there is a novelty effect that is pulling people in, but what is really gained by the participants that isn’t gained from other communication media? Maybe it’s the frequency of the updates that becomes addicting… who knows.
The Semantic Web is something else that requires collaboration, but this time between those who want to sell and those who create the content. The sellers are all going to have to fall in with one search engine or another that will have to herd the internet into using it’s conventions for tagging. But is it going to be possible to get everyone to tag in the same manner? I don’t think so. Today, the old king of tags, Technorati will search blogs based on keywords as well as tags, so many people, including myself use tags only in special situations where it would make things easier (say at a conference) to find all related posts. Even Flickr is doing this now as it will search on photo names as well as tags. The only place that I use tags with any consistency is here on my blog.
Lastly, the whole ICT thing is so very dependent on the communication norms of a culture and the availability of resources that as much as we would like every classroom on the planet to be connected, there are so many ways that those that control classrooms think that they should be connected, I don’t think there will ever been any manner of common use.
With all these issues out there for the future, what does that leave us with when it comes to thinking about instructional technology and technology in general? I think it speaks to the fact that in order to have any manner of adoption, things have to be simple. That means that it must be simple to enter the new process into the work flow and simple to maintain the involvement with the new process.� Though to my mind the coming generations want things to be ever more simplified, but perhaps that is normal as processes become refined. But when all is said and done, you can’t have zero effort and expect perfect results.
Leave a Reply