The two do seem quite similar to eachother but there is a difference. Whereas the semantic web improves the accurancy, sufficiency and, as a result of that, more streamlined World Wide Web by understanding the meaning of actual words and thus making links between different thing Web 3.0 does similar thing but by linking different things together by suggestion. So it could be said that the semantic web is the more savvy/advanced one of the two.
Web 3.0 is the current web 2.0 growing into the new, more advanced 3.0 version whilst the semantic web is built as an extention to our current web 2.0. Quite often the two are branded Web 3.00 together. It could be well possible that, as both ideas are continuesly developing more and more, the two will ultimately merge together with the semantic web becoming an extention to web 3.0 and web 3.0 heavily using the semantic principles toether combining a new webs experience.
Time will tell.
Thursday, 26 March 2009
5) What is the 'semantic web'?
Well, one of the first things I found when searching for information about the Semantic Web was:
semanticweb.org a whole wiki dedicated to the concept of the semantic web.
The front page of this wiki gives a rough describtion of the term:
The front page of this wiki gives a rough describtion of the term:
"The Semantic Web is the extension of the World Wide Web that enables people to share content beyond the boundaries of applications and websites. It has been described in rather different ways: as a utopic vision, as a web of data, or merely as a natural paradigm shift in our daily use of the Web. Most of all, the Semantic Web has inspired and engaged many people to create innovative semantic technologies and applications."
But what does that actually mean?
Essentially, is is based on design principles, collaborative working groups and several technologies that allow users to make use of it. The Semantic Web has been in development for quite a few years and is based on the ideal of Tim Berners-Lee from the World Wide Web Consortium. Only in recent years have the concepts of the Semantic Web started to materialise and a lot of features of The Semantic Web are still "in the pipeline" so to speak.
Semantics are all about the MEANING of what is being said (unlike Syntax, which is all about HOW you say something), and when we keep that in mind the whole Semantic Web business begins to seem a little bit less vague. In essence the goal of the semantic web is to make hardware and someware smarter and able to understand what kind of things we want from the by analysing how we use it. By being able to understand what information we consume and share actually means, rather than just what it says it can searching and sharing information across users a lot more accurate. It is basically taking the web that we have now (arguable that's 2.0 or 3.0) and develops it further, making it more intuitive and ultimately better and more accurate by linking words with meanings.
But what does that actually mean?
Essentially, is is based on design principles, collaborative working groups and several technologies that allow users to make use of it. The Semantic Web has been in development for quite a few years and is based on the ideal of Tim Berners-Lee from the World Wide Web Consortium. Only in recent years have the concepts of the Semantic Web started to materialise and a lot of features of The Semantic Web are still "in the pipeline" so to speak.
Semantics are all about the MEANING of what is being said (unlike Syntax, which is all about HOW you say something), and when we keep that in mind the whole Semantic Web business begins to seem a little bit less vague. In essence the goal of the semantic web is to make hardware and someware smarter and able to understand what kind of things we want from the by analysing how we use it. By being able to understand what information we consume and share actually means, rather than just what it says it can searching and sharing information across users a lot more accurate. It is basically taking the web that we have now (arguable that's 2.0 or 3.0) and develops it further, making it more intuitive and ultimately better and more accurate by linking words with meanings.
"I have a dream for the Web [in which computers] become capable of analyzing all the data on the Web – the content, links, and transactions between people and computers. A ‘Semantic Web’, which should make this possible, has yet to emerge, but when it does, the day-to-day mechanisms of trade, bureaucracy and our daily lives will be handled by machines talking to machines. The 'intelligent agents' people have touted for ages will finally materialize."
Wednesday, 25 March 2009
4) Is there a potential problem being stored up for people if 'education' is tailored to fit into their cultural and personal preferences?
As nice & delightful it might be to have the educational system tailored to fit into a person's cultural and personal preferences, there should be a limit on this. The studying period might indeed go by much easier this way, but the "big wide world" students are then launched into aren't one they are ready for as employers do NOT offer such a customisable environment.
In terms of the digital native/immigrant debate this is relevant aswel:
If the education process is completely altered to suit the digital-world the digital native students live in they will then come to expect the "actual" world to work in the same way. And there's a whole stumbling block in Prensky's theory. If education needs to change, so does everything else at the same time, as students, after being educated, are supposed to be able to work in a society wich includes many different people of many different agegroups, digital natives and immigrants and both will keep existing in this "real world" for quite some time before only the natives are left.
In terms of the digital native/immigrant debate this is relevant aswel:
If the education process is completely altered to suit the digital-world the digital native students live in they will then come to expect the "actual" world to work in the same way. And there's a whole stumbling block in Prensky's theory. If education needs to change, so does everything else at the same time, as students, after being educated, are supposed to be able to work in a society wich includes many different people of many different agegroups, digital natives and immigrants and both will keep existing in this "real world" for quite some time before only the natives are left.
Tuesday, 24 March 2009
2) What difference to all this might the 'digital divide' make?
To socioeconomically related access issues within a society?
The way people are divided right now is likely to only widen the digital divide of which we speak. The CofP of digital natives may be unlikely to let a digital immigrant into their ways and could become a very closed group indeed which stops the digital immigrants from developing their technological skills as they are unlikely to receive help from the digital natives. One of the main purposes of a CofP is social learning, so digital natives will arguably always keep eachother up to data on "the latest" when it comes to new websites, tools, online communities, gadgets and technologies while digital immigrants are running behind having great difficulty keeping up with the ever changing world of the digital natives.
This is deffinitely a problem when it comes to situation where the two group work together, like education, where the teachers (immigrants) are having great difficulty in uderstanding and therefore correctly addressing their pupils (natives). Educational institutions such as schools do introduce new IT facilities but are still finding it hard to keep up because the evolution of technologies is shared within the Digital Native CofP and not communicated to the immigrants in the same way.
This does assume that all the pupils (or anyone else from the digital-native's generation for that matter) are actually able to use and are familiar with these technology-inflicted social changesin their own lives. However, for economic reasons mainly, not all of these younger (under 28) people are zactually in a position where they have access to these technologies intheir own lives and there they might not be too keen on any changes made by mainstream society and, as a part of that, the educational system, as to what is expected from people of this generation as they aren't part of it and will have as much difficulty (and will be left behind just as much) as other age-specific digital immigrants. So basically, the divide bewteen natives and immigrants isn't just a matter of agegroup, but also of whether or not people have been able to adapt these changes.
To global access issues across countries and regions?
The digital divide between the western world and 3rd world countries is a huge one, mainly because in the western world the financial sithuation makes for a great percentage of the population to be able to use and familiarise themselves with digital technologies where in the third world the great mjority of people do not have access to these kind of technologies at all.
The situation is almost a much bigger version of the problem described above. The Western countries, all familiar with these technologies are contantly improving their technologies and the third world ends up limping behind. (At the moment they might
Fast forward a few decades where digital natives are the only people left in the western world: technologies has completely changed western society as a whole in the way we interacts as well as the way our social practises are shaped. While Western society has gotten into the habit of communicationg, socialising, delling, buying, educating and practising politics using these technologies it will differ even more from society AND POLITICS in the third world countries.
The two parts of the world will arguable, over the years, grow more and more seperate from eachother creating an even wider digital divide, and through this a wider divide in politics, economics, education, everything. Alienating the two from each other.
The way people are divided right now is likely to only widen the digital divide of which we speak. The CofP of digital natives may be unlikely to let a digital immigrant into their ways and could become a very closed group indeed which stops the digital immigrants from developing their technological skills as they are unlikely to receive help from the digital natives. One of the main purposes of a CofP is social learning, so digital natives will arguably always keep eachother up to data on "the latest" when it comes to new websites, tools, online communities, gadgets and technologies while digital immigrants are running behind having great difficulty keeping up with the ever changing world of the digital natives.
This is deffinitely a problem when it comes to situation where the two group work together, like education, where the teachers (immigrants) are having great difficulty in uderstanding and therefore correctly addressing their pupils (natives). Educational institutions such as schools do introduce new IT facilities but are still finding it hard to keep up because the evolution of technologies is shared within the Digital Native CofP and not communicated to the immigrants in the same way.
This does assume that all the pupils (or anyone else from the digital-native's generation for that matter) are actually able to use and are familiar with these technology-inflicted social changesin their own lives. However, for economic reasons mainly, not all of these younger (under 28) people are zactually in a position where they have access to these technologies intheir own lives and there they might not be too keen on any changes made by mainstream society and, as a part of that, the educational system, as to what is expected from people of this generation as they aren't part of it and will have as much difficulty (and will be left behind just as much) as other age-specific digital immigrants. So basically, the divide bewteen natives and immigrants isn't just a matter of agegroup, but also of whether or not people have been able to adapt these changes.
To global access issues across countries and regions?
The digital divide between the western world and 3rd world countries is a huge one, mainly because in the western world the financial sithuation makes for a great percentage of the population to be able to use and familiarise themselves with digital technologies where in the third world the great mjority of people do not have access to these kind of technologies at all.
The situation is almost a much bigger version of the problem described above. The Western countries, all familiar with these technologies are contantly improving their technologies and the third world ends up limping behind. (At the moment they might
Fast forward a few decades where digital natives are the only people left in the western world: technologies has completely changed western society as a whole in the way we interacts as well as the way our social practises are shaped. While Western society has gotten into the habit of communicationg, socialising, delling, buying, educating and practising politics using these technologies it will differ even more from society AND POLITICS in the third world countries.
The two parts of the world will arguable, over the years, grow more and more seperate from eachother creating an even wider digital divide, and through this a wider divide in politics, economics, education, everything. Alienating the two from each other.
1) How might Wenger's notions on practice communities relate to Prensky's on education?
Yes, there is a way in which the two different theories from Prensky & Wenger do link together, I think.
Wegner's theory of the communities of practise predominantly talks about groups of individuals who, because they share the same goals and, I guess, ideologies & practises, improve themselves and establish themselves more trhough communicating to eachother.
Meanwhile Prensky theorises about how digital natives's these days have a completely different set of social practises because of the way they use technology, which, he claims, has caused these younger people to differ from others (digital immigrants) in the way they communicate, research, socialise, shop, learn etc. etc. etc.
You could well argue that this group of people, with their own new set of social standards, social practises, ideologies and aspirations is therefore a good example of a Community of Practise.
Wegner's theory of the communities of practise predominantly talks about groups of individuals who, because they share the same goals and, I guess, ideologies & practises, improve themselves and establish themselves more trhough communicating to eachother.
Meanwhile Prensky theorises about how digital natives's these days have a completely different set of social practises because of the way they use technology, which, he claims, has caused these younger people to differ from others (digital immigrants) in the way they communicate, research, socialise, shop, learn etc. etc. etc.
You could well argue that this group of people, with their own new set of social standards, social practises, ideologies and aspirations is therefore a good example of a Community of Practise.
Friday, 20 March 2009
Week 9 | Q3 Should education 'stretch a person do you think? (What do you mean by 'stretch'?)
Well, it all depends on what is meant by the term "stretch". I guess the first thing that springs to mind is urging (almost forcing?) pupils and students to perform to the best of their abilities. By raising the bar with each semester (or year) and that way allowing students to gradually develop their skills and knowledge: improving themselves and "plugging into their potential".
I guess this unit is also "stretching" students by "forcing" them into different methods of learning than the ones we used in different units. As mentioned in the lecture on several occasions, though, there doesn't seem to have been much forcing students into it as people got on with it quite well, quite quickly. Possibly because the current bunch of students are well-developed Digital Natives to be "ready" for learning in this alternative, digital way. Who knows? ;)
Week 9 | Describe the daily frustrations of a fictional neo-luddite at university now in the UK.
A neo-luddite would probably struggle with quite a few things in Uni. For example, handbooks are posted online rather than handed out, time tables are online, lecturers EMAIL students about lecture cancellations and other VITAL information. On the social side of things (s)he's also going to miss out as most of people events and parties are communicated on Facebook rather than IRL. A lot of discussion about work also taken place on Facebook and MSN. The neo-luddite would find it hard to keep in contact with friends as all that takes place with the use of social networking and mobile telephones and the degree will suffer because of the lack of access to things like blackboard and MChome where essential information is found.
Submission of assessments would pretty much be impossible as they need to be typed and printed and, in some cases on some courses, actually handed in electronically.
So yeah, basically, it couldn't be done. A Neo-luddite would not fare well at a modern day university at all because the courses as well as the social part of uni life heavily rely on digital technologies.
Submission of assessments would pretty much be impossible as they need to be typed and printed and, in some cases on some courses, actually handed in electronically.
So yeah, basically, it couldn't be done. A Neo-luddite would not fare well at a modern day university at all because the courses as well as the social part of uni life heavily rely on digital technologies.
Week 9 | Describe the experience of a fictional technophile student in 2020.
Well, first of all, 2020 is only 11 years ago, and if we look at the the situation 11 years ago from now the changes are there, but not THAT ground breaking. Yes, the web has changed a lot, it delivers more interactivity and multimedia than it did back in 1998, but education has only adapted to it a little bit. How the web is going to change in the next 11 years is hard to predict, I am assuming that Web 3.0 and the Semantic Web are developping further and that phones, music downloads and other "past-time" platforms will also have advanced a lot. But if the education system doesn't pick up the pace the technophile student of the future could well be a very frustrated man indeed. The uni is currently moving into digital submissions and I trust all submissions, or nearly all submissions, will be handing in that way by then. But the technophile students would probably not be happy with the fact that there, i think, WILL still be physical lectures, seminars and tutorials providing face to face contact with lecturers and peers. Further in the future there might not be, but at this short span of time of only 11 years I don't think Education is moving on quite that fast.
Week 9 | The biggest threat to "digital culture" as a concept.
One of my relatives (early 30s) seems to be a bit of a mixture of the two. One the one hand he uses online technology, but only for a limited number of things. He DOES download music, legally, but is reluctant to use eBay because he finds it a bit dodgy. Does email, and does have MSN but doesn't use Facebook.
The things he does use he uses just as well as anybody else but doesn't seem to let the technology change his social practices as much as digital natives are supposed to do, but does show the ability to use all the technology as well as them. He just doesn't seem as interested in it. And that's one notion that Prensky seems to ignore, he argues that everyone who grows up with these technology actively uses and let them influence they social practises, but my relative does show that there is also the factor of personal choice, or even if they are actually interested enough in these technologies to adapt them all.
The things he does use he uses just as well as anybody else but doesn't seem to let the technology change his social practices as much as digital natives are supposed to do, but does show the ability to use all the technology as well as them. He just doesn't seem as interested in it. And that's one notion that Prensky seems to ignore, he argues that everyone who grows up with these technology actively uses and let them influence they social practises, but my relative does show that there is also the factor of personal choice, or even if they are actually interested enough in these technologies to adapt them all.
Week 9 | The Youngest digital immigrant
This one's actually quite hard to find as the absolute majority of the people around me that are in the age group of the digital natives actually ARE. One of my friends doesn't seem to embrace technology quite the same as most of us, but the fact he goes to uni means he kind-of has to. Uni email, handbooks thatare only online and things like that have meant that he has been forced to more or less embrace new technologies, but, with a lack of interest and experience in it, he doesn't seem to use it as one of his main forms of socialising and he always seems to run behind asking what things actually ARE that we are talking about. I guess that is regular digital immigrant behaviour but I find it hard to pin-point HOW he ended up not being part of the group of digital natives. Perhaps his lack of interest in these things have meant that he's started developing his technological skills while other developed them while growing up.
WEEK 9 | The oldest digital native you know.
I guess the oldest digital native I know would be my uncle. Despite not having grown up with digital technology like younger people have he has always had a very specific interest in computer technology and because he works at Microsoft it is part of his job to keep up to dat ewith all forms of digital communication that are outthere. Whereas most people his age (early 50s) only ever get very specific training from their employers to use the software they need in their jobs (Office etc.) he is constantly being kept up to date, and being urged to investigate into, new technologies.
He can be found on all the well-known online platforms. Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, last FM, Spotify, you name it, he's on there. And actively using them, as well as online shops, recourses such as wikipedia, online gaming services in his spare time and e-bay whenever he needs to get rid of something. In fact, it is quite often I hear new things though him, which does seem a typical thing a digital native would do. Digital natives are quite a closed group but, despite his age (THAT SOUNDS A BIT HARSH!) he's well and truly part of it.
He can be found on all the well-known online platforms. Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, last FM, Spotify, you name it, he's on there. And actively using them, as well as online shops, recourses such as wikipedia, online gaming services in his spare time and e-bay whenever he needs to get rid of something. In fact, it is quite often I hear new things though him, which does seem a typical thing a digital native would do. Digital natives are quite a closed group but, despite his age (THAT SOUNDS A BIT HARSH!) he's well and truly part of it.
RED ANSWERS - Question 5 /// Abstracts
Prensky, M. (2001) “Digital natives, Digital Immigrants”. On the Horizon, Volume 9 (issue 5).
This 2001 article is essentially a first major introduction to the concept of Digital Immigration. A new concept in the day, the terms Digital Native and Digital Immigrant are explained. The article then applies these terms to a the real-life sithuation of education highlighting that misscommunication can easily take place as the two groups do not understand eachother like they used to as digital natives have a different use of language and have a different sense of ethics, politics and sociology. The article concludes saying that lecturers (digital immigrants) should alter the way by which they communicate to their students (digital natives) as they are fundamentally different from students in the past.
Prensky, M. (2004) “The Emerging Online Life of the Digital Native”. markPrensky.com.
This article highlights areas in which digital natives particularly differ from digital immigrants. It lists and provides details on how digital natives have different ways of communicating, sharing, buying, selling, exchanging, creating, meeting, collecting, coordinating, evaluating, gaming, learning, searching, analysing, reporting, programming, socialising, evolving and ultimately growing up. It gives theory and examples on each of these topics. The article concludes that norms and behaviours are changing much faster than ever before and that digital natives are creating a new different form of life for themselves..
McHale, T. (2005) “Portrait of a Digital Native”. Tech & Learning.
This article starts giving an example of a typical modern day student's working situation and continues with her views on the technology she uses, calling it her "gateway to the world". She also believes that the she "grew up into" a world that expects her to use technology of this kind.
The article continues by introducing Prensky's concept of the Digital Immigrant and mentions Jane Healey's claim that it is impossible for children to focus on more than one thing at a time.
However, continues to discuss that research has shown that perhaps people up till the age of 17 have had the ability to build up a high level of multi-tasking abilities whilst growing up with digital media. The article continue's to discuss different point of views from experts as well as actual Digital natives.
Prensky M. (2003) “Digital game-Based Learning”. Computers in Entertainment, Volume 1 (issue 1), p21-p21.
This article from Prensky discusses the outcomes of a research by the University of Rochester which suggested that playing action-computer games may have a positive effect on a student's visual selective attention. Prensky then uses this data as a rgument stating that videogames may be a good way of engaging children into learning and that gaming could be used for educational purposes.
Prensky, M. (2006) “Listen to the Natives”. Educational Leadership, Volume 63 (issue 4), p 8 - p 13.
This article start by claiming that many educators are still using their old fashioned 20th century ways ways to try and teach the new generation. The article oncemore explains Prensky's concept of digital immigration and again lists a number of things modern students do differently. It dismisses the claim that modern student's can't engage to anything and suggests that student's are having difficulties engaging to school because school does not address them in the right, modern, digital way why the rest of the outside world does. It is then suggested that educators and students should collaborate more in order to find a way by which student's can regain interest in what happens in the classroom rather than being alienated from it because them and the teachers are not on the same wavelength.
This 2001 article is essentially a first major introduction to the concept of Digital Immigration. A new concept in the day, the terms Digital Native and Digital Immigrant are explained. The article then applies these terms to a the real-life sithuation of education highlighting that misscommunication can easily take place as the two groups do not understand eachother like they used to as digital natives have a different use of language and have a different sense of ethics, politics and sociology. The article concludes saying that lecturers (digital immigrants) should alter the way by which they communicate to their students (digital natives) as they are fundamentally different from students in the past.
Prensky, M. (2004) “The Emerging Online Life of the Digital Native”. markPrensky.com.
This article highlights areas in which digital natives particularly differ from digital immigrants. It lists and provides details on how digital natives have different ways of communicating, sharing, buying, selling, exchanging, creating, meeting, collecting, coordinating, evaluating, gaming, learning, searching, analysing, reporting, programming, socialising, evolving and ultimately growing up. It gives theory and examples on each of these topics. The article concludes that norms and behaviours are changing much faster than ever before and that digital natives are creating a new different form of life for themselves..
McHale, T. (2005) “Portrait of a Digital Native”. Tech & Learning.
This article starts giving an example of a typical modern day student's working situation and continues with her views on the technology she uses, calling it her "gateway to the world". She also believes that the she "grew up into" a world that expects her to use technology of this kind.
The article continues by introducing Prensky's concept of the Digital Immigrant and mentions Jane Healey's claim that it is impossible for children to focus on more than one thing at a time.
However, continues to discuss that research has shown that perhaps people up till the age of 17 have had the ability to build up a high level of multi-tasking abilities whilst growing up with digital media. The article continue's to discuss different point of views from experts as well as actual Digital natives.
Prensky M. (2003) “Digital game-Based Learning”. Computers in Entertainment, Volume 1 (issue 1), p21-p21.
This article from Prensky discusses the outcomes of a research by the University of Rochester which suggested that playing action-computer games may have a positive effect on a student's visual selective attention. Prensky then uses this data as a rgument stating that videogames may be a good way of engaging children into learning and that gaming could be used for educational purposes.
Prensky, M. (2006) “Listen to the Natives”. Educational Leadership, Volume 63 (issue 4), p 8 - p 13.
This article start by claiming that many educators are still using their old fashioned 20th century ways ways to try and teach the new generation. The article oncemore explains Prensky's concept of digital immigration and again lists a number of things modern students do differently. It dismisses the claim that modern student's can't engage to anything and suggests that student's are having difficulties engaging to school because school does not address them in the right, modern, digital way why the rest of the outside world does. It is then suggested that educators and students should collaborate more in order to find a way by which student's can regain interest in what happens in the classroom rather than being alienated from it because them and the teachers are not on the same wavelength.
RED ANSWERS - Question 4 /// In the Harvard manner, name five different academic articles dealing with the notion of young people's facility... etc.
1)
Prensky, M. (2001) “Digital natives, Digital Immigrants”. On the Horizon, Volume 9 (issue 5). http://www.twitchspeed.com/site/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.htm. [10/03/09].
2)
Prensky, M. (2004) “The Emerging Online Life of the Digital Native”. markPrensky.com. http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky-The_Emerging_Online_Life_of_the_Digital_Native-03.pdf. [10/03/09].
3)
McHale, T. (2005) “Portrait of a Digital Native”. Tech & Learning. http://www.techlearning.com/article/4572. [11/03/09].
4)
Prensky M. (2003) “Digital game-Based Learning”. Computers in Entertainment, Volume 1 (issue 1), p21-p21. http://portal.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=950596&type=pdf&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=26899431&CFTOKEN=32247491. [11/03/09].
5)
Prensky, M. (2006) “Listen to the Natives”. Educational Leadership, Volume 63 (issue 4), p 8 - p 13. http://centre4.core-ed.net/viewfile.php/users/38/1965011121/ICT_PD_Online/ListentotheNatives.pdf. [13/03/09].
Prensky, M. (2001) “Digital natives, Digital Immigrants”. On the Horizon, Volume 9 (issue 5). http://www.twitchspeed.com/site/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.htm. [10/03/09].
2)
Prensky, M. (2004) “The Emerging Online Life of the Digital Native”. markPrensky.com. http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky-The_Emerging_Online_Life_of_the_Digital_Native-03.pdf. [10/03/09].
3)
McHale, T. (2005) “Portrait of a Digital Native”. Tech & Learning. http://www.techlearning.com/article/4572. [11/03/09].
4)
Prensky M. (2003) “Digital game-Based Learning”. Computers in Entertainment, Volume 1 (issue 1), p21-p21. http://portal.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=950596&type=pdf&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=26899431&CFTOKEN=32247491. [11/03/09].
5)
Prensky, M. (2006) “Listen to the Natives”. Educational Leadership, Volume 63 (issue 4), p 8 - p 13. http://centre4.core-ed.net/viewfile.php/users/38/1965011121/ICT_PD_Online/ListentotheNatives.pdf. [13/03/09].
RED ANSWERS - part 2 /// Identify five different websites/five-pages-on-different sites dealing with digital immigration and its counterpart.
1: "No Good Excuse"
http://www.assortedstuff.com/?p=1541
2: "BlogScholar: Debating Digital Immigration"
http://www.blogscholar.com/content/view/72/2/
3: "TIMES ONLINE Report: The Next Step In Brain Evolution"
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/article683193.ece
4: "Digitalnative.org - Wiki"
http://www.digitalnative.org/wiki/Main_Page
5: "New York Times: Click & Jane"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/magazine/01wwln-medium-t.html?_r=2&bl=&ei=5087&en=60e0a8a5ed47f70d&ex=1233982800&pagewanted=all
http://www.assortedstuff.com/?p=1541
2: "BlogScholar: Debating Digital Immigration"
http://www.blogscholar.com/content/view/72/2/
3: "TIMES ONLINE Report: The Next Step In Brain Evolution"
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/article683193.ece
4: "Digitalnative.org - Wiki"
http://www.digitalnative.org/wiki/Main_Page
5: "New York Times: Click & Jane"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/magazine/01wwln-medium-t.html?_r=2&bl=&ei=5087&en=60e0a8a5ed47f70d&ex=1233982800&pagewanted=all
RED ANSWERS - part 1 /// Find out about 'Digital Immigration'.
1) Find out about 'Digital Immigration'.What Is it? Who cares about it? What sort of general attitudes have been based upon it?
The concept of digital immigration basically divides the users of modern day "new media" technologies into two groups:
Digital Natives
A digital native is somebody (fairly young) who has grown up in a world that "relies" on digital new media technologies, they basically "grew up with it". Therefore they have grown up using these technologies which are therefore like second nature to them. Some argue that this affects their way of life quite significantly, claiming that a certain social practises for them mostly occur online, rather than IRL.
Digital Immigrants
A digital immigrant is somebody who didn't grow up in "the digital age" and therefore had to adapt to these changing digital standards of new media.
One of the main points that the concept of Digital Immigration handles with is that, where digital antives can easily adapt to new technologies, multi-task and use them with great easy, digital immigrants are sometimes having difficulties finding their way in this "new world" (hence the use of the word "immigrants"). Also, it highlights communication-problems between the two groups as the digital immigrants have trouble communicating to digital natives who have a "new language" and, to a certaine xtend "a new view on the world around them".
Especially at points where the immigrants mostly communicate TO the natives (like in education) this could cause some serious problems. It is the difficultness by which the two communicate which is the "big" issue about digital immigration as the two demographic age groups (below and over 28 years old) are simply not "compatible" like they used to be.
The concept of digital immigration basically divides the users of modern day "new media" technologies into two groups:
Digital Natives
A digital native is somebody (fairly young) who has grown up in a world that "relies" on digital new media technologies, they basically "grew up with it". Therefore they have grown up using these technologies which are therefore like second nature to them. Some argue that this affects their way of life quite significantly, claiming that a certain social practises for them mostly occur online, rather than IRL.
Digital Immigrants
A digital immigrant is somebody who didn't grow up in "the digital age" and therefore had to adapt to these changing digital standards of new media.
One of the main points that the concept of Digital Immigration handles with is that, where digital antives can easily adapt to new technologies, multi-task and use them with great easy, digital immigrants are sometimes having difficulties finding their way in this "new world" (hence the use of the word "immigrants"). Also, it highlights communication-problems between the two groups as the digital immigrants have trouble communicating to digital natives who have a "new language" and, to a certaine xtend "a new view on the world around them".
Especially at points where the immigrants mostly communicate TO the natives (like in education) this could cause some serious problems. It is the difficultness by which the two communicate which is the "big" issue about digital immigration as the two demographic age groups (below and over 28 years old) are simply not "compatible" like they used to be.
Friday, 13 March 2009
Week 8: Articles (PART ONE)
Week 8: Article 1
"Our students have changed radically. Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach."
This article was published in 2001 so fairly soon after the birth of the concepts of digital natives and digital immigrants, which means that research into the phenomenons was still quite basic.
The article seems to make the assumption that digital immigrants in teaching positions are unwilling to adapt their teaching-style to fit with, what he calls, students that are fundamentally different from students in the past. It's all a bit generalising, I feel. Also, as I don't think these new forms of education people are particularly suitable for all sciences. Yes, on a lot of courses new media should be embrassed and actively used, but on some it would not add anything new or enable teahers to get their point accross to students any better. There's also quite a few points made that I do agree with, like how things like changes brought to people's sense of ethics, politics, sociology, languages and other things by the phenomenon, but surely it's hard to determine where these changes are going as I personally feel they are still developing all the time. (If they will ever settle at all)
Article 2:
This article from 2004 lays out how digital natives are different from digital immigrants, and actually going point to point whilst doing so. A nice overview of the digital native/digital immigrant phenomenons and actually uses some practical example making the concepts easy to grasp. However, what this article DOES do is (quite shamelessly) categorising the digital native as "the other", therefore the article gives a very one-sided view.
"In a very short time technology has changed an entire generation’s behavior radically..."
A bit of a bold statement to make, I'd think. The way things are done, the day-to-day practises, if you like, have changed, yes. But I don't think the essence of the interactions has changed in every single category. Yes, people's attitudes to "ownership" and "collecting" have changed (I would think), but I can't say I agree with every single TOTAL trunaround that the writer makes out. I believe that in many cases new social practises have come to exist ALONGSIDE existing ones rather than replacing them completely.
Article 3
Article 3, from 2005, also tends to have a view of digital natives as "the other". An interesting link that article makes is that study on child developments show that the brain's ability to effectively self-organize competing information keeps developping until the age of 16/17, and that therefore digital natives will always be able to multitask better than their parents. But abilities like that differ from person to person. I know people myself who, despite being too old to have been 16/17 by the time the "digital revolution" took place who are able to multitask and use new media forms as good as most digital natives, although I'll admit they are the minority. Then again, I know people who are 20, who find it quite hard to keep up with "the latest technology" and prefer to call rather than text, and go to a record store rather than iTunes. So, maybe the whole notion of 'how new media-savvy' you are is not solely a case of age-group, but more to do with other factors aswel. It is similar to article 1, how it descibes a difference between educators who are digital immigrants and students being digital natives and the problems in communications this causes. The same old generalisation there then and therefore a lot of the critism I have on that article applies to this one and vice-versa.
Article 4
A controversial statement in this piece from 2003, it is claimed that playing action video games enhances a student's visual selective attention. But surely, so would driving and things like that then, wouldn't they? Any practice in reaction-speed and "looking out for stuff" should enhance these kind of skills, surely? So I think he's pretty much stating the obvious here, just served with extra hi-tech chips. (I do like my vague metaphores, sorry!) It is continued that "videogames aren't the enemy but the best opportunity to engage our kids in real learning". Again, practical ways of learning, or learning celeverly disguised as playing is not exactly a new thing either. I would agree that the changed past-time activities of digital natives should be taken into account, so "playing for learning" could indeed be combined with things like computer games, but it's just an evolution of this "tried -and-tested" practise, rather than a brand new thing, as the writer seems to want to put across. The article is clearly a bit dated, as things like the Nintendo DS and even the Nintendo Wii have both embedded education into many of the games they offer.
The writer of the article is credited as working for Games2Train, which means t5hat the author's views are hardly going to be unbiased, considering the company or institution's name.
Article 5
Aaaaaaargh, another article pretty much stating a similar thing about education. It is really hard to find academic articles about other parts of the phenomenon that this one. The article suggests that educational institutions should co-operate with the students more to solve "the problem", and I think there's a point there, even if it might blur the boundary between the teachers and the students a bit. I personally think that this whole digital divide between students and teachers is a temporary one anyway. Change will probably come when the generation who are students now become the teachers, bringing their own ideas of social activity to the teaching staff-meeting of the future (so to speak). Ofcourse people want to make sure these younger people are addressed in a way that engages, relates to and motives them, but I have never heard of fellow students who feel that lecturers REALLY should get a special MSN-account that students can use to ask them questions. Yes, students would probably use it if teachers DID have them, but most are quite happy to e-mail or meet them in real life instead. Simply because "it's the way it is". For now, anyway.
"Our students have changed radically. Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach."
This article was published in 2001 so fairly soon after the birth of the concepts of digital natives and digital immigrants, which means that research into the phenomenons was still quite basic.
The article seems to make the assumption that digital immigrants in teaching positions are unwilling to adapt their teaching-style to fit with, what he calls, students that are fundamentally different from students in the past. It's all a bit generalising, I feel. Also, as I don't think these new forms of education people are particularly suitable for all sciences. Yes, on a lot of courses new media should be embrassed and actively used, but on some it would not add anything new or enable teahers to get their point accross to students any better. There's also quite a few points made that I do agree with, like how things like changes brought to people's sense of ethics, politics, sociology, languages and other things by the phenomenon, but surely it's hard to determine where these changes are going as I personally feel they are still developing all the time. (If they will ever settle at all)
Article 2:
This article from 2004 lays out how digital natives are different from digital immigrants, and actually going point to point whilst doing so. A nice overview of the digital native/digital immigrant phenomenons and actually uses some practical example making the concepts easy to grasp. However, what this article DOES do is (quite shamelessly) categorising the digital native as "the other", therefore the article gives a very one-sided view.
"In a very short time technology has changed an entire generation’s behavior radically..."
A bit of a bold statement to make, I'd think. The way things are done, the day-to-day practises, if you like, have changed, yes. But I don't think the essence of the interactions has changed in every single category. Yes, people's attitudes to "ownership" and "collecting" have changed (I would think), but I can't say I agree with every single TOTAL trunaround that the writer makes out. I believe that in many cases new social practises have come to exist ALONGSIDE existing ones rather than replacing them completely.
Article 3
Article 3, from 2005, also tends to have a view of digital natives as "the other". An interesting link that article makes is that study on child developments show that the brain's ability to effectively self-organize competing information keeps developping until the age of 16/17, and that therefore digital natives will always be able to multitask better than their parents. But abilities like that differ from person to person. I know people myself who, despite being too old to have been 16/17 by the time the "digital revolution" took place who are able to multitask and use new media forms as good as most digital natives, although I'll admit they are the minority. Then again, I know people who are 20, who find it quite hard to keep up with "the latest technology" and prefer to call rather than text, and go to a record store rather than iTunes. So, maybe the whole notion of 'how new media-savvy' you are is not solely a case of age-group, but more to do with other factors aswel. It is similar to article 1, how it descibes a difference between educators who are digital immigrants and students being digital natives and the problems in communications this causes. The same old generalisation there then and therefore a lot of the critism I have on that article applies to this one and vice-versa.
Article 4
A controversial statement in this piece from 2003, it is claimed that playing action video games enhances a student's visual selective attention. But surely, so would driving and things like that then, wouldn't they? Any practice in reaction-speed and "looking out for stuff" should enhance these kind of skills, surely? So I think he's pretty much stating the obvious here, just served with extra hi-tech chips. (I do like my vague metaphores, sorry!) It is continued that "videogames aren't the enemy but the best opportunity to engage our kids in real learning". Again, practical ways of learning, or learning celeverly disguised as playing is not exactly a new thing either. I would agree that the changed past-time activities of digital natives should be taken into account, so "playing for learning" could indeed be combined with things like computer games, but it's just an evolution of this "tried -and-tested" practise, rather than a brand new thing, as the writer seems to want to put across. The article is clearly a bit dated, as things like the Nintendo DS and even the Nintendo Wii have both embedded education into many of the games they offer.
The writer of the article is credited as working for Games2Train, which means t5hat the author's views are hardly going to be unbiased, considering the company or institution's name.
Article 5
Aaaaaaargh, another article pretty much stating a similar thing about education. It is really hard to find academic articles about other parts of the phenomenon that this one. The article suggests that educational institutions should co-operate with the students more to solve "the problem", and I think there's a point there, even if it might blur the boundary between the teachers and the students a bit. I personally think that this whole digital divide between students and teachers is a temporary one anyway. Change will probably come when the generation who are students now become the teachers, bringing their own ideas of social activity to the teaching staff-meeting of the future (so to speak). Ofcourse people want to make sure these younger people are addressed in a way that engages, relates to and motives them, but I have never heard of fellow students who feel that lecturers REALLY should get a special MSN-account that students can use to ask them questions. Yes, students would probably use it if teachers DID have them, but most are quite happy to e-mail or meet them in real life instead. Simply because "it's the way it is". For now, anyway.
Week 8: Digital native: Webpages (PART TWO)
Webpage 4:
This is a complete website, entirely dedicated to the digital native and digital immigrant. It is run mainly by an academic research team with the help of registered users. The website is part of a larger research project on the concept. This research focuses on the impact that the concepts have and adresses specific issues and benefits related to the subject.
Webpage 5:
Another newspaper article, this time from a large American newspaper, that has made it to the web. It was published in January o fthis year so I would say the article is pretty much perfectly up-to-date and aware of the current situation regarding Digital antives and digital immigrants. The article starts by giving a clear example of a situation where the main issue of the concepts are prety obvious. It raises the issue of the development of children that fall into the category of digital natives. The page allows users to comment on the article.
This is a complete website, entirely dedicated to the digital native and digital immigrant. It is run mainly by an academic research team with the help of registered users. The website is part of a larger research project on the concept. This research focuses on the impact that the concepts have and adresses specific issues and benefits related to the subject.
Webpage 5:
Another newspaper article, this time from a large American newspaper, that has made it to the web. It was published in January o fthis year so I would say the article is pretty much perfectly up-to-date and aware of the current situation regarding Digital antives and digital immigrants. The article starts by giving a clear example of a situation where the main issue of the concepts are prety obvious. It raises the issue of the development of children that fall into the category of digital natives. The page allows users to comment on the article.
Thursday, 12 March 2009
Week 8: Digital native: Webpages (PART ONE)
Webpage 1:
This page, written in the summer of 2006 expresses the writer's personal critisism of the concept of the digital native and the digital immigrant. Claiming they are terms that are overused (ALREADY!) to describe something they do not understand or simply to dismiss the behaviour of those who they call digital natives or immigrants.
The page enables users to respond to the article.
Webpage 2:
This page, also from 2006, gives a (VERY!) brief history of the concept of "digital natives/immigrants" and quotes to opposing views on the matter. Sadly, that is all it does.
Webpage 3:
This webpage features a news article from a large British newspaper, also from 2006, explaining the concept itself (by using an example) as well as an example of "the opposite", talks of a "digital divide". Experts involved give their views and the article continues to report on academic research done on the phenomenon. The article concludes with several predictions of future developments of the concept. The article points out that it is not just a case of the age of a person but also their willingness and ability to embrace new technologies. How useful the article is to you depends on your knowledge of the concepts themselves as the article pretty much only covers the basic concepts of digital natives/immigrants themselves, the findings and opinion of experts are only mentioned quite briefly. The article is perfectly useful to give somebody and idea of what digital natives and digital immigrants actually ARE but doesn't seem to go particularly "deep" into the material. However, as it does mention some of these "experts" it could perhaps make it easier to find out more about them elsewhere.
This page, written in the summer of 2006 expresses the writer's personal critisism of the concept of the digital native and the digital immigrant. Claiming they are terms that are overused (ALREADY!) to describe something they do not understand or simply to dismiss the behaviour of those who they call digital natives or immigrants.
The page enables users to respond to the article.
Webpage 2:
This page, also from 2006, gives a (VERY!) brief history of the concept of "digital natives/immigrants" and quotes to opposing views on the matter. Sadly, that is all it does.
Webpage 3:
This webpage features a news article from a large British newspaper, also from 2006, explaining the concept itself (by using an example) as well as an example of "the opposite", talks of a "digital divide". Experts involved give their views and the article continues to report on academic research done on the phenomenon. The article concludes with several predictions of future developments of the concept. The article points out that it is not just a case of the age of a person but also their willingness and ability to embrace new technologies. How useful the article is to you depends on your knowledge of the concepts themselves as the article pretty much only covers the basic concepts of digital natives/immigrants themselves, the findings and opinion of experts are only mentioned quite briefly. The article is perfectly useful to give somebody and idea of what digital natives and digital immigrants actually ARE but doesn't seem to go particularly "deep" into the material. However, as it does mention some of these "experts" it could perhaps make it easier to find out more about them elsewhere.
Friday, 6 March 2009
Week 7: Distance learning: Africa
Education in a Health Disaster – Is eLearning a Solution?
http://www.elearning-africa.com/newsportal/english/news164.php
This article tells about the cholera outbreak in southern Zambia and how E-learning could potentially enable for the educational system to keep going during health disasters like these. These outbreaks obviously result into a wide-spread closure of schools in the area, and outbreaks off this kind have not proven to be particularly uncommon in Zambia.
"The closure of schools has had a negative effect on some exam-sitting pupils who earlier had protested against the government directive to close schools in cholera-affected areas while students in other regions were allowed to keep going to school. The pupils argued that they were all going to write the same exam at the end of the year and that it was not fair for them to stay home while friends in areas unaffected by cholera continued going to school."
Brenda Zulu, the writer of this article, goes on to claim that the Zambian (???) government should, in times like these, provide E-learning alternatives for those pupils who will not be able to attend regular class-sessions because of the health risks and that the country's Ministry of Education prepares themselves for the anual rainy season which traditionally brings not only health problems like these but also other types of disasters, such as floods. She also believes that the community should get prepared to use these other means of education such as E-learning, as, according to her, the country suffers Cholera outbreaks at the beginning of EVERY rainy season, and that therefore it is about time something was done about the way it interupts with pupil's studying, even if it is done by somewhat more "traditional" forms of media, such as Radio & TV, which are both widely available in Zambia.
Prof Thomson Sinkala agrees with her statement and adds that distance learning can also be a tool to educate pupuils and their parents about cholera itself and how to prevent it. He, however, did not think there was one single platform (or ICT tool as the article call them) to distribute the educational content on that is widespread enough to reach all zambians. He suggest teaming up with mobile phone providers as those are quite wide,ly used int he country, followed by Radio & TV broadcasting. He suggests that the government should invest in new technologies more as, (as the article later suggests trhough the words of a 12th grade student) especially younger zambians know how to use technology such as iPods and MP3-players, meaning podcasts could become a considerable option if the right investments are made.
At the moment there is an education radio programme available in Zambia for the lower grades but Brenda suggests that the programme's appeal should be broadened to reach older pupils too. She concludes by saying that, apart from floods and cholera outbreaks other occasional reasons for children to not attend school are strikes, bad weather and political unrest.
It seems weird to me personally that a country which ahs so many different factors that can disrupt its every goings on have shown so little commitment to solutions lik E-learning to at least keep the country's educational system going, especially as the rainy season and the health risks that come with it take place every single year and you would expect a government to take these sort of things into account. I can understand with these other problems, such as strikes an political unrest the government has other things to worry about than just this, but surely the anual cholera-scare is a problem that must've been around for a long time and I would have expected for a government to embrace new possibilities and technologies to solve these problems that have been going for years. Australia have been using distance learning for years, and been embracing available technologies to provide it as soon as they came available to solve their own (somewhat less threatening) problem of people being unnable to attend school so perhaps it actually is all down to the different economic (and political) situation in countries such as Zambia where things like the availability of education for all is "the least of their problems". I guess that this does explain the existence for these International Conferences on ICT for Development, Education & Training that are held in Africa every year as "Distance Learning as a possible solution" just isn't quite as much of a given as it is in economically more developped countries.
http://www.elearning-africa.com/newsportal/english/news164.php
This article tells about the cholera outbreak in southern Zambia and how E-learning could potentially enable for the educational system to keep going during health disasters like these. These outbreaks obviously result into a wide-spread closure of schools in the area, and outbreaks off this kind have not proven to be particularly uncommon in Zambia.
"The closure of schools has had a negative effect on some exam-sitting pupils who earlier had protested against the government directive to close schools in cholera-affected areas while students in other regions were allowed to keep going to school. The pupils argued that they were all going to write the same exam at the end of the year and that it was not fair for them to stay home while friends in areas unaffected by cholera continued going to school."
Brenda Zulu, the writer of this article, goes on to claim that the Zambian (???) government should, in times like these, provide E-learning alternatives for those pupils who will not be able to attend regular class-sessions because of the health risks and that the country's Ministry of Education prepares themselves for the anual rainy season which traditionally brings not only health problems like these but also other types of disasters, such as floods. She also believes that the community should get prepared to use these other means of education such as E-learning, as, according to her, the country suffers Cholera outbreaks at the beginning of EVERY rainy season, and that therefore it is about time something was done about the way it interupts with pupil's studying, even if it is done by somewhat more "traditional" forms of media, such as Radio & TV, which are both widely available in Zambia.
Prof Thomson Sinkala agrees with her statement and adds that distance learning can also be a tool to educate pupuils and their parents about cholera itself and how to prevent it. He, however, did not think there was one single platform (or ICT tool as the article call them) to distribute the educational content on that is widespread enough to reach all zambians. He suggest teaming up with mobile phone providers as those are quite wide,ly used int he country, followed by Radio & TV broadcasting. He suggests that the government should invest in new technologies more as, (as the article later suggests trhough the words of a 12th grade student) especially younger zambians know how to use technology such as iPods and MP3-players, meaning podcasts could become a considerable option if the right investments are made.
At the moment there is an education radio programme available in Zambia for the lower grades but Brenda suggests that the programme's appeal should be broadened to reach older pupils too. She concludes by saying that, apart from floods and cholera outbreaks other occasional reasons for children to not attend school are strikes, bad weather and political unrest.
It seems weird to me personally that a country which ahs so many different factors that can disrupt its every goings on have shown so little commitment to solutions lik E-learning to at least keep the country's educational system going, especially as the rainy season and the health risks that come with it take place every single year and you would expect a government to take these sort of things into account. I can understand with these other problems, such as strikes an political unrest the government has other things to worry about than just this, but surely the anual cholera-scare is a problem that must've been around for a long time and I would have expected for a government to embrace new possibilities and technologies to solve these problems that have been going for years. Australia have been using distance learning for years, and been embracing available technologies to provide it as soon as they came available to solve their own (somewhat less threatening) problem of people being unnable to attend school so perhaps it actually is all down to the different economic (and political) situation in countries such as Zambia where things like the availability of education for all is "the least of their problems". I guess that this does explain the existence for these International Conferences on ICT for Development, Education & Training that are held in Africa every year as "Distance Learning as a possible solution" just isn't quite as much of a given as it is in economically more developped countries.
Week 7: Distance learning: China
China is a biiiiiiiiig nation, and not just big in size, but it is the enormous population of the country that originally called for the need for distance learning platforms in the "now-sort-of-former-communist" country.
In (traditionally capitalist) country's like Australia the distance learning phenomenon had already been widely adopted due to its relatively small population being spread out over quite a large island. Therefore people were not always able to get their children educated in the traditional school-going way.
In the 1960's China adopted a similar system to solve their own problem of having TOO MANY students to educate in the traditional way, but by using distance learning principles on platforms such as radio, television and "microwave" (in the out-of-the-kitchen-sense) it wa spossible to reach a large proportion of the population without having to build traditional schools/universities, thus keeping costs down whilst not compromising on the amount of people being educated. The Television Universities are funded by the State Education Commission and the quite steep tuition fees of the university. Later the broadcasted lectures became also available on audio and video tape and printed material, such as course books and study guides became available.
Over the years these Television Universities have proven to be moderately succesful educational institutions indeed with a range of 150 different undergraduate courses and over half a a million students graduating in th e last 8 years alone. However, I guess it needs pointing out that over 1.2 million people had enrolled in the same timespan, which means that less than half of all students who enrol actually finish their course.
I have a few issues with this educational system, though.
For one thing, not only do a BIG group of people receive exactly the same information in exactly the same way from exactly the same person, maybe not so muhc a problem in communist China, but still, but also is there no ability for students to question what is being taught. In a traditional learning environment there is quite usually a way for students to ask a lecturer "why" this is what they are being taught and are quite often encouraged to give their own ideas and opinions about an issue, after which a lecturer might even admit that the student "has a point" (even if it is quite often followed by "But,..."). If, for a television uni student the only platform they have to give their OWN opinion on something is in their actual assessment they might not feel comfortable enough to be (somewhat) alternative in the way they address issues and just write safer not-quite-as-ground-breaking (?) work instead.
Lateron, the ongoing crtisisism abotu this resulted in the Television University now offering the availability of face to face tutorials, which is all good and all, but it does mean that two of the main advantages of distance learning. One being the cost-saving of needing physical locations for tuitions and secondly availability for all as some of the students simply would not be able to attend a face-to-face tuition. This way not all students can receive the same level of tuition. Avilability for all is a bit of a weird concept to use in a country like China anyway, where wealth isn't exactly wide-spread and the courses given by the Television Uni's aren't exactly cheap. So basically University is still as elitist in China as it is in many other countries.
In (traditionally capitalist) country's like Australia the distance learning phenomenon had already been widely adopted due to its relatively small population being spread out over quite a large island. Therefore people were not always able to get their children educated in the traditional school-going way.
In the 1960's China adopted a similar system to solve their own problem of having TOO MANY students to educate in the traditional way, but by using distance learning principles on platforms such as radio, television and "microwave" (in the out-of-the-kitchen-sense) it wa spossible to reach a large proportion of the population without having to build traditional schools/universities, thus keeping costs down whilst not compromising on the amount of people being educated. The Television Universities are funded by the State Education Commission and the quite steep tuition fees of the university. Later the broadcasted lectures became also available on audio and video tape and printed material, such as course books and study guides became available.
Over the years these Television Universities have proven to be moderately succesful educational institutions indeed with a range of 150 different undergraduate courses and over half a a million students graduating in th e last 8 years alone. However, I guess it needs pointing out that over 1.2 million people had enrolled in the same timespan, which means that less than half of all students who enrol actually finish their course.
I have a few issues with this educational system, though.
For one thing, not only do a BIG group of people receive exactly the same information in exactly the same way from exactly the same person, maybe not so muhc a problem in communist China, but still, but also is there no ability for students to question what is being taught. In a traditional learning environment there is quite usually a way for students to ask a lecturer "why" this is what they are being taught and are quite often encouraged to give their own ideas and opinions about an issue, after which a lecturer might even admit that the student "has a point" (even if it is quite often followed by "But,..."). If, for a television uni student the only platform they have to give their OWN opinion on something is in their actual assessment they might not feel comfortable enough to be (somewhat) alternative in the way they address issues and just write safer not-quite-as-ground-breaking (?) work instead.
Lateron, the ongoing crtisisism abotu this resulted in the Television University now offering the availability of face to face tutorials, which is all good and all, but it does mean that two of the main advantages of distance learning. One being the cost-saving of needing physical locations for tuitions and secondly availability for all as some of the students simply would not be able to attend a face-to-face tuition. This way not all students can receive the same level of tuition. Avilability for all is a bit of a weird concept to use in a country like China anyway, where wealth isn't exactly wide-spread and the courses given by the Television Uni's aren't exactly cheap. So basically University is still as elitist in China as it is in many other countries.
Tuesday, 3 March 2009
Week 7: Distance learning: The LOI (The Netherlands)
The LOI (Leidse Onderwijs Instellingen > Leiden-based Educational Institutions) is a privately owned educational institute providing distant-learning only. I feel it needs pointing out that the city of Leiden is home of the prestigious Univerity of Leiden (www.leiden.edu) and that therefore the name of the city is usually associated with higher education. The LOI always put great emphasis on the fact that they're from Leiden in their promotional campaigns, however, the LOI have nothing to do with the university, which is one of the oldest universities in the country.The origins of the LOI lie within the city's "Institute of Trade Sciences". In 1923 this institute started doing their first (postal) distance-learning programme: a course in book-keeping. Ove the years the the institute has started running several other courses and in 1941 (So, surprisingly, in war time) the institute teamed up with a number of Leiden-based colleges to run distant-learning courses on their behalf, all under the LOI-banner.
In 1953 the LOI started providing audio-based language courses (on good old fashioned casettes) and in 1988 the LOI started experimenting with something called "digimail", a computer-based form of distance-learning, the technology of which seemed to be quite similar to what we would later become familiar with under the name E-mail. In 1996 the LOI introduced what they called the "LOI campus", an online, web-based learning environment. Originally the campus provided only written lectures, later video-lectures (some also streamed live) and downloadable audio-lectures became available. Since 2001 most of the courses are almost completely web-based with lectures ebing given through audio, video and text, seminars taking place in forums and online audio/video conferences and most assessments being submitted online. The LOI provides students with their own personal tutor (or I-coahc, as they like to call them) with whom they keep in contact through both email as well as instant messenging.
In 2002 the LOI started doing a small number of full university degrees, completely through distance learning, which up until then these were only provided by the Open Universiteit (Obviously the Dutch equivalent of the Open Univerity). The two however are not really in competition though, as these two distant-learning giants provide different degree courses. The reason for this is probably because the LOI would find it hard to compete with the lower tuition fees of the government funded Open Universiteit. Nonetheless, the LOI-brand has pretty much become synonym with distance-learning in the Netherlands and some of the open university's online services are clearly inspired by the LOI's online campus.
Friday, 27 February 2009
Community of practice
A community of practice is the process where a group of individuals come together and learn from eachother because they have similar, or,the same, goals. They interact together as they aim to reach these goals.
An example of this could be a facebook discussion group of people who are all struggling with the same unit at uni. They could support and interact with each other to help eachother out to reach the shared goal of passing the unit, something they might not have been able to without eachother's help within the CofP.
CofP's are born out of these common goals and the desire of all members to succes at achieving them and are not set up by some greater authority. In this example, the CofP is not a form of support provided by the university of any other support-institution, it has spontaniously come to exist out of the members' desire to succeed.
The forum on this unit COULD be seen as a CofP, however it HAS been set up by the university. The discussion groups on this specific unit that are going on Facebook and similar platforms, however, have spontaniously come to exist due to interaction between students with the same problems and aims.
An example of this could be a facebook discussion group of people who are all struggling with the same unit at uni. They could support and interact with each other to help eachother out to reach the shared goal of passing the unit, something they might not have been able to without eachother's help within the CofP.
CofP's are born out of these common goals and the desire of all members to succes at achieving them and are not set up by some greater authority. In this example, the CofP is not a form of support provided by the university of any other support-institution, it has spontaniously come to exist out of the members' desire to succeed.
The forum on this unit COULD be seen as a CofP, however it HAS been set up by the university. The discussion groups on this specific unit that are going on Facebook and similar platforms, however, have spontaniously come to exist due to interaction between students with the same problems and aims.
Thursday, 26 February 2009
Website analysis: NME.COM
a)HOW IS YOUR CHOSEN SITE STRUCTURED?
The website (which also comes in a USA-version which uses the same layout) uses a horizontal row of hyperlinks to the different sections of the website, some of these sections feature a 2nd row of hyperlinks underneath this navigation-bar that link to even more specific sub-sections.
Just above the main navigation bar we find the date, a link to the US-version of the website and a search field that allows users to search either the website or the web in general. The Op left is reserved for the (recognised) NME logo (Top-left is the first thing you see, after all) and the top right is filled by an ad-banner. The navigation bar helps users find what they want from the website fairly quickly, after all the whole point of hypertext is that it's selective, non-linear and enabling users to just go for the part that serve their needs without having to work their way though stuff they're not interested in.
The font page of NME.com features the latest updates from each section of the website, so the latest added news stories, the latest photos and videos added, the latest features, reviews, concerts announcements, blog-entries, etc. The front page also enables the user to log in (or sign up to) a SNS-type service called MyNME.
The bottom of the page features another navigation area, repeating the links in the top bar but also links to other websites run by the same publisher and to NME’s profiles on Myspace, Facebook, Twitter & Youtube.
These top and bottom navigation areas are the same on practically all pages of the website due to the use of a web-template. NME is a dynamic website as opposed to a static one as the website’s content is constantly updated.
b) WHAT IS IT ABOUT ON A CULTURAL LEVEL
The NME website clearly relies on the reputation, public image and heritage of the NME magazine. However, the website doesn't simply present itself as the web-presence of the magazine, but as the online home of NME as an institution in general. The publisher seems to be eager to expand the NME brand's values and reputation to mediums other than the magazine itself seeing as in recent years they have also launched an NME radio station and NME Television channel (both featured on the website with NME Radio being available online aswel). I would argue that this way they want to make the NME synonym with the type of music (alternative/indie) and associated culture it deals with. Obviously, the readers of the magazine and those familiar with the brand and familiar with the music and culture associated with it would be interested in the website and they appear to be the website's target audience. Young, somewhat well-educated, predominantly male. It uses the norms of the indie-culture and adresses the user appropiately, using somewhat specialist terms where required and expecting the user to know what they mean, thus expecting the users to have some basic knowledge about the subject. (Could be seen as a mild example of boundary maintenance? The process of keeping “those who don't belong in this group” out by using specialist terms they will not get. What do people think?)
Despite presenting itself as a somewhat “alternative” platform, the increase in interest from the general public in the indie genre means that it is now quite a lucrative business. And despite this “facade” it doesn't manage to hide the fact that it is in fact a commercial website. Not only NME's co-operation with other brands such as Shockwaves (for the awards) and quite often co-operating with music retailer HMV make this clear but the website also features quite a large amount of advertisments, some slightly more covert than others. For example, the 'store'-link in the top navigation bar appears to take the user to a sub-section of the nme.com but is actually hyperlink directly to a completely different website, an online shop. Also, an important feature of the website is the online concert-ticket store, which is featured not only in the “gigs & tickets” section of the navigation bar but is even featured on the front page. The “check availability” links in their own turn then take you directly to another website that sells concert tickets online, no doubt paying a commission to NME's publishers IPC Media. It is a clever way of making use of the way the NME brand has become associated with the musical genre itself. You can easily imagine somebody typing NME into google to find out where to get concert tickets to see their favourite band.
c)WHAT IS THE APPEAL FOR ITS USERS?
Obviously, because the website's brand and its particular subject seem so very much associated with each other it is an obvious starting point for those who are interested in the music and culture it deals with, but also for those who wish to find out more about it. The news stories on the website, which is solely related to indie music and associated popular culture and written by members of a dedication website-team, can be commented on by users, but no stories can be submitted so the website isn't an 'open' news source. A traditional news source instead then, which seems to be in line with the way IPC/NME aspire to display NME as the country's main media institution when it comes to indie/alternative popular culture. This will probably make the user, who is familiar with NME's reputation, think of the website as a reliable news source about the subject that can be trusted. But surely IPC/NME's commercial means must influence the site's news values and the way it applies gate-keeping when selecting which stories are covered (and how).
The website also offers a social networking type area where users can set up their own profiles, private message and discuss related subjects in the discussion forums provided, all this does seem to produce a type of online indie-community where the users can discuss aspects of it that may be too niche or specialist to be discussed on other more general music websites, even if the website is ultimately run by IPC Media/NME for commercial purposes. So I would imagine it could be assumed that the online community doesn't provide complete openness and freedom to the user.
Sadly Sadly SADLY, due to a fault in the website's system, I could not finish the registration-process in order to check out this interactive part of the website myself. I have been trying for several weeks now and even e-mailed the web team about it but it still doesn't seem to be working. Surely they must notice at some point that they don't have any new users registering to their website? Hmm.
Friday, 20 February 2009
Week 5: Produser/Produsage/Intercreativity
A) What do you understand by the words ‘produser’, ‘produsage’, and ‘intercreativity’? Are they useful in understanding collaborative creation of content online?
The term produser is a term that has come up in lectures and readings a lot in this unit so far, it basically showcases the way in which everybody who is a user on the internet is potentially a produser of content aswel. Intercreativity could be described as podusers publishing their own creative output which other produsers can then alter/add to freely as long as thier version of the output is thenstill freely available to be edited by other produsers. This "open source" principle is, for example, used by different types of software, Firefox being one of the most well-known examples. (I am actually being terribly "open-source" at the moment as I'm doing this blogging in Firefox on a Linux-PC while playing some music in Songbird, wow!)
b) p. 4 When collaborative sites have moderation functions to prevent a ‘free for all’, does this defeat the purpose?
Well, in a way, it does go against the basic principle of free-for-all podusing, but at the same time keeps the process running in a way that enables produserage (???) to last as otherwise it'd get too messy and unable to "compete" with traditional "institutional" creative conent.
The term produser is a term that has come up in lectures and readings a lot in this unit so far, it basically showcases the way in which everybody who is a user on the internet is potentially a produser of content aswel. Intercreativity could be described as podusers publishing their own creative output which other produsers can then alter/add to freely as long as thier version of the output is thenstill freely available to be edited by other produsers. This "open source" principle is, for example, used by different types of software, Firefox being one of the most well-known examples. (I am actually being terribly "open-source" at the moment as I'm doing this blogging in Firefox on a Linux-PC while playing some music in Songbird, wow!)
b) p. 4 When collaborative sites have moderation functions to prevent a ‘free for all’, does this defeat the purpose?
Well, in a way, it does go against the basic principle of free-for-all podusing, but at the same time keeps the process running in a way that enables produserage (???) to last as otherwise it'd get too messy and unable to "compete" with traditional "institutional" creative conent.
Monday, 16 February 2009
Week 5 | Meikle: Indymedia and The New Net News
Para. 7-9 What do you think constitutes ‘news’ on the Web?
Well, the article claims that the internet “has led to a shift in how we recontextualise news around a much larger search for information”. I think the jist of this phenomenon is that the internet has significantly removed the "authority" of news services. Whilst before the audience would mainly use one source for their news-imput for different types of media (reading ONE newspaper and/or watching ONE TV news bulletin) the internet makes it very simple to look at different news sources and select the news stories they find interesting (and often click on those for a more in-depth analysis of the story) Also, news sources other than big established agencies can run news-services online. And, as I have said abut a lot of things on the internet, they can often report about news on very specific interests and for very specific communities. However, not all of the news sources online are reliable, in fact, ever idiot can start a website and declare themselves a news source. But following a combination of both types of news sources could be a good idea: using the open news sources to find out the latest events and checking the established (quality checked) news sources later to confirm their reliability.
Para 9 Are there ‘new kinds of journalist’ online? If so, how so?
I guess by new kinds of journalists we could mostly think about those who post on "open" news sources like Indymedia where, according to their website, anyone can post news stories and news-media:
"The content of the Indymedia UK website is created through a system of open publishing: anyone can upload a written, audio and video report or a picture directly to the site through an openly accessible web interface. Through this system of 'Direct Media', Indymedia erodes the dividing line between reporters and reported, between active producers and passive audience: people are enabled to speak for themselves. At bigger actions, Indymedia UK volunteers extend this participatory model by establishing 'Public Access Terminals' on the streets, and facilitating direct access to the technical equipment that enables participants to upload to the website."
Well, the article claims that the internet “has led to a shift in how we recontextualise news around a much larger search for information”. I think the jist of this phenomenon is that the internet has significantly removed the "authority" of news services. Whilst before the audience would mainly use one source for their news-imput for different types of media (reading ONE newspaper and/or watching ONE TV news bulletin) the internet makes it very simple to look at different news sources and select the news stories they find interesting (and often click on those for a more in-depth analysis of the story) Also, news sources other than big established agencies can run news-services online. And, as I have said abut a lot of things on the internet, they can often report about news on very specific interests and for very specific communities. However, not all of the news sources online are reliable, in fact, ever idiot can start a website and declare themselves a news source. But following a combination of both types of news sources could be a good idea: using the open news sources to find out the latest events and checking the established (quality checked) news sources later to confirm their reliability.
Para 9 Are there ‘new kinds of journalist’ online? If so, how so?
I guess by new kinds of journalists we could mostly think about those who post on "open" news sources like Indymedia where, according to their website, anyone can post news stories and news-media:
"The content of the Indymedia UK website is created through a system of open publishing: anyone can upload a written, audio and video report or a picture directly to the site through an openly accessible web interface. Through this system of 'Direct Media', Indymedia erodes the dividing line between reporters and reported, between active producers and passive audience: people are enabled to speak for themselves. At bigger actions, Indymedia UK volunteers extend this participatory model by establishing 'Public Access Terminals' on the streets, and facilitating direct access to the technical equipment that enables participants to upload to the website."
However, obviously, in a similar way as WIkipedia, nobody "owns" the content, but that also means that , really, there is nobody responsible for it, or it's genuinity. Anonymous posting of articles means that the produser's actions have no consequences for them. Therefore, I'd say that websites like Indymedia is a good way to get an idea of what is happening, but not to take anything for fact unless it has been confirmed by professional sources in a similar way in which Wikipedia is good to get "the jist" about something but relibale sources need to be checked before what WIkipedia states is in fact true.
Paras 14-15 Are those who want to make DIY news online, best thought of as part of an alternative culture (that also exists offline) or is it more diverse than that? Think of examples beyond Indymedia.
In all honestly I am somewhat struggling with this one, but I'll have a go at it. I think that news concerning news coverage on alternative (small) cultures is often going to mostly be covered by DIY (open) news sources simply because the stories are too specificaly bound to an area of interest to get the attention of larger news sources. Also, a small open news-platform specific to a culture or interest can set up their own set of news values that are suitable for the culture or interest/perspective it covers. I don't think it is solely bound to offline-cultures or even alternative cultures persé, as some open news sources do cover "general" news stores aswel (be it from a specific point of view) but particular alternative cultures can make good use of the open-news formula, after all, what is the point of being alternative bybeing a DIY news source if you don't bring a certain specific point-of-view or directness to the story, there isn't much that makes it different from other (so-called professional) news sources.
d) Para 18 Is open news quality news?
Well, it can be, there is just hardly any way of checking it. Therefore it's hard to tell whether or not something is or isn't a non-biased report and what the intentions of the DIY journalist were when they wrote it (and how much research actually went into writing it.) The changes in the formula of the website in 2002 do show the institution's own doubt of the quality-value of open-news though, as now stories that make the front page were selected to do so rather than just wacked onthere.
e) Para 19 Can open news ever be completely open? Do people take different (possibly unequal) roles in collaboration?
I can't ever see open publishing being completely open, as not all web-users can be trusted the websites do need constant checking and moderating. Anyone can contribute but different websites will always have their own rules, regulations and discourses on what is and what isn't considered suitable material to be on their website. For example, Indymedia themselves in their mission statement:
We aim to live up to the following principles:
-Indymedia United Kollektives works on a non-hierarchical basis
-we reject all systems of domination and discrimination
-we acknowledge that the struggle for a better world takes many forms.
-The focus of the Indymedia UK collective is on grassroots politics, actions and campaigns
-Indymedia United Kollektives does not have any ties with political parties or larger NGOs
-we understand that by lobbying there will be no radical change.
-As a collective our attitude is assertive, and where necessary confrontational
Discrimination is considered a big no-no, understandibly, and so is Indymedia not beig affiliated with any political parties, but it IS an ideology that it is not acceptable all the same. Also, how can you even check a produser's own ideologies and point-of-view and what exactly ARE the parameters of an unacceptible article (other than these two extreme examples)? Surely, it can't always be that simple to say what is own opinion and iseologies aren't always that easy to spot. Furthermore, where does moderating end and freedom of speech start?
Hmmmm, loads of stuff to think about here.
Friday, 13 February 2009
Week 4 | Topic 1: Lister
What do you think of the notion that online community can be empowering/disempowering?
I think you could argue in favour of both of these standpoints really. Yes, it does enable people with a specific interest, or specific lifestyle for that matter, with a community where they can freely express themselves, something they wouldn't be able to otherwise. Empowering. However, on the other hand I would argue that at the same time it takes away the need for them to learn how to fit these ideologies and interests into society in general and could even affect their sense of what is and what isn't socially acceptable in general everyday life. Disempowering.
So basically it enables them to not always have to conform to "the norm" while at the same time it might cause them to lose touch of what this norm actually is.
Does the Net provide a ‘public sphere’ where citizens can engage with each other? If so, how, and are there any limitations?
Urm, yes. Everything that occurs and then gets discussed enters "the public sphere" I would think. Specific topics in specific online communities, unless it's things that affect almost every one of us which then end up being discussed everywhere, BUT from the community's own perspective. (E.G. Music forum PopJsutice's users are discussing the demise of physical music stores and if the credit crunch is affecting how likely they are to download illegally while on TVforum the effects of the credit crunch on the budgets of original television programming is discussed.)
Yes, it is still a very closed network of communities, but then again, the original concept of the "public sphere" took place in elitist "coffee houses". So yes, it is still a closed group discussing matters in the publ;ic sphere, but at least now it's all of us who have access to our own "public spheres" of our choice.
To what extent are ‘dangerous materials’ prominent on the Internet (or ‘junk and jerks’ as Kollock put it)? What do their existence mean in terms of the ‘freedoms’ the Net allows? Is freedom always positive?
Well, the question whether or not freedom is always positive may be a bit much to just ask onhere, but I guess it CAN be said that the negative aspects of freedom (the junks and jerks) are an unevitible side-effect of total freedom in any context. Yes, the internet allows freedom of speach more than any other place but thse niche points that re made on the net may indeed well be hateful, racist or frowned upon for any iother reason. The Junks and Jerks that like to "set the cat amongst the pigeons" by making exptreme statements in other, normally peaceful, communities is something that doesn't just happen online, but the internet and the way you can adapt your own cutom-made identity do make it much easier.
To what extent can ‘ordinary’ Net users become producers of culture, rather than people who ‘respond’ to culture supplied for them?
I think we all knows the stories about bands being pciked up by record labels after A&R bigwigs heard their music on Myspace. And yes, Myspace Music is a good example of a website where the suers become the producers of culture. The same goes for Youtube, where lots of people upload their own short films and other artistic projects.
It has now reached the point where internet services are even completely undermining the role of the big record and film publishing companies:
I think you could argue in favour of both of these standpoints really. Yes, it does enable people with a specific interest, or specific lifestyle for that matter, with a community where they can freely express themselves, something they wouldn't be able to otherwise. Empowering. However, on the other hand I would argue that at the same time it takes away the need for them to learn how to fit these ideologies and interests into society in general and could even affect their sense of what is and what isn't socially acceptable in general everyday life. Disempowering.
So basically it enables them to not always have to conform to "the norm" while at the same time it might cause them to lose touch of what this norm actually is.
Does the Net provide a ‘public sphere’ where citizens can engage with each other? If so, how, and are there any limitations?
Urm, yes. Everything that occurs and then gets discussed enters "the public sphere" I would think. Specific topics in specific online communities, unless it's things that affect almost every one of us which then end up being discussed everywhere, BUT from the community's own perspective. (E.G. Music forum PopJsutice's users are discussing the demise of physical music stores and if the credit crunch is affecting how likely they are to download illegally while on TVforum the effects of the credit crunch on the budgets of original television programming is discussed.)
Yes, it is still a very closed network of communities, but then again, the original concept of the "public sphere" took place in elitist "coffee houses". So yes, it is still a closed group discussing matters in the publ;ic sphere, but at least now it's all of us who have access to our own "public spheres" of our choice.
To what extent are ‘dangerous materials’ prominent on the Internet (or ‘junk and jerks’ as Kollock put it)? What do their existence mean in terms of the ‘freedoms’ the Net allows? Is freedom always positive?
Well, the question whether or not freedom is always positive may be a bit much to just ask onhere, but I guess it CAN be said that the negative aspects of freedom (the junks and jerks) are an unevitible side-effect of total freedom in any context. Yes, the internet allows freedom of speach more than any other place but thse niche points that re made on the net may indeed well be hateful, racist or frowned upon for any iother reason. The Junks and Jerks that like to "set the cat amongst the pigeons" by making exptreme statements in other, normally peaceful, communities is something that doesn't just happen online, but the internet and the way you can adapt your own cutom-made identity do make it much easier.
To what extent can ‘ordinary’ Net users become producers of culture, rather than people who ‘respond’ to culture supplied for them?
I think we all knows the stories about bands being pciked up by record labels after A&R bigwigs heard their music on Myspace. And yes, Myspace Music is a good example of a website where the suers become the producers of culture. The same goes for Youtube, where lots of people upload their own short films and other artistic projects.
It has now reached the point where internet services are even completely undermining the role of the big record and film publishing companies:
Reading week 4 | Visionary communities
CHAPTER 3.6: Visionary communities
On page 173 the book discusses the summary of (somewheat pro-technologic) claims from Jones (1994:26) that computer mediated communications will:
1. Create opportunities for education and learning.
Well yeah, I can see what point is being made here and yes, even though this book was written WAY before technology of this kind made it to the classroom Jones was right in suggesting that CMC was a good platform to use for educational purposes. It has become one of the main forms of communication in higher education, for example, on our course e-mail has become the main way to contact lecturers outside of lectures and seminars. Or, a more intense example: this very unit which is, bar the weekly lecture, completely internet-based.
2. Create new opportunities for participatory democracy.
It seems that democracy, and voting particularly, is still a bit of a non-mover. Several countries are doing tests with online-voting (I once participated in a test-session like that in the NL myself, gotta love dual citizenship!) but hasn't become the norm anywhere as yet. However, the internet IS a popular platform for campaigning and expressing political views and agenda's. Including those that not normally would have been published in any other type of media due to the small scale or individualist character of them.
3. Establish countercultures on an unprecedented scale.
Yes, it does, but, like I mentioned before, it enables these different counter-cultural norms of behaviour within a specific, smaller online community. A sub-culture is still a sub-culture, even online, the main difference is is that CMC makes subculture a lot more accesible for those interested.
4. Ensnarl already difficult legal matters concerning privacy, copyright and ethics.
I Jones by this means what I think he means then yes, people are more like to entangle themselves in these matters. And indeed, not exactly making them any easier, but at least people get actively involved with these matters rather than just following the norm entirely.
5. Restructure man/machine interaction.
Well, I suppose. We have become more dependent of machines, that's one thing that's for sure, seeing as we rely on it to communicate to others. But still, it's the other produser that's interacting with us though these technologies. It's not the actual machine, so... Not really.
On page 173 the book discusses the summary of (somewheat pro-technologic) claims from Jones (1994:26) that computer mediated communications will:
1. Create opportunities for education and learning.
Well yeah, I can see what point is being made here and yes, even though this book was written WAY before technology of this kind made it to the classroom Jones was right in suggesting that CMC was a good platform to use for educational purposes. It has become one of the main forms of communication in higher education, for example, on our course e-mail has become the main way to contact lecturers outside of lectures and seminars. Or, a more intense example: this very unit which is, bar the weekly lecture, completely internet-based.
2. Create new opportunities for participatory democracy.
It seems that democracy, and voting particularly, is still a bit of a non-mover. Several countries are doing tests with online-voting (I once participated in a test-session like that in the NL myself, gotta love dual citizenship!) but hasn't become the norm anywhere as yet. However, the internet IS a popular platform for campaigning and expressing political views and agenda's. Including those that not normally would have been published in any other type of media due to the small scale or individualist character of them.
3. Establish countercultures on an unprecedented scale.
Yes, it does, but, like I mentioned before, it enables these different counter-cultural norms of behaviour within a specific, smaller online community. A sub-culture is still a sub-culture, even online, the main difference is is that CMC makes subculture a lot more accesible for those interested.
4. Ensnarl already difficult legal matters concerning privacy, copyright and ethics.
I Jones by this means what I think he means then yes, people are more like to entangle themselves in these matters. And indeed, not exactly making them any easier, but at least people get actively involved with these matters rather than just following the norm entirely.
5. Restructure man/machine interaction.
Well, I suppose. We have become more dependent of machines, that's one thing that's for sure, seeing as we rely on it to communicate to others. But still, it's the other produser that's interacting with us though these technologies. It's not the actual machine, so... Not really.
Thursday, 12 February 2009
Reading week 4 | Networks & communities
CHAPTER 3.5: NETWORKS AND COMMUNITIES
This sub-chapter summarises different theorist's views on Computer-mediated communication (CMC), and suggests that most of these different arguments are based around the notion of "community". Even though they might not even entirely agree on what the term community actually means exactly.
One of the first points of views that is mentioned "...an antidote to the social fragmentation of contemporary life" [p. 172] (which funnily enough doesn't get referenced by the author) is one that I find a particularly interesting one as it somehow inplies that the social fragmentation in real life is something that happens completely seperate from the influence of online communities. Also, surely, the niche nature of many online communities which I mentioned on the blog before SURELY enables for fragmentation of social relations more than anything.
"Computer mediated communications, it seems, will do by way of electronic pathways what cement roads were enable to do, nomely connectus rather than atomise us, put us at the controls of a 'vehicle' and yet not detachus from the restof the world." (Jones: 1994: 10)
Although I can deffinitely see the point Jones is making here, being part of the greater "world" without giving up the sens of individual choice that the internet brings, I personally would argue that the sense of individual choice and the way you can easily avoid certain aspects of the "greater" community easily make that people do all go seperate ways.
Yes, you CAN go different individual ways and still be connected with everyone, for example by using big general-public orientated services like Facebook, but there is nothing stopping you from JUST being part of niche and interest-specific online communities (sometimes even based on actual real-life minorities, for example "the well") and therefore losing touch with "the rest of the world".
This sub-chapter summarises different theorist's views on Computer-mediated communication (CMC), and suggests that most of these different arguments are based around the notion of "community". Even though they might not even entirely agree on what the term community actually means exactly.
One of the first points of views that is mentioned "...an antidote to the social fragmentation of contemporary life" [p. 172] (which funnily enough doesn't get referenced by the author) is one that I find a particularly interesting one as it somehow inplies that the social fragmentation in real life is something that happens completely seperate from the influence of online communities. Also, surely, the niche nature of many online communities which I mentioned on the blog before SURELY enables for fragmentation of social relations more than anything.
"Computer mediated communications, it seems, will do by way of electronic pathways what cement roads were enable to do, nomely connectus rather than atomise us, put us at the controls of a 'vehicle' and yet not detachus from the restof the world." (Jones: 1994: 10)
Although I can deffinitely see the point Jones is making here, being part of the greater "world" without giving up the sens of individual choice that the internet brings, I personally would argue that the sense of individual choice and the way you can easily avoid certain aspects of the "greater" community easily make that people do all go seperate ways.
Yes, you CAN go different individual ways and still be connected with everyone, for example by using big general-public orientated services like Facebook, but there is nothing stopping you from JUST being part of niche and interest-specific online communities (sometimes even based on actual real-life minorities, for example "the well"
Friday, 6 February 2009
Week3 | Topic 1
In what ways can the Net be thought of as an ‘open architecture?’
I think the term Open Architecture is synonym for the way in which "produsers" can design and build a world/environment around themselves. It is their own decision what online communities and activities they engage in and how they customise it by who they talk to and can pick & mix online services to form a set of online platforms that are suitable in respect with the online "world" they want to live in. To be honest, I had some trouble with trying to understand the concept of Open Architecture, but this is pretty much how I understood it.
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?
I think a lot of the things I said for task two need to be taken in consideration when answering this. I think the tendency of people to assume an alternative online persona does depends on the platform/service it is on. Web forums and online communities can make it very easy for produsers to play around with their identity and if it doesn't work out or they end up ebing hated by other users there is always a hundred million other places where they can play around with new characteristics. I guess this brings back the whole ethical debate again, and different analists have had very different views as of wether or not this is a possitive or negative thing. Some would think it is just a harmless phenomenon, others reckon it might not be entirely free of side-effects as it does not provide certain parts of "actual" identities have like social struggle as the niche communities on the web do not come with the prejudes and dominant ideologies that mainstream society does have. Also, produsers can get their own adopted new identity wrong by basing it entirely on stereotypes, thus confirming them.
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?
I believe the book suggests that, even though the internet is the same for everyone, the produser's real-life background does affect their behaviour online as they have still been raised with the same ideologies. It is very similar to one of the things that was described in the Living Culture unit last semester. I, annoyingly, cannot think of the right term now but it was about people, no matter how much their financial status has changed, they will still have the same tastes and ideologies. I'll look up what it's actually called in my notes from last semester. (Might take a while to find it, though!)
Do cyberidentities constitute an alternative to ‘normal social reality’?
I suppose it can be seen as a way to escape everyday reality and, indeed, try out different identities or a different side of your identity that isn't as accepted in real life as it might be in a niche online community. That way it could be a way off expressing things you can't express elsewhere. So in that sense I agree that they are an alternative to "normal social reality" as they have different ideologies and are therefore different from the usdual everyday 'norm'.
Are online relationships the same as offline ones?
It really depends on who the relationship is with and where the 'online relationship' takes place. On niche web-forums the changed standards would affect the type of relationship two produsers have, especially if the two don't know eachother in the outside world. But, like on facebook, one-to-one conversations can take place between people who see eachother all the time, and I guess that doesn't change the relationship between them.
I think the term Open Architecture is synonym for the way in which "produsers" can design and build a world/environment around themselves. It is their own decision what online communities and activities they engage in and how they customise it by who they talk to and can pick & mix online services to form a set of online platforms that are suitable in respect with the online "world" they want to live in. To be honest, I had some trouble with trying to understand the concept of Open Architecture, but this is pretty much how I understood it.
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?
I think a lot of the things I said for task two need to be taken in consideration when answering this. I think the tendency of people to assume an alternative online persona does depends on the platform/service it is on. Web forums and online communities can make it very easy for produsers to play around with their identity and if it doesn't work out or they end up ebing hated by other users there is always a hundred million other places where they can play around with new characteristics. I guess this brings back the whole ethical debate again, and different analists have had very different views as of wether or not this is a possitive or negative thing. Some would think it is just a harmless phenomenon, others reckon it might not be entirely free of side-effects as it does not provide certain parts of "actual" identities have like social struggle as the niche communities on the web do not come with the prejudes and dominant ideologies that mainstream society does have. Also, produsers can get their own adopted new identity wrong by basing it entirely on stereotypes, thus confirming them.
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?
I believe the book suggests that, even though the internet is the same for everyone, the produser's real-life background does affect their behaviour online as they have still been raised with the same ideologies. It is very similar to one of the things that was described in the Living Culture unit last semester. I, annoyingly, cannot think of the right term now but it was about people, no matter how much their financial status has changed, they will still have the same tastes and ideologies. I'll look up what it's actually called in my notes from last semester. (Might take a while to find it, though!)
Do cyberidentities constitute an alternative to ‘normal social reality’?
I suppose it can be seen as a way to escape everyday reality and, indeed, try out different identities or a different side of your identity that isn't as accepted in real life as it might be in a niche online community. That way it could be a way off expressing things you can't express elsewhere. So in that sense I agree that they are an alternative to "normal social reality" as they have different ideologies and are therefore different from the usdual everyday 'norm'.
Are online relationships the same as offline ones?
It really depends on who the relationship is with and where the 'online relationship' takes place. On niche web-forums the changed standards would affect the type of relationship two produsers have, especially if the two don't know eachother in the outside world. But, like on facebook, one-to-one conversations can take place between people who see eachother all the time, and I guess that doesn't change the relationship between them.
Week 3 | Topic 2 | Question A
Is withholding one’s identity ethically wrong?
I think this depends entirely on the website or other internet-service used. A really basic example can be given by comparing the two most popular social networking websites. Rivals they may be, but the social discourse and expectations of how people represent themselves is totally different. Facebook on the one hand expects users to use their real name, upload ONLY pictures of themselves, and communicate with people in their actual lives/environment, for example by using networks based on employers or educational institution which you can only join if you can proof that you are part of this "group". So Facebook is more a tool to contact people you actually know rather than a place to meet people. Myspace, on the other hand, is more about customising a page very much and creating an online persona that is perhaps only remotely related to you real-life identity. Myspace actually is more about meeting people based on similar interests like music and things like that. For example, my own Myspace page only passingly mentions that my name is Frank (http://www.myspace.com/fbcnl)
Not normally a problem at all, users of the respective websites know what to expect from other users onthere, but it WOULD be (ethically?) wrong to use Facebook like Myspace and think of a vaux identity onthere as people will expect you to be yourself.
More examples would be Role Playing Games and chatboxes. Role playing games (MUD's, MOO's, World of Warcraft and so on) are all about constructing a custom-made identity, and other users knwo this. In chatboxes (still depending on the theme though, but i'm generalising here to make my point) people may expect you to be yourself and if they are, it could be considered wrong if you pretend to be somebody you're not. Especially if you are doing this in order to gain people's trust/information or God knows what else.
I think this depends entirely on the website or other internet-service used. A really basic example can be given by comparing the two most popular social networking websites. Rivals they may be, but the social discourse and expectations of how people represent themselves is totally different. Facebook on the one hand expects users to use their real name, upload ONLY pictures of themselves, and communicate with people in their actual lives/environment, for example by using networks based on employers or educational institution which you can only join if you can proof that you are part of this "group". So Facebook is more a tool to contact people you actually know rather than a place to meet people. Myspace, on the other hand, is more about customising a page very much and creating an online persona that is perhaps only remotely related to you real-life identity. Myspace actually is more about meeting people based on similar interests like music and things like that. For example, my own Myspace page only passingly mentions that my name is Frank (http://www.myspace.com/fbcnl)
Not normally a problem at all, users of the respective websites know what to expect from other users onthere, but it WOULD be (ethically?) wrong to use Facebook like Myspace and think of a vaux identity onthere as people will expect you to be yourself.
More examples would be Role Playing Games and chatboxes. Role playing games (MUD's, MOO's, World of Warcraft and so on) are all about constructing a custom-made identity, and other users knwo this. In chatboxes (still depending on the theme though, but i'm generalising here to make my point) people may expect you to be yourself and if they are, it could be considered wrong if you pretend to be somebody you're not. Especially if you are doing this in order to gain people's trust/information or God knows what else.
Friday, 30 January 2009
Week 2: Topic 2 | Blogs
NAVIGATION | Navigation around the blogs is quite easy, especially since I already had experience with Blogger in particular. It easy to keep track of new posts on blogs of your peers, making it easy to respond to each other's posts. Also, the actual posting-part of the website works very intuitive and is easy to use.
EXPRESSION | Well, originally the essence of blogging is publishing your thoughts and musings to the world, and it is noticeable how blogger is clearly designed to make it as easy as possible but at the same time enables more advanced functions like HTML-support and custom layouts for those "in the know".
In this case it works very well as it enables us to put our different findings in different posts and make it easy for people to find similar posts by using tags.
INTERACTION | It's nice to have an on-the-spot comment-option here on blogger enabling people to comment immediately after reading the post without having to go elsewhere. Hopefully over the next few weeks the blogs will become a places of in-depth discussion and fiery debates! It's a nice thing to be able to read back what people are on about, something you can't do in a real-life discussion without having to ask and halting the process of the conversation when doing so.
TIME | The same goes here as what I said about this this specifgic topic about the forums, really. It is nice to do the work at a time when you are at your best, whether it's at 10 AM or 10 PM, the site works the same and people can respond to your posts anytime after you've posted them!
AUTHORITY AND IDENTITY | THe person who's blog it is is sort-of in charge I think. But more like a discussion leader, if anything. He/She brings up the points of discussion and the conversations go from there. For the rest of it I think the same sense of equality is on the blogs as there is on the forums.
SPEECH & WRITING | The same applies as to the blogs, I feel. The mode of address is quite informal as there is no requirement to use formal "essay style" writing. It is merely a platform to raise topics and share your findings with others. It is even possible to just say that you really don't get or really don;t agree with something that's written or taught on the course.
EXPRESSION | Well, originally the essence of blogging is publishing your thoughts and musings to the world, and it is noticeable how blogger is clearly designed to make it as easy as possible but at the same time enables more advanced functions like HTML-support and custom layouts for those "in the know".
In this case it works very well as it enables us to put our different findings in different posts and make it easy for people to find similar posts by using tags.
INTERACTION | It's nice to have an on-the-spot comment-option here on blogger enabling people to comment immediately after reading the post without having to go elsewhere. Hopefully over the next few weeks the blogs will become a places of in-depth discussion and fiery debates! It's a nice thing to be able to read back what people are on about, something you can't do in a real-life discussion without having to ask and halting the process of the conversation when doing so.
TIME | The same goes here as what I said about this this specifgic topic about the forums, really. It is nice to do the work at a time when you are at your best, whether it's at 10 AM or 10 PM, the site works the same and people can respond to your posts anytime after you've posted them!
AUTHORITY AND IDENTITY | THe person who's blog it is is sort-of in charge I think. But more like a discussion leader, if anything. He/She brings up the points of discussion and the conversations go from there. For the rest of it I think the same sense of equality is on the blogs as there is on the forums.
SPEECH & WRITING | The same applies as to the blogs, I feel. The mode of address is quite informal as there is no requirement to use formal "essay style" writing. It is merely a platform to raise topics and share your findings with others. It is even possible to just say that you really don't get or really don;t agree with something that's written or taught on the course.
Thursday, 29 January 2009
Week 2: Topic 2 | Forums
NAVIGATION | The navigation around these specific forums is rather basic, but in this instance that's fine as they have a very specific and sober purpose. Some other web forums have more advanced navigation options but these often also feature posts containing images and other types of multi media. But the basic navigation and the sober appearance of the forum fits the to-the-point purpose of the forum and doesn't allow people to be distracted by things that simply do not matter.
EXPRESSION | Of course posting on a forum is different from just saying things in a group meeting or actual seminar. For one thing user's would've thought more about HOW they are going to make their point before they start typing away. I don't think the views expressed themselves are very different though. Also it allows people to have a good hard think about what is being said and come back later to respond. Something you can't to in real-life as, well, you would've left by then.
INTERACTION | It is sometimes hard to get how people MEAN what they say. Are they being sarcastic or do they ACTUALLY agree? On many online communication platforms they have emoticons (smileys) to help get your point across, but out forum doesn't. This doesn't always make it easy to understand how to interpret what is being said sometimes.
TIME | One of the great advantages of using a forum ios that they are available all the time, you can whack a question onthere as soon as it arrises and you can respond to it whenever you've thought of an answer. It's also handy as some people are morning people while other, like myself, are definitely NOT and function better at night.
AUTHORITY AND IDENTITY | Every one is equal on the forums, there is no way somebody can shout over you as all opinions get the same space and the same amount of attention. Talkative people and those who are less confident to speak in "public" are both able to express their opinions like equals.
SPEECH & WRITING | The tone of the forum is quite informal, so the way we all interact onthere is not too different from how we address each other on a day to day basis.
EXPRESSION | Of course posting on a forum is different from just saying things in a group meeting or actual seminar. For one thing user's would've thought more about HOW they are going to make their point before they start typing away. I don't think the views expressed themselves are very different though. Also it allows people to have a good hard think about what is being said and come back later to respond. Something you can't to in real-life as, well, you would've left by then.
INTERACTION | It is sometimes hard to get how people MEAN what they say. Are they being sarcastic or do they ACTUALLY agree? On many online communication platforms they have emoticons (smileys) to help get your point across, but out forum doesn't. This doesn't always make it easy to understand how to interpret what is being said sometimes.
TIME | One of the great advantages of using a forum ios that they are available all the time, you can whack a question onthere as soon as it arrises and you can respond to it whenever you've thought of an answer. It's also handy as some people are morning people while other, like myself, are definitely NOT and function better at night.
AUTHORITY AND IDENTITY | Every one is equal on the forums, there is no way somebody can shout over you as all opinions get the same space and the same amount of attention. Talkative people and those who are less confident to speak in "public" are both able to express their opinions like equals.
SPEECH & WRITING | The tone of the forum is quite informal, so the way we all interact onthere is not too different from how we address each other on a day to day basis.
Week 2: Topic 1
1> Upgrade culture
The "money making" part of the whole software-upgrading thing, I would think, is quite often an important factor in a company's decision to release a new version of their succesful packages. After all, by the time everybody's got the previous version of the software no more money can be made from sales unless a new product or a new version of a product is launched.
However, I wouldn't say it's the only reason for these constant updates. Technological developments within the computer industry follow eachother up very very rapidly indeed and consumers DO want to make use of these new technologies. After all, what's the point of these technological advantages if there is no software available enabling people to make use of them. This basic concept of new version being released has, to many consumers, been considered a "given", even so much that people now even upgrade their hradware because their old PC/PDA/netbook/whatever couldn't cope with the latest version of the machine's operating system. This could well be because companies put a lot of effort into promoting the new software as a revolutionary new step. But really, how exciting amnd different can the new Windows or Office be? Still the whole upgrade-concept can't JUST be blamed on commerce I think, even freeware like Firefox, which is free to download, gets updated regularly to sufficiently please the consumers' needs.
2> The 'Newness' of new media
The term 'New Media' is ofcourse a bit vague as any form of media would be "new" by the time it was/is introduced. But I guess we'll just have to think of the term 'New Media' as one of those terms that are just called that, even if it technically might not be entirely sound.
I guess the statement that "nothing has changed" isn't entirely true. I would agree that some concepts from older media forms can be found in new media forms but what I feel make new media different are the way they allow instant feedback, quicker selection of what you want to access and, what basically includes the other two points, it's great emphasis on interactivity. Also New Media forms can be yupdated all the time. A newspaper's released once a day, buy it at night and it'll be the same as in the morning, whatever else has happened that day. (Remember when the papers were still baning on about the 2012 olympics while earlier that day the same city was the target of terrorist bombings? Ouch, bit of a painful example that was, but I guess it helps me make my point.).
3> Progress
I would say that yes, it is. The number of services available on any of the new media platforms increases all the time and even old media forms have made their way onto new platforms. Like E-books and television on your mobile.
It has increased but also changed the commercial world significantly. Just think about how big a business Amazon has become completely based on an online service and how both legal and illegal downloading have spawned platforms like iTunes while conventional record stores like HMV and especially Zavvi are struggling to make sales.
Politically it has made it very easy for parties to get their message across to many people as they can elaborate on their agenda's a lot more online than they can in, say a flyer or political party broadcast on television.
And, let's face, it's probably only a matter of time until we can vote online. Maybe then people can actually be bothered to vote then as it's much less of an effort.
4> Analogue & Digital media, the differences
The break is there, but not THAT clear cut. Yes, digital ENABLES things like instant-delivery and interactivity, but doesn't always do so. Digital television does enable for interactive features (PRESS THE RED BUTTON NOW!!!!! NOT IN A MINUTE!! NOW!!!) but the actual broadcast itself is still a one-way communication, so, improved picture and sound aside... it's not really that different a broadcast. the same goes for DAB Digital radio broadcasting, there is more choice, the sound is better, but it's still just radio. I'm not even quite sure wether or not DAB can even be classified as New Media or not. Is a DVD digital? It's full of one's and zero's and the first D stand for Digital but it's still a physical thing that really doesn't do that much different from an old VHS tape, it just plays things. The pretty menu's aren't THAT much of a breakthough, really.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that digital and analogue do not necessarily represent new and old media repectivly. CD's are digital, but were available WAY before there was such a thing called "New Media". All we can safely say is that there IS old media out there that is digital, but NO new media that is analogue, simply because new media is based on digital technology.
A lot of new media are inspired on old media forms in form though, we still start an e-mail the way we used to start a letteror memo and some websites do look a lot like magazines or newspapers.
5> Digitally and code
The end result of the whole procedure might not be so different, after all, an essay is an essay. But the whole process of getting there would be very very very different, there would be even more planning and more drafts until there's a final piece of work that is completely error free and that you are completely satisfied with. A time consuming process it might be but it WOULD call for more and better planning of what you want to say simply because you can't just bang something in later. And there is no way of doing it at the last minute as sometimes happens nowadays. It'd take longer, but it would be a good way to force students to get their act together.
6> Immersive interactivity
I suppose Lunenfield's concept applies to things like MOO's and MUD's, but even more to online games like World of Warcraft, or any other type of realistic online activity or agem that allows you to adapt a different persona in order to "immerse" into a differtent virtual/imaginary world through new media technology.
7> Non-linear
I think I can see what he means there. Whereas traditional media, like books for example, need to build up a story or article and slowly engage and capture the reader in order to keep his/her attention, a non-linear text doesn't need to do that. The web is a GREAT example of this, if you lose interest in something you just click on something else, and that way you are enabled to look for EXACTLY what you want to find out/know. Reading the web is very very selective and therefore pages tend to go for the bare essence of the message.
8> New voices
This enables texts to be REALLY REALLY specific as the web is big enough for everything. A text doesn't need to address a big audience in order to be out there (as it doesnt need to be printed and thus there aren't commercial reasons for wanting a big audience) and can there fore have an audience as specific, or niche, as they want to. And because anyone can publich on the web, and anyone can find this stuff, views and opinions that were normally not mainstream enough to make it to conventional media forms can be expressed, as alternative, controversial or unusual as they might be. These can be political, but also be just about a very specific sub culture. About anything, really.
9> Ideal interactivity
Oooh, ideal is a bit of a dangerous concept I suppose. Especially as it's down to people's personal tastes, but still. Even things like Facebook and Myspace that allow people to interact in a wide range of different ways: messages, private messages, games, pictures, video, instant messages, chat... there is still a third party involved. Facebook has grown into a big corporation and Myspace is owned by Murdoch's News Corporation. I guess a bit of censorship isn't too bad though, as some stuff out there is just unsuitable or distasteful, but then again, isn't that what freedom of speach, and freedom within interactivity is all about? But on the other hand its bigger platforms like Myspace that gives people the attributes to communicate in such a broad fashion, but then isntantly comes with a set of ideals and ideas of what is appropiate. So, bit of a dillema there.
The "money making" part of the whole software-upgrading thing, I would think, is quite often an important factor in a company's decision to release a new version of their succesful packages. After all, by the time everybody's got the previous version of the software no more money can be made from sales unless a new product or a new version of a product is launched.
However, I wouldn't say it's the only reason for these constant updates. Technological developments within the computer industry follow eachother up very very rapidly indeed and consumers DO want to make use of these new technologies. After all, what's the point of these technological advantages if there is no software available enabling people to make use of them. This basic concept of new version being released has, to many consumers, been considered a "given", even so much that people now even upgrade their hradware because their old PC/PDA/netbook/whatever couldn't cope with the latest version of the machine's operating system. This could well be because companies put a lot of effort into promoting the new software as a revolutionary new step. But really, how exciting amnd different can the new Windows or Office be? Still the whole upgrade-concept can't JUST be blamed on commerce I think, even freeware like Firefox, which is free to download, gets updated regularly to sufficiently please the consumers' needs.
2> The 'Newness' of new media
The term 'New Media' is ofcourse a bit vague as any form of media would be "new" by the time it was/is introduced. But I guess we'll just have to think of the term 'New Media' as one of those terms that are just called that, even if it technically might not be entirely sound.
I guess the statement that "nothing has changed" isn't entirely true. I would agree that some concepts from older media forms can be found in new media forms but what I feel make new media different are the way they allow instant feedback, quicker selection of what you want to access and, what basically includes the other two points, it's great emphasis on interactivity. Also New Media forms can be yupdated all the time. A newspaper's released once a day, buy it at night and it'll be the same as in the morning, whatever else has happened that day. (Remember when the papers were still baning on about the 2012 olympics while earlier that day the same city was the target of terrorist bombings? Ouch, bit of a painful example that was, but I guess it helps me make my point.).
3> Progress
I would say that yes, it is. The number of services available on any of the new media platforms increases all the time and even old media forms have made their way onto new platforms. Like E-books and television on your mobile.
It has increased but also changed the commercial world significantly. Just think about how big a business Amazon has become completely based on an online service and how both legal and illegal downloading have spawned platforms like iTunes while conventional record stores like HMV and especially Zavvi are struggling to make sales.
Politically it has made it very easy for parties to get their message across to many people as they can elaborate on their agenda's a lot more online than they can in, say a flyer or political party broadcast on television.
And, let's face, it's probably only a matter of time until we can vote online. Maybe then people can actually be bothered to vote then as it's much less of an effort.
4> Analogue & Digital media, the differences
The break is there, but not THAT clear cut. Yes, digital ENABLES things like instant-delivery and interactivity, but doesn't always do so. Digital television does enable for interactive features (PRESS THE RED BUTTON NOW!!!!! NOT IN A MINUTE!! NOW!!!) but the actual broadcast itself is still a one-way communication, so, improved picture and sound aside... it's not really that different a broadcast. the same goes for DAB Digital radio broadcasting, there is more choice, the sound is better, but it's still just radio. I'm not even quite sure wether or not DAB can even be classified as New Media or not. Is a DVD digital? It's full of one's and zero's and the first D stand for Digital but it's still a physical thing that really doesn't do that much different from an old VHS tape, it just plays things. The pretty menu's aren't THAT much of a breakthough, really.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that digital and analogue do not necessarily represent new and old media repectivly. CD's are digital, but were available WAY before there was such a thing called "New Media". All we can safely say is that there IS old media out there that is digital, but NO new media that is analogue, simply because new media is based on digital technology.
A lot of new media are inspired on old media forms in form though, we still start an e-mail the way we used to start a letteror memo and some websites do look a lot like magazines or newspapers.
5> Digitally and code
The end result of the whole procedure might not be so different, after all, an essay is an essay. But the whole process of getting there would be very very very different, there would be even more planning and more drafts until there's a final piece of work that is completely error free and that you are completely satisfied with. A time consuming process it might be but it WOULD call for more and better planning of what you want to say simply because you can't just bang something in later. And there is no way of doing it at the last minute as sometimes happens nowadays. It'd take longer, but it would be a good way to force students to get their act together.
6> Immersive interactivity
I suppose Lunenfield's concept applies to things like MOO's and MUD's, but even more to online games like World of Warcraft, or any other type of realistic online activity or agem that allows you to adapt a different persona in order to "immerse" into a differtent virtual/imaginary world through new media technology.
7> Non-linear
I think I can see what he means there. Whereas traditional media, like books for example, need to build up a story or article and slowly engage and capture the reader in order to keep his/her attention, a non-linear text doesn't need to do that. The web is a GREAT example of this, if you lose interest in something you just click on something else, and that way you are enabled to look for EXACTLY what you want to find out/know. Reading the web is very very selective and therefore pages tend to go for the bare essence of the message.
8> New voices
This enables texts to be REALLY REALLY specific as the web is big enough for everything. A text doesn't need to address a big audience in order to be out there (as it doesnt need to be printed and thus there aren't commercial reasons for wanting a big audience) and can there fore have an audience as specific, or niche, as they want to. And because anyone can publich on the web, and anyone can find this stuff, views and opinions that were normally not mainstream enough to make it to conventional media forms can be expressed, as alternative, controversial or unusual as they might be. These can be political, but also be just about a very specific sub culture. About anything, really.
9> Ideal interactivity
Oooh, ideal is a bit of a dangerous concept I suppose. Especially as it's down to people's personal tastes, but still. Even things like Facebook and Myspace that allow people to interact in a wide range of different ways: messages, private messages, games, pictures, video, instant messages, chat... there is still a third party involved. Facebook has grown into a big corporation and Myspace is owned by Murdoch's News Corporation. I guess a bit of censorship isn't too bad though, as some stuff out there is just unsuitable or distasteful, but then again, isn't that what freedom of speach, and freedom within interactivity is all about? But on the other hand its bigger platforms like Myspace that gives people the attributes to communicate in such a broad fashion, but then isntantly comes with a set of ideals and ideas of what is appropiate. So, bit of a dillema there.
Friday, 23 January 2009
Task for week 1: MUD's and MOO's (characteristics and use)
A MUD is a Multi-user Dungeon. Since that might not quite clear things up , let's explain:
An imaginary world described by text only, where users can not only chat but use special, universally agreed upon commands to play games with each other.
A MOO is pretty much the same thing but in a MOO, as opposed to a Mud, users can perform programming-codes to alter things.
Both these things allow people worldwide to casually communicate and play together by setting up their own online imaginary persona.
It is basically a very basic form of things like World of Warcraft and similar games where users do pretty much the same thing but can make use of a virtual world in which they can visually customise their character. ( http://www.worldofwarcraft.com )
A nice way to pass the time for some but not useful for actual communiations when there are other, much more to-the-point ways of communication available for formal and contructive communications.
My personal experiences with any of these things? None, so far. But it could be an interesting thing to try in the next few weeks to see what it's like and perhaps post something on the blog about.
An imaginary world described by text only, where users can not only chat but use special, universally agreed upon commands to play games with each other.
A MOO is pretty much the same thing but in a MOO, as opposed to a Mud, users can perform programming-codes to alter things.
Both these things allow people worldwide to casually communicate and play together by setting up their own online imaginary persona.
It is basically a very basic form of things like World of Warcraft and similar games where users do pretty much the same thing but can make use of a virtual world in which they can visually customise their character. ( http://www.worldofwarcraft.com )
A nice way to pass the time for some but not useful for actual communiations when there are other, much more to-the-point ways of communication available for formal and contructive communications.
My personal experiences with any of these things? None, so far. But it could be an interesting thing to try in the next few weeks to see what it's like and perhaps post something on the blog about.
Task for week 1: Chatrooms, (instant) messenger services and IRLs (characteristics and use)
Good example of messengers are MSN Messenger, well, everyone still calls it MSN Messenger, but officially Microsoft deemed it a good idea to ditch one of the internet's best-known brands in favour for Windows Live Messenger, for text-messenging and Skype for video-calls. MSN actually can do video-calls just aswel as Skype can, however, Skype has become the norm, probably due to it's ability to actually audio-call traditional phones aswel.
The basic concept of instant messenging is quite simple. A (fairly small) piece of software tells you which of the people you have added to the application's "friend-list" are online and whent heya re you can open a chat-window in which you can instantly send eachother and an unlimited amount of short terxt messages thus enabling an actual conversation, be it in text-form. Users can also send each other files and pictures. Users who have a webcam and/or microphone installed on their computer can use these to have actual audio and/or video conversations with each other.
Chatrooms are similar in the sense that messages are sent instantly, however they are mostly divided by region or a specific interest or subject and a meeting place to talk to a larger group of people you may not even know.
IRL's are basically a different term for web-forums, where subjects can be discussed in a post-after-post manner rather than in real-time.
I personally mostly use MSN Messenger as it has more or less become the standard form of instant messenging. It's a good way to keep up with other people's going on's or simply to pass the time. However, occasionally it's a good way to communicate actual constructive information when doing university group work and an actual physical meeting isn't possible for whatever reason.
The basic concept of instant messenging is quite simple. A (fairly small) piece of software tells you which of the people you have added to the application's "friend-list" are online and whent heya re you can open a chat-window in which you can instantly send eachother and an unlimited amount of short terxt messages thus enabling an actual conversation, be it in text-form. Users can also send each other files and pictures. Users who have a webcam and/or microphone installed on their computer can use these to have actual audio and/or video conversations with each other.
Chatrooms are similar in the sense that messages are sent instantly, however they are mostly divided by region or a specific interest or subject and a meeting place to talk to a larger group of people you may not even know.
IRL's are basically a different term for web-forums, where subjects can be discussed in a post-after-post manner rather than in real-time.
I personally mostly use MSN Messenger as it has more or less become the standard form of instant messenging. It's a good way to keep up with other people's going on's or simply to pass the time. However, occasionally it's a good way to communicate actual constructive information when doing university group work and an actual physical meeting isn't possible for whatever reason.
Task for week 1: Websites (characteristics and use)
A website is a collection of mostly HTML-pages (Hyper-Text Markup Language) and other files that offers text, pictures, but nowadays also audio and video, that are hosted by a server. This is the part of the internet know as The Web. WWW, or The World Wide Web is the name of all websites together. So, The Web is not just a synonym for the internet in general. Websites are accessed through an URL (Uniform Resource Locator) or address for each individual webpage and file on the WWW.
There are basically two flavours of websites:
Some websites websites consists of files stored as they are seen by the person who visits the webpage, who has no influence on the content of the website, the maintainer of the website would actually have to change the files on the server individually and specifically to change the website's content. These are called static. Many websites are dynamic, where files are stored differently to make it easier for the websmaster or webteam to update the information. For example news websites that constantly needs updating, or webpages where visitors can interact by responding to or adding to the content of a page. Like this one, for example. The rise in dynamic websites have brought about the arrival of what we call web 2.0.
Web 2.0 (although some would argue that we're already on 3.0) has changed the internet a lot. Interactivity is key and static information providing websites are no longer the norm. Almost every website you visit nowadays asks you to respond to articles, upload pictures, add videos (YOUTUBE!!!) or discuss things in web-fora. Forming some sort of online-community, or indeed, an imagined community. Even websites that do not allow this sort of interaction often do still allow you to sign-up/log in and change the website's appearance and spacing to suit your own preferences. People's online persona, can often be quite different from their real-life persona as the internet allows them to basically present themselves however they want themselves to be seen.
I personally use the internet all the time. For all sorts of things, research, entertainment (again, Youtube, but also things like iPlayer and 4OD), to find news or to indeed respond and discuss things on web-fora. And let's not forget that websites like Myspace and Facebook, who tend to pretty much rule the average student's life, are also web-based and are pretty much taking this whole online-community thing to the next level.
There are basically two flavours of websites:
Some websites websites consists of files stored as they are seen by the person who visits the webpage, who has no influence on the content of the website, the maintainer of the website would actually have to change the files on the server individually and specifically to change the website's content. These are called static. Many websites are dynamic, where files are stored differently to make it easier for the websmaster or webteam to update the information. For example news websites that constantly needs updating, or webpages where visitors can interact by responding to or adding to the content of a page. Like this one, for example. The rise in dynamic websites have brought about the arrival of what we call web 2.0.
Web 2.0 (although some would argue that we're already on 3.0) has changed the internet a lot. Interactivity is key and static information providing websites are no longer the norm. Almost every website you visit nowadays asks you to respond to articles, upload pictures, add videos (YOUTUBE!!!) or discuss things in web-fora. Forming some sort of online-community, or indeed, an imagined community. Even websites that do not allow this sort of interaction often do still allow you to sign-up/log in and change the website's appearance and spacing to suit your own preferences. People's online persona, can often be quite different from their real-life persona as the internet allows them to basically present themselves however they want themselves to be seen.
I personally use the internet all the time. For all sorts of things, research, entertainment (again, Youtube, but also things like iPlayer and 4OD), to find news or to indeed respond and discuss things on web-fora. And let's not forget that websites like Myspace and Facebook, who tend to pretty much rule the average student's life, are also web-based and are pretty much taking this whole online-community thing to the next level.
Task for week 1: E-mail (characteristics and use)
E-mail, short for electroic mail, is a service that allows you to you send messages as well as other digital files (so called 'attachments') to other e-mail adresses. Messages are sent to a specific e-mail adress, or group of adresses (possibly on a adress-list), through the internet after which they are accepted and stored by the receiving server. The person, whose e-mail address was used to send the message to, can log intop the server and read/download, reply or forward the text message and/or the attached files.
E-mail messages, are almost instant, depending on its file size, and this is what makes them a very popular form of communication, not only for personal purposes, but also between staff of companies and other institutions. They are fast, private (as the receiver needs to log in to be able to read them), and fairly reliable.
However, servers can crash, mail-account can reach their maximum data-quota or, even worse, email providers can discontinue their services altogether.
I personally use e-mail all the time, as many people I would think, to stay in touch with relatives and friends or to send enquire companies about their services and stuff like that. E-mailing a company is always a bit less intimidating than actualyl calling them, however, an E-mail can easily be ignored which emans you end up having to call them.
Nowadays, I don't tend to use e-mail as much as I used to for informal messages to friends with the arrival and increasing popularity of social networking websites such as Myspace and Facebook.
E-mail messages, are almost instant, depending on its file size, and this is what makes them a very popular form of communication, not only for personal purposes, but also between staff of companies and other institutions. They are fast, private (as the receiver needs to log in to be able to read them), and fairly reliable.
However, servers can crash, mail-account can reach their maximum data-quota or, even worse, email providers can discontinue their services altogether.
I personally use e-mail all the time, as many people I would think, to stay in touch with relatives and friends or to send enquire companies about their services and stuff like that. E-mailing a company is always a bit less intimidating than actualyl calling them, however, an E-mail can easily be ignored which emans you end up having to call them.
Nowadays, I don't tend to use e-mail as much as I used to for informal messages to friends with the arrival and increasing popularity of social networking websites such as Myspace and Facebook.
Thursday, 22 January 2009
Online lecture Word-file - Part 1: Digital vs. Analogue (The science bit)
http://mchome.lincoln.ac.uk/newmediacultures/WEEK%201%20online%20lecture.doc
This article/lecture's first main argument seems to function mainly as an introduction to the concept of "new media" and points out that in this unit "new media" basically refers to "digital media".
Digital, as opposed to analogue means that actual "stuff" is being translated to code. DIGITal is called that because it's made out of DIGITS. Whereas analgue data actually gets physically stored, be it by picture (on an old fashioned film roll) or ridges (on a gramaphone record.)
Digital is a much smaller/streamlined/FASTER and much more precise way of saving and sending files and data. The data is translated into a code made out of 1's and 0's and transferred to the other end where it gets translated back into actual stuff. Of course there can be glitches where the code doesn't arrive 100% correctly which can then lead into a file having a little mistake in it which can cause it to not work at all.
Most of all digital enables to send much more data in less space, if that makes sense at all.
For example: Analogue telly where the airwaves send the actual pictures can only broadcast 5 channels (and in some areas only 4) where as the digital freeview terrestial technology enables 30-ish channels to be sent through the airwaves because they are turned into code first. But in order to receive them you need equipment that can translate the code back into the actual channels. In this case the infamous freeview box we all love so much. But because the broadcast has been turned into a code first and the whole code is translated back to visual/sound the data arrives much clearer which is why digital usually has a sharper picture than analogue. However, sometimes some part of the code can't get picked up properly by the aerial which then causes little parts of missing data which results in those little squary bits on the screen we see sometimes or the picture freezing for a moment. Luckily the box arrives data all the time so the error usually doesn't last very long whereas an error in the sending of one particular file could result in the whole thing not working.
Because things like the internet and mobile communications require a lot of data to be sent continuesly, there is no way things like the internet (esp. broadband!) could've worked if it was based on analogue technology. So yeah, it pretty much can be said that we owe a lot to digital technology and that the arrival of digital technology has changed our daily lives a lot, considering how many things we use every day (mobile/tv/internet, or even mobile TV though the internet!!) wouldn't have existed otherwise!
More to come soon! Esp. more things of how it affects us and stuff.
This article/lecture's first main argument seems to function mainly as an introduction to the concept of "new media" and points out that in this unit "new media" basically refers to "digital media".
Digital, as opposed to analogue means that actual "stuff" is being translated to code. DIGITal is called that because it's made out of DIGITS. Whereas analgue data actually gets physically stored, be it by picture (on an old fashioned film roll) or ridges (on a gramaphone record.)
Digital is a much smaller/streamlined/FASTER and much more precise way of saving and sending files and data. The data is translated into a code made out of 1's and 0's and transferred to the other end where it gets translated back into actual stuff. Of course there can be glitches where the code doesn't arrive 100% correctly which can then lead into a file having a little mistake in it which can cause it to not work at all.
Most of all digital enables to send much more data in less space, if that makes sense at all.
For example: Analogue telly where the airwaves send the actual pictures can only broadcast 5 channels (and in some areas only 4) where as the digital freeview terrestial technology enables 30-ish channels to be sent through the airwaves because they are turned into code first. But in order to receive them you need equipment that can translate the code back into the actual channels. In this case the infamous freeview box we all love so much. But because the broadcast has been turned into a code first and the whole code is translated back to visual/sound the data arrives much clearer which is why digital usually has a sharper picture than analogue. However, sometimes some part of the code can't get picked up properly by the aerial which then causes little parts of missing data which results in those little squary bits on the screen we see sometimes or the picture freezing for a moment. Luckily the box arrives data all the time so the error usually doesn't last very long whereas an error in the sending of one particular file could result in the whole thing not working.
Because things like the internet and mobile communications require a lot of data to be sent continuesly, there is no way things like the internet (esp. broadband!) could've worked if it was based on analogue technology. So yeah, it pretty much can be said that we owe a lot to digital technology and that the arrival of digital technology has changed our daily lives a lot, considering how many things we use every day (mobile/tv/internet, or even mobile TV though the internet!!) wouldn't have existed otherwise!
More to come soon! Esp. more things of how it affects us and stuff.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
