As a high school student in the late 1980s, we were just getting introduced to Apple computers and there were a few available around the school to use. We had no training on how to use the word processing program, but that’s largely what it was used for. I was the president of a school club and typed up agendas and minutes from our meetings. However, I can distinctly remember starting files and then not knowing how or where to save them. Thus, I would have to start over the next time I went looking for them on the computer and they were nowhere to be found. So here was this new technology that few knew how to maximize as a resource for efficiency, especially me. It was trial by error and a representation of how “technologies do not (simply) determine the patterns of our actions” (Cope & Kalantzis, 2015, p. 350).

I still laugh remembering how I brought an electric typewriter to college in 1989. By the time I finished college in 1994, computers were a part of everyday life and I visited the on-campus computer labs on a daily basis to complete assignments. This is where the “affordances” came into play and “a range of different modes of action” were being put to use (Cope & Kalantzis, 2015, p. 350).

Today, some 20 years later, the role of technology has come center stage in our schools and core curriculum standards include meeting benchmarks when it comes to technology use. New educator roles have evolved as well in the form of educational technology specialists and here in New Jersey standardized tests like the PARCC are administered online (though the first year was a disaster in many cases because schools did not have enough computers or the infrastructure to run online testing for weeks at a time).

“Technology offers affordances. It does not in itself determine social agendas, actions or outcomes. These remain as wide open as ever” (Cope & Kalantzis, 2015, p. 355).

Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) is a term that is defined as a new and different way to evaluate the social context of a technological innovation. Bijker and Pinch are noted as researchers who examine the relationship between technology, society and science.

A student presentation by Reem Garabash highlights their work at: http://slideplayer.com/slide/8440590/

Social Construction of Technology starts with the constructivist roots of technology and how it may benefit society. In connecting this thought to my own profession, I have worked in youth development for more than a decade now and it is my goal to take these affordances that technology provides and find a suitable application for our members to pursue leadership and personal development activities. We do not use technology to our advantage in our youth programs and there is great opportunity to drive the future of learning in our informal learning environment. For example, our members keep hand written record books on their 4-H project areas. We are finally exploring a different way for them to document their learning experiences and growth in their project areas through the use of portfolios or e-portfolios. Portfolios are not a new concept but they would be a new method for youth to manage their records and share how and what they are learning. I am excited about this as it is long overdue.

Works Cited

Baragash, R. Social Construction of Technology. Retrieved from http://slideplayer.com/slide/8440590/

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2015). Assessment and pedagogy in the era of machine-mediated learning. Education as Social Construction, 350.