Day: May 29, 2006

Blocking disruptive technologies is futile

I have run into a number of issues within the last couple of weeks that have reminded me of the concept of disruptive technology.

These issues include:

  • DOPA – legislation proposed to require schools to block commercial networking sites
  • Net neutrality – issue of whether service providers should be able to prioritize what users access (e.g., preventing dsl providers from slowing access to VOIP)
  • Educational institutions concerned with built-in video capabilities of new Apple computers

What these issues have in common is a perceived threat from new capabilities of technology. Internet users may use VOIP rather than the phone because VOIP is less expensive than long distance. Kids in schools may access inappropriate web content or take pictures and use them inappropriately.

Will attempting to block these “opportunities” be productive?

  • If VOIP is valued, those who access VOIP using DSL will move to cable.
  • If MySpace is valued, kids will access from home.
  • If generating digital images or video is valued, kids wanting to capture images will use their cell phones or home computer.

Technologies with wide appeal have a way of surviving.

Loading

Anti-Plagiarism Software

Mary Pilon, USA Today, describes developments in antiplagiarism software. This appears to be a case of “where there is a problem there is a business opportunity” and companies are creating services offered to educational institutions very much like the sale of antivirus software.

I ran into several cases of plagiarism in my own classes this last year and the issue of student ethics is starting to really bother me. We did not have to use specialized commercial software to identify the problems – searching for phrases within Google was enough. Even after students acknowledged material they handed in was not entirely their words, it seemed difficult to get them to understand that the matter was more than a misunderstanding or a mistake. Either they claimed to be operating within what I would describe as “fair use” guidelines (they typically had some general notion that they could lift material as long as a citation appeared somewhere) or they claimed to have made a “simple” mistake (they patched together a paper using cut and paste techniques and then forgot to paraphrase). It is difficult to tell the difference between students who are manipulative and those who were poorly prepared for the expectations of higher education. This topic will be another thing I will have to add to my syllabus – you should read the book, you should come to class, you should write your own papers, etc.

My wife claims I am becoming a curmudgeon. Maybe so.

Loading