Considering New Media and Digital Culture

Researching for a topic such as practicing Internet safety while utilizing Web 2.0 applications in K-12 classrooms presents quite a challenge.  Optimizing keywords appears to be the crucial factor in retrieving applicable results.  Unfortunately most pertinent references apply to either utilizing Web 2.0 in classrooms or practicing safety, not both.  Hopefully assimilating information regarding the two aspects will prove effective.
Due to the complication of a “double search” the use of web search tools started somewhat slowly however through perseverance, the searches became more efficient regardless of the venue.  The search was initiated at AoIR.  It proved useful but overall the site was unimpressive.  Interestingly one of the two relevant sources taken from AoIR was located at a link listed in the other.  On the contrary, Google Scholar produced several valuable results with what seemed minimal effort.  However this may have been the product of a more efficient search as a result of the previous experience at AoIR.  The references accessed at AoIR and Google Scholar are scholarly articles regarding studies related to the term paper topic while the other websites on the resulting list are relevant blogs and slide presentations.
The Tech & Learning site search generated an applicable blog post regarding how to facilitate a student run wiki.  Slideshare turned up Power Point Presentations related to use of social media in the classroom.  Finally at the Oxford Internet Institute a search revealed a very interesting presentation on why students are immensely engaged in classrooms that utilize Web 2.0 applications.
Overall the utilization of Web Search Tools seemed intuitive and efficient.  The number of relevant sources available is impressive.  Research tools have definitely evolved over a short period of time.  As an educator it is clear to see that the skills students need include utilizing appropriate web search tools, choosing efficient keywords, and most importantly, filtering results.

The IDT 518 Elluminate session just concluded.  I was very impressed with the overall experience but especially with the ease of use.  I want to thank both presenters for their contributions to such a well-prepared presentation.  In reflection I believe that utilizing this type of technology is a valuable way to supplement online learning.  Through the classroom style interaction Elluminate provides, the learning process is more collaborative, thus more effective and efficient .

Professor Bill Wolffe, Assistant Professor, Department of Writing Arts at Rowen University in Glassboro, NJ is compiling a Web 2.0 Readings Packet on his website.  The purpose of this compilation is “to see a progression in ideas” as well as “…to ground the discussions of Web 2.0 in an historical context” (Wolffe).  While exploring materials currently posted on Professor Bill Wolff’s site, a notable article was discovered entitled, “Market Ideology and the Myths of Web 2.0” by Trebor Scholz in which the author makes his case negating the “newness” of Web 2.0 and its components while illustrating the direct relationship between Web 2.0 and economics.
In order to fully comprehend what Scholz is doing in his article, readers must know that the term Web 2.0 was originally promoted by Tim O’Reilly in 2004.  It is equally imperative to grasp the list of web-based elements traditionally designated as Web 2.0 initiated. Wikis, the Web as a platform for collective intelligence, voice, and conversation, the beginning of social networking sites, RSS, CSS, blogging, podcasting, folksonomies are all examples of this and the author addresses each component.
Scholz points out that the social aspects of the Web have existed from its onset. Wikis have been on the Web since Ward Cunningham installed Wiki/WikiWeb on the Internet in 1995.  In addition, email has been available (in a limited application) since 1971 when Ray Tomilison of BBN invented a program that allowed ARPANET users to send messages (Scholz).  Similarly, Scholz cites David Weinberger as stating that Weblogs may have made it much easier, but the Web has always been about voice and conversation.  “Today participation is made easier as familiarity with computers and software, as well as Internet access, have improved in the economically developed world” (Scholz).
Although Web 2.0 receives credit for launching Social Networking Sites (SNSs), Real Simple Syndication (RSS), Cascading Style Sheets (CSS), and blogging, Scholz emphasizes that Classmates.com was founded in 1995, followed by SixDegrees.com, and then Lunarstorm in 1996.  “The first version of RSS was created as a format for syndicating content based on XML by Netscape in 1999…The CSS Working Group published CSS in 1997 and it became the official (W3C) standard in 1998” (Scholz).  Podcasting and folksonomies, Scholz concedes, are fairly new.  However the author stresses, “…Web 2.0 is a placeholder for several agendas.  It burns the torches of 1960s-style rebellion, a “business revolution” of self-declared anarchists who frown upon authority and control as bad and deem openness as always good.  But the fire is held by business elites who are trying to mobilize novelty as marketing ploy.  There is some resemblance to the dotcom boom that captured the late ‘90s (too much, too fast) (Scholz).
Scholz continues on to say that SNSs afford marketers with freely given information about consumers as posted in their own profiles.  In addition market interests dominate the web and afford little or no visibility to space on the Web.
Contrary to the numerous articles listed which paint Web 2.0 as a true transformation of the Internet; Scholz suggests that the marketing of Web 2.0 as an innovation was a strategic ploy to gain investors although he does concede that the technique “created a new enthusiasm for the Web” (Scholz).  This point of view is both unique and thought provoking for anyone interested in a deeper understanding of Web 2.0, its components, and their market impacts.  Thus it warrants remaining a part of Professor Wolffe’s Web 2.0 Readings Packet.
Scholz, Trebor.  (2008, March 3).  “Market Ideology and the Myths of Web 2.0”.  Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2138/1945
Wolff, Bill. (2009, September 12).  “Toward the creation of a web 2.0 readings packet”. Retrieved from http://williamwolff.org/composingspaces/toward-the-creation-of-a-web-2-0-readings-packet/?wscr=1280×800

This post is actually my discussion board post for IDT 507.  The relationship between it and my last blog made it seem natural to include it here.
The original title was:  Information Isn’t Everything Regardless What The Myth Says

John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid write, “Information is still the tool for all tasks. Consequently, living and working in the midst of information resources like the Internet and the World Wide Web can resemble watching a firefighter attempt to extinguish a fire with napalm. If your Web page is hard to understand, link to another. If a “help” system gets overburdened, add a “help on using help.” If your answer isn’t here, then click on through another 1,000 pages. Problems with information? Add more” (p. 14).

What are these authors describing with this flippant description – information, or something more complex?

I think the answer to the question is that “information isn’t everything”.  Brown and Duguid write, “More power may be helpful.  To the same degree, it is likely to be more problematic too.  So as information technology tunnels deeper and deeper into everyday life, it’s time to think not simply in terms of the next quadrillion packets or the next megaflop of processing power, but to look instead to things beyond information” (p.15).

I think the authors are pointing to society—the makers, organizers and consumers of the information in question.  When you look “beyond the information” as Brown and Duguid suggest, people is what you see, people creating, using, and trying to make sense of the information.  To do so, some utilize “origin myths” (p.17), some “hammer” it (p. 19), some “refine” it, while still others look at it with “6-D vision” (p. 21).  The bottom line is that people are missing out on much of life while they try to live life this caught up, if you will, in information.  The authors call attention to what they call “The Myth of Information” which oversimplifies the forces at work thus isolating information and related aspects of life while discounting all the rest (p. 31).  This myth promotes the idea that changes in society are the sole result of the growing power of information.

“But it is clear that the causes of those changes include much more than information itself.  So the myth significantly blinds society to the character of and forces behind those changes” (Brown and Duguid, 32).  In regard to the role of society on change, the authors go on to say, “They shaped the development of the railroad, determining where it ran, how it ran, and who ran it.  And they will continue to shape the development of information networks.  As we hope to show in the course of this book, to participate in that shaping and not merely to be shaped requires understanding such social organization, not just counting on (or counting up) information” (p. 33).  The authors are calling people to action, to learn and understand, to see the myth and strategically, decisively construct the outcome.

Brown, J. & Duguid, P. (2002). The Social Life of Information. Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation. Boston, MA.

Although my written assignment for week 8 was less than stellar, I feel that the experience of completing it afforded me with a much better understanding of blogging as related to literary expression.  As an educator I try to do for my students what Professor J. did for me (and my fellow classmates) this week:  construct an opportunity to APPLY the newly acquired knowledge.  Knowing facts is not the same as understanding information.  It is when a person takes the information and does something with it that true learning occurs.  In this exercise we were called upon to take the information from reading Rettberg, analyze it, and locate examples of it in an existing blog.   The Rettberg information and the real-world application of it was then synthesized and finally evaluated.  The process is indicative of the entire “Cognitive Domain” as explained by Bloom in his Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.  Although Bloom’s Taxonomy remains the foundation of education in the United States, his former student, Lorin Anderson, has made some minor changes in the category names and arrangement.  For more on Bloom visit http://www.nwlink.com/~Donclark/hrd/bloom.html.

Regarding Week 8 Assignment: “Thus blogs have the potential to develop a story in ways unlike that of traditional forms of literary expression, yet ironically, strikingly similar in mechanics to oral communication.”  This statement, the concluding line of my assignment, was ambiguous thus I’d like to expand upon my thought regarding blogs and other forms of literary expression. Traditional forms of literary expression have a propensity to be more formal than the typical blog.  Blogs are personal, usually concise, and most notably, blogs are a two-way exchange of information.  It is precisely this list of common characteristics, which seemingly make blogs very much like conversations and not much like essays, biographies, novels, or poems.

References:
Bloom B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.

Although I knew that the technology existed to make calls through the computer, until I needed to set up a call time with Professor J. I had never heard of Skype. My friend and I tested out the program by placing a call and using video. (I have to say that although it is weird to talk to your computer, it’s almost disturbing to see live video of whom you are conversing with. And for that reason, we turned the video off.)

The required call with Professor J. went well. The connection was clear of any interference and I left the conversation feeling good about this new-found technology. The most recent assignment involving Skype had groups of 6 students making a conference call in which we discussed the abstracts we had each composed for our final papers. All of us expressed reservations concerning the logistics of making a 6-way conversation work effectively. However, at the end of our conference call, all stated that our final impressions were quite positive.

Overall I would highly recommend downloading the FREE Skype software. It is a user-friendly and effective communication tool. Our group liked it so much that we decided to utilize it throughout our final paper writing as a sounding board for thoughts, concerns, and sharing relevant information.

According to Abbott Joseph Liebling, ‘Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one’ (Liebling 1960). In reading Blogging: Digital Media and Society Series by Jill Walker Rettberg I have come to realize that anyone with access to the Internet is, by all functional implications, a printing press owner. I’d never thought about the power the Internet offers. (I viewed it more of a resource for information and knowledge acquisition.) … And certainly I never felt the empowerment that Rettberg implies I should feel…

In my latest issue of “NEAToday”, there is an article entitled “Turning the Page: Students Live in a Digital World. Are Schools Ready to Join Them?”  In it Tim Walker explores the definition of literacy in the digital age.  Traditionally the term “literacy” has been strictly used in regard to reading and writing abilities.

Walker offers examples of teachers using digital technologies–blogs, wikis, videos, video games,  and social media– in their classes.   The educators cite “digital media’s limitless possibilities for collaboration, sharing, and communication…” (Walker, 27).  According to the article, the “authenticity” of the assignment is the key to student engagement.  Thus students are more apt to write something that will be posted for a global audience than for just one person (the teacher) to read.

Those opposed to using this type of technology in the educational setting point out that today’s population of students already suffer from shortened attention spans and difficulty with concentration as a direct result from related media.  However the greatest obstacle is that most students possess more “digital media literacy” than do their teachers.  Educators are not comfortable using the technology let alone integrating it into their classrooms.  There is  also the question of  when it is appropriate to use and when proper grammar and detailed writings need to be required.  Here lies the question of literacy.  Should a student’s ability to  “Tweet”, “Friend”, or “Post to a blog” be considered literacy?

My answer to that question is “Yes”.  I think digital media is a huge part of my students’ lives.  To utilize it in my classroom as a way of engaging students, seems logical and exciting to me.  I just wonder how parents, administrators, and school board members will see it.

“NEAToday” is a publication of the National Education Association.

Walker, Tim, “NEAToday”, p.24, Vol. 28, No. 2, Oct/Nov.2009.