4.5 F RUSTRATION
4.5.1 Lack of knowledge
77
78
Figure 19: Ophelia-“Fear”
I think there are students, IT lecturers… (as well as)…. non-IT lecturers…(who when faced with)…. a new technology... (approach it)… with a lot of fear instead of… quickly, or as quickly as they should. So this path is just…you know you don’t know where you are going.
You are fearful of what is on the other end. This is the same with technology, especially in the education environment, you get a new way to project your information and then you sit around being really scared thinking, “oh if something goes wrong, how do I fix it? How am I supposed to help the students now?” It creates a lot of fear.
Immigrant characteristics such as “slow”, “old” and “knowledge” Bayne and Ross (2011:161) are consistent with the following phrases expressed by participants: “I come out of an era when there were no computers when I studied” (Hermia, TVET2); “…because my knowledge is so limited, it results in me taking longer…” (Emilia, TVET1). Direct opposite terminologies that characterise a “native” ICT user (“fast”, “young” and “digital”), are also evident in the following excerpts of a participants’ response: “If you think about it, the students are more clued up then us with the computer. They quickly show me what I should do” (Hermia, TVET2); “The challenges is more, the quality of the route I follow is lacking because I do not have the knowledge that you have for instance.” (Emilia, TVET1). The participants’ excerpts illustrate the belief that young people naturally embrace digital technology, whilst older people struggle to adapt and be proficient in ICT.
79
Figure 20: Emilia’s representation of her limited ICT knowledge
This is the board on Swartberg pass that is the turn off too what is generally known as “The Hell”. It is a small remote town between Oudtshoorn and Prins Albert, where people lived for years in isolation. It is an extremely poor road; you can just about attempt it with a good 4 x 4 vehicle. This is how I feel sometimes - You see the distance is 37km and you think that one normally drives that distance in 15 minutes or less, depending on the road and the driving conditions. If you further notice that it has a travelling time of two hours, then that is how it feels I am working on a computer. Someone like you looks at the 37 and think that it is 15 minutes maximum, but I look at this task and think, “bliksim, it is 2 hours!”. My car and the conditions that I function under, due to my limited knowledge, results in me taking longer to complete this distance. The challenges are more, the quality of the route I follow is lacking because I do not have the knowledge that you have for instance. In my situation specifically, my limited knowledge is a symbolism of the 37km that takes 2 Hours to drive (Emilia, TVET1)
The similarities of symbolism between the photos of Ophelia (Figure 18) and Emilia (Figure 19) are striking. Both images are representative of the ICT adoption process, which they view as a difficult journey with many challenges on the “route” or “path” toward technology proficiency. I believe the difficult path/route theme highlights the contrast of ICT adoption
80
between Enthusiasts who readily adopt technology and Pragmatists such as Ophelia and Emilia who need to overcome quite a few challenges before they become proficient in ICT.
Figure 21: Hermia- “tug-of-war”
Sometimes when I want to present a lesson to the students, the computer for some or other reason does not want to work. Then I feel that I am in a tug-of-war with this machine that needs to work so that I can impart my lesson successfully to the students. It is also an illustration of my feelings with computers in general; I come out of an era when there were no computers when I studied. I taught myself with certain programs to understand how a computer works. If you think about it, the students are more clued up then us with the computer. They quickly show me what I should do (Hermia, TVET2)
Hermia’s expression, “…the computer for some or other reason does not want to work. Then I feel that I am in a tug-of-war with this machine that needs to work…” points to an unconventional tenet of symbolic interactionism, namely “anthropomorphism” (Prasad, 1993;
Waytz et al., 2014). This concept, as explain earlier, refers to people treating technology humanlike, by placing human confidence in technology to assist them in performing a task.
Prasad provides an example of a participant that is angry with a computer that malfunctioned- the participant wanted to know why the technology is making so many
“stupid” mistakes. The participant thus ascribed an attribute (“stupid”) associated with humans to a non-human entity. Hermia has trust in technology to improve her teaching abilities, but it disappoints her by breaking her trust when it does not function as expected.
81
Waytz and co-authors describes “trust” as a multifaceted concept that refers to the belief that another will act with integrity and competence (2014:3).
The authors predict that increased trust in technology is resultant of increased deniability by a person for their responsibility in an undesirable outcome. Although Ophelia does not explicitly blame technology for hindering her lesson, she still places a significant amount of responsibility in technology to aid the successful presentation of a lesson. The loss of confidence in educational ICT forecasts undesirable adoption outcomes, especially since people increasingly encounter technology on a personal and intimate level. Waytz et al.
(2014:12) additionally notes how technology changes the way people interact with their social world. Technology is no longer only a “mindless tool”. For example, people ask (in the literal sense of the word) their smartphones to give them driving directions, recommend restaurants, and so forth.
This example certainly places focus on the extent to which technology can be anthropomorphised with humanlike attributes. Computer assisted instruction (CAI) e-learning software that presents multimedia lessons in the form of animation with corresponding verbal explanations (Mayer, 2003:300), can certainly incur symbolic realities of anthropomorphism.
In a study that investigated The implementation of e-Learning in Public Technical Vocational Education and Training Institutions in South Africa, Tsholo (2006) discovered that e-learning in general is a little known phenomenon in TVET institutions. Has there been a change in this phenomenon since 2006? If it is a well established and used learning alternative in other types of academic facilities, what significance does educators’ anthropomorphisation of CAI e-learning have on teaching and learning? Can it contribute to understanding technological encounters in education?
In conclusion, the symbolic narratives of “limited knowledge” in the context of Blumer’s first premise of symbolic interactionism, indicates that educators ascribe meanings of proficient technology skills to social objects such as young people and ICT lecturers. Further, educators ascribe meaning of technological incapability to an “abstract” object (Blumer, 1986:10); referring to their feelings of helplessness if they on certain occasions engage with technology and the outcome is undesirable. Finally, the symbolism of anthropomorphism is still a rare phenomenon presently, but it might perhaps become a more prominent facet affecting ICT adoption.
82