Technologies and Trends in Education

Introduction

EDUCAUSE is a nonprofit organization that exists to advance higher learning through information technology (IT) (EDUCAUSE, 2019), and this organization’s website displays numerous articles that discuss innovations where IT and education converge.

The technology this researcher chose to discuss is the Internet of Things (IoT).  It is a technology that is emerging whereby via a network of wirelessly-connected sensors, home appliances such as refrigerators and microwaves may be connected to the Internet and thereby be remotely controllable (Ali, Ali, & Badawy, 2015).  The trend of discussion is the redesign of learning spaces to increase accessibility to the digital technologies available in the learning space.

Technology

IoT is a technology providing the interoperability and automation of devices who purposes are quite heterogeneous.  Colleges and university have come to recognize the utility offered by IoT.  In classroom settings, IoT is offering the ability to remotely control environment systems and automate energy management (Benson, 2016). 

Trend

According to Brown and Long (2006), there are numerous trends that are influencing if not changing the appearance of learning or educational spaces.  There are now trends towards more usage of white boards to make the learning environment more interactive (Brown & Long, 2006).  Additionally, more comfortable chairs such as sofas and food are often being allowed in the classroom.  The trend is a more human-centered design for focusing more of the design of the learning on students learning rather than teachers teaching (Brown & Long, 2006).

Force 1:  Technological

Educational environments taking advantage of IoT are simply recognizing its practical benefit (Benson, 2016).  Though the implementation of a network-reachable HVAC comes with its own risks and an increased level of design complexity, the automated management of security and safety systems and perhaps even energy conversation weigh heavily in favor of IoT especially if certain IoT-related risks may be mitigated.

Force 2:  Social

The force influencing changes in the design of learning spaces is largely social recognizing that in human-centered educational environment, a great deal of learning is born of student interaction (Brown & Long, 2006).  Newer classroom spatial designs are intended to foster teamwork, social engagement, and an active learning environment in the most general sense.

Summary

This researcher’s conclusion of the EDUCAUSE website is that is very comprehensive and helps to fulfill the organization’s mission of fostering strategic and innovative decision-making in education.  Certainly, if IT professionals and educators are continually willing to contribute to the knowledge, then insights such as those mentioned above willing always to continue to push emerging trends and cutting-edge technology.

References

Ali, Z. H., Ali, H. A., & Badawy, M. M.  (2015).  Internet of Things:  Definitions, challenges, and recent research directions.  International Journal of Computer Applications, 128(1), 37 – 47.

Benson, C.  (2016).  The Internet of Things, IoT systems, and higher education.  Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2016/6/the-internet-of-things-iot-systems-and-higher-education.

EDUCAUSE.  (2019).  Retrieved from https://www.educause.edu/.

Group Decision-Making Methods

Group decision-making is the process by which a collective of individuals attempt to reach a required or minimum level of consensus on a given issue (Eliaz, Ray, & Razin, 2005).  Group decision-making can largely be divided into two phases:  deliberation where there is much dialogue or debate about the pending outcome and aggregation, the phase when the decision actually made.  In group decision-making, it is important that group members recognize that disagreement and/or not coming a conclusion or making a decision can have a profound if not disastrous effect on all involved and the process itself (Eliaz, Ray, & Razin, 2005).  Even when deliberation becomes heated debate, the objective still is to make a decision.

There are numerous techniques employed to facilitate group decision-making.  The choice of the group decision-making method is often driven by the context, i.e. the decision that needs to be made and/or the personnel involved (Bang & Frith, 2017).  This post discusses two such group decision-making methods:  the Delphi method and the instructed dissent method.

The Delphi Method

The Delphi method was developed by the RAND Corporation in the 1950s (Bang & Frith, 2017).  It is a technique that ensures that the opinion of groups is heard resulting in a combined judgement (Powell, 2003).  The Delphi group decision-making method is recognized and thereby commonly implemented because of its controlled responses and feedback; it is a very orderly decision-making process.  In complying with this method, group members privately outline their individual opinions and rationale.  Subsequently, the opinions are passed onto a moderator who aggregates the opinions into an anonymized summary (Bang & Frith, 2017).  To ensure a reliable consensus, occasionally, multiple rounds by which opinions are offered are employed (Powell, 2003).  The iterative process gives group members an opportunity to change their minds (Bang & Frith, 2017).

The Instructed Dissent Method

This group decision-making method, in contrast to the one discussed above, is greatly about dialogue.  Groups that comply with this method ask a group member or subset of the group to advocate for one side of the argument (Bang & Frith, 2017).  In accordance with this method, it is possible that group may argue for a position other than or in opposition to the one that member or members actually agrees with.  This may be where this method if flawed.  An individual group member or subset of groups making a contrived argument may argue with less enthusiasm and/or less confidence than those that argue from a place of genuine advocacy (Bang & Frith, 2017).

Comparing the Two Methods

The obvious difference between the two methods is one is centered around verbal communication whereas the other employs little verbal communication if any.  With the Delphi method, the group members write out their opinions as opposed to verbalizing them to keep the opinions anonymous.   By contrast, with the instructed dissent method, opinions of one argument or another may sway with the personality that presents it.

References

Bang, D. & Frith, C. D.  (2017).  Making better decisions in groups.  Royal Society Open Science, 4(8), 1 – 22.  doi:10.1098/rsos.170193.

Eliaz, K., Ray, D., & Razin, R.  (2005).  Group decision-making in the shadow of disagreement.  Journal of Economic Theory, 132(1), 1 – 38.  doi:10.1016/j.jet.2005.07.008.

Powell, C.  (2003).  The Delphi technique:  Myths and realities.  Journal of Advanced Nursing, 41(4), 376 – 382.