Course:LIBR559A/Jones, A., & Bissell, C. (2011)

From UBC Wiki

Objective: This paper looked at social shaping of technology through the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) perspective to dispel claims of technological determinism in eduction. In particular it looked at the interoperability of spreadsheets, a graphic editor (Irfanview), and an audio editor (Adobe Audition) by looking at four case studies.

Summary: The article mentions three examples of the Social Construction of Technology in education but I would only like to focus one – spreadsheets. Spreadsheets were originally designed for financial planning and analysis. The inclusion of full range of mathematical functions and a high-level of programming language such as Visual Basic extended their use, and their use as a teaching tool started showing up in engineering education literature in the late 1980s and 1990s. The interoperability of spreadsheets is shown by “ asking students to construct spreadsheet models for themselves. Students determine the calculations that must be made and the internal spreadsheet functions that must be made and the internal spreadsheet functions that must be used, and the students construct the spreadsheet to carry out the simulations. Secondly, in constructing the models, students become more competent users of the software, as well as understanding of (in this case) digital signal transmission and the binomial distribution” (p. 290). “Thirdly, in their use of the spreadsheet software, the teacher and students have turned the package into something quite different from what was originally envisaged by the developers, and also into something very different from a simple mechanical solution of an underlying mathematical model. That is to say, the technology is socially constructed through the adaptation of an existing, generic platform to an educational purpose” (p. 290).

Theoretical Framework and Discussion/Conclusion: This article shared examples of the Social Construction of Technology through three technologies (spreadsheets, a graphic editor, a audio editor) in an educational context, “through the adaption of existing non-educational tools for an educational purpose” (p. 293). “This paper has made a case for using some ideas from science and technology studies in educational theory. Specifically, it has been concerned with a particular form of social shaping of technology known as SCOT. One principle of SCOT is that the ‘meaning’ of technology is not fixed by the design of the technology but arises through interaction between technology and its users” (p. 295). The SCOT perspective, when applied to education, “encourages educators to think about how established non-educational tools can be used educationally” (p. 295). Through the discussion of examples provided the author was able to dispel claims of technological determinism.

Pitfalls, Blind Spots, and Weaknesses of This Article: This article failed to discuss the power dynamics in this article. The students and teachers presented in the three examples of socially constructed technologies are privileged because they possess the knowledge and skills to adapt established non-educational tools to tools that can be used educationally. Not everyone has the knowledge or skill to undertake and complete such endeavors.

Potential Contribution to The Scholarship of Social Studies of Library and Information and to The Practice of Librarianship

This article has implications for the scholarship of social studies of library and information and the practice of librarianship because it shows how established non-educational tools can be used educationally. This can be extended to looking at how established non-educational tools can be used in the social studies of library and information and in the practice of librarianship. The examples used dispelled claims of technological determinism in education, and it is possible that these examples can also be transferred to library and information.

Author of this annotation: Karan Bola