This commentary responds to the suggestion that we can humanize online university education through the design decisions we make about it. It offers several reasons why the suggestion may be unrealistic, given that choice in online course design is increasingly narrowed by the prevalence of relatively powerless part-time instructors, student preference for convenient online offerings, and the use of learning management systems. However, if our design decisions are constrained, it becomes all the more important that we engage in critical conversations (...) about what we gain and lose when technology is used to automate or mediate university education. (shrink)

The anti-utopian technology critique of Ellul, Postman, and other important social analysts has been the primary mode of critical response to technological developments since the 1950s. However, this mode of technology critique has had a disappointingly small effect on the way we, as a society, receive technology. Rather than attribute this failure to the negativity of the anti-utopian perspective, this article suggests that there are other important and largely overlooked factors at work—in particular, the critics' inability to speak about technology (...) in a way that relates to us as social individuals coping with the contingencies and realities of the day-to-day use of technological devices. The purpose of this analysis is not to suggest that we abandon as irrelevant the work and ideas of technology critics such as Ellul and Postman but, on the contrary, to find a way to reframe their important ideas for wider acceptance. (shrink)

This article disrupts the logic of the “just-a-tool” argument, a powerful rhetorical device commonly offered as a rationale for using computers in education (and health care and other areas of society). Although this argument is articulated in many ways, its essence is the contention that computers are merely instructional tools, like blackboards or pencils, that can be used to enhance learning and therefore should be used in classrooms. The just-a-tool argument is difficult to challenge because it automatically constructs counterarguments as (...) illogical; they necessarily become arguments against using technology to improve the human condition. However, an analysis of the just-a-tool argument reveals that far from being logical and unassailable, it is both invalid and unsound. This “techno-illogic,” as the author calls it, arises when wisdom is subjugated to the dictates of technological “rationality,” and it is something that people must learn to recognize and defend against. (shrink)