From a linguistic perspective, this article makes a lot of sense.
Also thinking about showing it to my G8's for their formatting of analysis (poem essay) as it uses a clear system for quotes and examples. Thinking an online essay might be a good way to go.
Metaphors do seem to shape our perceptions and show our thinking/beliefs. There is a dichotomy of how people consider the internet - salvation/destruction of society. There is also some middle ground - and this is probably where the educational uses live. Dependent on how things are taught, therefore perceived and used.
Newitz, A. (2011): Social media is science fiction. Google I/O conference, 10-11 May 2011, San Francisco. (video)
Questions:
What do these stories indicate about our future options and relations with technology?
Probably that a lot will depend on the amount of power and persuasion we continue to allow big business. If money continues to be a driving force and major factor in who has control, then corporations controlling the money will likely be most in control of social media.
()And what do they tell us about our preoccupations and assumptions now (or in the recent past)?
Same thing as pop culture and various media forms have always told us: they represent and manifest our fears and concerns either in utopian or dystopian form. Where we are going to end up, based on what we perceive our current situation to be.
We definitely fear loss of privacy and "self" - that separation between the media and our own thoughts. Advertising already shows us how carefully we are manipulated, and this will undoubtedly not stop unless we create some kind of safety measures (unlikely) or better education (somewhat likely) so people will cope.
We also fear the government's ability to enforce - the Judge Dredd kind of future, or totalitarian culture as shown by 1984 and other similar novels. Being oppressed is always a fear, whether we are giving our government the means to achieve oppression or not.
There is also a strong undercurrent of "the meaning of life" and what our true purpose is. The Matrix and The Island give us a possible 'unknown' of a 'reality' of which we are unaware until something pulls the blinders off our eyes - we are just batteries; we are just spare parts; we are just tiny
()To what extent are they structured by the utopia-dystopia oppostion?
As said above - people seem to fall onto one side or the other, thus the metaphors used to construct their concept of the abstract notion of "internet" will either reflect a constructivist/positive or destructivist/negative perspective. I was particularly intrigued by the water connection of the destructivist metaphors - never really thought of that, but it makes sense.
Bleecker, J. (2006). A manifesto for networked objects — Cohabiting with pigeons, arphids and Aibos in the Internet of Things.
Blogjects exist! Wow ... the whole pigeon-bloggers really got to me. We are putting animals and things into the internet space, and having them report on their whereabouts and submit relevant data for various purposes. I can only see this going further ... and again, huge implications for privacy and AI abilities. "If only these walls could talk..." may become a reality in the future. Is that a scary or comforting thought?
"This isn’t the Terminator fantasy of machines with guns that run amok, acting against humanity. The Blogject capacity for producing effects is far more powerful because it has always been pervasively, ubiquitously, everywhere tethered to the far reaching, speedy, robust network of social exchange and dis-course that humanity has every constructed. In the Internet of Things, that kind of agency happens within the ecology of networked publics — streams, feeds, track- backs, permalinks, Wiki inscriptions and blog posts."
Semantics: we live "in" the network, not "on" the Internet. Returns to the metaphor reading on how we define, construct our concept in turn defines, constructs what we do with it and how we approach/perceive it. The idea of "everything is connected" from pantheism, that "everything has a spirit" is seemingly becoming embodied in the Internet ... but the spirit is existence without sensibility, awareness, consideration - therefore, it is unthinking, unknowing and consequently dis-connected in a way that is profoundly disturbing. More like a constantly bleeping ticker-tape of data ... but, what to do with it, as it accumulates in the corner and eventually fills the room pushing living things out? There is that overwhelmingness of too much information/data ... the filtration relegated to we humans, and I think we are not yet able to adequately cope.
()Can you find some more recent examples of developments that fit into Bleecker’s vision of ‘cohabiting with pigeons’? Well, IFTT will generate actions based on functions automatically. Also, being subscribed to a newsfeed or emailing list then generates non-stop bits that accrue. I can monitor my child's online activities - so, certain trackers exist to inform me of what Dylan's looked at and played with on the computer. I'm not quite cohabiting with pigeons, but these are things which send data to me of their own accord - I no longer have to initiate a process, but I do have to deal with the data returned to me.
Perspectives on Education
Shirky, C. (2012). Napster, Udacity and the academy
Bady, A. (2012). Questioning Clay Shirky.
Is it possible for MOOCs to be ‘education of the very best sort’? Is this their mission? If not, what is?
I would have to agree with Bady's perspective on for-profit driving over a pure educational mission to provide GOOD, solid courses. I also agree with Shirky's points on how existing institutions may not necessarily be providing education on a par with their price tag, and that the scrutiny of open-source platforms does lead to some increases in quality ... but as Bady points out, sometimes that quality starts rock-bottom so a little increase doesn't exactly bring things up to "good".
Internet and education seems to currently be about access ... providing access, accessing information, better access to materials and ideas and other people to collaborate/discuss with. I think we're starting in on the shift from just access-thinking to quality-service thinking. But this will take time and a lot of innovation. Currently, existing paradigms of "teaching" and "learning" are still focusing on the traditional system of delivery of content - reception of content. What is starting, slowly, to take more shape is the collaborative creation of content and its growth and development in a public sphere ... this is something from education of the past - the Socratic ideal, somewhat, of marketplace group discussions giving rise to a collective awareness or discovery of a shared concept - but now it is happening in the newer space of the Internet. The pitfalls of this are manifold, what with anonymity, lack of credentialling, etc ... but again, aren't these somewhat relics of a system we are outgrowing?
Concerning authenticity of original work ... given what we are seeing now in so many forms of media - TV shows, movies, writing - of derivative work rather than new work - we also seem to be in a state of recycling of ideas, concepts, basic knowledge ... how far is the concept of "original" going to go? We are seeing the shift from "innovation of new" to "innovative use of existing" as a goal ... why reinvent the wheel when you can improve upon it? ... So I am uncertain of the future of authenticity as we currently understand and expect it.
MOOCs can provide a valuable learning environment and creation potential, but they need to be shifted from the current, more traditionally conceptualized, framework in order to achieve that potential. As "replacements" for courses and uni experience, they cannot provide the full spectrum experience of university learning. As something new, different and apart from the university paradigm they could indeed provide something valuable and of quality, regardless of profit motivations.
Is it possible for MOOCs to be ‘education of the very best sort’? Is this their mission? If not, what is?
I would have to agree with Bady's perspective on for-profit driving over a pure educational mission to provide GOOD, solid courses. I also agree with Shirky's points on how existing institutions may not necessarily be providing education on a par with their price tag, and that the scrutiny of open-source platforms does lead to some increases in quality ... but as Bady points out, sometimes that quality starts rock-bottom so a little increase doesn't exactly bring things up to "good".
Internet and education seems to currently be about access ... providing access, accessing information, better access to materials and ideas and other people to collaborate/discuss with. I think we're starting in on the shift from just access-thinking to quality-service thinking. But this will take time and a lot of innovation. Currently, existing paradigms of "teaching" and "learning" are still focusing on the traditional system of delivery of content - reception of content. What is starting, slowly, to take more shape is the collaborative creation of content and its growth and development in a public sphere ... this is something from education of the past - the Socratic ideal, somewhat, of marketplace group discussions giving rise to a collective awareness or discovery of a shared concept - but now it is happening in the newer space of the Internet. The pitfalls of this are manifold, what with anonymity, lack of credentialling, etc ... but again, aren't these somewhat relics of a system we are outgrowing?
Concerning authenticity of original work ... given what we are seeing now in so many forms of media - TV shows, movies, writing - of derivative work rather than new work - we also seem to be in a state of recycling of ideas, concepts, basic knowledge ... how far is the concept of "original" going to go? We are seeing the shift from "innovation of new" to "innovative use of existing" as a goal ... why reinvent the wheel when you can improve upon it? ... So I am uncertain of the future of authenticity as we currently understand and expect it.
MOOCs can provide a valuable learning environment and creation potential, but they need to be shifted from the current, more traditionally conceptualized, framework in order to achieve that potential. As "replacements" for courses and uni experience, they cannot provide the full spectrum experience of university learning. As something new, different and apart from the university paradigm they could indeed provide something valuable and of quality, regardless of profit motivations.
No comments:
Post a Comment