Please access my concept map at the above link.
I would like to think at this point that I’m well on my way toward the dynamic end of the “static-dynamic continuum. Granted, there’s still some distance to go. But my comfort with – and regular use of – multimedia and digital technologies, particularly Apple-based technologies, have instilled the kind of confidence in me that should continue to bode well as a communication instructor and a doctoral educational technology student. Based on the components of static and dynamic technologies, at least the ones defined by Moller (2008) in his essay on Static and Dynamic Technological Tools, I probably make equal use of both technologies on a regular basis, with a slight nod going to the Dynamic side of technology and media in distance education. Admittedly, the use of Google, You Tube, and other multi-user environments has heightened as a Walden EDUC 8842, but so has the static side of things in this class as online media relate to peer-collaboration, which, in my view, is a huge plus for class interactivity, and a key technological tool that Fahy (2008) viewed in online individual success.
While I continue to make marked strides toward dynamic technologies, I’m surprised to learn, at least in the Fahy(2008) study, that print is as static technologically as it is. As both a broadcast and print journalist, and one of the change agents back in the 1980s with helping a national broadcast network make the quantum leap from manual typewriters to computerized newscasts, I would think print would play a more dynamic role. Fahy (2008) acknowledged that “there is no medium more ubiquitous than print” (Fahy, 2008, p. 173), but at the same time lamented the low-cost medium as “non-interactive,” “non-responsive,” and a high-profile candidate for “passive, rote learning” (p. 173).
I have to admit television as static technology also comes as a surprise, though the Moller (2008) essay was quite clear in what keeps the world most powerful mass communication medium from the dynamic technology side. The recipe analogy, in that information and ideas in the medium are largely being reproduced, is convincing and not the way I view television that has been my livelihood for all of these years. On the Moller (2008) scale, radio also belongs in the static arena, as are webinars that I often participate in but, arguably, provide the same static reproduction as its broadcasting cousins, television and radio.
At the rate I’m using static and dynamic technologies, I still don’t have a clue how soon it will be before I will accomplish all of the technologies I’ve listed at the dynamic end of the continuum. While I don’t participate in videoconferencing or teleconferencing, largely because of my departure from corporate America, I do make regular use of iPods and MP3 players, two of the three content items I mention on my dynamic content list. I do plan to purchase an iPad soon, which, with the exception of videoconferencing and teleconferencing, will essentially complete my dynamic list. Somehow, I already feel I have come light-years in the use of static and dynamic technologies. Not bad for making use of innovations that seem to have the life-span of an ameba.
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the mega-analysis.
Anderson, T. (2008). The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed.). Edmonton, AB: AU Press.
Moller, L. (2008). Static and dynamic technological tools. [Unpublished Paper].
*Fahy, J. (2008). Characteristics of interactive online learning media. Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University.
Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.