It always amazes me when you read into theorists and researchers who are well beyond their years like Lev Vygotsky or Douglas C. Engelbart. For Engelbart (1963), in Augmenting human intellect: A conceptual framework, to predict what computers must need to do in order to “augment” and add value to lives, with so little disparity between what is actually present today, is quite an achievement.

 

Engelbart can be likened to Vygotsky in not only the way that he was able to make predictions that would be put into action and used well beyond his years, but also for the way that he looked at compartmentalizing processes. Take a look at Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), also known today as scaffolding. According to his theory, learning happens best when students operate in a "zone" where concepts, which without assistance, could not be learned without a person of a skill higher than that of their own breaking down, or "scaffolding", the learning for them (Tudge, 1992). Engelbart (1963), shows similarities to Vygotsky's ZPD theory when he posits, “[T]he human mind neither learns nor act by large leaps, but by steps organized or structured so that each one depends upon previous steps” (1963, 2a6). Engelbart refers to these learning steps as process hierarchies. Where the two theorists may differ is by who actually structures or scaffolds these processes, by a person of higher skill or by the actual learner.

 

This notion of Vygotskian scaffolding is further explicated in Engelbart’s empirical evidence when he elucidates that certain higher-order capabilities, when learned, can trickle down to up-skill those latent level capabilities. Engelbart (1963) walks us through examples of how just one simple innovation in technology, “[C]ould trigger a rather extensive redesign of this hierarchy; your way of accomplishing many of your tasks would change considerably” (2a23).

 

To personalize this notion, I will illuminate how some of my writing “process hierarchies” have benefitted from use of technology. Prior to owning and utilizing the efficiencies afforded to me by use of an electronic tablet device, I would read, sort, pilfer, and/or analyze educational texts with those technologies that have been around since I can remember (e.g. paper, pencil, highlighter, and/or pen). Where I would often fall short (i.e. have “latent capabilities”), was in collating references that I made explicitly stand out with these tools when it came time to write. My “latent capabilities” were that of inefficiencies in organization and in time to locate them. In addition, I would tend to read at a slower pace, since the physicality of a large journal or book would psyche me out before I even read it. To make matters worse, I often found that the tiresome layout of A4 print on paper would bore me to the extent where I would often need to re-read texts in order to comprehend them. Daydreaming whilst reading was commonplace.

 

Now fast forward to my use of the tablet for academic reading. For the past five years, I have been able to download readings and books into digital format and import them wirelessly into a PDF annotation application. All the tools to annotate or define words and text in the reading are easily accessible by a few taps on the screen. I can zoom or change the text to be more readable, regardless of lighting situation. Furthermore, I have the mobility to take the readings with me wherever I go; they are only as cumbersome as the static weight of my tablet. As a result, I find that I am more attentive to my readings as they are less strenuous on my eyes and, through the use of a stylus, I'm able to constantly move through the text, without changing much of the vertical positioning of my sight, thus increasing my fluency.

 

However, it is not these “capabilities” that have benefited the most by me reading texts on a tablet. It has (and still is) through self-tinkering and mentor “scaffolding” in my skillets through other software applications where I have seen the largest positive "augmentation" in my overall reading and research skillets. To continue with the same example, I make all my digital annotations inside an application called iAnnotate PDF. Once complete, annotations are forwarded into Evernote. Once inside Evernote, this affords me the luxury of having all my highlights and page numbers of each body of text to be composited chronologically, by page number, in one single “Ever-note” along with the actual digital document itself (e.g. PDF, ePub, etc.). Furthermore, Evernote allows me to easily tag and search key words anywhere in this document for ease of future reference. Therefore, if I can recall one single word from the entire passage or topic, Evernote brings up all the related hits, which translates into huge time efficiencies.

 

To summarize this example, reading on a tablet, has, in my opinion, brought up my “latent capabilities” in hesitation to read, read more often and in more places. I believe that I benefit from “higher order capabilities” in fluency, accuracy, and more efficient organization and recall of key concepts drawn out in texts for referencing due to this advance in computing technology. While this example illuminates that I may only be operating in the "augmentation" phase of Puentedura’s (2014) SAMR Model  (i.e. only using tech as a direct tool substitute with functional improvements), I can personally attest to the benefits this advancement in technology has "augmented" my "intellect" towards increasing my "capabilities" through "process".

 

In retrospect, it's quite a comical notion that I'm proclaiming all these benefits I receive from a tablet; I once thought it a laughable notion as to what value owning one would ever afford me. I can recall thinking that these devices were nothing more than just a more portable version of a netbook with slower typing function. However, like the evolution of most technology, this equipment entered the market slowly, people expected little, and in time, slowly changed their ways of doing things. The market then evolved (and is still evolving) to release more radical versions of this equipment to cater to the "scaffolded" skillets of users who have increased their "capabilities" as a result of a systematic "process" of learning (Engelbart, 1963).

 

To conclude on this post on the human intellect and those far beyond their years in achieving it, I think we are lucky to live in a world so “augmented”. Our "capabilities" as humans have evolved to such levels where we have been able to attribute a "process" to achieve so many levels of greatness otherwise unfathomable. Think of the "scaffolding" it took to get us to the moon, or that of the production of a smart phone. Bush (1945; in Englebart, 1963) once said that we live in a world where complex devices can be made reliably and cheaply. I believe that, in the not-so-distant future, we will live in a world where people can dream up their own complex devices and be able to enjoy them, on their own, both reliably and cheaply. How long will it be until the mass market sees 3D printers as commonplace in households?

​