Advertisement

Teaching Human Rights and Digital Technology

  • Susan Perry
  • Claudia Roda
Chapter

Abstract

The preceding chapters have examined the intersection between human rights and digital technology for a variety of stakeholders. This chapter presents a comprehensive approach, one that integrates the lessons learned in the four preceding chapters and brings this knowledge into the university classroom. Educational curricula offer an ideal platform for exploring the relationship between our rights and our use of technology, encouraging a rigorous examination of their complex interstice as part of either a general education programme or a specialized degree. Of particular interest is the blended classroom: this hybrid of the physical and virtual space allows students and teachers to learn by doing, to utilize technology in creative and singular ways that privilege the tangible classroom space, while providing digitized access to materials, people and discussions that are physically out of reach. This chapter examines the potential for blended, interdisciplinary learning through (1) a discussion of the right to access education and to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress, rights that the digital divide calls into question, (2) an analysis of human attention in digital environments and the consequences for higher education, (3) the presentation of a curriculum that blends the traditional classroom and the Internet, and (4) a viewpoint on the future of blended learning in an increasingly digitized university environment.

Keywords

Digital Technology Scientific Progress Digital Divide Blended Learning Digital Tool 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Bibliography

  1. Adler, R. F., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2012). Juggling on a high wire: Multitasking effects on performance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 70(2), 156–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adler, R. F., Benbunan-Fich, R. (2014, March 9). The effects of task difficulty and multitasking on performance. Interacting with Computers. First published online.Google Scholar
  3. Alcock, S. E., Dufton, J. A., & Durusu-Tanriöver, M. (2015). Archaeology and the MOOC: Massive, open, online, and opportunistic. Journal of Social Archaeology, 16(1), 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2015). Grade level: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group.Google Scholar
  5. Aoun, J. (2012). A shake-up of higher education. Boston Globe. Retrieved March 25, 2016, from https://www.bostonglobe.com (home page).
  6. Baethge, A., & Rigotti, T. (2013). Interruptions to workflow: Their relationship with irritation and satisfaction with performance, and the mediating roles of time pressure and mental demands. Work & Stress, 27(1), 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bailey B., Konstan J., Carlis J. (2001) The effects of interruptions on task performance, annoyance, and anxiety in the user interface, In M. Hirose (Ed.) Human-Computer Interaction - INTERACT 2001 Conference Proceedings. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 593–601.Google Scholar
  8. Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Beiter, K. D. (2005). The protection of the right to an education by international law. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bulling, A. (2016). Pervasive attentive user interfaces. Computer, 49(1), 94–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carver, L., & Harrison, L. M. (2013). Moocs and democratic education. Liberal Education, 99(4), 20–25.Google Scholar
  12. Charle, C., & Verger, J. (2015). Histoire des universités XIIe au XXIe siècle. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  13. Conard, M. A., & Marsh, R. F. (2014). Interest level improves learning but does not moderate the effects of interruptions: An experiment using simultaneous multitasking. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 112–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crary, J. (1999). Suspension of perception: Attention, spectacle, and modern culture. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Davenport, T., & Beck, J. (2001). The attention economy. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  16. Destemberg, A. (2009). Un système rituel? Rites d’intégration et passages de grades dans le système universitaire médiéval (XIIIe-XVe siècle). Cahiers de Recherches Médievales et Humanistes, 18, 113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Drews, F. A., & Musters, A. (2015). Individual differences in interrupted task performance: One size does not fit all. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 79, 97–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. European Union Agency for Network and Information Security. (2014). Roadmap for NIS Education Programmes in Europe. ENISA. Retrieved March 25, 2016, from https://www.enisa.europa.eu (home page).
  19. Dux, P. E., Tombu, M. N., Harrison, S., Rogers, B. P., Tong, F., & Marois, R. (2009). Training improves multitasking performance by increasing the speed of information processing in human prefrontal cortex. Neuron, 63, 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Foroughi, C. K., Werner, N. E., Barragán, D., & Boehm-Davis, D. A. (2015). Interruptions disrupt reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(3), 704–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frank, G. (2014). Économie de l’attention. In Y. Citton (Ed.), L’économie de l’attention: Nouvel horizon du capitalisme? Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  22. Franke, J. L., Daniels, J. J., & McFarlane, D. C. (2002). Recovering context after interruption. Proceedings 24th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science Society, 2002, 310–315.Google Scholar
  23. Gillie, T., & Broadbent, D. (1989). What makes interruptions disruptive? A study of length, similarity and complexity. Psychological Research Policy, 50, 243–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 41-58.Google Scholar
  25. Hayles, N. (2007). Hyper and deep attention: The generational divide in cognitive modes. Profession, 13, 187–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hembrooke, H., & Gay, G. (2003). The laptop and the lecture: The effects of multitasking in learning environments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15, 46–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hilbert, M. (2011). Digital gender divide or technologically empowered women in developing countries? Women’s Studies International Forum, 34(6), 21–22. 479–489.Google Scholar
  28. van den Hoven, J. (2012). Fact Sheet-Ethics Subgroup IoT—Version 4.0. Chair Ethics Subgroup IoT Expert Group. Delft University of Technology. 6–8.Google Scholar
  29. International Telecommunication Union. (2016). The World in 2015: ICT Facts and Figures. Retrieved March 5, 2016, fromhttp://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2015.pdf http://www.itu.int (home page).
  30. Jolly, C. (1989). Histoire des bibliothèques françaises. In A. Vernet (Ed.), Les bibliothèques médiévales, du VIe siècle à 1530. Paris: Promodis-Éditions du Cercle de la librairie.Google Scholar
  31. Kant, I. (1781/1997). Critique of practical reason (M. Gregor, Ed. & Trans.). London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kirchberg, D., Roe, R., & Van Eerde, W. (2015). Polychronicity and multitasking: A diary study at work. Human Performance, 28(2), 112–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lanham, R., & Merkoski, D. (2008). The economics of attention. Moderated by Kaplan, M., The Norman Lear Center, USC Annenberg School of Communication. Retrieved March 25, 2016, from http://learcenter.org/pdf/EconofAttention.pdf
  34. Lee, B. C., & Duffy, V. G. (2015). The effects of task interruption on human performance: A study of the systematic classification of human behavior and interruption frequency. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 25(2), 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lee, H., Young, T., Roda, C. (2013, April 10). E-books usability: Reading time and comprehension. Abstract for The Tablet Symposium: Examining new media objects. University of Sussex.Google Scholar
  36. Le Goff, J. (1964). Quelle conscience l’université médiévale a-t-elle eue d’elle-même ? Miscellanea Mediaevalia, 3, 15–29.Google Scholar
  37. Luker, K. (2008). Salsa dancing into the social sciences: Research in the age of info-glut. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Mack, A., & Rock, I. (1998). Inattentional blindness. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. McFarlane, D. C., & Latorella, K. A. (2002). The scope and importance of human interruption in human-computer interaction design. Human-Computer Interaction, 17(1), 1–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Morin, D., Thomas, J. D. E., & Saade, R. G. (2012). Deep learning and virtual environment. International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 6(11), 3163.Google Scholar
  41. Nagata, S. F. (2003). Multitasking and interruptions during mobile web tasks. Proceedings 47th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 1341–1345).Google Scholar
  42. Nissenbaum, H. (2011). A contextal approach to privacy online. Daedalus, 140(4), 32–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Norman, D., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In R. J. Davidson, G. E. Schwartz, & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and self-regulation. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  44. Pedro, F. (2010). Educational research and innovation: Are the new millennium learners making the grade? Technology use and educational performance in PISA 2006. Center for Educational Research and Innovation. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  45. Perrin, A., & Duggan, M. (2015). ‘Americans’ internet access: 2000–2015. Pew Research Center. Retrieved March 25, 2016, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/06/26/americans-internet-access-2000-2015
  46. Philbeck, I. (2016). Working together to connect the world by 2020. International Telecommunications Union. Retrieved March 25, 2016, from http://www.itu.int (home page).
  47. Rhoads, R., Camacho, M., Toven-Lindsey, B., Berdan Lozano, J. (2015). The massive open online course movement, MOOCs, and faculty labor. The Review of Higher Education, 38(3), 397–424.Google Scholar
  48. Roda, C. (2010). Attention support in digital environments, nine questions to be addressed. New Ideas in Psychology, 28(3), 354–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Roda, C. (2014). Économiser l’attention dans l’interaction homme-machine. In Y. Citton (Ed.), L’économie de l’attention: révolutions à venir? Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  50. Roda, C. (2011). Human attention in digital environments. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Rosen, L. D., Lim, A. F., Carrier, M., & Cheever, N. A. (2011). An examination of the educational impact of text message-induced task switching in the classroom: Educational implications and strategies to enhance learning. Psicologia Educativa, 17, 163–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Roux, S. (1992). La Rive gauche des escholiers (XVe siècle). Paris: Éditions Christian.Google Scholar
  53. Schmid, L., Manturuk, K., Simpkins, I., Goldwasser, M., Whitfield, K. (2015). Fulfilling the promise: Do MOOCs reach the educationally underserved? Educational Media International, 52(2), 116–128.Google Scholar
  54. Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F. (1999). Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception, 28(9), 1059–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Simon, H. A. (1971). Designing organizations for an information-rich world. In M. Greenberger (Ed.), Computers, Communications, and the Public Interest (pp. 38–52). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
  56. Speier, C., Vessey, I., & Valacich, J. (2003). The effects of interruptions, task complexity, and information presentation on computer-supported decision-making performance. Decision Sciences, 34(4), 771–797.Google Scholar
  57. Tucker, L. (2014). 7 Reasons to take a MOOC. QS Top Universities, August 29. http://www.topuniversities.com/blog/7-reasons-take-mooc
  58. United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. (1999). General Comment No.13: The Right to Education (Art. 13). Adopted at Twenty-first session, in document E/C.12/1999/10. Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights.Google Scholar
  59. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2015). Draft Preliminary Report concerning the preparation of a global convention on the recognition of Higher Education Qualifications. UNESCO. Retrieved March 25, 2016, from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/strengthening-education-systems/higher-education
  60. West, D. M. (2015). Connected learning: How mobile technology can improve education. Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings. Retrieved March 25, 2016 from https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/west_connected-learning_v11.pdfGoogle Scholar
  61. Zijlstra, F. R. H., Roe, R. A., Leonova, A. B., & Krediet, I. (1999). Temporal factors in mental work: Effects of interrupted activities. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 163–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan Perry
    • 1
  • Claudia Roda
    • 1
  1. 1.American University of ParisParisFrance

Personalised recommendations