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.
Showing posts with label digital. Show all posts
Showing posts with label digital. Show all posts
Wednesday, 25 March 2009
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.
Friday, 20 March 2009
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.
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 - 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, 6 March 2009
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.
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:
Thursday, 29 January 2009
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: 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:
Posts (Atom)
