What difference to all this might the 'digital divide' make?
a) To socioeconomically related access issues within a society?
b) To global access issues across countries and regions?
I think that the implication here is that the digital divide, and its’ implications, will increase. As education moves towards: 1/ being more technology based and 2/more tailored to fit individuals needs (likely through personalised learning online etc as opposed to traditional f2f methods), the digital divide will become more a split between the educated and the uneducated. This in turn will become a divide between the employed and the unemployed, and the well off and the less well off. This said, education is becoming more accessible to those who are less well off thanks to government loans for students and institutions such as the OU. However, for those who grow up without even a chance to grasp technologies becoming increasingly popular in education, this may make little difference. As this cycle goes on, the digital divide can only increase.
Friday, 27 March 2009
WEEK 9 red. Tailored education problems
Is there a potential problem being stored up for people if 'education' is tailored to fit into their cultural and personal preferences?
I believe so. See my post here about education stretching a person: http://kayrodge.blogspot.com/2009/03/week-9-q3.html
If education were tailored for each individual, then a very limited amount of ‘stretching’ would go on. Without being stretched beyond preferences, I’m not really sure how much education would actually be possible. To give an example, when I was in the younger years of secondary school, I hated English and much preferred maths and science. Had I been given the choice to do just these, or less of English based subjects then I would have taken it. However, by the time I came to choose my A-level options, I really disliked sciences and favoured the humanities. Having been given the choice of a tailored education, my options in later life could have been severely limited.
Psychologists like Bordieu (Zevenbergen) also make well established claim that general learning and development is a result of new information being struggled with a fit into either new or pre-existing schema. With tailored learning to ‘suit’ the individual, not only would the learning of specific content be limited, but genera; development itself may be stunted as a result of minimised struggle.
Finally, only learning a limited amount of subjects may have ethical implications. Only learning preferred topics may limit knowledge of the world outside of what directly affects the individual.
If this question, however, is talking about ‘tailoring’ in terms of learning methods rather than the actual contents of education, I cannot see as many problems.Although this may be limiting because it may mean that neo-luddites etc can put effort into being educated in their desired ways, or techophiles in theirs, it is unlikely that a balanced variety of skills will be gained despite making education accessible for more; the outcome will be less useful than if a wider variety of skills were taught. Again, this comes back to stretching and ideas of learning through struggle.
Zevenbergen, R (2007) “ Digital Natives come to Preschool: implications for early childhood practise” Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8 (1) http://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/validate.asp?j=ciec&vol=8&issue=1&year=2007&article=3_Zevenbergen_CIEC_8_1_web [accessed 17/03/09] (this wont link as you have to enter a passcode)
I believe so. See my post here about education stretching a person: http://kayrodge.blogspot.com/2009/03/week-9-q3.html
If education were tailored for each individual, then a very limited amount of ‘stretching’ would go on. Without being stretched beyond preferences, I’m not really sure how much education would actually be possible. To give an example, when I was in the younger years of secondary school, I hated English and much preferred maths and science. Had I been given the choice to do just these, or less of English based subjects then I would have taken it. However, by the time I came to choose my A-level options, I really disliked sciences and favoured the humanities. Having been given the choice of a tailored education, my options in later life could have been severely limited.
Psychologists like Bordieu (Zevenbergen) also make well established claim that general learning and development is a result of new information being struggled with a fit into either new or pre-existing schema. With tailored learning to ‘suit’ the individual, not only would the learning of specific content be limited, but genera; development itself may be stunted as a result of minimised struggle.
Finally, only learning a limited amount of subjects may have ethical implications. Only learning preferred topics may limit knowledge of the world outside of what directly affects the individual.
If this question, however, is talking about ‘tailoring’ in terms of learning methods rather than the actual contents of education, I cannot see as many problems.Although this may be limiting because it may mean that neo-luddites etc can put effort into being educated in their desired ways, or techophiles in theirs, it is unlikely that a balanced variety of skills will be gained despite making education accessible for more; the outcome will be less useful than if a wider variety of skills were taught. Again, this comes back to stretching and ideas of learning through struggle.
Zevenbergen, R (2007) “ Digital Natives come to Preschool: implications for early childhood practise” Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8 (1) http://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/validate.asp?j=ciec&vol=8&issue=1&year=2007&article=3_Zevenbergen_CIEC_8_1_web [accessed 17/03/09] (this wont link as you have to enter a passcode)
WEEK 9 red. Prensky and CofP
How might Wenger's notions on practice communities relate to Prensky's on education?
A brief summary of both ideas:
Prensky made a divide between those who have grown up with digital technologies and those who have learnt to use them at a later stage in life. He argues that growing up with these technologies (Digital natives) effects the way the minds of the users work compared to those who have learnt at a later stage (digital natives) as brains develop differently depending on the type of stimulation they receive. He discusses the implications of this divide in terms of teaching and the problem that teachers are Dig immigrants while pupils are Dig natives.
Wenger’s notion of a CofP is that of a community brought together by a ‘joint enterprise’ with joint group goals and aims. A CofP is separate from official organisations and this reinforces the idea that the members of the community possess the desire to be part of it and improve at the joint enterprise themselves rather than being pushed by someone else.
So...According to Prensky’s ideas, the issue with education may arise when Educators do not understand the learner’s ways of learning ;Not understanding the ways their minds work (small chunks of non-linear information being preferred etc). In combating this issue, it is likely that they may form some sort of study group where they can study in the ways which suit them best- a CofP. This would be separate from the official organisation (school, uni etc), and the people in the group would have the shared aim of understanding work and succeeding in it. There would be no hierarchy as in traditional education, instead the CofP would be bound and motivated by their joint interest of understanding work in a way which suits them. Perhaps, as Prensky suggests, video games may be a part of this joint enterprise. New technologies allow gamers to connect via the internet and if playing the sort of educational games Prensky had in mind, a CofP could be formed in a way that both suits and encourages the learning of natives which is arguable poorly catered for by immigrant teachers.
A brief summary of both ideas:
Prensky made a divide between those who have grown up with digital technologies and those who have learnt to use them at a later stage in life. He argues that growing up with these technologies (Digital natives) effects the way the minds of the users work compared to those who have learnt at a later stage (digital natives) as brains develop differently depending on the type of stimulation they receive. He discusses the implications of this divide in terms of teaching and the problem that teachers are Dig immigrants while pupils are Dig natives.
Wenger’s notion of a CofP is that of a community brought together by a ‘joint enterprise’ with joint group goals and aims. A CofP is separate from official organisations and this reinforces the idea that the members of the community possess the desire to be part of it and improve at the joint enterprise themselves rather than being pushed by someone else.
So...According to Prensky’s ideas, the issue with education may arise when Educators do not understand the learner’s ways of learning ;Not understanding the ways their minds work (small chunks of non-linear information being preferred etc). In combating this issue, it is likely that they may form some sort of study group where they can study in the ways which suit them best- a CofP. This would be separate from the official organisation (school, uni etc), and the people in the group would have the shared aim of understanding work and succeeding in it. There would be no hierarchy as in traditional education, instead the CofP would be bound and motivated by their joint interest of understanding work in a way which suits them. Perhaps, as Prensky suggests, video games may be a part of this joint enterprise. New technologies allow gamers to connect via the internet and if playing the sort of educational games Prensky had in mind, a CofP could be formed in a way that both suits and encourages the learning of natives which is arguable poorly catered for by immigrant teachers.
Tuesday, 24 March 2009
WEEK 9. 7c
A person known to you (could be you, but you don't need to admit it!) who most threatens the notion of native/immigrant in digital culture.
I think the phrase ‘digital immigrant’ is much more subjective/flexible than it initially seems, depending on the technologies in question. Although by most definitions I am a digital native, certain occasions would suggest otherwise. When babysitting a 6 and 10 year old, I found that I had little idea about how to use the programmes they were using on the computer, and despite them teaching me I failed to pick it up very well. They then found games online which they had never played before yet still went on to beat me. As they had never played before, it suggests that their nativism to technologies which I am unfamiliar with means their brains have learnt to work in ways which mine simple doesn’t. By 11.00am (I’m usually quite a good babysitter, but I didn’t want to be outsmarted by a 6year old) I admitted defeat and realised that the game was not something I could just ‘learn’ in a few hours but that my brain just didn’t work like theirs.
This leads me to argue that while I class myself as a native for some technologies, I am an immigrant when it comes to others and just don’t possess what is required to learn them. 7 years younger than the supposed cut off for digital nativism, I feel that in these circumstances I am a young digital immigrant. As more technologies come about which I may not learn to use, I feel this might be the case more often in the future as a generation of new digital natives comes about.
I think the phrase ‘digital immigrant’ is much more subjective/flexible than it initially seems, depending on the technologies in question. Although by most definitions I am a digital native, certain occasions would suggest otherwise. When babysitting a 6 and 10 year old, I found that I had little idea about how to use the programmes they were using on the computer, and despite them teaching me I failed to pick it up very well. They then found games online which they had never played before yet still went on to beat me. As they had never played before, it suggests that their nativism to technologies which I am unfamiliar with means their brains have learnt to work in ways which mine simple doesn’t. By 11.00am (I’m usually quite a good babysitter, but I didn’t want to be outsmarted by a 6year old) I admitted defeat and realised that the game was not something I could just ‘learn’ in a few hours but that my brain just didn’t work like theirs.
This leads me to argue that while I class myself as a native for some technologies, I am an immigrant when it comes to others and just don’t possess what is required to learn them. 7 years younger than the supposed cut off for digital nativism, I feel that in these circumstances I am a young digital immigrant. As more technologies come about which I may not learn to use, I feel this might be the case more often in the future as a generation of new digital natives comes about.
WEEK 9. 7D
Describe the daily frustrations of a fictional neo-luddite at university now in the UK.
The life of a neo-luddite at university today would presumably be filled with struggle and overcoming the use of technology which is rapidly dominating the way a student’s life works. To start with, student timetables are available online. For some courses timetables change weekly and must be checked every weekend. Any last minute changes to these timetables are then either emailed to student’s university email accounts or posted on Blackboard. Without the use of these facilities is would be almost impossible to receive up-to date information on what classes are being held where. Of course the neo-luddite could ask friends for updates but the fastest ways to receive these updates are again technology filled; by text message, mobile phone call, email or maybe via a SNS. The next issues the neo-luddite may face come with university work. Research without using a library database online, online journals, websites etc etc would be an initial problem (after the unavoidable use of technology via swipecard to actually enter the library!). The work then has to be submitted in a word processed way, unless it is an online unit like NMC…both unavoidable as a student but disliked by the neo-luddite. University social life is then mainly arranged through a variety of technologies; A recent MCC night out has been discussed and arranged on Facebook, with messages and updates from the organisers, instant messaging on MSN and text messages also giving updates. The neo-luddite could hear about these things IRL but would fail to hear up to date changes or plans as quickly as they may do online.
A neo-luddite would simply not be able to function at university without overcoming their dislike of technology. While some aspects of this are just an inconvenience, others are ingrained into the way university works and are unavoidable aspects of being a modern day student.
The above eg suggests several things. Firstly Livingstone's notion of literacy; Having avoided technology for so long the neo-luddite is likely to struggle with any university course and it's demands for technology, even to make graphs or word process at the least. This would need to be learnt before it was possible to complete a degree. Secondly it has implications on a digital divide. It suggests that a digital divide is likely to increase between those who posess higher education and those who don't. This also means that a neo-luddite may fail to find employment because a lack of a degree and the failure to demonstrate desired technologcal skills required in a range of jobs. This divide may also then reflect socio-economic status' in community.
The life of a neo-luddite at university today would presumably be filled with struggle and overcoming the use of technology which is rapidly dominating the way a student’s life works. To start with, student timetables are available online. For some courses timetables change weekly and must be checked every weekend. Any last minute changes to these timetables are then either emailed to student’s university email accounts or posted on Blackboard. Without the use of these facilities is would be almost impossible to receive up-to date information on what classes are being held where. Of course the neo-luddite could ask friends for updates but the fastest ways to receive these updates are again technology filled; by text message, mobile phone call, email or maybe via a SNS. The next issues the neo-luddite may face come with university work. Research without using a library database online, online journals, websites etc etc would be an initial problem (after the unavoidable use of technology via swipecard to actually enter the library!). The work then has to be submitted in a word processed way, unless it is an online unit like NMC…both unavoidable as a student but disliked by the neo-luddite. University social life is then mainly arranged through a variety of technologies; A recent MCC night out has been discussed and arranged on Facebook, with messages and updates from the organisers, instant messaging on MSN and text messages also giving updates. The neo-luddite could hear about these things IRL but would fail to hear up to date changes or plans as quickly as they may do online.
A neo-luddite would simply not be able to function at university without overcoming their dislike of technology. While some aspects of this are just an inconvenience, others are ingrained into the way university works and are unavoidable aspects of being a modern day student.
The above eg suggests several things. Firstly Livingstone's notion of literacy; Having avoided technology for so long the neo-luddite is likely to struggle with any university course and it's demands for technology, even to make graphs or word process at the least. This would need to be learnt before it was possible to complete a degree. Secondly it has implications on a digital divide. It suggests that a digital divide is likely to increase between those who posess higher education and those who don't. This also means that a neo-luddite may fail to find employment because a lack of a degree and the failure to demonstrate desired technologcal skills required in a range of jobs. This divide may also then reflect socio-economic status' in community.
WEEK 9. 7b
The youngest digital immigrant you know.
The youngest digital immigrant I know is probably a 9 year old who I babysit. She has older parents and therefore her household is fairly limited in terms of technology. A television is probably the most technology available to her and before school she never had access to a games console, a computer, the internet or a mobile phone. Since starting school, she has begun to use computers as part of her education but was describing to me that everyone else is better than she is at the tasks they perform on a computer. This suggests that missing out on early use of a computer means that she failed to learn to use this technology as her friends did before school and that she isn’t equipped to learn as fast as they are.
However, according to Prensky’s ideas, as she is so young and with his thoughts on neuroplasticity she is likely to pick up the new technologies very quickly now that she has begun to use them and will probably become a native fairly soon. After all, I class myself as a native (when it comes to computers) and wasn’t using them at this age; more evidence that the idea of DN/DIs is less rigid than initially suggested.
The youngest digital immigrant I know is probably a 9 year old who I babysit. She has older parents and therefore her household is fairly limited in terms of technology. A television is probably the most technology available to her and before school she never had access to a games console, a computer, the internet or a mobile phone. Since starting school, she has begun to use computers as part of her education but was describing to me that everyone else is better than she is at the tasks they perform on a computer. This suggests that missing out on early use of a computer means that she failed to learn to use this technology as her friends did before school and that she isn’t equipped to learn as fast as they are.
However, according to Prensky’s ideas, as she is so young and with his thoughts on neuroplasticity she is likely to pick up the new technologies very quickly now that she has begun to use them and will probably become a native fairly soon. After all, I class myself as a native (when it comes to computers) and wasn’t using them at this age; more evidence that the idea of DN/DIs is less rigid than initially suggested.
WEEK 9. 7a
The oldest digital native you know.
I would class my Dad as a digital native. Despite being born over 40 years too early to fit Prensky’s view of digital nativism, he possesses many qualities which I believe allow him to fit the category: He usually owns new Technologies before I do, works from home on the computer, has a better mobile phone than I, and spends hours a day on the internet doing daily tasks like working, banking, emailing and reading online.
Although Prensky’s theory might initially suggest that he is a digital immigrant and probably still retains some ‘accent’ which proves he didn’t grow up surrounded by such digital technologies, he also points out that people’s brains can actually change throughout their lifetime as a result of the stimulation they receive. Therefore I would argue that as a keen, regular and competent user of up to date technologies since the digital revolution, my Dad may be classed as a digital native, despite his age.
Prensky, M (2001) “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. Do they reall think differently?” On The Horizon. 9 (6) http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf [accessed 17/03/09]
I would class my Dad as a digital native. Despite being born over 40 years too early to fit Prensky’s view of digital nativism, he possesses many qualities which I believe allow him to fit the category: He usually owns new Technologies before I do, works from home on the computer, has a better mobile phone than I, and spends hours a day on the internet doing daily tasks like working, banking, emailing and reading online.
Although Prensky’s theory might initially suggest that he is a digital immigrant and probably still retains some ‘accent’ which proves he didn’t grow up surrounded by such digital technologies, he also points out that people’s brains can actually change throughout their lifetime as a result of the stimulation they receive. Therefore I would argue that as a keen, regular and competent user of up to date technologies since the digital revolution, my Dad may be classed as a digital native, despite his age.
Prensky, M (2001) “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. Do they reall think differently?” On The Horizon. 9 (6) http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf [accessed 17/03/09]
WEEK 9. Q3.
Should education 'stretch a person do you think? (What do you mean by 'stretch'?)
I consider ‘stretch’ in terms of education to mean pushing the boundaries of knowledge which a person already possesses. I don’t think that without doing this, it can really be classed as education. To simply recap what a person already knows isn’t teaching them anything new and well established psychological theories support that fitting NEW and previously unknown information into ways of thought is how people learn (Bordieu).
I’m sure most people can recall a time when work has been struggled with and overcome. This leaning is a result of stretching ourselves and struggle; had we found it easy initially it is unlikely we would have been learning anything new. I’ve given an eg you may be able to relate to in this blog of Kayley’s: http://kayleya.blogspot.com/2009/03/w9-task-3-should-education-stretch.html#comments
I consider ‘stretch’ in terms of education to mean pushing the boundaries of knowledge which a person already possesses. I don’t think that without doing this, it can really be classed as education. To simply recap what a person already knows isn’t teaching them anything new and well established psychological theories support that fitting NEW and previously unknown information into ways of thought is how people learn (Bordieu).
I’m sure most people can recall a time when work has been struggled with and overcome. This leaning is a result of stretching ourselves and struggle; had we found it easy initially it is unlikely we would have been learning anything new. I’ve given an eg you may be able to relate to in this blog of Kayley’s: http://kayleya.blogspot.com/2009/03/w9-task-3-should-education-stretch.html#comments
Friday, 20 March 2009
WEEK 8 red. What is Digital Nativism/Immigration?
Find out about 'Digital Immigration'.What Is it? Who cares about it? What sort of general attitudes have been based upon it?
Digital immigration, and it’s counterpart digital nativism are terms coined by Mark Prensky. It is probably best to understand these terms by understanding the latter first. Digital natives are those who are ‘native’ to the technologies of the digital revolution; those who have been born and brought up with digital technologies. As Prensky explains, Digital Natives have "spent their entire lives surrounded by and using computers, videogames, digital music players, video cams, cell phones, and all the other toys and tools of the digital age" (Prensky, 2001a, p. 1).
Immigrants, on the other hand, have not grown up surrounded by such technology. Instead, they have learnt how to use such digital technologies at a later stage. Although they make competently learn to use this technology they do in a fundamentally different way to DN’s, retaining the ‘accent’ of an immigrant.
Prensky argues that the way DN’s and DI’s think, learn and process information is therefore fundamentally different. A key implication of the DI/DN divide is that of teaching; the argument that teachers are not only having to teach a generation who use different technologies but whose brains actually work differently. Prensky criticises the entire education system and claims that it is outdated and does not cater for DN’s.
One point i think worth mentioning re: Prensky’s theory is the idea that it is not a timeless one; in ten years time when DN’s are those doing the teaching, will his work still be relevant? Or will the learners have progressed yet further and be learning in different ways again? This is hard to say as envisaging future technology is near impossible but I still feel the future of the DI/DN divide is something that should be considered.
WEEK 8 red. Article Abstracts and References
Article 1.
Zevenbergen, R (2007) “ Digital Natives come to Preschool: implications for early childhood practise” Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8 (1) http://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/validate.asp?j=ciec&vol=8&issue=1&year=2007&article=3_Zevenbergen_CIEC_8_1_web [accessed 17/03/09] (this wont link as you have to enter a passcode)
Abstract: Zevenberg discusses early childhood learning (focusing on pre-school children) and uses sociologist Pierre Bordieu’s theories of learning as a basis for how the teaching of youngsters should change to incorporate technology. The article suggests that even pre-schoolers have the qualities of digital natives and suggests that even childhood play should involve digital technologies to prepare them for education involving these.
Article 2.
Prensky, M (2001) “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. Do they reall think differently?” On The Horizon. 9 (6) http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf [accessed 17/03/09]
Abstract: Furthers Prensky’s initial ideas from part one of this article that digital natives brains work fundamentally differently to those of digital immigrants. This is used to suggest that digital games are a suitable learning tool for digital immigrants and that these should be used in new education. The article cites scientific research that the brain has a ‘plasticity’ that allows it’s structure to change throughout life, not just in the early stages. The main implications discussed are that education must change to fit the ways young people’s minds now work if it is to be successful.
Article 3.
2/ Van Eck, R (2006) “Digital Game Based Learning: It’s not just the Digital Natives who are restless”. Educause. 41 (2) http://www.seriousgamesystems.com/Digital%20Game-Based%20Learning%20Its%20Not%20Just%20the%20Digital%20Natives%20Who%20Are%20Restless.pdf [accessed 17/03/09]
Abstract: This article looks at the recently increasing popularity of DGBL (Digital Game Based Learning) and considers the difference between entertainment and education in games, and the balance between the two needed for DGBL. It also addresses some of the logistical problems of creating games which serve to educate but retain aspects of entertainment. Previous scepticism of DGBL is challenged and the criteria games must fill to be suitable for learning are discussed, such as fitting the curriculum and design of the games,
Article 4.
Kennedy et al (2008) “First year student’s experiences with technology: are they really digital natives?” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24 (1). http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet24/kennedy.html [accessed 17/03/09]
Abstract: This article is based on a 2006 study of university students. It first questions wether students are natives for all technologies or just certain more common ones, and moves on to looking at student’s preferences for using technology in their studies. It analyses result in light of a review of Prensky’s work about the implications of Digital nativism within technology. Findings and implications of the study suggest that there is a huge variance of students wanting/not wanting to use technologies within their studies depending on what technology is in question.
Zevenbergen, R (2007) “ Digital Natives come to Preschool: implications for early childhood practise” Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8 (1) http://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/validate.asp?j=ciec&vol=8&issue=1&year=2007&article=3_Zevenbergen_CIEC_8_1_web [accessed 17/03/09] (this wont link as you have to enter a passcode)
Abstract: Zevenberg discusses early childhood learning (focusing on pre-school children) and uses sociologist Pierre Bordieu’s theories of learning as a basis for how the teaching of youngsters should change to incorporate technology. The article suggests that even pre-schoolers have the qualities of digital natives and suggests that even childhood play should involve digital technologies to prepare them for education involving these.
Article 2.
Prensky, M (2001) “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. Do they reall think differently?” On The Horizon. 9 (6) http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf [accessed 17/03/09]
Abstract: Furthers Prensky’s initial ideas from part one of this article that digital natives brains work fundamentally differently to those of digital immigrants. This is used to suggest that digital games are a suitable learning tool for digital immigrants and that these should be used in new education. The article cites scientific research that the brain has a ‘plasticity’ that allows it’s structure to change throughout life, not just in the early stages. The main implications discussed are that education must change to fit the ways young people’s minds now work if it is to be successful.
Article 3.
2/ Van Eck, R (2006) “Digital Game Based Learning: It’s not just the Digital Natives who are restless”. Educause. 41 (2) http://www.seriousgamesystems.com/Digital%20Game-Based%20Learning%20Its%20Not%20Just%20the%20Digital%20Natives%20Who%20Are%20Restless.pdf [accessed 17/03/09]
Abstract: This article looks at the recently increasing popularity of DGBL (Digital Game Based Learning) and considers the difference between entertainment and education in games, and the balance between the two needed for DGBL. It also addresses some of the logistical problems of creating games which serve to educate but retain aspects of entertainment. Previous scepticism of DGBL is challenged and the criteria games must fill to be suitable for learning are discussed, such as fitting the curriculum and design of the games,
Article 4.
Kennedy et al (2008) “First year student’s experiences with technology: are they really digital natives?” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24 (1). http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet24/kennedy.html [accessed 17/03/09]
Abstract: This article is based on a 2006 study of university students. It first questions wether students are natives for all technologies or just certain more common ones, and moves on to looking at student’s preferences for using technology in their studies. It analyses result in light of a review of Prensky’s work about the implications of Digital nativism within technology. Findings and implications of the study suggest that there is a huge variance of students wanting/not wanting to use technologies within their studies depending on what technology is in question.
WEEK 8. Article 1 arguments.
In your blog, write a paragraph (or two) about your disagreements with each article
Arguments: Although the 2007 article is not that old, I would argue that Zevenberg’s theories are neither new or interesting. He fails to mention much different from Prensky’s original theory other than transferring it to younger children than Prensky suggests. My own experience of working with pre-school children also suggests that use of technologies (particularly computers, as Zevenberg focuses on) Is in fact part of most pre-school children’s play; his ideas are hardly revolutionary. Finally, he suggests that use of computers has been shown to improve social interaction. This seems contradictory of many more recent theories which suggest too much computer use has the opposite effect of this: the article fails to account for such reports.
Arguments: Although the 2007 article is not that old, I would argue that Zevenberg’s theories are neither new or interesting. He fails to mention much different from Prensky’s original theory other than transferring it to younger children than Prensky suggests. My own experience of working with pre-school children also suggests that use of technologies (particularly computers, as Zevenberg focuses on) Is in fact part of most pre-school children’s play; his ideas are hardly revolutionary. Finally, he suggests that use of computers has been shown to improve social interaction. This seems contradictory of many more recent theories which suggest too much computer use has the opposite effect of this: the article fails to account for such reports.
WEEK 8. Article 2 arguments.
In your blog, write a paragraph (or two) about your disagreements with each article
Arguments: My main argument with this article is the contradiction which it brings up with the rest of Prensky’s work. The article repeatedly states that depending on the way the mind is stimulated, brain structure can change and this can happen throughout a person’s life, not just in youth and childhood (neuroplasticity). So, is the DI/DN divide as strong as suggested? Surely if certain stimulation (in the form of digital technologies) can change a person’s brain structure throughout life, then people can cross the border and actually become digital natives, not just immigrants. Previously Prensky has suggested that immigrants can learn to use technologies but will retain the accent of an immigrant, but this discussion suggest that use and understanding of dig technologies means people’s brains can actually change to work as native’s do.
Arguments: My main argument with this article is the contradiction which it brings up with the rest of Prensky’s work. The article repeatedly states that depending on the way the mind is stimulated, brain structure can change and this can happen throughout a person’s life, not just in youth and childhood (neuroplasticity). So, is the DI/DN divide as strong as suggested? Surely if certain stimulation (in the form of digital technologies) can change a person’s brain structure throughout life, then people can cross the border and actually become digital natives, not just immigrants. Previously Prensky has suggested that immigrants can learn to use technologies but will retain the accent of an immigrant, but this discussion suggest that use and understanding of dig technologies means people’s brains can actually change to work as native’s do.
WEEK 8. Article 3 arguments.
In your blog, write a paragraph (or two) about your disagreements with each article
3/ Arguments: The article talks about failure of game makers to make serious educational games. I would suggest that in recent years educational games have developed rapidly (Such as on the Nintendo DS, for eg) and as a result the three year old article’s argument is somewhat irrelevant.
My main argument with the article is the author’s seeming desperation to support DGBL at all costs. The seemingly unashamed one sided article serves as a desperate justification of how games which may not initially seem educational may actually be. Although he acknowledges it is an extreme case, statements like “As an extreme case in point, I could envision using Grand Theft Auto to teach ethics, morality, citizenship, and law enforcement” ridicule the rest of his argument; although he speculates how such cases may serve to educate he fails to provide real proof and i find his desperation to prove the case without any real evidence renders his argument desperate and fairly unreliable.
3/ Arguments: The article talks about failure of game makers to make serious educational games. I would suggest that in recent years educational games have developed rapidly (Such as on the Nintendo DS, for eg) and as a result the three year old article’s argument is somewhat irrelevant.
My main argument with the article is the author’s seeming desperation to support DGBL at all costs. The seemingly unashamed one sided article serves as a desperate justification of how games which may not initially seem educational may actually be. Although he acknowledges it is an extreme case, statements like “As an extreme case in point, I could envision using Grand Theft Auto to teach ethics, morality, citizenship, and law enforcement” ridicule the rest of his argument; although he speculates how such cases may serve to educate he fails to provide real proof and i find his desperation to prove the case without any real evidence renders his argument desperate and fairly unreliable.
WEEK 8. Article 4 Arguments
In your blog, write a paragraph (or two) about your disagreements with each article
My first argument with this article is summed up in the title ‘are they really digital natives?’ The article goes on to analyse a variety of digital technologies and student’s use of them. The title implies that students may not be classed as DN’s because their use of digital technologies is often limited to the more common technologies. I would question that this does not mean they are not digital natives; how many people actually know how to use a variety of more complex and lesser known technologies? Does this mean they are not natives? I would suggest that to be classed a digital native should not mean having to use all digital technologies but should be based on a good grasp and high usage of the more common technologies.
Secondly, the article suggests “The second aim was to determine the degree to which students themselves report wanting to use particular technologies to support their studies at university”. Because of the nature of the study (based on questionnaires), i think it is hard to ask students to make this kind of connections in analysing themselves and may not provide accurate results. Although students may choose not to use the technologies in their studies, this is not to say the technology hadn’t affected their ways of thinking and processing info as Prensky argued. Their nativism may still mean they are better suited to process info but haven’t equated this to using technologies within the classroom when questioned.
Overall I think the article doesn’t give enough attention to the idea that Digital nativism isn’t just about direct use of the technologies themselves but that it actually changes the way digital natives think and learn. This suggests that a questionnaire about student’s perceived use of technology may not be a suitable way to investigate the topic.
My first argument with this article is summed up in the title ‘are they really digital natives?’ The article goes on to analyse a variety of digital technologies and student’s use of them. The title implies that students may not be classed as DN’s because their use of digital technologies is often limited to the more common technologies. I would question that this does not mean they are not digital natives; how many people actually know how to use a variety of more complex and lesser known technologies? Does this mean they are not natives? I would suggest that to be classed a digital native should not mean having to use all digital technologies but should be based on a good grasp and high usage of the more common technologies.
Secondly, the article suggests “The second aim was to determine the degree to which students themselves report wanting to use particular technologies to support their studies at university”. Because of the nature of the study (based on questionnaires), i think it is hard to ask students to make this kind of connections in analysing themselves and may not provide accurate results. Although students may choose not to use the technologies in their studies, this is not to say the technology hadn’t affected their ways of thinking and processing info as Prensky argued. Their nativism may still mean they are better suited to process info but haven’t equated this to using technologies within the classroom when questioned.
Overall I think the article doesn’t give enough attention to the idea that Digital nativism isn’t just about direct use of the technologies themselves but that it actually changes the way digital natives think and learn. This suggests that a questionnaire about student’s perceived use of technology may not be a suitable way to investigate the topic.
Sunday, 15 March 2009
WEEK 8. Website criticisms.
3) In your blog criticise each website (without giving details that would send a reader directly there) in terms of up-to-dateness, usability and practicing what it preaches.
Website 1.
This 2009 website provides an up to date account of what it means to be classed as a digital native, or digital immigrant. It rephrases Prensky’s ideas simply but enough to grasp a good basic understanding of the definitions. However, it fails to provide enough depth or any issues which the definitions bring up and therefore isn’t particularly useful for anything rather than a basic understanding of the concepts.
Website 2.
Website #2 was written in 2003. Although in others topics this may be relatively up to date, the speed at which technology moves should be noted and suggests that the 6 years since it was written is time for a lot of change and may be rather outdated. That said, the topic of digital immigration hasn’t progressed a great deal since 2003; there are still digital immigrants and digital natives as there were at the time of writing. The website provides a précis and a critique of Pensky’s work. As Pensky is such a large contributor to the field, the article has a great deal of relevance to the topic in general. The author discusses the implications of his criticisms of Pensky’s work and these seem to provide real world proof of his ideas.
Website 3.
This December 2008 online newspaper article is one of the most up-to date I have found and therefore cannot be criticised for the time of writing.
The article takes a journalistic rather than academic approach and although is from a well respected newspaper, it asks more questions of digital immigrants/natives than it answers, in a style of investigative journalism. These questions do, however, raise interesting points to be further researched.
The article provides clear evidence and examples for its discussions, but fails to mention digital immigrants and the implications of this in terms of its discussion.
Website 4.
This is a blog, and I have looked at the entry from May 11th 2008. I would say it is a useful website for background information. The comments and responses to the blog raise some interesting points but it isn’t particularly useful to base any academic work on as the comments/blog are merely speculation with no credit sources or evidence. The blog does, however, provide some alternative views to the DI/DN argument than are commonly held and may be a good place to begin further study on the author’s ideas.
Website 5.
Although another blog, the author of this one has published relevant books and works at the MIT; arguably a better source than the previous blog used. The blog is also more academic and in depth. The author details his dissatisfaction with some of Pensky’s terms and notions and also uses examples of how his arguments are relevant in practice, talking about parents and children.
Week 9 Edit: Links.
1. http://www.macmillandictionaries.com/MED-Magazine/January2009/52-New-Word.htm
2. http://technologysource.org/article/digital_natives_digital_immigrants/ first published at http://www.wisc.edu/depd/html/TSarticles/Digital%20Natives.htm
3. http://iht.com/articles/2008/12/11/opinion/edmorozov.php
4. http://sarahhartley.wordpress.com/2008/05/11/dont-call-me-immigrant-enthusiastic-adopter-will-do/
5. http://www.henryjenkins.org/2007/12/reconsidering_digital_immigran.html
Website 1.
This 2009 website provides an up to date account of what it means to be classed as a digital native, or digital immigrant. It rephrases Prensky’s ideas simply but enough to grasp a good basic understanding of the definitions. However, it fails to provide enough depth or any issues which the definitions bring up and therefore isn’t particularly useful for anything rather than a basic understanding of the concepts.
Website 2.
Website #2 was written in 2003. Although in others topics this may be relatively up to date, the speed at which technology moves should be noted and suggests that the 6 years since it was written is time for a lot of change and may be rather outdated. That said, the topic of digital immigration hasn’t progressed a great deal since 2003; there are still digital immigrants and digital natives as there were at the time of writing. The website provides a précis and a critique of Pensky’s work. As Pensky is such a large contributor to the field, the article has a great deal of relevance to the topic in general. The author discusses the implications of his criticisms of Pensky’s work and these seem to provide real world proof of his ideas.
Website 3.
This December 2008 online newspaper article is one of the most up-to date I have found and therefore cannot be criticised for the time of writing.
The article takes a journalistic rather than academic approach and although is from a well respected newspaper, it asks more questions of digital immigrants/natives than it answers, in a style of investigative journalism. These questions do, however, raise interesting points to be further researched.
The article provides clear evidence and examples for its discussions, but fails to mention digital immigrants and the implications of this in terms of its discussion.
Website 4.
This is a blog, and I have looked at the entry from May 11th 2008. I would say it is a useful website for background information. The comments and responses to the blog raise some interesting points but it isn’t particularly useful to base any academic work on as the comments/blog are merely speculation with no credit sources or evidence. The blog does, however, provide some alternative views to the DI/DN argument than are commonly held and may be a good place to begin further study on the author’s ideas.
Website 5.
Although another blog, the author of this one has published relevant books and works at the MIT; arguably a better source than the previous blog used. The blog is also more academic and in depth. The author details his dissatisfaction with some of Pensky’s terms and notions and also uses examples of how his arguments are relevant in practice, talking about parents and children.
Week 9 Edit: Links.
1. http://www.macmillandictionaries.com/MED-Magazine/January2009/52-New-Word.htm
2. http://technologysource.org/article/digital_natives_digital_immigrants/ first published at http://www.wisc.edu/depd/html/TSarticles/Digital%20Natives.htm
3. http://iht.com/articles/2008/12/11/opinion/edmorozov.php
4. http://sarahhartley.wordpress.com/2008/05/11/dont-call-me-immigrant-enthusiastic-adopter-will-do/
5. http://www.henryjenkins.org/2007/12/reconsidering_digital_immigran.html
Saturday, 14 March 2009
WEEK 7. Distance learning. The Open University.
A discussion of The Open University.
The Open University is the most widely known distance learning institution in the UK. Courses can be studied from anywhere in the world assuming resources can still be accessed and there are no previous qualifications necessary for enrolment.
While this may be regarded as a positive, what I think is a negative that must be considered which I have talked about here; http://kayrodge.blogspot.com/2009/03/week-7-distance-learning-chinas-tvus.html Is the idea that such ease of enrolment to university may eventually render degrees worthless, or a lot less valuable than previously. Certainly a degree was once a sure way to find one’s way into work and lower entry requirements now mean a degree, or even a 1st class degree, may not always be enough.
In addition, many employers do not just look at the degree or class of degree gained but also the institution the degree has come from. With a hierarchy of universities, The Open University is arguably at the bottom of this hierarchy.
In the lecture notes, Evan points out some positives of distance learning, but in my opinion these are all true of F2F synchronous learning in a seminar environment.
Positively, ‘information wants to be free’ and OU is certainly aiding this, making gaining a degree cheaper, and more accessible. However, if the qualifications from the OU aren’t widely recognised and also serve to lessen the importance of other degrees then these positives don’t seem particularly strong.
http://www.open.ac.uk/
The Open University is the most widely known distance learning institution in the UK. Courses can be studied from anywhere in the world assuming resources can still be accessed and there are no previous qualifications necessary for enrolment.
While this may be regarded as a positive, what I think is a negative that must be considered which I have talked about here; http://kayrodge.blogspot.com/2009/03/week-7-distance-learning-chinas-tvus.html Is the idea that such ease of enrolment to university may eventually render degrees worthless, or a lot less valuable than previously. Certainly a degree was once a sure way to find one’s way into work and lower entry requirements now mean a degree, or even a 1st class degree, may not always be enough.
In addition, many employers do not just look at the degree or class of degree gained but also the institution the degree has come from. With a hierarchy of universities, The Open University is arguably at the bottom of this hierarchy.
In the lecture notes, Evan points out some positives of distance learning, but in my opinion these are all true of F2F synchronous learning in a seminar environment.
Positively, ‘information wants to be free’ and OU is certainly aiding this, making gaining a degree cheaper, and more accessible. However, if the qualifications from the OU aren’t widely recognised and also serve to lessen the importance of other degrees then these positives don’t seem particularly strong.
http://www.open.ac.uk/
WEEK 7. Distance learning. Africa.
A discussion of Distance learning in Africa.
While for many other countries, distance learning is simply a convenience allowing education to be juggled with other commitments, or to overcome the logistics of travel, the website (below) provides some more serious benefits. It discusses a cholera outbreak in Zambia which resulted in postponed exams and education and suggests that elearning could have prevented these disruptions.
The website also discusses that distance learning increases the availability of education for those who it was previously unavailable to-particularly those in rural areas and women. While this availability to previously ignored groups may seem like a benefit, the notion of ‘Brain Drain’ (lecture notes) makes me question the long standing effects of such learning. If those in rural areas are becoming educated as are those in towns and developed areas, it seems likely that they will then desire a variety of different jobs which these qualifications allow them to persue. Although suggesting that these people shouldn;t be encouraged to seek education may seem strange, the idea of brain drain suggests that they will then relocate as a result of their new knowledge in search of such jobs. The implications of this in terms of the effect it will have on these rural areas should be considered carefully and looked at in terms of the point in my previous post about the logical conclusion of more people desiring education and less people taking interest in skilled work that is desired in such areas.
Positively, however, distance learning allowing women to challenge the somewhat dated gender prejudice they are subjected to in some African countries seems very positive.
Further to the ‘Brain Drain’ distance learning may cause, a digital divide between those in rural and developed areas can only increase as a result of this. As those who can access (or are literate, both in terms of technology (Livingstone) and the language) education increase, the gap between those who cannot only increases meaning they become less powerful as those with knowledge and education become richer and more powerful.
http://www.elearning-africa.com/newsportal/english/kategorie_develop_partners.php [accessed 14/03/09]
While for many other countries, distance learning is simply a convenience allowing education to be juggled with other commitments, or to overcome the logistics of travel, the website (below) provides some more serious benefits. It discusses a cholera outbreak in Zambia which resulted in postponed exams and education and suggests that elearning could have prevented these disruptions.
The website also discusses that distance learning increases the availability of education for those who it was previously unavailable to-particularly those in rural areas and women. While this availability to previously ignored groups may seem like a benefit, the notion of ‘Brain Drain’ (lecture notes) makes me question the long standing effects of such learning. If those in rural areas are becoming educated as are those in towns and developed areas, it seems likely that they will then desire a variety of different jobs which these qualifications allow them to persue. Although suggesting that these people shouldn;t be encouraged to seek education may seem strange, the idea of brain drain suggests that they will then relocate as a result of their new knowledge in search of such jobs. The implications of this in terms of the effect it will have on these rural areas should be considered carefully and looked at in terms of the point in my previous post about the logical conclusion of more people desiring education and less people taking interest in skilled work that is desired in such areas.
Positively, however, distance learning allowing women to challenge the somewhat dated gender prejudice they are subjected to in some African countries seems very positive.
Further to the ‘Brain Drain’ distance learning may cause, a digital divide between those in rural and developed areas can only increase as a result of this. As those who can access (or are literate, both in terms of technology (Livingstone) and the language) education increase, the gap between those who cannot only increases meaning they become less powerful as those with knowledge and education become richer and more powerful.
http://www.elearning-africa.com/newsportal/english/kategorie_develop_partners.php [accessed 14/03/09]
WEEK 7. Distance learning. China’s TVUs.
Discussion of TVUs in China.
While China is often regarded as a developed country, the article focuses on a need to bring China’s education up to the standards of the rest of the developed world and how TVU’s (Television universities) are a cost effective and accessible method of gaining a recognised degree.
The first benefit I see in the use of TVUs is the accessibility of radio and televison. Radio and television are far more accessible than the internet and can be received in groups as apposed to just individually like online learning. This provides a mixture of benefits of distance/asynchronous and F2F/synchronous learning. Problems of literacty may also be overcome as radio and TV are arguably a more common literacy than the internet and study groups can be formed to overcome such problems.
The article also talks about the availability of F2F tuition. This counteracts many of the negatives of distance/asynchronous learning mentioned here and in previous posts about our own distance learning in NMC. This combination means the quality of a TVU education is strengthened both with the benefits of distance learning and by eliminating the negatives of it.
The article discusses the previously low % of higher education in China to the rest of the developed world, impressive stats of TVU graduates, and also gives statistics of the number of TVU graduates who go into valued employment such as teaching. It may be questioned if there are really any negative to learning where the outcome is a higher % of education and desirable employees who can further a countries development. However, to take England as an example, growing numbers of graduate unemployment is arguable a result (ignoring the current economic climate) of more graduates demanding graduate jobs, and fewer training as labourers and tradesmen. Taken to it’s logical end, distance learning increasing the availability of education could result in skilled trades being as desirable as university degrees once were, with degrees losing their worth. Although the article makes clear than China is very far from this eventuality, it should at least be considered when looking at distance learning making receiving a degree so widely accessible.
http://www1.worldbank.org/disted/Technology/broadcast/tv-02.html [accessed 13/03/09]
While China is often regarded as a developed country, the article focuses on a need to bring China’s education up to the standards of the rest of the developed world and how TVU’s (Television universities) are a cost effective and accessible method of gaining a recognised degree.
The first benefit I see in the use of TVUs is the accessibility of radio and televison. Radio and television are far more accessible than the internet and can be received in groups as apposed to just individually like online learning. This provides a mixture of benefits of distance/asynchronous and F2F/synchronous learning. Problems of literacty may also be overcome as radio and TV are arguably a more common literacy than the internet and study groups can be formed to overcome such problems.
The article also talks about the availability of F2F tuition. This counteracts many of the negatives of distance/asynchronous learning mentioned here and in previous posts about our own distance learning in NMC. This combination means the quality of a TVU education is strengthened both with the benefits of distance learning and by eliminating the negatives of it.
The article discusses the previously low % of higher education in China to the rest of the developed world, impressive stats of TVU graduates, and also gives statistics of the number of TVU graduates who go into valued employment such as teaching. It may be questioned if there are really any negative to learning where the outcome is a higher % of education and desirable employees who can further a countries development. However, to take England as an example, growing numbers of graduate unemployment is arguable a result (ignoring the current economic climate) of more graduates demanding graduate jobs, and fewer training as labourers and tradesmen. Taken to it’s logical end, distance learning increasing the availability of education could result in skilled trades being as desirable as university degrees once were, with degrees losing their worth. Although the article makes clear than China is very far from this eventuality, it should at least be considered when looking at distance learning making receiving a degree so widely accessible.
http://www1.worldbank.org/disted/Technology/broadcast/tv-02.html [accessed 13/03/09]
Saturday, 28 February 2009
WEEK 6. Website analysis
I had thought this was in for last week, but I’ll leave that one posted and do a more thorough one here. This is about http://www.last.fm/.
How is your chosen site structured?
Below is a screenshot of last.fm’s homepage:
(ok...I can't make this work! Have a look; http://www.last.fm)
Last.fm's structure is non linear and, in my opinion, quite complex. There is no obvious place to ‘begin’ and no clear direction to browse in. There is a variety of different material from bands profiles, to information about these bands, user’s profiles, website statistics and more.
Hypertext features strongly in the non-linear structure of the website. Tags allow you to choose other similar artists, go to user’s profiles who like the artist chosen, and externally to the artist’s website, more information about them and even news articles etc etc. This makes it very easy to ‘jump’ from place to place on the site and to external sites and in my opinion makes it very easy to 'get lost'.
What is it about on a cultural level?
Arguably last.fm and similar sites are a remediation of old media; the radio. This suggests an element of socio-determinism; such sites may just be a result of people’s desire to listen to music which happens to have moved to an online domain. However, interactivity on last.fm plays a much larger role than in any previous ways of listening to music and this suggests that technology has resulted in such sites creation and they would otherwise not be present, nor would anything similar.
Such interactivity suggests a way in which music listeners may have gained some control in the music they consume. This has wider implications in terms of the music industry (see blogs week 4).
There is also arguably some sort of community; users can add ‘friends’ be it friends IRL or people who share tastes, and chat and comment on these users playlists and favourite artists. There is however no wider place such as a forum or chat room for members to come together so i would say that any sort of community is fairly weak/limited.
There are elements of produserism in that any music the user chooses to rate or listen to frequently becomes a part of their own personal radio station which others can listen to. The site does, however have limitations in terms of this as a result of not wishing to infringe copyright. The user cannot choose directly what they wish to listen to rather just suggest what is favoured. This is a slightly limiting aspect of the website but is an essential part of allowing users to listen to so much music in a legal way. Some sort of Literacy (Livingstone) is required; I certainly found navigating the site and understanding the concept of creating my own playlist/station fairly confusing to begin with and I would call myself an experienced user of the internet.
What is the appeal for you as a user?
The main appeal of a site like last.fm to me is the ability to customise the experience of music listening. The music player on last.fm is almost a sort of open source software (Bruns) created with the user’s interaction in mind, allowing even the less experienced web user to create their own radio station for others to listen to. However, limitations in how far the user can choose what music is played (because of copyright issues) mean that the user does not have direct control and can only suggest what he/she would like to listen to, which is one aspect of last.fm i often find frustrating. However, this can also work as an advantage as it allows new artists to be discovered instead of listening to the same ones repeatedly.
Livinstone, S (2003) “The changing nature and uses of media literacy”. http://www.mediaculture-online.de/fileadmin/bibliothek/livingstone_changing_nature/livingstone_changing_nature.pdf [accessed 25/02/09]
Bruns, A “Towards Produsage” http://snurb.info/files/12132812018_towards_produsage_0.pdf [accessed 20/02/09]
How is your chosen site structured?
Below is a screenshot of last.fm’s homepage:
(ok...I can't make this work! Have a look; http://www.last.fm)
Last.fm's structure is non linear and, in my opinion, quite complex. There is no obvious place to ‘begin’ and no clear direction to browse in. There is a variety of different material from bands profiles, to information about these bands, user’s profiles, website statistics and more.
Hypertext features strongly in the non-linear structure of the website. Tags allow you to choose other similar artists, go to user’s profiles who like the artist chosen, and externally to the artist’s website, more information about them and even news articles etc etc. This makes it very easy to ‘jump’ from place to place on the site and to external sites and in my opinion makes it very easy to 'get lost'.
What is it about on a cultural level?
Arguably last.fm and similar sites are a remediation of old media; the radio. This suggests an element of socio-determinism; such sites may just be a result of people’s desire to listen to music which happens to have moved to an online domain. However, interactivity on last.fm plays a much larger role than in any previous ways of listening to music and this suggests that technology has resulted in such sites creation and they would otherwise not be present, nor would anything similar.
Such interactivity suggests a way in which music listeners may have gained some control in the music they consume. This has wider implications in terms of the music industry (see blogs week 4).
There is also arguably some sort of community; users can add ‘friends’ be it friends IRL or people who share tastes, and chat and comment on these users playlists and favourite artists. There is however no wider place such as a forum or chat room for members to come together so i would say that any sort of community is fairly weak/limited.
There are elements of produserism in that any music the user chooses to rate or listen to frequently becomes a part of their own personal radio station which others can listen to. The site does, however have limitations in terms of this as a result of not wishing to infringe copyright. The user cannot choose directly what they wish to listen to rather just suggest what is favoured. This is a slightly limiting aspect of the website but is an essential part of allowing users to listen to so much music in a legal way. Some sort of Literacy (Livingstone) is required; I certainly found navigating the site and understanding the concept of creating my own playlist/station fairly confusing to begin with and I would call myself an experienced user of the internet.
What is the appeal for you as a user?
The main appeal of a site like last.fm to me is the ability to customise the experience of music listening. The music player on last.fm is almost a sort of open source software (Bruns) created with the user’s interaction in mind, allowing even the less experienced web user to create their own radio station for others to listen to. However, limitations in how far the user can choose what music is played (because of copyright issues) mean that the user does not have direct control and can only suggest what he/she would like to listen to, which is one aspect of last.fm i often find frustrating. However, this can also work as an advantage as it allows new artists to be discovered instead of listening to the same ones repeatedly.
Livinstone, S (2003) “The changing nature and uses of media literacy”. http://www.mediaculture-online.de/fileadmin/bibliothek/livingstone_changing_nature/livingstone_changing_nature.pdf [accessed 25/02/09]
Bruns, A “Towards Produsage” http://snurb.info/files/12132812018_towards_produsage_0.pdf [accessed 20/02/09]
Friday, 27 February 2009
WEEK 6. 6.3. Organizational units vs CofP
6.3) Wenger states "These 'communities of practice' are mostly informal and distinct from organizational units" What do you think Wenger means by an "organizational unit"?
I think Wenger means a structured unit which has a traditional hierarchy of authority when talking about ‘organizational units’. Whereas in a traditional organizational unit's drive often comes from the hierarchy of authority, a CofP is a group with no specific authorities where all members of the group are more or less equal and driven by joint desire for progress and achieving goals.
I also second Emma’s idea that a CofP is distinct from organizational units because of their flexibility: http://ezpaz.blogspot.com/2009/02/week-six-task-three.html#comments . Many of the CofP’s which I can think of are flexible in this way and the joint goals shared by members span more than one ‘organizational unit’ or officially organised group.
I think Wenger means a structured unit which has a traditional hierarchy of authority when talking about ‘organizational units’. Whereas in a traditional organizational unit's drive often comes from the hierarchy of authority, a CofP is a group with no specific authorities where all members of the group are more or less equal and driven by joint desire for progress and achieving goals.
I also second Emma’s idea that a CofP is distinct from organizational units because of their flexibility: http://ezpaz.blogspot.com/2009/02/week-six-task-three.html#comments . Many of the CofP’s which I can think of are flexible in this way and the joint goals shared by members span more than one ‘organizational unit’ or officially organised group.
WEEK 6. 6.2. Joint enterprise.
6.2) Sometimes it is difficult to think about community in different ways. For this task, I want you to think carefully about "joint enterprise". It is easy to belong to a community on the web, but for us to consider the community a community of practice there needs to be a joint enterprise - something that members are actively engaged in with progression and a goal in mind. Usually this means that the members have a vested interest in getting better at something together.
I think a good eg of “joint enterprise” in online communities of practise can be seen looking at online support forums such as mental health forums.
Such forums are used for personal problem solving. All members have been drawn to use the forum as a result of their own problems and questions, and use their knowledge of the topic to build on others posts with their own experiences and knowledge. There is an overall feeling of desire to recover and to help others recover and solve their own problems. Mutual understanding and this shared goal (joint enterprise) provides a SOC and the actions taken within the forum to reach the goal render such communities as a CofP.
The forum can be seen as a collective effort for all members to recover and help others to recover and this is the driving force behind membership and posting.
WEEK 6. 6.1. A CofP I belong to
6.1) Think of a CofP to which you belong (or have belonged) explain in your seminar forum how your example fits into Wenger's model:
I’ve posted a brief eg of a CofP in the group A forum. The example I gave was of a study group. The second eg which I’ll post here in a bit more detail is of my part time job in a café/shop. While it could be argued that most businesses create communities or sort, I will try and explain why I think the business I work for is a CofP.
Although there is an official hierarchy of authority, with all workers below the owner and café boss, this is rarely implemented in any obvious way. All workers are equally free to make decisions about what food is served, what stock is ordered for the shop and who is employed and can sometimes override the owner or bosses decision. This gives everyone an equal sense of responsibility in the joint enterprise of the business succeeding financially. It is certainly true that I take interest and enjoyment in a good profit probably as much as the boss of the cafe does. I would say that I often put extra effort in to my work to ensure this goal is met-it is not part of my job description to sell extra items to customers but I find myself doing so to enjoy the satisfaction of knowing the business will profit although I do not personally gain; a shared endeavour of all workers.
Communal resources are clear, even as far as made up words and in-jokes that noone outside of the organisation would understand. A lot of the routine goes unsaid or tasks are referred to with nicknames that allow everyone to know what needs to be done. Although noone is designated a specific task to undertake, everyone knows what is to be done and all tasks are completed with the mutual understanding that certain jobs must be done to allow everyone to go home on time-another joint enterprise that is part of the over all enterprise of a smooth running business and ultimately the business profiting.
I may also go as far to include the suppliers of produce, or regular customers who sometimes talk about supporting local business and mention that they would never buy bread as Tesco, lunch at Greggs or coffee at Starbucks. I would argue that this is where the café’s CofP branches out to a wider CofP with the aim/joint enterprise of supporting independent suppliers and local businesses.
Wednesday, 18 February 2009
WEEK 5. Bruns C.
As a trend, do you think produsage will last? Do you think commercial forces will find ways of exploiting it, or perhaps the ways people are involved will end up being short-term? Conflicts in the communities? Flagging energy/interest? Successful sites get bought out? Just a trend? Or the future of the Net? – What does your crystal ball say? (we must bear in mind this is speculation!)
As certain produser led sites become increasingly popular (Wikipedia, youtube etc) increasing work is required in their upkeep. While Youtube has been sold to Google and is funded through advertising, Wikipedia does not use advertising for profit, but instead relies on donations. I have used Wikipedia hundreds of times and have never considered paying for the information i am receiving; to me, one of the benefits of the internet is the freedom (£wise) of information. Ultimately I imagine people’s greed and desire for freebies overrides their gratitude for the information being given and donation is rare. Mine certainly does; I would rather go without than pay for such information....would you? How much do you use free sites for information? And do you consider those who work on them? In such cases the biggest produser sites may struggle for profit or even money to keep up and running and be forced to sell to companies like Google. Ultimately this may mean a return to Chomskys view of traditional media, erasing the positives of ‘free speech’ in new media.
I disagree with Bruns’ point that ‘As produsers become aware of attempts
to exploit their work without reward, their attitudes towards the produsage environmentwill rapidly deteriorate’ (Bruns p5). He talks about this in terms of games like The Sims where users create the world which they play in, but I would argue that much of the reward is in the enjoyment of the game itself. In terms of gaming the options are; to spend money on a pre-made game, or to spend money on a produser based game like The Sims, neither with any reward other than enjoyment of playing. From experience, much of the enjoyment of games like The Sims etc IS the active role of the player. I have only played a few times but enjoyed the empowerment of the control/interactivity....is this why everyone enjoys such games?
WEEK 5. Bruns B.
When collaborative sites have moderation functions to prevent a ‘free for all’, does this defeat the purpose?
I think there is plenty of evidence that the basics of human nature, without some sort of structure or leadership, are likely to create some sort of anarchy. As Bruns calls it in terms of collaborative websites, ‘a leaderless anarchy’ (Bruns, p4). Although there is some logical contradiction in the idea of a collaborative website where everyone has an say such as Wiki’s or collaborative news and moderation, many examples spring to mind of times when lack of moderation has caused such anarchy. Wikipedia frequently sources celebrity death rumours which often turn out to be hoaxes but have been believed until moderation is enforced. Such deliberately damaging input to such sites may be for many reasons but I think it can be quite simply put down to the individuals at blame enjoying the power of supplying such information and witnessing the anarchy which ensues. Moderation is certainly needed if these sites are to have any credibility authority in the information they provide. Failing this moderation they would be rendered useless, in my opinion.
I think there is plenty of evidence that the basics of human nature, without some sort of structure or leadership, are likely to create some sort of anarchy. As Bruns calls it in terms of collaborative websites, ‘a leaderless anarchy’ (Bruns, p4). Although there is some logical contradiction in the idea of a collaborative website where everyone has an say such as Wiki’s or collaborative news and moderation, many examples spring to mind of times when lack of moderation has caused such anarchy. Wikipedia frequently sources celebrity death rumours which often turn out to be hoaxes but have been believed until moderation is enforced. Such deliberately damaging input to such sites may be for many reasons but I think it can be quite simply put down to the individuals at blame enjoying the power of supplying such information and witnessing the anarchy which ensues. Moderation is certainly needed if these sites are to have any credibility authority in the information they provide. Failing this moderation they would be rendered useless, in my opinion.
WEEK 5. Meikle A.
What do you think constitutes ‘news’ on the Web?
I would agree with Burnett and Marshall’s suggestion that there has been a transformation of news in that the web allows greater involvement of users-produserism of news and a remediation of more traditional news (both written, audio and visual). While this has its benefits in allowing a greater variety of stories to be covered, it must also be noted that it may be less reliable. With this in mind, I think ‘news’ can be defined as the factual reporting of recent events. I would personally only class true ‘news’ on the web as that published by a reliable source (The Times/The Guardian online/even The Sun if I must..., or the BBC, Google or Yahoo news. While I may look at user generated news for vague information, I would never rely on this to any extent further than speculation with the likelihood that it may be inaccurate.
Could I go onto one of these websites and post about the crazy woman I just sat next to on the train? Would that be classed as news? It happened (really...she was mad...), but I would certainly not classify it as newsworthy, or ‘news’ at all. This is another problem of user generated news; what may be news for one person is irrelevant and uninteresting for another. With the www being so vast and often so niche, news should appeal to the audiences reading it but in reality very little news applies globally and is only really 'news' for very few.
I would agree with Burnett and Marshall’s suggestion that there has been a transformation of news in that the web allows greater involvement of users-produserism of news and a remediation of more traditional news (both written, audio and visual). While this has its benefits in allowing a greater variety of stories to be covered, it must also be noted that it may be less reliable. With this in mind, I think ‘news’ can be defined as the factual reporting of recent events. I would personally only class true ‘news’ on the web as that published by a reliable source (The Times/The Guardian online/even The Sun if I must..., or the BBC, Google or Yahoo news. While I may look at user generated news for vague information, I would never rely on this to any extent further than speculation with the likelihood that it may be inaccurate.
Could I go onto one of these websites and post about the crazy woman I just sat next to on the train? Would that be classed as news? It happened (really...she was mad...), but I would certainly not classify it as newsworthy, or ‘news’ at all. This is another problem of user generated news; what may be news for one person is irrelevant and uninteresting for another. With the www being so vast and often so niche, news should appeal to the audiences reading it but in reality very little news applies globally and is only really 'news' for very few.
WEEK 5. General points/Lecture
Just a few things I wanted to ask/mention...
-Do you think that in some sense users of the content on websites where the content is user generated but who contribute nothing themselves should be allowed to freely roam such sites? This kind of relates back to the lurkers question in online community last week but I think it’s more relevant here...with the freedom of software etc, should these people benefit? I’ve watched thousands of videos on youtube, but have never posted anything. Am I a YouTube lurker?! Should all user generated websites have some sort of point system like Yahoo! Answers does (where you cannot ask endless questions, you must contribute to gain points to ask questions with)? Or would this negatively impact the quality of the content of such websites?
Secondly, I particularly like Chomsky’s notion that traditional media is monopolised by its’ capitalist ownership. That media is structured in such a way that it works to support these capital owners and dismiss any opposing views. Any ‘others’ begin with a disadvantage in such structure having to explain the very basics of their point.
I think it’s particularly important to consider how we may assume the interactivity online counters this, but also the possibility of the internet transforming into something which actually echoes chomsky’s view of trad media (I refer to this a bit more in my ‘Bruns C’ post)
I really have nothing critical to add to this at the moment as it’s a point I strongly agree with, but I thought it was a point worth re-mentioning.
-Do you think that in some sense users of the content on websites where the content is user generated but who contribute nothing themselves should be allowed to freely roam such sites? This kind of relates back to the lurkers question in online community last week but I think it’s more relevant here...with the freedom of software etc, should these people benefit? I’ve watched thousands of videos on youtube, but have never posted anything. Am I a YouTube lurker?! Should all user generated websites have some sort of point system like Yahoo! Answers does (where you cannot ask endless questions, you must contribute to gain points to ask questions with)? Or would this negatively impact the quality of the content of such websites?
Secondly, I particularly like Chomsky’s notion that traditional media is monopolised by its’ capitalist ownership. That media is structured in such a way that it works to support these capital owners and dismiss any opposing views. Any ‘others’ begin with a disadvantage in such structure having to explain the very basics of their point.
I think it’s particularly important to consider how we may assume the interactivity online counters this, but also the possibility of the internet transforming into something which actually echoes chomsky’s view of trad media (I refer to this a bit more in my ‘Bruns C’ post)
I really have nothing critical to add to this at the moment as it’s a point I strongly agree with, but I thought it was a point worth re-mentioning.
WEEK 5. WEBSITE ANALYSIS A/B
a) How is your chosen site structured.
Youtube is generated primarily from user constructed content. Anyone with recording facilities (as basic as a web camera, or basic software like Windows movie maker that allows images to be pasted together in a movie sequence), can put content on YouTube. The content of videos posted ranges from Officially posted music videos, vlogs, home videos, amateur films and many more; an exhaustative list would be impossible.
The site is strongly hypertextual; links in comments are made to certain points of the video, links to the posters’ other videos, to users’ profiles, their videos, their favourite videos, related videos, external websites etc etc. You can seemingly click forever and keep finding information and videos never seen before. I certainly find myself doing this for hours without meaning to.
Users can create profiles where they can personalise this space; fill in a small personal profile, link to their own videos, to favourite videos, subscribe to favourites and ‘friends’ and change the background and colour of their page. Users can also publicly comment on videos, rate them out of 5, rate comments made and send private messages to other users. Compared to other websites of similar popularity, I would say these functions are fairly simple/basic; there is little complexity in the structure of the site.
b) What is it about on a cultural level?
Culturally, youTube is centered around produserism and about publishing a variety of cultural products. The vastness of the material on youtube means that not only items of popular culture can be found but many more obscure and alternative music, films and opinions can be found. Culturally also should be noted that users often take popular culture music/films etc and edit these to create their own meaning. It also provides an area for global communication in the form of commenting on videos, or even making video responses.
Youtube is generated primarily from user constructed content. Anyone with recording facilities (as basic as a web camera, or basic software like Windows movie maker that allows images to be pasted together in a movie sequence), can put content on YouTube. The content of videos posted ranges from Officially posted music videos, vlogs, home videos, amateur films and many more; an exhaustative list would be impossible.
The site is strongly hypertextual; links in comments are made to certain points of the video, links to the posters’ other videos, to users’ profiles, their videos, their favourite videos, related videos, external websites etc etc. You can seemingly click forever and keep finding information and videos never seen before. I certainly find myself doing this for hours without meaning to.
Users can create profiles where they can personalise this space; fill in a small personal profile, link to their own videos, to favourite videos, subscribe to favourites and ‘friends’ and change the background and colour of their page. Users can also publicly comment on videos, rate them out of 5, rate comments made and send private messages to other users. Compared to other websites of similar popularity, I would say these functions are fairly simple/basic; there is little complexity in the structure of the site.
b) What is it about on a cultural level?
Culturally, youTube is centered around produserism and about publishing a variety of cultural products. The vastness of the material on youtube means that not only items of popular culture can be found but many more obscure and alternative music, films and opinions can be found. Culturally also should be noted that users often take popular culture music/films etc and edit these to create their own meaning. It also provides an area for global communication in the form of commenting on videos, or even making video responses.
WEEK 5. WEBSITE ANALYSIS C
What is the appeal for you as a user?
Having watched 7,000+ videos, there is no doubt that I like YouTube a lot! I will try and analyse some of the appeal that I find in the website. Although I’ve never contributed, I think there is certainly appeal in the poduser aspect of the site. Knowing that I could be a part of it immediately makes me feel some sense of involvement. I do often comment on or rate videos I watch and am keen to see peoples’ replies to me; I suppose there is some sort of sense of community here. However the vastness of YouTube means you rarely ‘bump into’ the same people twice by chance and this detracts from the SOC. However, having your say IS an appeal for me.
It is certainly not just a remediation of something which has gone before like much other content of the internet. Youtube offers something new; previously there was no place similar and it has really reformed the way people can communicate via short videos and given a site to find information in video form quickly. Like I mentioned before one reason I use Youtube so much is the hypertext within the site. You click on one thing which leads to another which leads to another which leads to....30videos in a day (oh dear....)
I also enjoy that the site has lead to a lot of creativity amongst users. Not only posting unoriginal material, the ease of sharing your own videos leads to users creating their own material from things which have gone before; spoofs, video responses, mixes of videos etc etc. This re-hashing of information points to. Youtube is well moderated and I have never come across any inappropriate material as I have with other websites. Even this moderation can be interactive with the ability of users to flag videos and comments. Then hierarchal moderation
Sunday, 15 February 2009
WEEK 4. Music sharing A
a) How do filesharing, online downloading and the ‘networking’ of new material change the way music is consumed?
Prior to the internet being used as a source to download and listen to music, music was traditionally bought in hard/physical forms-vinyl, cassette, CD etc. The ability to listen to and download music online has meant, for me, that there is a lot more experimentation, and dipping in and out of various music. To buy a CD requires a greater level of commitment that to listen online and then to download if desired. I initially listen online (myspace, youtube), downloading is the next stage and if i really like something will i either pay for the music on Itunes or actually buy the CD. It could either be argued that this reduces the chance of music being bought or increases the chance as more music is available online.
For me, this hasn't effected the amount of music I actually pay for. It simply allows me to listen to more music and decide what I like. Instead of simply having to hear music on TV or read reviews etc, it is a way that allows me to sample a much greated variety of music. As I go on to talk about, this means that not only music which is powered by big labels who have the finances to nationally/globably advertise, but also that smaller labels/artists can compete.
See 3b for more.
WEEK 4. Music Sharing B
b) How and why could any band ‘make it’ through social networking/content sharing sites?
In the last decade, the music industry has become increasingly dominated by merging companies, buying smaller companies and becoming bigger and bigger. They typically sign artists to short contracts who have no longevity in search of immediate profit; often novelty (in a loose sense) artists. The increasing financial power of such labels has meant smaller labels and artists cannot compete financially in terms of promotion or distribution. Social networking and content sharing sites combat these problems; Independent or smaller label artists are able to have their music heard offering them a chance to be heard by the masses without a major labels financial support to promote and distribute their music.This has been proven to work, with bands such as The Arctic Monkeys and Lilly Allen finding fame through myspace, bands playing online 'gigs' streamed to anyone who will watch, or creating a popular youtube channel. Whether these artists then use this to remain independent and continue to distribute music themselves online, or to get recognised by record labels are two ways such media can then further them.
WEEK 4. Music Sharing C/D
c) Has/will this change popular music?
d) Will we still need media companies in future if people can produce and distribute cultural products directly?
I think both questions are really a case of supply and demand. Although the websites talked about in previous posts potentially give anyone the chance to create music that is heard by the masses and to then succesfuly advertise and distribute this online, what the masses actually want to hear must be considered. Considring the biggest sellers in the music industry at the moment (artists such as Girls Aloud, Beyonce etc...), it is likely that such artists do need the support of larger labels. Such commercial acts are unlikely to support themselves online and while people continue to buy this music then larger companies will continue to create such music and grow financially and in power. The same goes for other cultural products-indipendant film, television, radio etc ARE now able to be produced by the individual. However, unless demand for this exceeds demand for mainstream and currently more popular film (/tv/radio), there will continue to be demand/need for large companies.
d) Will we still need media companies in future if people can produce and distribute cultural products directly?
I think both questions are really a case of supply and demand. Although the websites talked about in previous posts potentially give anyone the chance to create music that is heard by the masses and to then succesfuly advertise and distribute this online, what the masses actually want to hear must be considered. Considring the biggest sellers in the music industry at the moment (artists such as Girls Aloud, Beyonce etc...), it is likely that such artists do need the support of larger labels. Such commercial acts are unlikely to support themselves online and while people continue to buy this music then larger companies will continue to create such music and grow financially and in power. The same goes for other cultural products-indipendant film, television, radio etc ARE now able to be produced by the individual. However, unless demand for this exceeds demand for mainstream and currently more popular film (/tv/radio), there will continue to be demand/need for large companies.
WEEK 4. Blanchard- Lurkers.
'Lurkers’ – who needs them? Should they be booted out or should we embrace people’s differences (some people are readers more than producer/writers?). Can’t there be different roles for the members of a community?
As in real life, I think there can definitely be different roles for different members of a community. Some users may just be using forums for support, educational or entertainment purposes and may genuinely have nothing to say. However, people IRL who have less to say are still visible while the danger online is that members of the community cannot see who these ‘Lurkers’ are and don’t know who is reading the information posted. This could result in members being less willing to contribute and witholding information they would otherwise post.
Various online communities have posting systems to try and combat such behaviour-Yahoo! Answers uses a points system to ensure participation, post counts are often displayed on message boards, and ratings such as ‘newbie’ are given to members who post infrequently. As discussed in Qc (http://kayrodge.blogspot.com/2009/02/week-4-blanchard-sence-of-community.html), these infrequent posters are then less frequently replied to and often face hostility from regular members, ensuring there are consequences for their parasitic behaviour.
As in real life, I think there can definitely be different roles for different members of a community. Some users may just be using forums for support, educational or entertainment purposes and may genuinely have nothing to say. However, people IRL who have less to say are still visible while the danger online is that members of the community cannot see who these ‘Lurkers’ are and don’t know who is reading the information posted. This could result in members being less willing to contribute and witholding information they would otherwise post.
Various online communities have posting systems to try and combat such behaviour-Yahoo! Answers uses a points system to ensure participation, post counts are often displayed on message boards, and ratings such as ‘newbie’ are given to members who post infrequently. As discussed in Qc (http://kayrodge.blogspot.com/2009/02/week-4-blanchard-sence-of-community.html), these infrequent posters are then less frequently replied to and often face hostility from regular members, ensuring there are consequences for their parasitic behaviour.
WEEK 4. Blanchard- Sence of community.
Would you say you have ever felt a ‘sense of community’ through online interactions? What do you make of the notion? Are the models of ‘sense of community’ derived from f2f community researchers valid standards for judging online community.
I would say I have felt a sense of community online. However, this has only been when I have previously known some members of the online community in person. I suppose this kind of introduction to an online community could be substituted by a more lengthy process online of getting to know and gaining the trust of members, although this is not something I have experienced directly.
Some online communities I have visited have certainly had feelings of hostility towards new members or those who haven’t posted frequently and I’ve observed that such members are less frequently or less thoroughly replied to. As with our blogging, a lack or replies is a bit demoralising and in terms of forums etc means people are less likely to post again or re-visit. In the community I feel a sense of belonging to, a group decisison was taken to privatise the forum and only allow new members to join who were good friends of well respected and long standing members. This decision was taken to ensure the overall SOC remained, something i belive is certainly important in ensuring members feel a sence belonging and continue to contribute to the community.
I would say I have felt a sense of community online. However, this has only been when I have previously known some members of the online community in person. I suppose this kind of introduction to an online community could be substituted by a more lengthy process online of getting to know and gaining the trust of members, although this is not something I have experienced directly.
Some online communities I have visited have certainly had feelings of hostility towards new members or those who haven’t posted frequently and I’ve observed that such members are less frequently or less thoroughly replied to. As with our blogging, a lack or replies is a bit demoralising and in terms of forums etc means people are less likely to post again or re-visit. In the community I feel a sense of belonging to, a group decisison was taken to privatise the forum and only allow new members to join who were good friends of well respected and long standing members. This decision was taken to ensure the overall SOC remained, something i belive is certainly important in ensuring members feel a sence belonging and continue to contribute to the community.
Saturday, 7 February 2009
WEEK 3. Topic 2 general points.
I think an important point to consider is just how different the identities online we are considering are to those IRL. It’s true that the mask of the internet does allow for some extreme cases; obviously cases of paedophiles posing as youngsters etc etc. However, in my research, and reading other’s blogs, it seems that the majority of the internet isn’t used like this. The message boards we have looked at, mostly, haven’t been about forming strong identity, rather discussing shared interests-music, particularly. Here it may be true that people are guilty of playing up to some extent; but how far is this from what happens in real life? Wearing clothes, saying things, and liking/doing things all to fit in and look good.
Because of the extreme cases mentioned above, it seems any kind of online Identity play is frowned upon and regarded as unethical, but I think that in most cases, there is nothing unreasonable or unethical about online identity experimentation and many cases show it to be a positive thing. The quote and explanation in the lecture notes by Nicholas Negroponte:
‘True personalization is upon us’, summarises this. Suggesting that we may be moving online but the advancing technology simply allows us to do what we do IRL somewhere else; nothing fundamental has changed.
‘True personalization is upon us’, summarises this. Suggesting that we may be moving online but the advancing technology simply allows us to do what we do IRL somewhere else; nothing fundamental has changed.
WEEK 3. 3.2 Forum Analysis.
3.2) Choose a web forum and undertake a brief analysis of its dynamics as a communication form.
Interestingly, this forum is a forum dedicated to discussing people’s secrets IRL and problems they wouldn’t feel free to discuss IRL. This demonstrates how people present themselves differently online; sharing info they have withheld IRL as a result of the anonymity online. Interestingly, however, people in this community seem close and to ‘know’ each other, often referring to things which have previously happened to other users discussed before, and referring to them by name (be it real name or their screen name, or a nickname based on this). This suggests not total anonymity in terms of secret sharing, rather new identities created online through which communities are built and ‘friends’ are made. It seems almost a contradiction that people use the mask of being online to hide their identity but in fact end up seeming quite close to other members and getting to know them well, or as well as you can online!
http://www.postsecretcommunity.com/chat/
In addition, a lot of the questions from this week link in with this and it's a good example to examin them through, particularly;
-Do you think that assuming an online persona (via screen name/handle/avatar etc) encourages people to play with the identity they present online and take risks in the ways the express themselves?
-Far from adopting a ‘mask’, isn’t one appeal of the Net that you can express your true self among like minds?
Interestingly, this forum is a forum dedicated to discussing people’s secrets IRL and problems they wouldn’t feel free to discuss IRL. This demonstrates how people present themselves differently online; sharing info they have withheld IRL as a result of the anonymity online. Interestingly, however, people in this community seem close and to ‘know’ each other, often referring to things which have previously happened to other users discussed before, and referring to them by name (be it real name or their screen name, or a nickname based on this). This suggests not total anonymity in terms of secret sharing, rather new identities created online through which communities are built and ‘friends’ are made. It seems almost a contradiction that people use the mask of being online to hide their identity but in fact end up seeming quite close to other members and getting to know them well, or as well as you can online!
http://www.postsecretcommunity.com/chat/
In addition, a lot of the questions from this week link in with this and it's a good example to examin them through, particularly;
-Do you think that assuming an online persona (via screen name/handle/avatar etc) encourages people to play with the identity they present online and take risks in the ways the express themselves?
-Far from adopting a ‘mask’, isn’t one appeal of the Net that you can express your true self among like minds?
WEEK 3. Topic 1. Part c.
p. 167 What do you think of postmodern views which stress the fluidity of online selves and their apparent disembodied status, which has been argued frees people from being represented through signs of their race, gender, class etc?
The lecture and readings have touched on the idea that virtual communities provide support for groups often feeling ‘othered’. Some positives and negatives of this have already been mentioned, I was interested in the implications of such online communities in real life. Groups marginalised IRL by disability, race, sexuality etc may enjoy the comfort of community online that their small numbers don’t allow them to find IRL.
However, as these groups move online, they become increasingly invisible IRL and understanding and acceptance may decrease as a result of this. This could be a hugely negative effect of online communities; while positive in the short term for the individual using online communities, this could be extremely detrimental for these groups in the long term and I think this is a particularly important point to consider.
The lecture and readings have touched on the idea that virtual communities provide support for groups often feeling ‘othered’. Some positives and negatives of this have already been mentioned, I was interested in the implications of such online communities in real life. Groups marginalised IRL by disability, race, sexuality etc may enjoy the comfort of community online that their small numbers don’t allow them to find IRL.
However, as these groups move online, they become increasingly invisible IRL and understanding and acceptance may decrease as a result of this. This could be a hugely negative effect of online communities; while positive in the short term for the individual using online communities, this could be extremely detrimental for these groups in the long term and I think this is a particularly important point to consider.
Friday, 30 January 2009
WEEK 2. Topic 2. pt1
Is the asynchronous online seminar just doing what we would normally in a seminar do but online, or does the shift online change the nature of the communication and potentially the nature of your learning?
I wouldn’t say learning online is just a remediation of seminars and face-to-face learning. It’s not just translating this way of learning to the internet, but actually changes the nature of the learning in several small but noticeable ways.
a) Navigation – how do you get around the web forum; is it an online conversation?
The forum is arguably arranged into topics and points of conversation far better than a face-to-face conversation would be. This allows organisation and ease of finding information, but arguably jumping from one topic to another in conversation is often a fruitful way to form new ideas. Maybe this limits asynchronous learning slightly.
b) Expression – do you express yourself in the same way? How do we ‘take turns’?
Asynchronous learning allows everyone to ‘have their say’, even quieter members of the group who may not always feel free to do this F2F.
c) Time – activities being over a week? (not quite sure what this one is asking, so maybe i’m missing the point...?!)
Stopping to think may stunt the natural flow of ideas but also gives time to think about them over a longer time period and come back with new ideas discovered in this time. This also allows time to further research topics discussed and post in an informed way (Also through hypertext online).
I wouldn’t say learning online is just a remediation of seminars and face-to-face learning. It’s not just translating this way of learning to the internet, but actually changes the nature of the learning in several small but noticeable ways.
a) Navigation – how do you get around the web forum; is it an online conversation?
The forum is arguably arranged into topics and points of conversation far better than a face-to-face conversation would be. This allows organisation and ease of finding information, but arguably jumping from one topic to another in conversation is often a fruitful way to form new ideas. Maybe this limits asynchronous learning slightly.
b) Expression – do you express yourself in the same way? How do we ‘take turns’?
Asynchronous learning allows everyone to ‘have their say’, even quieter members of the group who may not always feel free to do this F2F.
c) Time – activities being over a week? (not quite sure what this one is asking, so maybe i’m missing the point...?!)
Stopping to think may stunt the natural flow of ideas but also gives time to think about them over a longer time period and come back with new ideas discovered in this time. This also allows time to further research topics discussed and post in an informed way (Also through hypertext online).
WEEK 2. Topic 2. pt2
d) Authority and identity – who is in charge?
I would argue that there is less of a hierarchy of ‘who’s in charge’ online, particularly in a forum. The forums we are using are highly depersonalised and people are all writing in the same font, with few ways to express themselves other than the content of what is being said. In person, we all tend to judge a person on who they are and how they say it, rather than the content itself. I would say the breaking down of this hierarchy is a positive effect of learning online
e) Do you have the knowledge, the media ‘literacy’ to be a user, an advanced user? If not how does it feel?
I have previously used a variety of forums but none that have been set out quite like this one. Usually the user tends to be able to open a post which can expand and show all of the posts in that thread on one page, arguably a bit easier to follow than the one we are using for NMC! This said, I think this kind of thing comes fairly easily to our generation and I can’t imagine anyone having a problem with posting after initial teething problems. In fact I may go as far as saying that it’s probably many people’s preferred method of communicating today.
I would argue that there is less of a hierarchy of ‘who’s in charge’ online, particularly in a forum. The forums we are using are highly depersonalised and people are all writing in the same font, with few ways to express themselves other than the content of what is being said. In person, we all tend to judge a person on who they are and how they say it, rather than the content itself. I would say the breaking down of this hierarchy is a positive effect of learning online
e) Do you have the knowledge, the media ‘literacy’ to be a user, an advanced user? If not how does it feel?
I have previously used a variety of forums but none that have been set out quite like this one. Usually the user tends to be able to open a post which can expand and show all of the posts in that thread on one page, arguably a bit easier to follow than the one we are using for NMC! This said, I think this kind of thing comes fairly easily to our generation and I can’t imagine anyone having a problem with posting after initial teething problems. In fact I may go as far as saying that it’s probably many people’s preferred method of communicating today.
WEEK 2. 2.3. Hypertext
2.3) How, in your opinion/experience, does hypertext shape the experience of using the World Wide Web?
Hypertext, in my opinion, is one of the defining aspects of the internet, making it just so very different from simply being a linear collection of a variety of media. The internet posseses the ability to allow a user to 'surf' from one piece of information to another, to expand links, to click on words for definition or more information, to open a video, or photo, or go to a message board and interact. Essentially this makes everyone's journey on the WWW hightlyindividualised and personal. Unlike reading a book, it is not a case of reading just what is given to you, it is a case of choosing jsut what you want to know and read about; no two peoples 'journey' online is quite the same. Positively, this means we can find JUST what we are looking for., but does it mean we might miss out on potentially crucial information, only seeing half the picture?
I found Ellie's points talking about hypertext in relation to interactive tv interesting as it wasn't something I'd considered, and I made some further comments of my own here: http://elliemccullough1989.blogspot.com/2009/01/hyperlinks-and-effect-on-real-life.html?showComment=1233355080000#c4107458378417978894
Info from lecture notes week 2, and Lister et al (2003) NEW MEDIA: A CRITICAL INTRODUCTION, London: Routledge.
WEEK 2. Topic 1. Part a
a) With Windows Vista replacing XP and Office 2007 replacing Office 2003, (and so on), what is ‘upgrade culture’ all about? Is some new media change just consumerism thought up by big business?
Although it's apparent in many places, I think a particularly good example of 'upgrade culture' can be seen by looking at the Apple iPod. It's easy to lose count of all the new 'generations' of the iPod, what new features each has, and just how different (or not) they are from the previous. How many of us have bought a new iPod (or phone, or CD player, or computer) when our new one is still working perfectly? Apple rely on advestising and that people always want something bigger (or should that be smaller?!) and better than before.
It could be argued that these constant releases are in the interest of the consumer, ensuring that they have the best technology available. However, i think it seems more likely not. There is a business term (which I can't quite remember...) that accounts for this-suggesting that companies don't neccesarily release their best product, but hold this back and release models between, ensuring people are always buying and upgrading. I upgraded to windows Vista to find that a lot of my 'old' software isn't compatible with it and now i'll have to upgrade this, too. Coinsidence?!
From reading: Lister, M et al (2003) NEW MEDIA: A CRITICAL INTRODUCTION, London: Routledge.
Although it's apparent in many places, I think a particularly good example of 'upgrade culture' can be seen by looking at the Apple iPod. It's easy to lose count of all the new 'generations' of the iPod, what new features each has, and just how different (or not) they are from the previous. How many of us have bought a new iPod (or phone, or CD player, or computer) when our new one is still working perfectly? Apple rely on advestising and that people always want something bigger (or should that be smaller?!) and better than before.
It could be argued that these constant releases are in the interest of the consumer, ensuring that they have the best technology available. However, i think it seems more likely not. There is a business term (which I can't quite remember...) that accounts for this-suggesting that companies don't neccesarily release their best product, but hold this back and release models between, ensuring people are always buying and upgrading. I upgraded to windows Vista to find that a lot of my 'old' software isn't compatible with it and now i'll have to upgrade this, too. Coinsidence?!
From reading: Lister, M et al (2003) NEW MEDIA: A CRITICAL INTRODUCTION, London: Routledge.
WEEK 2. Topic 1. Part h
h) If new media allows more people to be involved in cultural production (compared to mass media) what are these new voices saying in public? In a DIY and click-to-send setting, what kind of things are people sharing with others that comes from their private/domestic world and might otherwise not be distributed?
Lister sums up the increasing produser culture in mentioning that new technology facilitates members of the public in not only producing but also distributing work, too. Writing via blogging sites, videos on youtube, music on Myspace: teh examples are endless. However, with the potential to produce and distribute film in this way, quality is often compromised. This is, however, perhaps something which NM consumers are becoming used to and a compromise which must be made.
A lack of censorship and regulations online is certainly an issue her; things which censors would almost certainly ban on tv/radio are freely published online and issues of slander and libel are often avoided by posting like this. Wether this is a positive or negatvie outcome of produserism is certainly debatable.
Positives can be seen in the music business, new media is providing a way to combat merging labels and corperate conglomeration within the industry which has previously prevented small or independant labels and artists succeeding. Without the NM technologies, these artists would have little or no chance of competing with large labels.
From reading: Lister, M et al (2003) NEW MEDIA: A CRITICAL INTRODUCTION, London: Routledge. p33
Lister sums up the increasing produser culture in mentioning that new technology facilitates members of the public in not only producing but also distributing work, too. Writing via blogging sites, videos on youtube, music on Myspace: teh examples are endless. However, with the potential to produce and distribute film in this way, quality is often compromised. This is, however, perhaps something which NM consumers are becoming used to and a compromise which must be made.
A lack of censorship and regulations online is certainly an issue her; things which censors would almost certainly ban on tv/radio are freely published online and issues of slander and libel are often avoided by posting like this. Wether this is a positive or negatvie outcome of produserism is certainly debatable.
Positives can be seen in the music business, new media is providing a way to combat merging labels and corperate conglomeration within the industry which has previously prevented small or independant labels and artists succeeding. Without the NM technologies, these artists would have little or no chance of competing with large labels.
From reading: Lister, M et al (2003) NEW MEDIA: A CRITICAL INTRODUCTION, London: Routledge. p33
Sunday, 25 January 2009
WEEK 1. Task 2 - Goebbels B
(sorry, just realised I had saved these as drafts and not actually posted!)
b) How might his views seem to people today? What is radio ‘good for’ in your opinion?
Because of the nature of the topic in hand, Goebbel’s views regarding the potential of the radio to make change may seem quite extreme, but when considered in other contexts, his point becomes more apparent. His belief of the persuasive and effective power of radio (As a ‘new media’ of the time) are stated throughout and as he notes, radio was becoming accessible to all citizens, making the power of this new medium ever increasing. Although Geobbels is talking just about radio, in modern terms his views can be linked to the Effects Debate, and when we consider the assumed effect of new media such as television, the internet, films etc, his views seems rather more common sense to a 2009 media student . Goebbels touches on many points which seem quite ahead of his time, particularly when he talks about needing some sort of regulatory body for the radio and that it should not become a tool of propaganda but must be used artistically, as long as this is done responsibly and in the interest of the masses: still a priority of regulatory bodies today. Perhaps if writing today Goebbels might consider renaming his speech ‘The MEDIA as the Eight Great Power’, and his words become something we can comprehend quite easily.
Goebbels on Radio http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb56.htm
WEEK 1. Topic 1- Email.
The name E-mail, or 'Electronic mail' speaks for itself; messages sent electronically, through the internet. E-mails are usually sent/recieved instantly, or at least fairly quickly, and have developed to allow the attachment of a variety of different file types from word processed documents to pictures, video and music. Messages can be sent out to many contacts who the sender has pre-arranged into 'groups' (such as family, or work colleages), or to any collection of contacts chosen individually. Junk mail filters and automatic mail sorters are further of the more complex funtions of e-mail. Email has recently become a widely accepted form of communication for not only casual but also more formal communication within the academic and business world.
When I started using e-mail in around 1996 it was simply a fun way to make contact with friends and family, but has since become a highly crucial means of communication in many aspects of my life; a free and fast way to contact family, friends around the world, tutors, sending job applications and to recieve automatic alerts for a variety of things. I think this is not just a result of my growing up but a reflection of the growth of email in Western society in general. My life, and presumably many others, would be far less easy and convenient without the use of e-mail.
When I started using e-mail in around 1996 it was simply a fun way to make contact with friends and family, but has since become a highly crucial means of communication in many aspects of my life; a free and fast way to contact family, friends around the world, tutors, sending job applications and to recieve automatic alerts for a variety of things. I think this is not just a result of my growing up but a reflection of the growth of email in Western society in general. My life, and presumably many others, would be far less easy and convenient without the use of e-mail.
Thursday, 22 January 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
