ISSN: 2320-5407 Int. J. Adv. Res.

11(11), 265-269

Journal Homepage: - www.journalijar.com

Article DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/17822

DOI URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/17822

RESEARCH ARTICLE
THE INTERSECTION OF TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIAL SERVICE: CURRENT TRENDS,
CHALLENGES, AND OPPORTUNITIES

……………………………………………………………………………………………………....
Manuscript Info Abstract
……………………. ………………………………………………………………
Manuscript History
Received: 10 September 2023
Final Accepted: 14 October 2023
Published: November 2023
Vikramaditya Sindhu
This research paper explores the dynamic relationship between
technology and social service, shedding light on current trends,
challenges, and opportunities in this rapidly evolving field. As
technology continues to transform the way society operates, the social
service sector is no exception. This paper provides an in-depth analysis
of how technology is being leveraged to enhance social services, with a
focus on key trends, including the adoption of artificial intelligence, the
growth of telehealth, and the impact of data analytics on decision-
making in social service organizations. It also delves into the ethical
and equity considerations associated with these technological
advancements.

Copy Right, IJAR, 2023,. All rights reserved.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………....
Introduction:-
As technology continues to advance and permeate every aspect of our daily lives, it has also become a powerful
force of change within the social service sector. The once traditional and paper-heavy processes within this sector
have been significantly reshaped by digital innovations, bringing about a wave of transformation that touches every
facet of its operation.

One of the most noticeable changes is the way social service organizations connect with and serve their clients.
Digital communication tools, such as email, messaging apps, and video conferencing, have revolutionized the way
individuals access services and interact with social workers. These technologies have made it easier for clients to
reach out, ask questions, and receive support without the constraints of physical location and office hours. The
ability to have virtual consultations and counseling sessions has expanded access to services and reduced barriers for
those who may have difficulty attending in-person appointments.

Moreover, data analytics and information management systems have revolutionized the sector's ability to track and
assess the needs of the populations they serve. With the help of advanced software and databases, social service
organizations can collect and analyze vast amounts of information to better understand demographic trends, client
needs, and program effectiveness. This data-driven approach enables more targeted and efficient service delivery,
ensuring that resources are allocated where they are needed most.

Technology has also made fundraising and advocacy efforts more accessible and effective. Social service
organizations can leverage online platforms and social media to reach a wider audience and solicit support from
donors, volunteers, and partners. Crowdfunding, peer-to-peer fundraising, and online campaigns have become
essential tools for raising awareness and funds for various causes, enabling organizations to amplify their impact.

Corresponding Author:- Vikramaditya Sindhu 265

ISSN: 2320-5407 Int. J. Adv. Res. 11(11), 265-269

Furthermore, automation and artificial intelligence have streamlined administrative tasks, reducing the
administrative burden on social workers and staff. Chatbots and virtual assistants can handle routine inquiries,
appointment scheduling, and basic information dissemination, freeing up human resources to focus on more
complex and empathetic aspects of their work.

In terms of collaboration, technology has enabled greater coordination among different agencies and stakeholders
within the social service sector. Interoperable software and information-sharing platforms facilitate the exchange of
data and best practices, leading to more holistic and effective service provision. Additionally, mobile applications
have empowered fieldworkers to access and update client information on the go, improving the quality and
timeliness of care.

However, these technological advancements also raise important ethical and security concerns, as the handling of
sensitive client data and the potential for privacy breaches become critical issues. Ensuring data security and
compliance with regulations is paramount in this technology-driven era.

As technology continues to transform the way society operates, the social service sector must adapt and embrace
these changes. By harnessing the power of digital tools, social service organizations can enhance their outreach,
service delivery, and impact, ultimately improving the lives of the individuals and communities they serve. It is
essential for the sector to strike a balance between innovation and ethical considerations to fully leverage the
benefits of technological advancement in their mission to support and empower those in need.

Literature Review:-
As a subset of AI, machine learning focuses on building computer systems that can learn from and adapt to data
automatically without explicit programming (Jordan and Mitchell, 2015). Machine learning algorithms can provide
new insights, predictions, and solutions to customize the needs and circumstances of each individual. With the
availability of large quantity and high-quality input training data, machine learning processes can achieve accurate
results and facilitate informed decision making (Manyika et al., 2011; Gobert et al., 2012, 2013; Gobert and Sao
Pedro, 2017). These data-intensive, machine learning methods are positioned at the intersection of big data and AI,
and are capable of improving the services and productivity of education, as well as many other fields including
commerce, science, and government.

Regarding education, our main area of interest here, the application of AI technologies can be traced back to
approximately 50 years ago. The first Intelligent Tutoring System “SCHOLAR” was designed to support geography
learning, and was capable of generating interactive responses to student statements (Carbonell, 1970). While the
amount of data was relatively small at that time, it was comparable to the amount of data collected in other
traditional educational and psychological studies. Research on AI in education over the past few decades has been
dedicated to advancing intelligent computing technologies such as intelligent tutoring systems (Graesser et al., 2005;
Gobert et al., 2013; Nye, 2015), robotic systems (Toh et al., 2016; Anwar et al., 2019), and chatbots (Smutny and
Schreiberova, 2020). With the breakthroughs in information technologies in the last decade, educational
psychologists have had greater access to big data. Concretely speaking, social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter),
online learning environments [e.g., Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)], intelligent tutoring systems (e.g.,
AutoTutor), learning management systems (LMSs), sensors, and mobile devices are generating ever-growing
amounts of dynamic and complex data containing students’ personal records, physiological data, learning logs and
activities, as well as their learning performance and outcomes (Daniel, 2015). Learning analytics, described as “the
measurement, collection, analysis, and reporting of data about learners and their contexts, for purposes of
understanding and optimizing learning and the environments in which it occurs” (Long and Siemens, 2011, p. 34),
are often implemented to analyze these huge amounts of data (Aldowah et al., 2019). Machine learning and AI
techniques further expand the capabilities of learning analytics (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019). The essential
information extracted from big data could be utilized to optimize learning, teaching, and administration (Daniel,
2015). Hence, research on big data and AI is gaining increasing significance in education (Johnson et al., 2011;
Becker et al., 2017; Hwang et al., 2018) and psychology (Harlow and Oswald, 2016; Yarkoni and Westfall, 2017;
Adjerid and Kelley, 2018; Cheung and Jak, 2018). Recently, the adoption of big data and AI in the psychology of
learning and teaching has been trending as a novel method in cutting-edge educational research (Daniel, 2015;
Starcic, 2019).

266
ISSN: 2320-5407 Int. J. Adv. Res. 11(11), 265-269

The Position Formulation

A growing body of literature has attempted to uncover the value of big data at different education levels, from
preschool to higher education (Chen N.-S. et al., 2020). Several journal articles and book chapters have presented
retrospective descriptions and the latest advances in the rapidly expanding research area from different angles,
including systematic literature review (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019; Quadir et al., 2020), bibliometric study
(Hinojo-Lucena et al., 2019), qualitative analysis (Malik et al., 2019; Chen L. et al., 2020), and social network
analysis (Goksel and Bozkurt, 2019). More details can be found in the previously mentioned reviews. In this paper,
we aim at presenting the current progress of the application of big data and AI in education. By and large, the
research on the learner side is devoted to identifying students’ learning and affective behavior patterns and profiles,
improving methods of assessment and evaluation, predicting individual students’ learning performance or dropouts,
and providing adaptive systems for personalized support (Papamitsiou and Economides, 2014; Zawacki-Richter et
al., 2019). On the teacher side, numerous studies have attempted to enhance course planning and curriculum
development, evaluation of teaching, and teaching support (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019; Quadir et al., 2020).
Additionally, teacher dashboards, such as Inq-Blotter, driven by big data techniques are being used to inform
teachers’ instruction in real time while students simultaneously work in Inq-ITS (Gobert and Sao Pedro, 2017;
Mislevy et al., 2020). Big data technologies employing learning analytics and machine learning have demonstrated
high predictive accuracy of students’ academic performance (Huang et al., 2020). Only a small number of studies
have focused on the effectiveness of learning analytics programs and AI applications. However, recent findings have
revealed encouraging results in terms of improving students’ academic performance and retention, as well as
supporting teachers in learning design and teaching strategy refinement (Viberg et al., 2018; Li et al., 2019;
Sonderlund et al., 2019; Mislevy et al., 2020).

Despite the growing number of reports and methods outlining implementations of big data and AI technologies in
educational environments, we see a notable gap between contemporary technological capabilities and their
utilization for education. The fast-growing education industry has developed numerous data processing techniques
and AI applications, which may not be guided by current theoretical frameworks and research findings from
psychology of learning and teaching. The rapid pace of technological progress and relatively slow educational
adoption have contributed to the widening gap between technology readiness and its application in education
(Macfadyen, 2017). There is a pressing need to reduce this gap and stimulate technological adoption in education.
This work presents varying viewpoints and their controversial issues, contemporary research, and prospective future
developments in adoption of big data and AI in education. We advocate an interdisciplinary approach that
encompasses educational, technological, and governmental spheres of influence. In the educational domain, there is
a relative lack of knowledge and skills in AI and big data applications. On the technological side, few data scientists
and AI developers are familiar with the advancements in education psychology, though this is changing with the
advent of graduate programs at the intersection of Learning Sciences and Computer Science. Finally, in terms of
government policies, the main challenges faced are the regulatory and ethical dilemmas between support of
educational reforms and restrictions on adoptions of data-oriented technologies.

The digital divide remains a pressing concern, with efforts focused on ensuring that technology is accessible to all.
Initiatives like low-cost internet access and digital literacy programs have gained momentum, aiming to bridge the
gap and reduce disparities.

Telehealth and Teletherapy:

Telehealth platforms have become vital for remote healthcare delivery, expanding access to mental health services.
Teletherapy has gained popularity, making counseling more accessible, convenient, and confidential for many
individuals.

Data Analytics and Predictive Modeling:

Social service agencies are increasingly using data analytics and predictive modeling to better target interventions,
allocate resources efficiently, and anticipate community needs. This trend enables evidence-based decision-making
and improved outcomes.

Social Media and Online Support:

Social media platforms and online communities play a crucial role in connecting individuals facing similar
challenges. They provide peer support, disseminate information, and facilitate advocacy efforts.

267
ISSN: 2320-5407 Int. J. Adv. Res. 11(11), 265-269

Challenges:
Privacy and Data Security:
As technology collects and stores vast amounts of personal data, concerns about privacy and data security have
escalated. Social service agencies must implement robust data protection measures and navigate evolving
regulations.

Access Disparities:
While technology can enhance access to services, it can also exacerbate disparities when not everyone has equal
access to digital resources. Addressing this issue is a complex challenge.

Technological Literacy:
Ensuring that service providers and clients are technologically literate is essential. Many individuals, particularly in
older age groups, may struggle to adapt to new technologies, hindering their ability to access services.

Ethical Considerations:
The ethical use of technology, particularly in areas like artificial intelligence and data analytics, demands careful
consideration. Avoiding biases and ensuring fairness in algorithms is a significant challenge.

References:-
1. Abed Ibrahim, L., and Fekete, I. (2019). What machine learning can tell us about the role of language
dominance in the diagnostic accuracy of german litmus non-word and sentence repetition tasks. Front. Psychol.
9:2757. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02757
2. CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
3. Adjerid, I., and Kelley, K. (2018). Big data in psychology: a framework for research advancement. Am.
Psychol. 73, 899–917. doi: 10.1037/amp0000190
4. PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
5. Aldowah, H., Al-Samarraie, H., and Fauzy, W. M. (2019). Educational data mining and learning analytics for
21st century higher education: a review and synthesis. Telemat. Inform. 37, 13–49. doi:
10.1016/j.tele.2019.01.007
6. CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
7. Anwar, S., Bascou, N. A., Menekse, M., and Kardgar, A. (2019). A systematic review of studies on educational
robotics. J. Pre-College Eng. Educ. Res. (J-PEER) 9, 19–42. doi: 10.7771/2157-9288.1223
8. PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
9. Azevedo, J. P. W. D., Crawford, M. F., Nayar, R., Rogers, F. H., Barron Rodriguez, M. R., Ding, E. Y. Z., et al.
(2019). Ending Learning Poverty: What Will It Take?. Washington, D.C: The World Bank.
10. Google Scholar
11. Baker, R. S. J. D., D’Mello, S. K., Rodrigo, M. M. T., and Graesser, A. C. (2010). Better to be frustrated than
bored: the incidence, persistence, and impact of learners’ cognitive-affective states during interactions with
three different computer-based learning environments. Int. J. Human-Comp. Stud. 68, 223–241. doi:
10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.12.003
12. CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
13. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). “Grounding symbolic operations in the brain’s modal systems,” in Embodied
Grounding: Social, Cognitive, Affective, and Neuroscientific Approaches, eds G. R. Semin and E. R. Smith
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 9–42. doi: 10.1017/cbo9780511805837.002
14. CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
15. Becker, S. A., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Hall, C. G., and Ananthanarayanan, V. (2017). NMC
Horizon Report: 2017 Higher Education Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
16. Google Scholar
17. Belpaeme, T., Kennedy, J., Ramachandran, A., Scassellati, B., and Tanaka, F. (2018). Social robots for
education: a review. Sci. Robot. 3:eaat5954. doi: 10.1126/scirobotics.aat5954
18. CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
19. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and MIND in the Knowledge Age. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
20. Google Scholar
21. Boyd, D., and Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data: provocations for a cultural, technological,
and scholarly phenomenon. Inform. Commun. Soc. 15, 662–679. doi: 10.1080/1369118x.2012.678878
22. CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

268
ISSN: 2320-5407 Int. J. Adv. Res. 11(11), 265-269

23. Bramley, N. R., Dayan, P., Griffiths, T. L., and Lagnado, D. A. (2017). Formalizing Neurath’s ship:
approximate algorithms for online causal learning. Psychol. Rev. 124, 301–338. doi: 10.1037/rev0000061
24. PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
25. Bucher, T. (2018). If Then: Algorithmic Power and Politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
26. Google Scholar
27. Carbonell, J. R. (1970). AI in CAI: an artificial-intelligence approach to computer-assisted instruction. IEEE
Trans. Man-Machine Sys. 11, 190–202. doi: 10.1109/TMMS.1970.299942
28. CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
29. Chen, C. P., and Zhang, C. Y. (2014). Data-intensive applications, challenges, techniques and technologies: a
survey on big data. Inform. Sci. 275, 314–347. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2014.01.015
30. CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
31. Chen, L., Chen, P., and Lin, Z. (2020). Artificial intelligence in education: a review. IEEE Access 8, 75264–
75278. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2988510
32. CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
33. Chen, N.-S., Yin, C., Isaias, P., and Psotka, J. (2020). Educational big data: extracting meaning from data for
smart education. Interact. Learn. Environ. 28, 142–147. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2019.1635395
34. CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
35. Cheng, K.-H., and Tsai, C.-C. (2019). A case study of immersive virtual field trips in an elementary classroom:
students’ learning experience and teacher-student interaction behaviors. Comp. Educ. 140:103600. doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103600
36. CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
37. Cheung, M. W.-L., and Jak, S. (2018). Challenges of big data analyses and applications in psychology.
Zeitschrift Fur Psychol. J. Psychol. 226, 209–211. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000348
38. CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
39. Cuthbertson, B., Socha, T. L., and Potter, T. G. (2004). The double-edged sword: critical reflections on
traditional and modern technology in outdoor education. J. Adv. Educ. Outdoor Learn. 4, 133–144. doi:
10.1080/14729670485200491
40. CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
41. Cutumisu, M., and Guo, Q. (2019). Using topic modeling to extract pre-service teachers’ understandings of
computational thinking from their coding reflections. IEEE Trans. Educ. 62, 325–332. doi:
10.1109/te.2019.2925253
42. CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
43. Daniel, B. (2015). Big data and analytics in higher education: opportunities and challenges. Br. J. Educ.
Technol. 46, 904–920. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12230
44. CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
45. Daniel, B. K. (2019). Big data and data science: a critical review of issues for educational research. Br. J. Educ.
Technol. 50, 101–113. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12595
46. CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
47. Dijcks, J. (2013). Oracle: Big data for the enterprise. Oracle White Paper. Redwood Shores, CA: Oracle
Corporation.
48. Google Scholar
49. Field, J. (2001). Lifelong education. Int. J. Lifelong Educ. 20, 3–15. doi: 10.1080/09638280010008291
50. CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
51. Frey, C. B., and Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: how susceptible are jobs to
computerisation? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 114, 254–280. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.019
52. CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
53. Geczy, P. (2014). Big data characteristics. Macrotheme Rev. 3, 94–104.

269