El reputado especialista británico en innovación en el aprendizaje Gareth Mills ha animado hoy a los profesionales de la enseñanza a usar los juegos de ordenador para hacer que el aprendizaje sea más auténtico y esté más conectado al mundo real.
El director asociado de FutureLab, entidad en la que Mills lidera los principales desarrollos en los planes de estudios de Inglaterra para que la juventud inglesa se prepare para la vida y el trabajo en el siglo XXI, ha participado en la segunda y última jornada de conferencias del Festival Fun & Serius Games, de videojuegos serios y de entretenimiento.
En su intervención sobre "La tecnología enfocada al aprendizaje", Mills ha señalado que los juegos de ordenador, respecto al diseño tradicional de la educación, tienen la ventaja de que sitúan al jugador ante "un problema real, que hay que resolver y que empuja al aprendizaje: tenemos que crear una población o rescatar a una persona o ganar una batalla".
"El videojuego -ha destacado- obliga al jugador a tomar decisiones, le hace ver, además, de forma inmediata las consecuencias que las mismas tienen y se adapta al jugador: si no avanza, el juego le ayuda y, si avanza rápidamente, le plantea más retos".
"La educación tiene que ver con los problemas de verdad, tiene que dar más respuestas y adaptarse al alumno, darle apoyos y plantearle retos", ha sentenciado.
Mills ha abogado también por cambiar el diseño de las aulas por uno más parecido a lo que son los juegos para ordenador "porque estos están diseñados para que el jugador tenga éxito y las aulas parece que están más diseñadas para clasificar a los alumnos".
Ha defendido también utilizar simuladores para medir los conocimientos de los alumnos en vez de las tradicionales herramientas de evaluación "que sólo nos indican lo que un alumno es capaz de recordar en la hora que dura el examen".
Ha animado a los profesionales de la educación "a utilizar también el lenguaje de los juegos de ordenador para ser más interesantes, de forma que la experiencia educativa sea más rica y mejore nuestro aprendizaje".
"Hay que convencer a los profesores de que, si trabajan así, van a ayudar a sus alumnos a desarrollar su pensamiento crítico, a que generen ideas innovadoras y a que mejoren sus habilidades lingüísticas", ha indicado por último.
Además de Mills, en la jornada de clausura de las conferencias sobre videjoeugos serios ha intervenido el español Carlos González Tardón, fundador de la consultoría de videojuegos People & Videogames, quien ha afirmado que "no hay videojuegos que no enseñe algo porque hasta con el juego mas tonto y banal que existe, se activan 10 zonas del cerebro, desde las más evolucionadas a las más reptilianas".
Ha asegurado que los videojuegos son "una herramienta extremadamente potente para la educación formal y también para educar en valores, que es lo que más nos esta costando hacer llegar a la juventud", por lo que ha defendido su utilización en la educación "de una forma correcta porque si se usan mal, se pueden cometer errores graves".
Tardón ha indicado, por último, que "la diferencia entre los videojuegos de ocio y los serios es que mientras los primeros cambian la forma de pensar y actuar del jugador mientras juega, los serios buscar hacerlo cuando ha dejado de jugar".
Thomas Suarez - iPhone Application Developer... and 6th Grader
Thomas Suarez is a 6th grade student at a middle school in the South Bay. Tom been fascinated by computers and technology since before kindergarten. Recently, he's been focused on the development of applications for the iPhone, and has established his own company, CarrotCorp. His most successful ap is one he terms "an anti-Justin-Bieber game" called "Bustin Jieber". "It's is a variation on the Whac-a-Mole theme," he explains.
In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TED has created a program called TEDx. TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. Our event is called TEDxManhattanBeach, where x = independently organized TED event. At our TEDxManhattanBeach event, TEDTalks video and live speakers will combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events, including ours, are self-organized.
Un colegio privado de Sillicon Valley decidió no utilizar computadoras en sus clases de la escuela primaria para permitir que los niños desarrollen sus aptitudes sociales y emocionales de una manera más natural, antes de ingresar al mundo tecnológico. Paradoja de paradojas: a dicho establecimiento concurren hijos de empleados y dirigentes de empresas líderes en tecnología, como Google, Apple, Yahoo y Hewltt-Packard.
Alan Eagle, de 50 años, cuyos hijos concurren al establecimiento de Sillicon Valley, aseveró “Rechazo fundamentalmente la noción de que se necesita de ayuda tecnológica en la gramática (…) La idea de que un app de iPad puede enseñarle de una manera más eficaz a mis hijos a leer o a aprender aritmética me parece ridícula.” Eagle tiene un título en Ciencias Informáticas de Darmouth y trabaja en Comunicaciones Ejecutivas de Google. Asegura que su hija que está en quinto grado no tiene ni la más mínima idea de cómo utilizar el buscador y su hijo, tres años más grande, recién está empezando a aprender. Otros padres están de acuerdo cuando Eagle afirma que “la tecnología tiene su tiempo y lugar”.
El gran miedo del colegio es que los niños dependan de las máquinas. El enfoque que implementaron para no ceder a su mayor temor no ha sido bien recibido en todos lados. Recientemente, en un artículo del diario New York Times, la directora de tecnología de la educación para la National School Boards Association, Ann Flynn, replicó que si los colegios tienen los medios y el dinero necesario para asegurarle a los niños diferentes herramientas pero no hacen uso de ellas, están engañándolos. El principio de la escuela es el de NO a las computadoras hasta los 12 años.
Multiplatform E-Learning Systems and Technologies.
Mobile Devices for Ubiquitous ICT-Based Education
Multiplatform e-learning systems are emerging technologies that provide integrated learning content to various accessing devices.
Multiplatform E-Learning Systems and Technologies: Mobile Devices for Ubiquitous ICT-Based Educationaddresses technical challenges, design frameworks, and development experiences of the future that integrate multiple mobile devices into a single multiplatform e-learning system. With expert international contributions, this collection benefits researchers, academicians, and practitioners interested in this growing field.
The first edition of the book, written by Jason Cole and released in July 2005, is based on Moodle 1.4. The second edition, released in November 2007, has been updated to cover all the features in Moodle 1.8, such as the new roles and permissions system, blogs, messagingand the database module.
"I've been working on an education project for about ten years now, and it turns out that educating children and computers go together," he said. "We've been in hundreds of classrooms with 40,000 kids. We are currently teaching subjects ten times faster."
"We believe that when we roll this up to full curriculum we'll be able to teach a full career of high school in less than a year. And we think we'll be able to do that by the end of the next year."
Bushnell has an inherent problem with the educational system in the U.S. Simply put, “It’s a disaster.”
"It's creating an underclass that will erode the foundation of our society,” says Bushnell. "If you go into a class of fifth graders - let's say there's 30 of them - and they all have computers, I guarantee you that ten to 15 percent of these computers do not work. They're virus-infected nightmares.”
Bushnell has a solution in the form of Speed to Learn, an educational system that promotes rapid growth with digital technology.
"In cloud gaming you disconnect the system's administration from the computer to the cloud…it's going to be an important step for allowing technology into the classroom."
Linda Jackson, the professor of psychology at Michigan State who led the research, said that the findings should encourage game designers to try to discover what it is about video games that stimulates creativity.
She said: "Once they do that, video games can be designed to optimize the development of creativity while retaining their entertainment values such that a new generation of video games will blur the distinction between education and entertainment."
Boys play more video games than girls, the study found, and they are more likely to prefer violent games or sport games, while girls tend to prefer games involving interaction.
The study tested almost 500 12-year-olds against the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, which examine problem-solving and story-telling skills.
While video games were linked to increased creativity, general computer use and the use of mobile phones and the internet do not lead to increased creativity, the researchers found.
Jackson added: "We are the first to look at creativity and technology use, finding that no other technologies except video games was positively related to creativity."
Researchers also found that children who play video games have better 'visual-spatial' skills, which are considered important in developing skills in science and engineering disciplines in later life.
A.P.A. 119th Annual Convention. Washington D.C., August 4-7 2011
Gian C. Gonzaga, Ph.D
Dr. Gonzaga was introduced by Heather Patrick, Ph.D. (NIH). Dr. Gonzaga is the director of Research & Development for the online dating service, eHarmony, but will be addressing the nature of compatibility and sustained relationships in general. Considered an expert in the area of "relationship science", Dr. Gongaza will share with us some observations about "the changing face of relationships" and some of the findings which have emerged from his research into the dynamics and predictors of healthy, enduring relationships.
Dr. Gonzaga began with a disclaimer, namely his being "unconditionally biased" when it comes to eHarmony. He heads the laboratory research projects and believes in the findings of his and other studies. However, other than to describe his line of research into relationships, and provide some context, he assured us that this was not going to be a commercial pitch, and his talk today would be on "theoretical and scientific evidence" in support of his relationship research, as well as eHarmony's real-world (and laboratory) efficacy studies.
In the world of dating, especially...
"Technology is changing the way relationships are formed,"
Relationships don't just happen, nor do they last without some necessary ingredients. (As he avoids being a commercial, I'll now avoid referring to 'chemistry'.)
Dr. Gonzaga's research has led him to look not only at the matching process in terms of leading to an initial date, but at the elements of enduring and rewarding relationships: "the way they're maintained and the way they're improved."
To begin with, Gonzaga noted that 'Technology changes relationships' - it impacts on how relationships are (1) formed (2) maintained; and (3) researched.
In terms of where married couples first meet, a graph onscreen reveals an increasing trend upward, since 2008, towards meeting online (in general, along with another line showing the eHarmony numbers). Work and friends are big sources too, but like school, have trended down as online meetings trend up. Today there are all varieties of destinations and "platforms in technology" which allow applications to run. There is constant evolution.
A little web history
Web 1.0 - it was "driven around content that came from the top down"
Imagine: a guy goes into a music store and asks what they have. "Anything ever released." Once but a fantasy, along came iTunes. It happened.
Web 2.0 - Around 2003. "A big change. It was no longer top down. It's the era of Facebook. The era of YouTube." It leveled the field. It's 'open'. It's 'bottom up'. It's focused on relationships between individuals rather than delivering information.
Web 3.0 - Actually it is still forming, but has been evolving since 2000. "It's about open source and pliable interface. " It is both top down and bottom up. And it is a "web that learns". One of the best examples is Amazon.com. "It gives you recommendations based on your input." That, he said, is where eHarmony began, along with other user-tailored services, such as NetFlix.
From a relationship point of view, as a slide summarizes, Web 1.0 was all about information (e.g., Psych Info) while Web 2.0 allowed such things such as dating services offering "personalized introductions". And then there was Facebook, making it easy to make contacts and find friends. Web 3.0 allowed eHarmony to way to collaborate and to contribute to what he referred to as The Changing Landscape - in terms of the way one can form relationships, maintain a relationship, and also research relationships.
A little eHarmony History
Onscreen is the declaration: An Insight Started eHarmony: Many marriages face a significant handicap from the start.
Dr. Gonzaga explains: "A lot of marriages are to the wrong person!"
As it happens, his company founder was a clinical psychologist with 35 years experience of responding to patients' marital struggles. He saw the situation as one where he only came into the picture "after the relationship was ruined".
[There must be something real here! One of the world's most renowned social psychologists, Martin Seligman also has spoken - here, 4 hours ago! - about marriage therapy being thankless and ineffective: too little too late. Of course, in contrast there are 'positive' and active relationship styles and Seligman encourages using strengths and channeling the positive; Dr. Gonzaga's goal is to try to proactively 'match' compatible couples based on strong evidence.]
There are many reasons, Dr. Gonzaga continued, that people end up with the wrong partner. There are fewer opportunities to find a partner, and to get to know a partner. And people get married too quickly, and for the wrong reasons. For example: "People sacrifice long-term compatibility for short-term attraction"
From this formed the original idea for trying to improve the odds of compatibility. And although this may sound like an advertisement - Gonzaga joked that he's aware we've all been bombarded with ads featuring idyllic and ecstatic couples who met through eHarmony - the research which supports the concepts about compatibility is applicable to all relationships, particularly meeting and dating of course. The original idea was that there are predictable things that couples share - that when they have things in common there's a better chance of compatibility. Shared values, shared ideals.
Also, "we like to be right... If others share our views, we like them. The more similar, the easier to understand each other: One of the basic components of building intimacy." You're similar.
What is Compatibilty?
( We are now seeing the slide you can see above. )
The eHarmony model of compatibility assumes:
"There are shared characteristics that can make a relationship strong" - notably personality, values and interests.
Conducting research on initial compatibly and long-term relationship [marriage] success can get "a little tricky". To begin with, "you need to let people get married to see how it works. And, at the beginning of marriage everyone is happy." Only with time do we see underlying stressors and compatibility issues placing a relationship at greater risk. Of course, even in a great long-term relationship, conflict is inevitable - but it gets worked out, even if it can take an hour before figuring wht the conflict is about. Sometimes, over the years, misunderstanding can grow...
Dr. Gonzaga presented several on screen references to frame the history of compatibility research. First came the empirical evidence that "similarity between relationship partners predicts relationship quality" (Gaunt, 2006, Russel & Wells, 1991). Next we can see how similarity "provides consensual validation of attitudes and beliefs which promote attraction." (Byrne, 1971; LaFrance & Ickes, 1981). Finally, "Similarity promotes better understanding and effective communication between partners "(Burleson & Denton, 1992; Keltner & Kring, 1998). And it "coordinates a couple's responses responses to the environment". (Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994; Kemper, 1991).
The list of references continues, underscoring how enduring couples are "more similar than average" and how they may set about to elect similar partners ("assortative mating") . And how "couples may converge, or become more alike over time." (e.g., Anderson, Keltner, & John, 2003).
An important note, big and bold onscreen: No study has prospectively investigated assortative mating in psychological characteristics Gonzago noted that he takes comfort in eHarmony's low [known] divorce rate (even if nobody can 'prove' the key to long-lasting love).
With that Dr. Gonzago presented three recent studies, on (1) Personality matching (2) Proximal Processes; and (3) the Potentiation Effect
Prior to eHarmony, said Gonzago, nobody else had focused on personality characteristics.
Four hundred seventeen married couples who met via eHarmony.com and later married participated in this study. At the time of assessment, they'd been married an average of 32 months (range 26-56 months). Apologizing again and understanding we are seeing an awful lot of their 'deliriously happy couples' in advertisements these days, he noted that they now have helped bring together 40,000 couples.
To assess 'relationship satisfaction' eHarmony used what they found to be best, the Dyadic Assessment Scale (Spanier, 1976). Each couple completed the eHarmony relationship questionnare 3 times, assessing such things as Personality (e.g., warm, clever), Emotional tendencies (e.g., happy, anxious), and Interests (e.g., movies, shopping).
The results suggest that similarity can predict how satisfied one will be 3-4 years down the road.
[I do believe author Malcolm Gladwell has some thoughts on this as well, worth reading : Blink. It changed the conceptions of many psychologists! He cited research demonstrating that we can predict within only minutes whether couples are likely to be together years in the future.]
eHarmony has extensive data on match choices and their research affirms that "people tend to pick partners more similar to themselves." Do couples 'assort'? "We all tend to be alike" and may share a 'stereotyped personality". But again, what might predict long-term compatibility?
Gonzago has become convinced that "similarity is the lynch pin". Citing a study by Anderson, Keltner et al, 2003, he noted the adaptive function served by social interactions, and how for example "validation is best communicated directly... and how understanding is most relevant during discussions We know how our intensity during arguments is greater than in neutral discussions. What fuels this social interaction effect? Two possible reasons for this effect were identified:
* The Proximal Process: "Similarity in broad traits promotes similarity in interactive experience"
* Potentiation: "Similarity in broad traits enhances the positive effects of good relationship skills"
Study #2: Similarity in Personality and Emotions in Married Couples (Gonzaga, Campos, & Bradbury, 2007)
Now we look at one of the venerable topics within personality theory: traits. We know from mountains of research that traits influence emotion and that variations can be seen between different groups, for example extroverts being more prone to exhibit positive affect.
This second study involved 172 married couples. The question was: Are couples similar in personality? In emotional experience? What they found is that "personalities were more alike than was their emotional similarity. Yet there were some qualitative aspects too, and the question was raised as to whether emotional similarity may be a 'mediating factor' in a triangle, between personality similarity and relationship satisfaction. Overall it was found that "relationship satisfaction is positively related to similarity".
The Proximal Process Model
Similarity in broad traits predicts similarity in emotional quality in the moment
Traits influence emotional experience
Extroversion predicts positive affect
Neuroticism predicts negative affect
Emotions facilitate smooth social interactions
Communicate important messages about internal states
Evoke coordinated emotional responses from a partner
Elicit behaviors from partner to adjust to environmental conditions
Social Interactions act as building blocks for relationships (Gonzaga et al., 2006; Keltner et. al, 1998)
Study #3: Social Interactions and Relationship Functioning in Married Couples (Setrakian & Gonzaga, in prep)
According to the Potentiation Model, relationships move from early connection through shared personality and interest factors - similarity - to an emotional connection which is mutually pleasurable, and then... how do shared social interactions grow into building blocks for lasting relationships?
Similarity in broad traits predicts similarity in emotions
Emotions facilitate smooth social interactions
Communicate important messages about internal states
Evoke coordinated emotional responses from a partner
Elicit behaviors from partner to adjust to environmental conditions
Social Interactions act as building blocks for relationships (Gonzaga et al., 2006; Keltner et. al, 1998)
Increased understanding should enhance the effect of good social skills
Here we approach the foundation-building for healthy and happy long-term relationships. How to harness the shared personality/temperament factors and use our emotional and social skills to maintain the relationship:
Two hundred married couples, first marriage no children, wife under age 35, minimum 10th grade education, greater L.A. area.
Time's almost up, and these methods are hard to explain quickly (and now!) but...
Couples have a discussion under one of two conditions, social support vs. capitalization - experienced respectively as either supportive (Partner provided comfort) or using "Capitalization" (partner responded enthusiasticallly towards my good event - again exactly as Seligman just described - as the 'active/supportive' communication.)
This was a controlled laboratory study, though it was pointed out that "Lab ideas don't always work in the field". Their results were analyzed through the filter of whether similarity, which we know to be a big factor, can moderate the perceived 'responsiveness effect' - that is the impact of capitalization, conflict resolution, and support elicitation. Their findings were described as 'robust though with mixed results in mediating the main factor, similarity.
"Similarity", Gonzaga said, "doesn't make you a better partner. On the other hand, does it moderate attitudes? Yes. In males."
We know that Responsiveness matters in social interactions, that Similarity does not predict improved responsiveness, and that Similarity moderates the effect of responsiveness in males (but not females)."
*Similarity is a powerful predictor of relationship success
* There are two potential routes: proximal process and potentiation
* Social interactions are critical in how similarity effects relationships
* Relationships deepen through increased understanding
* Partner selection is important because convergence is minimal.
And one more thing - oops, time is up! - Quickly then: Use the web as a tool!
-- Technology provided a platform for the application of basic research, BUT -- The ideas that work in the laboratory don't always work in the field -- The type of system he promotes is 1) Robust 2) Scalable 3) Palatable
Finally: "Technology can help facilitate a new era of research"
For me, anyway the 'takeaway' is: Similarity is a key factor in easy 'understanding' and resonating/reflecting similar feeling [tone], and revving up pleasure with shared activities and interests. Basic personality compatibility is the starting point, a foundation. Proximal process is about our personality 'similarity' basically, how alike we are and how we can use our collective attitudes and attributes to enjoy situations when together. Once a relationship is growing more intimate, the Potentiation Process begins.
It's no longer just about personalities matching on 'broad traits' at first, but also how they potentiate - bring out - the mutual joy. (or not) With broad similarity and shared world views, it is easier to 'be yourself' because you're feeling understood and veering towards that state of thinking in terms of 'we' very easily, as there is ongoing connection at several levels, emotionally. That's the perfect scenario. A well-functioning, happy couple is similar in personality and mutually reinforce the good feelings of emotional and personal connectedness, across situations. And that is my synopsis and take-away. YMMV. ['your mileage may vary']
I'll bet you weren't expecting to hear terms like proximal and potentiation in a talk about relationships and Love! But this may be the real thing. The new language of love. The pherenome of explanations as to why we initially attract, connect, and maintain healthy relationships.
How do you meet people you’d like to get to know better? How do you treat each other once you’re together? Social media turns out to be a great accelerator for exposing you to potential mates, but does that change the basic way people interact with each other?
The infographic and research experts at Lab42 set out to take the pulse of today’s relationship hunters as well as established lovers, conducting a survey between Oct. 27 and Oct. 30 where they asked 500 social network users over age 18 some rather personal questions about meeting people, cheating, communication and more.
Is your romantic life similar to that of most other social networkers, or do you play the game your own way? Find out by checking out the fresh results of this infographic:
De manera conmovedora y divertida, continuando con su legendaria charla en TED de 2006, Sir Ken Robinson plantea un cambio radical, para pasar de escuelas estandarizadas al aprendizaje personalizado – creando las condiciones para que pueda florecer el talento natural de los niños.
The rapid changes in technology over the last 75 years have created enormous opportunities for education. While some technologies such as the computer were adopted early on, a reluctance to embrace change coupled with a lack of funding has resulted in a continuing dependence on chalkboards and other anachronistic technologies. The extent to which schools adopt new technologies, not surprisingly, often depends on how well they’re funded. It isn’t uncommon for schools that are separated by very little physical distance to be at opposite ends of the technology gap.
Many folks familiar with this scenario understand the inherent lack of fairness in the disparate funding of schools. What many people don’t understand however is that it also threatens the uniquely American ideals of democracy and equality. One of the bedrocks of our democracy is the idea that we’re governed by the electoral choices of a well-informed citizenry. Having equal access to a decent education is the assumption that underlies this premise. But the ways in which rapid advances in technology are adopted have both positive and negative implications for schools and for broader society in general.
Preparing For The Workforce
One of the most positive results of schools embracing new technologies is found when low-income students gain skills they otherwise wouldn’t. The ability to type, use email and execute basic computer functions like Word and Excel are imperative in today’s workforce. When students who have no access to computers at home learn these skills specifically because of technology in the classroom, they have a far greater chance of moving from have-nots to haves in the future. Having technological competence gives them a better chance of success in the workforce and gives them a greater ability and confidence to pursue online education university options.
No Student Left Behind
When classrooms adopt iPads or other tablets in lower grades amongst younger students, the possibility that those students will be left behind in terms of the greater society decreases dramatically. Studies have consistently shown that new technology introduction to younger children provides better results than when introduced at a later age. Even if low-income students have no access to computers at home, the integration of new technology into all aspects of school life ensures that they have greater opportunities going forward.
There are some arguably negative implications to the adoption of new technologies as well. Some of the most evident for the short term involve dropping long-standing handwriting requirements. Penmanship was dropped from most English classes over the last twenty years and cursive writing requirements are quickly being cut from many programs as well. Depending on one’s perspective, not learning cursive in elementary school may not be the end of the world academically speaking. But advocates of teaching cursive argue that losing cursive is just one more case of technology eroding academic rigor.
Quality of Writing
There is another, lesser known, but reasonable argument against adopting computers across all academic disciplines. Pen and paper often tend to be more conducive to good writing than computer keyboarding. Longhand writing is more likely to result in well-reasoned, nuanced and intricate prose. This may arise from the fact that typing lends itself more easily to abrupt and punchy prose. The staccato quality of typing can work its way into writing. Stylistic arguments aside; a potentially far more worrisome implication for the long term is the increasing technology gap among schools.
When the only technology requirements for completing aprimary education involved paper, pencils, a slide rule and eventually calculators, the impact technology had in widening the divide between haves and have-nots was minimal. But the technology gap which exists in schools today also functions as a solidifier of social class. If low-income students are unlucky enough to attend schools which can’t fund technology purchases, the chance that they’ll find a way out of a low income life becomes less likely. It’s understandable that if a school can’t afford air conditioning, they’re probably not going to view iPads as a logical expenditure.
The Danger of Making Technology So Critical
The ability to use technologies such as laptops and tablet computers allows students to acquire the same sets of core competencies they’ll need in the workforce. Not acquiring these skill sets is more than an inconvenience. The ability to access information and basic computer literacy can function as a potential stepping-stone out of poverty for many students. If a student graduates high school without at least a rudimentary and working knowledge of new technologies, their future starts looking a lot less bright.
And since many school districts which can’t afford to incorporate technology into the classroom are largely found in less affluent areas, the likelihood of upward social mobility decreases significantly and social classes begin to look a lot more like social castes. The technology gap runs the risk of further cementing social class. This country has always celebrated the ability of Americans to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. We love it when the underdog makes good. It’s part of our national identity to root for the little guy. But when the little guy is deprived of what are rapidly becoming basic tools of future economic survival, the ability for any effective bootstrap pulling begins to disappear.
Technology’s Impact on the Future
Twenty years ago, someone without computer skills could still expect to find a decent job which, though not providing a huge income, could still support a family. But now, jobs that used to be considered basic blue collar jobs require technological know-how. A car mechanic used to need mechanical aptitude and a good set of wrenches and they were in business. Working in customer service used to require basic telephone skills. But increasingly, even menial entry level jobs require much more computer literacy than what some disadvantaged students are getting in schools. If we want to ensure that more Americans continue to get a legitimate shot at the American Dream, we need to start a national dialogue focused on identifying workable solutions for narrowing the technology gap.