Global communication, international workflow, and connected learning are converging to realign power, wealth, and work.  As Friedman (2006) explained, many forces are coming together to cause a flattening or leveling effect of the world’s workforce.  This has allowed many skilled workers from emerging nations to enter the workplace and compete for jobs that were traditionally held by only a few wealthy industrial nations.   Although the playing field is being leveled for some occupations, Florida (2005) convincingly argues that the international economic landscape is becoming spiky with innovations being concentrated in a few urban centers.

These urban centers provide the new creative class with ecosystems that enable their prosperity.  Innovations are improved and brought to market more quickly in settings where talented people collocate (Florida 2005).  It is vital that graduates enter the workforce prepared to orchestrate globally distributed work using computer-based communication systems and know how to engage creatively in collocated activities.  Despite these demands on our graduates, many university computer laboratories are sociofugal environments (environments that discourage social interaction), fostering the individual consumption of information versus collaboration.  This paper examines the college computer lab as an ecological system that may impede transference of critical 21st century sociocutural norms and workplace skills.

">

Ecology Of The Computer Laboratory

James E. Folkestad*, James Banning**
*Associate Professor, Colarado State University ,School Education, Fort Collins,Colorado.
**Professor,Research Methodology program(Qualitative Research),Colarado State University ,School Education, Fort Collins,Colorado.
Periodicity:April - June'2008
DOI : https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.5.1.561

Abstract

Global communication, international workflow, and connected learning are converging to realign power, wealth, and work.  As Friedman (2006) explained, many forces are coming together to cause a flattening or leveling effect of the world’s workforce.  This has allowed many skilled workers from emerging nations to enter the workplace and compete for jobs that were traditionally held by only a few wealthy industrial nations.   Although the playing field is being leveled for some occupations, Florida (2005) convincingly argues that the international economic landscape is becoming spiky with innovations being concentrated in a few urban centers.

These urban centers provide the new creative class with ecosystems that enable their prosperity.  Innovations are improved and brought to market more quickly in settings where talented people collocate (Florida 2005).  It is vital that graduates enter the workforce prepared to orchestrate globally distributed work using computer-based communication systems and know how to engage creatively in collocated activities.  Despite these demands on our graduates, many university computer laboratories are sociofugal environments (environments that discourage social interaction), fostering the individual consumption of information versus collaboration.  This paper examines the college computer lab as an ecological system that may impede transference of critical 21st century sociocutural norms and workplace skills.

Keywords

Computer Laboratory, Classroom, Ecosystem, Sociofugal, Sociopetal, 21st Century.

How to Cite this Article?

James E. Folkestad and James Banning (2008). Ecology Of The Computer Laboratory. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 5(1), 38-48. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.5.1.561

References

[1]. Armstrong, D.G., Henson. K.T., & Savage. T.\/. (2001). Teaching today: An introduction to education. (6’“ ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
[2]. Becker, F. and Steele, F. [1 995]. Workplace byDesign: Mapping the High-Performance Workscape. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
[3]. Benkler, Y. [2006]. The Wealth of Networks : How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. Yale University Press.
[4]. Berkun, S. (2007). The myths of innovation. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media.
[5]. Burke, J. (2007).American connections: The founding fathers, networked. New York: Simon & Schuster.
[6]. Brown, J. S. &Ad|er, R. R (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0. Educause, 43(1),17-32.
[7]. Burleson, W. (2005). Developing creativity, motivation, and self-actualization with learning systems. International Journal of Human-Computerstudies, 63. 436-451 .
[8]. Dudek, S. A., Strobel, M. G., & Runco, M. A. (1993). Cumulative and proximal influences on the social environment and children's creative potential. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1 54(4), 487-499.
[9]. Frauenheim, E. (2004). Student saying not to computer science. C/net News.com [On-line serial]. Available http://wvvw.news.com/Students-saying-no-to- computer-science/2100-1022_3-5306096.html.
[10]. Friedman, T. (2006). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty—first century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
[11]. Florida, R. (2005). The world is spiky. The Atlantic Monthly, 296(3), 48-51 .
[12]. Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it's transforming work, leisure, community and everydaylife. NewYork: Basic Books.
[13]. Fong, C. T. (2006). The effects of emotional ambivalence on creativity. The Academy of ManagementJournal, 49(5), 1 016-1 030.
[14]. Ford, C. M., &Gioia, D. A. (1995). Creative action in organizations: Ivory tower visions & real world voices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
[15]. Furst, M. & DeMillo, R. (2006). Creating symphonic- thinking computer science graduates for an increasingly competitive global environment. http://wvvw.cc.gatech. Edu/education/undergrad/bscs/threads_whitepaper.pdf /view?searchterm =threads+ white.
[16]. Hargadon, A. (2003). How breakthroughs happen. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
[17]. Henson, K.T. (2006). Curriculum planning: Integrating multiculturalism, Constructivism, and educational reform. (3"’ ed.). Long Grove: Waveland Press,lnc.
[18]. Johnson, N. (1982). School spaces and architecture: The social and cultural landscape of educational environments. Journal ofAmerican Culture. 5(2), 79-88.
[19]. Martin, S. H. (2002). The classroom environment and its effects on the practice of teachers. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 1 39-1 56.
[20]. Office of Budgets and Institutional Analysis. (2007). Facts at a Glance. [Brochure]. wvvw.colostate.edu/Depts/OBIA/obia.html.
[21]. Pink, D. (2006). A whole new mind: Why right- brainers will rule the future. New York: Riverhead Books.
[22]. Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn't creativity more important to educational psychologists’? potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83- 96.
[23]. Robinson, K. (2001). Out of our minds: learning to be creative. Chichester, West Sussex: Capstone Publishing Limited.
[24]. Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657-687.
[25]. Sommer, R. (1966). The ecology of privacy. Library Quarterly, 36(3), 234-248.
[26]. stake, R., (2005). Multiple Case StudyAnaIysis. New York: The Guilford Press.
[27]. Weinstein, C. (1992). Designing the instructional environment: Focus on seating. Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology
If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article

Purchase Instant Access

Single Article

North Americas,UK,
Middle East,Europe
India Rest of world
USD EUR INR USD-ROW
Pdf 35 35 200 20
Online 35 35 200 15
Pdf & Online 35 35 400 25

Options for accessing this content:
  • If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
    Library Recommendation Form
  • If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
  • New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.