User:Cxe016/sandbox

Article Evaluation Teachers Without Borders

1. Evaluating content
   • There was nothing in particular that distracted me from the whole article topic, I believe everything was somewhat detailed but not really in explaining what the whole foundation is all about. There could be more information on their since it is a huge foundation known in many countries as well as here in USA. For the most part everything seemed up to date since there was some new information from 2018 being displayed on their, which was nice to see. There was one section "Flagship programs," that had no information on there, which means I am not quite sure what that could mean or what is it. Which leads to me saying that is the only thing that needs to be improved adding more detailed information and filling in on the section that is empty.
2. Evaluating tone
   • It is a neutral article which I like, because although it is a foundation for teachers due to it being the most popular profession out there, I did not get any vibe of the article being biased in any way. I am not sure if the viewpoints are overrepresented or underrepresented, but it seems underrepresented since everything seems like it is facts and based on true events or so, I could be wrong. I don't consider it overrepresented because it is not being something so trending or for there to be so much excessive information.
3. Evaluating sources
   • The links that were under the article all worked, which was great because it led me to more information, detailed information, about the foundation and I could see more visuals of it. They are all neutral sources because they all lead to the original website of the foundation where there is a lot of information if anyone is interested, where there is more interaction with the whole foundation overall. Which is great to see an article with a good amount of information where we can learn a lot more about that topic and go deeper in research. They seemed good with references which is nice to have in a good article.
4. Talk Page
   • There is not much going on in the talk page, although there is one question about where are the independent sources. No one has answered that question from what I can see and it was posted since 2017. I see that the article has been edited just recently a few days ago, so I am not sure who could answer that question. I don't see it being a part of any wikiprojects and it does not seem to have a bad rating or a bad one. Good article overall, I really enjoyed it.

Copyedit an Article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_technology

Descriptive approaches

• Social construction of technology (SCOT) – argues that technology does not determine human action, but that human action shapes technology. Key concepts include:
  • interpretive flexibility: "Technological artifacts are culturally constructed and interpreted, meaning not only that there is flexibility in how people think of or interpret artifacts but also that there is flexibility in how artifacts are designed."
  • Relevant social group: shares a particular set of meanings about an artifact
  • 'Closure' and stabilization: when the relevant social group has reached a consensus
  • Wider context: "the sociocultural and political situation of a social group shapes its norms and values, which in turn influence the meaning given to an artifact"

Key authors include MacKenzie and Wajcman (1985).

• Actor-network theory (ANT) – posits a heterogeneous network of humans and non-humans as equal interrelated actors. It strives for impartiality in the description of human and nonhuman actors and the reintegration of the natural and social worlds. For example, Latour (1992) argues that instead of worrying whether we are anthropomorphizing technology, we should embrace it as inherently anthropomorphic: technology is made by humans, substitutes for the actions of humans, and shapes human action. What is important is the chain and gradients of actors' actions and competences, and the degree to which we choose to have figurative representations. Key concepts include the inscription of beliefs, practices, relations into technology, which is then said to embody them. Key authors include Latour (1997) and Callon (1999).
• Structuration theory – defines structures as rules and resources organized as properties of social systems. The theory employs a recursive notion of actions constrained and enabled by structures which are produced and reproduced by that action. Consequently, in this theory technology is not rendered as an artifact, but instead examines how people, as they interact with a technology in their ongoing practices,enact structures which shape their emergent and situated use of that technology. Key authors include DeSanctis and Poole (1990), and Orlikowski (1992).
• Systems theory – considers the historical development of technology and media with an emphasis on inertia and heterogeneity, stressing the connections between the artifact being built and the social, economic, political and cultural factors surrounding it. Key concepts include reverse salients when elements of a system lag in development with respect to others, differentiation, operational closure, and autopoietic autonomyKey authors include Thomas P. Hughes (1992) and Luhmann (2000).
• Activity theory - considers an entire work/activity system (including teams, organizations, etc.) beyond just one actor or user. It accounts for environment, history of the person, culture, role of the artifact, motivations, and complexity of real life activity. One of the strengths of AT is that it bridges the gap between the individual subject and the social reality—it studies both through the mediating activity. The unit of analysis in AT is the concept of object-oriented, collective and culturally mediated human activity, or activity system.

Other Stances'

Additionally, many authors have posed technology so as to critique and or emphasize aspects of technology as addressed by the mainline theories. For example, Steve Woolgar (1991) considers technology as text in order to critique the sociology of scientific knowledge as applied to technology and to distinguish between three responses to that notion: the instrumental response (interpretive flexibility), the interpretivist response (environmental/organizational influences), the reflexive response (a double hermeneutic). Pfaffenberger (1992) treats technology as drama to argue that a recursive structuring of technological artifacts and their social structure discursively regulate the technological construction of political power. A technological drama is a discourse of technological "statements" and "counterstatements" within the processes of technological regularization, adjustment, and reconstitution.

An important philosophical approach to technology has been taken by Bernard Stiegler, whose work has been influenced by other philosophers and historians of technology including Gilbert Simondon and André Leroi-Gourhan. In the Schumpeterian and Neo-Schumpeterian theories technologies are critical factors of economic growth (Carlota Perez).

Analytic theories

Finally, there are theories of technology which are not defined or claimed by a proponent, but are used by authors in describing existing literature, in contrast to their own or as a review of the field.

For example, Markus and Robey (1988) propose a general technology theory consisting of the causal structures of agency (technological, organizational, imperative, emergent), its structure (variance, process), and the level (micro, macro) of analysis.

Orlikowski (1992) notes that previous conceptualizations of technology typically differ over scope (is technology more than hardware?) and role (is it an external objective force, the interpreted human action, or an impact moderated by humans?) and identifies three models:

1. Technological imperative: focuses on organizational characteristics which can be measured and permits some level of contingency .
2. Strategic choice: focuses on how technology is influenced by the context and strategies of decision-makers and users .
3. Technology as a trigger of structural change: views technology as a social object .

DeSanctis and Poole (1994) similarly write of three views of technology's effects:

1. Decision-making: the view of engineers associated with positivist, rational, systems rationalization, and deterministic approaches .
2. Institutional school: technology is an opportunity for change, focuses on social evolution, social construction of meaning, interaction and historical processes, interpretive flexibility, and an interplay between technology and power .

An integrated perspective (social technology): soft-line determinism, with joint social and technological optimization, structural symbolic interaction theory# .

Bimber (1998) addresses the determinacy of technology effects by distinguishing between the:

1. Normative: an autonomous approach where technology is an important influence on history only where societies attached cultural and political meaning to it (e.g., the industrialization of society)
2. Nomological: a naturalistic approach wherein an inevitable technological order arises based on laws of nature (e.g., steam mill had to follow the hand mill).

Unintended consequences:# a fuzzy approach that is demonstrative that technology is contingent (e.g., a car is faster than a horse, but unbeknownst to its original creators become a significant source of pollution)

PART C

Systems theory – considers the historical development of technology and media with an emphasis on inertia and heterogeneity, stressing the connections between the artifact being built and the social, economic, political and cultural factors surrounding it. Key concepts include reverse salients when elements of a system lag in development with respect to others, differentiation, operational closure, and autopoietic autonomy. Key authors include Thomas P. Hughes (1992) and Luhmann (2000).

Chose Option B

1. Barandiaran, Xabier E. “Autonomy and Enactivism: Towards a Theory of Sensorimotor Autonomous Agency.” Topoi, vol. 36, no. 3, 2016, pp. 409–430.
2. Lourenco, Ana. “Autopoietic Social Systems Theory; The Co-Evolution of Law and the Economy.” Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy, 2010, pp. 34–54.

I consider both Academic Journal/Secondary sources because they are both written for an academic audience as well as both involved information based on other researchers information. For the first citation, it allowed me to have a better comprehension overall of the whole paragraph and what it was being meant by "operational closure and how it related to systems theory. Also, it gave me more background of how the term was created and how it ties in and relates to the next term "Autopoietic autonomy." For the second citation, once again I was feeling a little confused on how this was all in relation to the paragraph since these terms are not quite heard often. This article took me even more into dept about understanding autopoeisis better from learning about Maturana and Varela and once again gave a better and more clearer definition about operational disclosure on this article. So these two words were in read in the article which they were not cited so I questioned why would it be that way are they relevant to the article or I don't know they were just two things that seemed needed attention.

PART D

1. What questions arise after having read the piece?  What information do you want to know as a reader or as a researcher?  

Overall, as a reader my main question is what is this article actually trying to argue, because at some point it seems it is arguing and in other sections just throwing information about theories and stating a few facts about them. It is not suppose to be an argument article according to Wikipedia rules, so I would just want to know more and understand more overall what is the whole purpose of the article. I understand a little of how the theories are broken down but I wish there was more background and facts about each theory, examples, etc. As a researcher, all I am really interested in doing and finding is more information and where can I find it, over all these theories of technology and learn more about them so it can help me understand this article better. In other words here we get the definitions of each theory and a small amount of facts about it but only from the key thinker who works that theory, so I need to research more about each theory and get different points of views overall of the whole technology article so I can relate things better to the article.

Search Terms:

1. Linear model of technological innovation
2. Technological determinism
3. Technological artifacts

Websites

• This cite is an organization in Mass Communication and has many theories on there. I chose this one to be very relevant because it allowed me to comprehend the phrase "Technological Determinism." Which it shows a lot more about the theory than from what I read in the Wiki article. As I said, I want to be able to have a better understanding of the whole article that I need to research phrases that can be a little confusing to me yet, play a huge role in the Wiki article.
• I determined it was reliable information being from an educational organization website that has a lot of good information. So, I really feel and see that it is something I can look at and rely on the work being published, although I did have a hard time finding an author name so the is a tricky one for me but the information seems so reliable.
• Communication Theory (April 23, 2018) Technological Determinism Retrieved from https://www.communicationtheory.org/technological-determinism/

• It was really tough to find a website specifically focusing on one topic, although finding an article was very easy there was a lot in this website here Springer Link with the Article "Teaching and Learning the Nature of Technical Artifacts" This article has great information on technical artifacts with so many examples and views on it and deeply connecting it to all these theories I read over in the Wiki Article. I wanted to find more information that would go in depth on that keyword that was throwing me off and this article here is perfect for that because there is just so much on there and showing different studies about technological artifacts, allowing me to comprehend technological theories even more.
• To begin with it is credible to me and reliable due to it being a scholarly article with authors from Delft University, so it is a great source to have found.
• Frederik, I., Sonneveld, W. & de Vries, M.J. Int J Technol Des Educ (2011) 21: 277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9119-3

Summary

The phrase/theory Technological information based on my website I found defines it as a theory connecting technology and society's nature. How is it that technology or to what limit does technology influence society's nature. There is no doubt there has been change throughout history due to technological determinism such as guns like stated in the website. So there are many results from this theory but is it technology controlling us or are we controlling technology to an extent and then technology takes over or do we humans have full control. Due to these questions or concerns is what draws more theories to be coming out such as Langdon Winner's theories, so this information all relates to the Wiki Article because it allows me to comprehend more in depth of why all these theories exist in the first place and how it all relates to society. When reading more about Technological Artifacts I can see how it is how a technology thing is made and what it is made to be in other words, I really enjoyed how in here I was even able to find more keywords that are in the Wiki Article such as normative and how it was being related to technological artifacts. They gave an example of a car explaining the functional description is normative and the physical description is non-normative and what is artifacts are showing in that overall vehicle and how they relate to technology. The fact that it is explaining to me more in depth about all these technological artifacts is what relates it a lot to the Wiki article because it really relates to all the analytical theories mentioned as well as others.

BEFORE Additional Information

Descriptive approaches

• Social construction of technology (SCOT) – argues that technology does not determine human action, but that human action shapes technology. Key concepts include:
  • interpretive flexibility: "Technological artifacts are culturally constructed and interpreted ... By this we mean not only that there is flexibility in how people think of or interpret artifacts but also that there is flexibility in how artifacts are designed."

AFTER Additional Information

Descriptive approaches

• Social construction of technology (SCOT) – argues that technology does not determine human action, but that human action shapes technology. Key concepts include:
  • interpretive flexibility: "Technological artifacts are culturally constructed and interpreted ... By this we mean not only that there is flexibility in how people think of or interpret artifacts but also that there is flexibility in how artifacts are designed." Also, these technological artifacts determine and shape what that specific technology tool will symbolize and represent in society or in a culture. This is in relation to the SCOT theory because it shows how humans symbolize technology, by shaping it.

Shields, M. A. (2012). Technology and Social Theory (review). Technology and Culture 53(4), 918-920. Johns Hopkins University Press. Retrieved May 6, 2019

Wikipedia Part A

Technology and Society, Who dominates Who?

Vgmarina. (16 October 2017). The Actual Society.Wikimedia Commons. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/The_actual_society.jpg

I chose this image because it shows how these young women are into technology so it leaves me wondering which relates to the article, who dominates who? Does technology dominate society or does society/humans dominate technology. As the article Theories of Technology, shows several different theories from descriptive approach and critical approaches, that shows how society and technology relate and who has more domination of who. Now we know, through technology in our society it has created and given many more opportunities to society. Although, there are several different culture uses/views of technology they all come together and relate in one in the use of technology.

Add a Citation Exercise

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_English_as_a_second_or_foreign_language

Students who are learning English as a second language are known as (ELLs) English language learners.

“Supporting English Learners in Texas.” English Language Learner - Bilingual/ESL, Texas Education Agency, www.elltx.org/bilingual_esl.html.

EVALUTATION ON ARTICLE OF THEORIES OF TECHNOLOGY

1. Evaluating Content: All the content in this article is very relevant to the topic of the article which is theories of technology. There were missing citations, which I was able to find relevant sources that could give more information on those terms. Now there are several theories briefly explained and how they relate with society. This article is mainly to show all the theories that are out there that show relation with technology and society to determine who dominates who, what shapes what, and how does it impact society or technology. The only thing I see that can improve is the way it is all written, Wiki says it is written in a personal reflection form, I tend to write in that form as well, which is why I was a bit afraid of adding so much new content to the article. Aside, from that I believe this article has great content and is very informative on the theories of technology but of course not fully in depth.
2. Evaluating Tone: The article to me is considered very neutral because they do give out all the theories of technology that support different points of views that deal with the connection of society and technology. The viewpoints do not have much in depth information on how it relates more to the theories in depth, It just has short descriptions of why a certain theory falls under that viewpoint but not fully go in depth on that viewpoint and why it is being viewed the way it is. It definitely needs a lot more work in the writing style and in the way each viewpoint is being represented, I know there is a lot of information out there that deals with technology and society and definitely a lot of viewpoints from different professionals out there which is why I believe it is a difficult article to work on or create just because there is so much information but not many are fully given in depth which does not allow for information to be gained from that source because it is not in depth or fully completed.
3. Evaluating Sources: All the links that are now in the article fully work and everything has its reference to fall on where it describes more in depth each theory, which is very wonderful to have on their. The only citation links that were not working, I gladly was able to help and find relevant sources for it. I don't think this article is biased at all, although it is an argument or debate on who dominates who and how technology impacts society and how society uses technology to form society. I loved how they showed every theory that supported each side because that shows no biased for either or.
4. Evaluating the Talk Page: This article is most definitely shown to be interested in a few wikiProjects such as WikiProjects Sociology, WikiProjects Philosophy, and WikiProjects Technology. Now I do see there are a few things being said in the Talk Page such as that it looks like someone just copied and pasted information from somewhere else, which is why it kind of lacks that connection overall. Another section in the Talk Page mentions critical vs descriptive approaches, how they do not really see how it bears scrutiny. There could be better connections in this article and better way of writing it into the encyclopedia style as mentioned in the article on the top.