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 education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Wednesday, 25 March 2009
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.
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.
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, 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
