As the internet has evolved the way we access and consume information has changed significantly. Slowly the days of finding information on topics of interest are disappearing. With all the social features of the internet information now finds us. RSS aggregators and websites are becoming smarter and more accessible through mobile technologies, on the fringe of moving closer to the conception of web 3.0. In the web 2.0 environments the social aspect of obtaining information can sometimes be more of a hindrance than a help in educational endeavors in which the quality and validity of the information is of high importance. Individuals must be skilled in differentiating quality sources from those that are poor, biased or deceitful. Furthermore, the access of information is now immediate, any time, and anywhere as mobile technologies become more powerful and able to access virtually every aspect of media available on the internet. Someone who is curious about a whether or not a store is offering a good deal on a particular product can quickly compare the cost of the product to other stores right there on the spot, and even get reviews from customers or experts.
Because of the plethora of “right here right now” information the use of censorship, right or wrong, is becoming an effort in futility. Society is slowly finding that proper education is a more viable means of protecting individuals from such an open access world of information. This does not mean simply educating children and young adults, but also parents and teachers. Parents and teachers who are well equipped with the knowledge to navigate the internet safely will also be better equipped to protect their students and children from inappropriate content and individuals that may seek to harm them.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Monday, April 5, 2010
My Mobile Use, and the mobile Divide
How indispensible are mobile devices in my life? That all depends on the mobile device I suppose. I love my I-pod, but I suppose I could live without it, I got along ok without one for the first three decades of my life. My cell phone I would love to get rid of. It isn’t capable of doing any more than my laptop, in fact it does quite a bit less, and since I have that with me where ever I go, my phone is just added weight. The only reason I have one is my wife insists that she needs me to have it so she can get a hold of me. I average about 15 texts and 2 hours of talk time on it a month and personally think it is a rather antiquated piece of technology anyhow. I do see myself using devices such as the ipad, but it is still missing some features that I would like see, such as the ability to use a 4G network as opposed to WiFi only. I’d also like to see some more connectivity options in general but, this is more likely to happen on windows based machine, so we will see what the future holds before I go and shell out money on something like that.
As these mobile devices come and go however their prices do drop, and the question remains, can such mobile computing devices be used in disadvantaged or underdeveloped environments? It is said that mobile computing, particularly cellular phones and devices can help close the digital divide. Some even claim that it is closing the digital divide simply because of access to wireless networks. This is all well and good, but having access to the ocean doesn’t mean I have a boat to sail or the knowledge to sail it. “For [manufactures], the most important issue is cost, because that's what's most important to their customer. And if this means providing trimmed-down handsets at the lowest possible prices, then so be it. This current reality sees many of these phones with no GPRS, no browser, no Java, no camera, no color screen -- the very technologies that form the linchpin of our plans to promote the mobile phone as the tool to help close the digital divide” (Banks, 2008). People in low income situations may certainly be able to access inexpensive cellar technologies and service, but they are just that, cheap. People in mid to upper income economical situations are used to their Blackberry and iphone, or other such internet ready phones. These are not the phones of the lower income family; a 200 dollar phone is not going to bridge the digital divide when you can buy a low end computer for almost the same price. Infrastructure is certainly making ground to connecting more people, but steps to put the necessary hardware in the hands of lower income families at a reasonable cost is not.
Banks, Ken (2008) “Mobile Phones and the Digital Divide” PCWorld. Available at http://www.pcworld.com/article/149075/mobile_phones_and_the_digital_divide.html
As these mobile devices come and go however their prices do drop, and the question remains, can such mobile computing devices be used in disadvantaged or underdeveloped environments? It is said that mobile computing, particularly cellular phones and devices can help close the digital divide. Some even claim that it is closing the digital divide simply because of access to wireless networks. This is all well and good, but having access to the ocean doesn’t mean I have a boat to sail or the knowledge to sail it. “For [manufactures], the most important issue is cost, because that's what's most important to their customer. And if this means providing trimmed-down handsets at the lowest possible prices, then so be it. This current reality sees many of these phones with no GPRS, no browser, no Java, no camera, no color screen -- the very technologies that form the linchpin of our plans to promote the mobile phone as the tool to help close the digital divide” (Banks, 2008). People in low income situations may certainly be able to access inexpensive cellar technologies and service, but they are just that, cheap. People in mid to upper income economical situations are used to their Blackberry and iphone, or other such internet ready phones. These are not the phones of the lower income family; a 200 dollar phone is not going to bridge the digital divide when you can buy a low end computer for almost the same price. Infrastructure is certainly making ground to connecting more people, but steps to put the necessary hardware in the hands of lower income families at a reasonable cost is not.
Banks, Ken (2008) “Mobile Phones and the Digital Divide” PCWorld. Available at http://www.pcworld.com/article/149075/mobile_phones_and_the_digital_divide.html
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Educational Gaming
Gaming in education has become a recent hot topic. Video games in particular have clear education potential as we can see young adults are able to sit down at these video games, learn the interface, rules, and interactions, all in a motivational setting, without the need of formal instruction. However, can the aspects of game design be applied to education in a manner that would benefit a majority of the students, and what kind of students would benefit most? Also, how might these games be implemented?
One of the more popular game styles being explored today is that of the Massive Multiplayer Online (MMO) game. The reason being is that the multi-user environments (MUVEs) provide a way in which people can interact with each other in an environment that might otherwise not be attainable. For example taking your fourth grade class on a trip to explore the surface of the moon may be unrealistic in real life, but achievable in a virtual setting. Students could explore craters and see how there avatars move differently in the low gravity environment. By setting up a storyline, goals and tasks for the students to accomplish with virtual rewards attached to it, it has all the motivational makings of a video game.
In theory a video game such as this would be highly beneficial in a classroom, but there is much more to consider. Young adults often need the motivational aspects of reward whether they are intrinsic or extrinsic. Furthermore a contextual setting helps young adults think about how they would apply what they are learning and as such MMO’s and MUVE’s lend themselves well to accomplishing this. Adult education however, does not necessarily need these aspects to be successful. Adults will often times already have the application of their learning goal in mind and not need extraneous motivation as the furthering of their education is motivation enough. As such some adults may find the use of games as a waste of time. They may feel that their goals could be achieved faster and more efficiently through standard curricular methods, and in some ways they may very well be correct.
This is not to say that MUVE’s can’t benefit adult education. Another implementation for such technologies is to address the issues of safety. Keeping with the theme of space travel, trial and error is not exactly a viable learning method for piloting the space shuttle. As such, a virtual environment is used to train astronauts, and the idea of a flight simulator has been around for a long time successfully teaching adults. This concept of using virtual environments is a far better alternative in teaching adults in high risk situations prior to application in the real world.
The difference in these educational groups and the application of MUVE’s and MMO’s comes down to developmental costs. Most education system are not willing to spend thousands of dollars for software that teaches a single concept, but companies are more than willing to spend the money since in the long run it likely means saving money. Until both software developers and educational systems see the same kind of benefits that industry does in the use of simulations in MUVE’s and MMO’s it will be a very slow process of seeing such technologies implemented in education, and like in most cases in educational technology will only find its way there after it has become outdated.
One of the more popular game styles being explored today is that of the Massive Multiplayer Online (MMO) game. The reason being is that the multi-user environments (MUVEs) provide a way in which people can interact with each other in an environment that might otherwise not be attainable. For example taking your fourth grade class on a trip to explore the surface of the moon may be unrealistic in real life, but achievable in a virtual setting. Students could explore craters and see how there avatars move differently in the low gravity environment. By setting up a storyline, goals and tasks for the students to accomplish with virtual rewards attached to it, it has all the motivational makings of a video game.
In theory a video game such as this would be highly beneficial in a classroom, but there is much more to consider. Young adults often need the motivational aspects of reward whether they are intrinsic or extrinsic. Furthermore a contextual setting helps young adults think about how they would apply what they are learning and as such MMO’s and MUVE’s lend themselves well to accomplishing this. Adult education however, does not necessarily need these aspects to be successful. Adults will often times already have the application of their learning goal in mind and not need extraneous motivation as the furthering of their education is motivation enough. As such some adults may find the use of games as a waste of time. They may feel that their goals could be achieved faster and more efficiently through standard curricular methods, and in some ways they may very well be correct.
This is not to say that MUVE’s can’t benefit adult education. Another implementation for such technologies is to address the issues of safety. Keeping with the theme of space travel, trial and error is not exactly a viable learning method for piloting the space shuttle. As such, a virtual environment is used to train astronauts, and the idea of a flight simulator has been around for a long time successfully teaching adults. This concept of using virtual environments is a far better alternative in teaching adults in high risk situations prior to application in the real world.
The difference in these educational groups and the application of MUVE’s and MMO’s comes down to developmental costs. Most education system are not willing to spend thousands of dollars for software that teaches a single concept, but companies are more than willing to spend the money since in the long run it likely means saving money. Until both software developers and educational systems see the same kind of benefits that industry does in the use of simulations in MUVE’s and MMO’s it will be a very slow process of seeing such technologies implemented in education, and like in most cases in educational technology will only find its way there after it has become outdated.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Validating the Online Myriad
The ability to effectively determine how credible information is has changed dramatically since the popularization of the internet. Prior to the internet most of our information searching came from publically accepted sources such as encyclopedias, trusted news reporting, text books, teachers or known experts in various fields. The internet however has created a disconnect between knowledge and its source. “An emphasis on credibility is crucial in the success of society’s digital migration because information is increasingly disconnected from its physical origin and, as a consequence, the credibility of information has taken on new complexities, with new implications” (Lankes, 2008, p. 103). When I come across an article explaining how to make a hybrid sport rocket from screen name BlowItUp* do I know what he is saying is legit? Will I have homeland security smashing down my door and hoodwinking me? The Mushroom cloud avatar does have my spider sense tingling. Just as we assess the validity of information from strangers by word of mouth appearance does affect our perception. We also know slick advertising, glitz and show are all there to fool us in to believing someone or something is credible when it may not be. Tactics such as this are commonly used to phish for peoples personal information, such as the common mock-ebay sites that attempt to obtain credit card numbers from the unsuspecting. Since looks aren’t everything, how do we determine the validity of what we see on the internet? Alan November uses a very simple acronym in Web Literacy for Educators to help in this process.
Keep it REAL (he says get real in his book, but I am sure if he reads this he will change it in the second edition cause keeping it real is way cooler)
R = Read the URL
E = Examine the Content
A = ask About the Author and Owner
L = Look at the Links
Reading the URL will assist in dealing with the aforementioned problem. If you’re on what appears to be EBAY, but the URL isn’t something like http://somecategory.shop.ebay.com/someotherstuff (some category is literally a category and someotherstuff is text denoting subfolders) hit alt F4 or the red x if you’re not a keyboard person.
Examining the content is probably one of the more difficult tasks, second to asking about the author, but some steps you can take are: check the date of the site, verify the information on other sites, and collaborate your findings with others. By doing these three things the fact and fiction will begin to separate.
Asking about the author can by far be the most difficult task as a large portion of information on the internet is anonymous or under some pseudonym. However, reputable sites will frequently give authors or contact information which can be used to help verify the validity of one’s claim.
Looking at the links is like judging a person by who they hang out with. Of course a web site can link to where ever they want, so just because a site links to NASA does not mean there article on black holes is legitimate. However if NASA is linking to the article regarding black holes then chances are it is probably a reputable source. Back links such as this can easily be found in Google by searching link:URLofthesite.
Lankes, R. David (2008). “Trusting the Internet: New Approaches to Credibility Tools." DigitalMedia, Youth, and Credibility. Edited by Miriam J. Metzger and Andrew J. Flanagin. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 101–122.
November, Alan (2008.) Web Literacy for Educators. Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks CA pgs. 96-97
Keep it REAL (he says get real in his book, but I am sure if he reads this he will change it in the second edition cause keeping it real is way cooler)
R = Read the URL
E = Examine the Content
A = ask About the Author and Owner
L = Look at the Links
Reading the URL will assist in dealing with the aforementioned problem. If you’re on what appears to be EBAY, but the URL isn’t something like http://somecategory.shop.ebay.com/someotherstuff (some category is literally a category and someotherstuff is text denoting subfolders) hit alt F4 or the red x if you’re not a keyboard person.
Examining the content is probably one of the more difficult tasks, second to asking about the author, but some steps you can take are: check the date of the site, verify the information on other sites, and collaborate your findings with others. By doing these three things the fact and fiction will begin to separate.
Asking about the author can by far be the most difficult task as a large portion of information on the internet is anonymous or under some pseudonym. However, reputable sites will frequently give authors or contact information which can be used to help verify the validity of one’s claim.
Looking at the links is like judging a person by who they hang out with. Of course a web site can link to where ever they want, so just because a site links to NASA does not mean there article on black holes is legitimate. However if NASA is linking to the article regarding black holes then chances are it is probably a reputable source. Back links such as this can easily be found in Google by searching link:URLofthesite.
Lankes, R. David (2008). “Trusting the Internet: New Approaches to Credibility Tools." DigitalMedia, Youth, and Credibility. Edited by Miriam J. Metzger and Andrew J. Flanagin. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 101–122.
November, Alan (2008.) Web Literacy for Educators. Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks CA pgs. 96-97
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Digital Identity
In real life we tend to define who we are by what we do, we and convey that to others through our actions, words and appearance. In the online world however, these actions, words, and appearances take different forms. Although the online identity can take many forms the social network is the one of the more popularized online representations of one’s self.
Online actions are the least represented of the three, but are existent in some small ways. The most common way our actions are defined is through associations and games. “Yet, for all of the social discomfort, these Friends help provide group structure, further indicating the meaningful identity markers of the individual” (Boyd, 2008, p. 14). The people that are chosen as friends create associations that help define that individual, in other words we are who we associate with. It is also indicated in this quote that these associations, particularly the top friends list on Myspace, can also cause social drama between individuals. The other action that helps to define the individual is that of online social networking games such as Mafia Wars and Farmville. These games involve collaborative quests where individual’s results or needs are posted on the wall for others to view or interact with. Each of these games gives the participant virtual rewards and status.
Appearance online is just as powerful in real as it is online in defining an individual. It stems from things as the more apparent posting of pictures to the more intricate decoration of the person home page. It will contain video and graphics of favorite bands, movies, or pastimes that the individual identifies with. These images do not necessarily shape the individual, but do reflect them.
Words and communication amongst individuals in social networks is by far one of the largest ways individual define and shape themselves. Unlike face to face communication, communication in social networks is both asynchronous and public. As a result posts are more thought out and often have more intent than the typical everyday discourse between individuals in real life. In some cases people will act in a non-participatory case know as lurking and simply read the public posts of others shaping their opinions and ideas in association with their offline experiences before making them their own and then participating in later discussion regarding its context. “Functioning as vibrant public spaces—imagined territories developed by CCI [
Community Connect, Inc.] made real in typed discursive exchanges—participants, who are stripped of their local exigencies, shape online communities to sometimes reflect, refine, reject, and reproduce social knowledge as informed by their offline experiences” (Byrne, 2008, p. 20).
It is clear that social networks play a big part in defining individual as well as shaping identity. This is particularly true of young adults who sense of self is constantly in transition as they figure out who they are and what their part is in society. As technology progresses the conduits from which we communicate ourselves as individuals will continue to change and reshape the socialization process.
Boyd, Dana (2008) “Why Youth love Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life." Youth, Identity, and Digital Media. Edited by David Buckingham. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
Byrne, Dara (2008) N. “The Future of (the) ’Race’: Identity, Discourse, and the Rise of Computer-mediated Public Spheres." Learning Race and Ethnicity: Youth and Digital Media. Edited by Anna Everett. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 15–38.
Online actions are the least represented of the three, but are existent in some small ways. The most common way our actions are defined is through associations and games. “Yet, for all of the social discomfort, these Friends help provide group structure, further indicating the meaningful identity markers of the individual” (Boyd, 2008, p. 14). The people that are chosen as friends create associations that help define that individual, in other words we are who we associate with. It is also indicated in this quote that these associations, particularly the top friends list on Myspace, can also cause social drama between individuals. The other action that helps to define the individual is that of online social networking games such as Mafia Wars and Farmville. These games involve collaborative quests where individual’s results or needs are posted on the wall for others to view or interact with. Each of these games gives the participant virtual rewards and status.
Appearance online is just as powerful in real as it is online in defining an individual. It stems from things as the more apparent posting of pictures to the more intricate decoration of the person home page. It will contain video and graphics of favorite bands, movies, or pastimes that the individual identifies with. These images do not necessarily shape the individual, but do reflect them.
Words and communication amongst individuals in social networks is by far one of the largest ways individual define and shape themselves. Unlike face to face communication, communication in social networks is both asynchronous and public. As a result posts are more thought out and often have more intent than the typical everyday discourse between individuals in real life. In some cases people will act in a non-participatory case know as lurking and simply read the public posts of others shaping their opinions and ideas in association with their offline experiences before making them their own and then participating in later discussion regarding its context. “Functioning as vibrant public spaces—imagined territories developed by CCI [
Community Connect, Inc.] made real in typed discursive exchanges—participants, who are stripped of their local exigencies, shape online communities to sometimes reflect, refine, reject, and reproduce social knowledge as informed by their offline experiences” (Byrne, 2008, p. 20).
It is clear that social networks play a big part in defining individual as well as shaping identity. This is particularly true of young adults who sense of self is constantly in transition as they figure out who they are and what their part is in society. As technology progresses the conduits from which we communicate ourselves as individuals will continue to change and reshape the socialization process.
Boyd, Dana (2008) “Why Youth love Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life." Youth, Identity, and Digital Media. Edited by David Buckingham. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
Byrne, Dara (2008) N. “The Future of (the) ’Race’: Identity, Discourse, and the Rise of Computer-mediated Public Spheres." Learning Race and Ethnicity: Youth and Digital Media. Edited by Anna Everett. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 15–38.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Online and Offline life
Are our real life and digital persona any different? The answer is probably both yes and no. I think everyone has a different persona for all kinds of given social scenarios. We perceive ourselves differently outside of work than we might with our friends or family. We act differently when collaborating with people we don’t know as opposed to ones we do, and likewise behave differently online than we do in real life. So yes we probably perceive ourselves differently in the online world, but no, it isn’t any different in than what we do in the real world.
There are some characteristics of new media that tend to have a common impact on our online persona. One of which is the anonymity allotted by the internet. We can pick and choose who we want to be. We can be the same as our real life self or make someone up as a sort of safety net. “The anonymity of the Internet leads people to behave differently than they do face-to-face. Research from Euro RSCG Worldwide shows that nearly 43% of US Internet users feel less inhibited online, with the effect most prominent among females and users ages 25 to 54” (eMarketer, 2009).
Although teenagers have on and off line lives as do most they have a tendency to blend those lives more in their media use. Ito, M., Sonja B., Matteo B., Boyd, D. Cody, R., Herr, B., Horst, H.A., Lange, P.G., Mahendran, D., Martinez, K., Pascoe, C.J., Perkel, D., Robinson, L., Sims, C., and Tripp, L in the book, Hanging Out, Messing Around and Geeking Out use these three horribly mis-defined terms in their title to respectively define how youth communicate, learn by interface, and actively learn through these media types respectively. It is an otherwise fantastic inside look at how kids socialize and learn through today’s media sources, primarily mobile and online communication. “…we note that the teens in our studies are becoming particularly adept at maintaining a continuous presence in multiple social communication contexts. We also see kids hanging out or engaging in multiple social contexts concurrently…Geeking out often involves an explicit challenge to existing social and legal norms and technical restrictions. It is a subcultural identity that self-consciously plays by a different set of rules than mainstream society” (Ito et al, 2009, pg. 49 & 71)
There are some characteristics of new media that tend to have a common impact on our online persona. One of which is the anonymity allotted by the internet. We can pick and choose who we want to be. We can be the same as our real life self or make someone up as a sort of safety net. “The anonymity of the Internet leads people to behave differently than they do face-to-face. Research from Euro RSCG Worldwide shows that nearly 43% of US Internet users feel less inhibited online, with the effect most prominent among females and users ages 25 to 54” (eMarketer, 2009).
Although teenagers have on and off line lives as do most they have a tendency to blend those lives more in their media use. Ito, M., Sonja B., Matteo B., Boyd, D. Cody, R., Herr, B., Horst, H.A., Lange, P.G., Mahendran, D., Martinez, K., Pascoe, C.J., Perkel, D., Robinson, L., Sims, C., and Tripp, L in the book, Hanging Out, Messing Around and Geeking Out use these three horribly mis-defined terms in their title to respectively define how youth communicate, learn by interface, and actively learn through these media types respectively. It is an otherwise fantastic inside look at how kids socialize and learn through today’s media sources, primarily mobile and online communication. “…we note that the teens in our studies are becoming particularly adept at maintaining a continuous presence in multiple social communication contexts. We also see kids hanging out or engaging in multiple social contexts concurrently…Geeking out often involves an explicit challenge to existing social and legal norms and technical restrictions. It is a subcultural identity that self-consciously plays by a different set of rules than mainstream society” (Ito et al, 2009, pg. 49 & 71)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
