Tag: balance

Technology: Balancing Benefits with Risks

In our modern era, technology permeates every aspect of our lives, transforming how we work, communicate, and live. The advent of the internet, smartphones, artificial intelligence, and other technological innovations has brought unprecedented convenience and immediacy, significantly improving efficiency in countless areas. However, this rapid advancement is not without its downsides. As we become increasingly reliant on technology, we must grapple with the risks and challenges that arise, including cybercrime, data protection concerns, and the detrimental effects on our ability to focus.    So how do we find an appropriate balance?

The Benefits: Immediacy and Convenience

One of the most significant advantages of modern technology is the immediacy it affords. The ability to access information instantly, communicate across vast distances in real time, and perform tasks that once took days or weeks in a matter of seconds has revolutionised the way we live and work.   This immediacy extends beyond communication to other areas, such as online shopping, where you can order products with just a few clicks, expecting next day or even same day delivery, or the healthcare sector, where telemedicine enables patients to consult with doctors without needing to visit a clinic in person.

Convenience is another major benefit of technology. The rise of smart devices and automation has simplified tasks that used to require considerable effort. For instance, smart home systems can control lighting, temperature, and security, while virtual assistants like Siri and Alexa can perform tasks such as scheduling appointments, sending messages, or even ordering groceries. In the workplace, technology streamlines operations, with software automating repetitive tasks, allowing employees to focus on more complex and creative aspects of their jobs.   While in schools AI can help students and teachers create, refine or assess materials, or can help with translation, simplification and other process which support or even enhance learning experiences.

These conveniences and immediacy should improve quality of life, offering more time for leisure and reducing the stress associated with many day-to-day tasks however my sense is that they often just allow for more to be expected and reinforce the “do more” and efficiency cultures which I feel exist.

The Risks: Cybercrime, Data Protection, and Cognitive Impact

The advantages of immediacy and convenience come with significant risks. One of the most pressing concerns is the rise of cybercrime. As more sensitive information is stored and transmitted digitally, individuals, businesses, and governments are increasingly vulnerable to hacking, data breaches, and other forms of cyberattacks. Cybercriminals exploit weaknesses in software and networks to steal personal data, financial information, or intellectual property. The consequences of these breaches can be devastating, leading to identity theft, financial loss, and reputational damage. You don’t need to look to hard at the current news to find an organisation which has suffered a cyber incident.

In tandem with cybercrime is the issue of data protection and privacy. In the digital age, vast amounts of personal data are collected by companies, governments, and online platforms, often without individuals being fully aware of how their information is being used. This has raised significant concerns about privacy, with many questioning whether individuals have enough control over their personal data. The rise of surveillance capitalism—where companies monetize personal data to drive targeted advertising—has sparked debates about ethical boundaries and the need for stricter regulations. High-profile scandals, such as the Cambridge Analytica case, where millions of Facebook users’ data was harvested without consent for political purposes, have highlighted the potential for misuse and the lack of transparency in data collection practices.

Beyond the security and privacy risks, the very immediacy and convenience that make technology so appealing can also have negative cognitive effects. The constant stream of notifications, emails, and messages can fragment our attention and make it difficult to focus on tasks that require sustained concentration. Research has shown that multitasking with technology can reduce productivity and impair cognitive function. This “always-on” culture, fuelled by smartphones and social media, can lead to stress, anxiety, and burnout, as individuals struggle to disconnect from the digital world.

Moreover, the overreliance on technology can erode essential cognitive skills, such as problem-solving, critical thinking, and memory. With information just a click away, individuals may become less inclined to engage in deep thinking or retain knowledge. The rise of artificial intelligence and machine learning also raises concerns about the future of human skills and the potential for automation to replace jobs, leading to economic inequality and social disruption.

Striking a Balance

Given the immense benefits and equally significant risks, it is crucial to strike a balance between embracing technology and mitigating its drawbacks. On the one hand, the conveniences of immediacy and efficiency are undeniable and have improved many aspects of modern life. However, these advancements should not come at the expense of privacy, security, or cognitive well-being.

One way to maintain this balance is through stronger regulations and policies that protect individuals’ privacy and data. Governments and organizations must implement robust cybersecurity measures and transparent data collection practices to safeguard against cybercrime and misuse of personal information. Additionally, educating the public about digital literacy and security can empower individuals to protect themselves online.

At an individual level, it is also essential to cultivate mindful technology use. Setting boundaries around screen time, practicing digital detoxes, and focusing on single-tasking rather than multitasking can help mitigate the cognitive impacts of constant connectivity. Encouraging critical thinking and problem-solving in education and the workplace can also help individuals develop skills that are less susceptible to automation.

Conclusion

Technology exists in a delicate balance between its undeniable benefits and the risks it poses. Immediacy and convenience have transformed society, making life easier and more efficient in many ways. However, these benefits come with the trade-offs of increased cybercrime, data protection concerns, and cognitive challenges. As we continue to innovate, it is vital to remain vigilant about the potential risks and take steps to mitigate them, ensuring that technology enhances rather than undermines our well-being.  I also wonder whether the drive for efficiency and immediacy is reducing the time for us to be human and to interact with other humans directly and in-person, as we have since the dawn of mankind, but that’s a whole other post!

Balance and pluralism

I have written a few times on balance however a recent post by my Digital Futures Colleague (DFG) Darren White talking about risk (“Lets talk about risk”) got me thinking it was about time for another balance post.    Now it is easier to explore balance by looking at a specific situation so I would like to look briefly at 1:1 devices.   As with a lot of things there are those who evangelise about 1:1 devices and about the many ways they benefit students, meanwhile there are the doomsayers who plead that we must avoid the evil of 1:1 devices due to all the damage they will do to our youths.     It’s the old binary arguments.    But the world is not that clean and simple with clear demarcation of the good and the evil, the positive and the negative.    We need to get better at adapting to pluralism and the fact that 1:1 devices, and other things, can be both good and bad.   If we can adapt to this we can start doing what we really need to do which is to take a risk based view and reach a reasoned professional judgment, understanding both the pros and the cons.

So lets just dip into the positives of 1:1 devices then;   Lets start with the fact that the world is increasingly digital.  As such getting students to work in a digital world, to establish their skills and experience, and even establish their identity online, can be good in preparing them for life beyond compulsory education.    We also have the benefits of the various accessibility tools which exist within devices which might assist SEND students with accessing learning content or with contributing to lessons, or producing coursework, homework and other materials.   The same can be said in terms of language and how technology can help EAL students better access learning through being able to easily translate content into their principal language, or from their principal language into English.  And I note tools which will help SEND and EAL students often have a positive impact on all students, rather than just SEND and EAL students.    Next we have access to communications, collaboration and creativity tools, to research materials, to a wealth of content way beyond what any school can offer on its own, all  through devices in the hands of the students.    

But there are drawbacks;   1:1 devices are great but when the student goes home do they have access to high speed internet, parents that understand and embrace technology, etc.   1:1 devices can open a digital divide where the same divide isn’t as apparent when it comes to pen and paper, and school text books.     We also have the issue of students possibly spending too much time staring at screens particularly late at night, or if using devices simply to mindlessly scroll through social media content.     And linked to this students may start to suffer reduced attention spans and become more easily distracted as they become used to the constant notifications and alerts, the quick surfing from site to site, which is the staple of the internet.   We also have safeguarding risks, as although devices might be included in school filtering and monitoring, no filtering and monitoring solution is perfect meaning there is a risk students may be able to access upsetting or even dangerous content. 

The issue with all of this is that we cannot have the advantages without the disadvantages.  Its like having your cake and wanting to eat it.    And the same can be said for mobile phones in schools, generative AI and many other things.   Its not a binary, it’s a pluralism, that the good and the bad are linked and you cant have one without the other.   Faced with this it then becomes about risk or value based assessment.    Does the value of a tool, solution or process, outweigh the risk?   It also becomes about communication and transparency, being open within the school community including with parents about why something is being done, what the benefits are, what the risks are and how reasonable efforts are being made to reduce the risks,

Additionally, this gets me thinking of some discussion in Nassim Talebs “The Black Swan”.    It breaks down to, the more we learn, the less we know, which I think is attributed to Einstein.   So, as we learn more about the risks and about the complexity of the world we live in, plus the more we come to need to adapt to rapid change, the more we need to accept we know less than we think we do.   Given this, binary arguments as to how we should or shouldn’t use technology need to become a thing of the past.   The world is not that simple and clean.   We need to adapt a risk based decision making process, accepting pluralism.

Balancing technology use

Have always been a fan of technology and of the potential impact of technology in education (note I don’t say EdTech 😉) however I have also been quick to point out we should never use technology for technologies sake;  We should ensure we use technology where it adds to, enables, enhances or even re-defines learning and learning opportunities, but we should also be comfortable not to use technology where appropriate, where it might distract or where it adds nothing or little to learning.    It was therefore with interest that I read an article in relation to a Dutch supermarket chain where they are reintroducing “slow checkouts”.

Slow checkouts

In the supermarket I visit on a regular basis as part of my weekly shop I had observed the steady removal of the conventional checkout staffed by a checkout assistant, and the move to technology enabled checkout solutions where shoppers simply scan their own shopping and pay via an online terminal.   This all makes sense in terms of efficiency and getting people in and out of the supermarket quicker, which seems to make sense from a consumer point of view;  I want to get my shopping done and get back home with as little delay as possible.   It also likely works from the supermarkets point of view in reduced cost and increased flexibility;  You don’t need a checkout assistant for each terminal so a reduced staffing bill and the terminals don’t need breaks or holidays.

So from a “lets use technology” point of view it all looks rather positive, and this is where this article comes in as it highlights that some customers actually view the shopping experience as a human experience, and look forward to the interaction at the checkout with the checkout assistant.   Consider the impact this couple of minutes of interaction might have on an otherwise isolated pensioner or single person.  The impact is notable.

How might this reflect on schools?

The purpose of school is learning and learning is an inherently social experience.   Additionally, within schools some of the learning relates to actually learning and developing social skills.   As such, like with checkouts in a supermarket, I think we need to keep an eye on the balance between using technology and the social side of life in schools and colleges.   Actions taken in relation to technology use will impact on the social side of school life and correspondingly actions to change the social side of school life will likely impact on technology use.    I think this might be particularly important at the moment in the significant discussion around the use of artificial intelligence and solutions such as Chat-GPT.   How can we make use of these solutions without losing out on the social side of learning, on discussion, peer of peer interaction and whole class involvement, etc?     How can we gain efficiency benefits through automation and AI based personalisation in teaching and learning, while maintaining social interaction with peers, teachers and others?

Conclusion

I think this plan to introduce more “slow” checkouts serves as a flag highlighting that the march of technology, although largely beneficial and positive, may have other implications that we need to ensure we consider.    We need to remember the social animal that we are, the things which make us different from the automated nature of technology.   And in doing so we need to find a balance between the efficiencies and accuracy of technology and the variability and social interaction which underpins the human animals we are.

References:

Is There a Future for Chit Chat Checkouts? – Issuu

Social media is bad.

We have all heard the negative headlines in relation to social media and children however as with most stories there are two sides to the coin, and as much as there are negative implications there are also positive ones.   I therefore thought it was appropriate to share my views on the benefits which our children may find in social media.

We have all read about how social media, and related screen time, impact on the sleep patterns of children, how it may result in greater occurrences of mental health issues, that it reduces students ability to concentrate and that it may reduce achievement levels but what about the other side of things.

We live in a more stressful world than ever before.   When I did my standard grades and the odd O-level I wanted to achieve the best results possible but looking back I don’t feel there was any significant pressure.   I don’t remember discussions of leagues tables or comparisons of countries against other countries or even wide scale coverage of the headline results or subject by subject analysis.    These are all common theses days.   Our children are constantly having the narrative reinforced, that exams will shape their future and that they are therefore of massive importance.   This adds stress but where can students go to share their feelings of stress, to vent, to express and to get support and advice?    They could go to their parents, teachers or other adults but our children often find this difficult due to concerns about being judged or about the resulting impact of sharing.  Sharing with a teacher may result in being “put” in extra lessons or being seen to be “less able” whereas sharing with parents may result in having some of their liberties taken away in order to help them “focus” or “put in more effort”.     They must also consider that adults views on things will be based on their experiences which happened some years in the past and therefore do not fully have a bearing on the current world context and on the environment that the students find themselves in.   Social media provides a better option as students can share with their peers and get advice and support from people going through the same situation, in the same, current, context.   A quick look at social media heading up to A-Level and GCSE results day showed plenty of examples of students expressing their stress and worry over the impending results envelope, and/or text message.    This shows a concerning trend but may also have positive implications in that the students can use social media to vent their concerns and frustrations.   Social media also has plenty examples of students sharing words of support, comfort and advice with one another.

We now live in a world where students movements are more closely controlled and monitored.   Gone are the days of the lone instruction being to be “back before the street lights come on”.   Now parents seek to know where children are.    Parents may also ban students from some locales on the basis of perceived risk.  You also have shops banning groups of youths loitering and in some cases even installing devices to make such loitering painful.     There are less opportunities for our children to be social with each other.   Once again social media steps in.    Social media spans the gap allowing children to be social, to discuss and share their thoughts and feelings, even when the adults in their life and society in general is continuing to further curtail the opportunities they have for being social, for fulfilling a basic human instinct which I suspect is all the stronger in a youths teenage years.

I am not saying social media is all good nor am I willing to accept it is all bad.    In the world we now live in it simply “IS”.   What we therefore have to be mindful of is considering the positives and negatives and doing our best to maximise the positive opportunities while reducing as much as is reasonably possible the negatives.

 

 

Balance…or not?

I have found myself discussing balance on a number of occasions.  Recently I mentioned it in reference to whether education should go through incremental improvement or a process of disruptive innovation.   In each case my reference to balance has been in highlighting some of the binary discussions which seem to arise on the Edu blog sphere and Twittersphere slightly more than they do in real life discussions.    Things are generally not binary in nature as the world is seldom that simple.    Balance therefore allows for an element of two opposing concepts or views with agreement to establish a point of agreement somewhere between the two opposite points.    Balance to me presents a continuum between two points, with the ability to select somewhere in between.    Up until recently I have been happy with this concept of balance.

The other day on the way home though I came to think about balance and I realised that my viewpoint maybe wasn’t as acceptable as I had thought it was.    The issue which came to me as I drove home was the fact that my view of balance puts two concepts at opposite ends.   For example, incremental improvement and disruptive innovation.    The two concepts are not opposites so why would they be at opposite ends of a continuum?    The reason I suspect is that in a discussion between two parties each will adopt a position, or end, and the negotiation that follows will either lead to an agreed disagreement or to a compromise or point in between.  As such from the point of view of a discussion between two people with differing viewpoints the model of a continuum and balance makes sense but maybe it doesn’t make sense as much when looking at the concepts themselves or their implementation.

In the case of incremental improvement and disruptive innovation, does more of one result in less of the other?     Maybe from the point of view of time available to undertake the process of change, it might be a case of more of one and less of the other.    Other than this could we not seek to be both incremental and disruptive?    If we were half way between incremental and disruptive what does this mean?   Does it mean spending half of our time being incremental and half of our time being disruptive and if so, how do we transition from one to the other?    Or if not related to time, what would being half way disruptive look like?     Can I be incremental but also also introduce a disruptive innovation, or could a disruptive innovation by incremental?   Are all increments necessarily equal and in which case is a disruptive innovation possible just a large incremental change?

I realise now that my use of balance hadn’t really advanced me away from the idea of binary concepts.   Having a continuum between two points isn’t that much better than having two points, especially where the concepts or points of view aren’t clearly opposites.    This all stems out of our looking for the “right” answer and as Ken Robinson said in his famous Changing Paradigms speech, “there can only be one and its at the back of the book”.   De Bono makes a similar observation in his book which is aptly titled “I’m right, you’re wrong”.    The reality is that we can actually all be right (or wrong come to think about it).    We could be iterative in our change however also be disruptively innovating as well.   There is no requirement to do one or the other, beyond the requirement which we imply in our discussions of differing viewpoints.   This extends for most binary discussions (or arguments) both online and offline.

I feel we all need to take more care in pitting viewpoints against each other.    Maybe the biggest benefit might come from accepting that differing viewpoints may all be correct, from looking for commonalities as opposed to stressing the differences.