Here is a suggestion for a little light viewing (about 2 hours) while you wait for today’s election returns. MITWorld sponsored a panel presentation of Media Coverage of the Election and offers expert opinion on the role of the media in the election process.
I wonder if the ease with which digital video can be saved will influence how we think about political candidates? In the present election candidates are pushed to offer specific details on their plans for the economy, health care, or defense and sometimes they come up with plans. The plans are often vague at first, sometimes the proposals become more specific under prodding, and somethings the plans are altered when the public does not react favorably. However, the commitments are often not really commitments. This is partly the advantage of vagueness and partly explained away by changing circumstances. Still, what if elected officials had to respond to their own promises a year or two down the road. Perhaps, a record of promises made during this season will serve such a purpose.
Here a couple of clips available on YouTube – search for what interests you from 2004.
[youtube:http://youtube.com/watch?v=_LDsp67eKaI]This clip from Republican convention 2004. Included are comments on NCLB, tax relief, the economy, etc.
I read several stories on violence and video games today (CNN, Washington Post). Comments to these stories note that the link between violence and video game activity is not causal, but these folks probably did not read study cited because the logic of this study cannot be dismissed with the traditional position that pre-existing characterstics were not considered. Media interest in video game violence has re-emerged in response to a study published by Craig Anderson and associates. Anderson is from the Psychology Department at Iowa State. I was trained in this department many years ago so I pay some attention when my alma mater pops up in the news.
ISU Center For The Study of Violence announcement offers some insight into the argument for causality. Researchers assess pre-exposure level of violence and use as a covariate still demonstrating that exposure to violent video games among 9-12 year-olds still differentiate later evidence of violent tendencies.
I was able to locate the study online (from Pediatrics) through our library. The key finding and the statistical method is explained in the following quote from the study.
.. the finding that across 2 very different cultures HVGV predicts physical aggression 3 to 6 months later, even after controlling for previous aggressiveness and gender.
It is important to note the method used in this study does not manipulate access to aggressive content as would be the case in a true experiment. The method attempts to discount for nonrandom assignment by accounting for a measure of the pre-existing level of aggressiveness. Pre-existing agression predicts interest in violent video, but accounting for this correlation still leaves significant group differences.
As far as the quality of the research method goes, it is difficult to offer a better example than Bandura’s bobo doll studies from the 1960’s.
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMwOexrV6fM&feature=related]Yes the narration is not in English. Watch the behavior of the children after they view the models.
We went to Fargo today. I mostly spent the time in in Barnes and Noble and then the food court of the mall reading. Today, it was Tapscott’s new book – “Grown Up Digital”.
After getting back home, I decided to read and grade a few student papers. The first paper I read has me pretty agitated. I think it was first reading Tapscott (and some of the endorsements – e.g., Lessig). In the early stages of the book, Tapscott notes the writing of several authors who are concerned with some of the values and skills of the “net generation”. He pretty much dismisses the concerns of these writers (e.g., Bauerlein) with the exception of the concern that students reveal too much private information and this may come back to haunt them.
Anyway, I am one paragraph into the first paper and I immediately am concerned that the student did not write what I am reading. I Google a unique phrase from the first paragraph and locate the original source as the first hit. Unbelievable, I think. I turn the page of the paper and at the bottom of a two page section is the reference. OK, so this technically was not plagiarism. What do you call it when a page and a half is copied and pasted into a four page paper? Perhaps Lessig would describe this as “Remix”.
I asked students in my educational psychology class to identify an identifiable study strategy that they have never used, apply it in a course of their choosing for two weeks, and then write a 4-5 paper describing their experiences and evaluating the strategy. I tried to be fairly specific in outlining what I wanted in the paper. The first item on the list – explain the strategy you selected. I am assuming this is what prompted the cut and paste. Do you think a sophomore in college really assumes the instructor wants the actual words from the original source? If this would have been a hard copy paper instead of a digital file perhaps the first couple of pages would have been photo copied.
I really meant – explain the strategy. TRANSLATED – I want to be able to evaluate if you understand the strategy in the same way I understand the strategy. Should I really have to take the time to explain that I will not know if you understand the strategy if you give me the same thing to read that you read. Way back when I learned Bloom’s taxonomy (the original one), I was told that the way to evaluate “comprehension” was to seek an appropriate translation in the student’s own words.
I do understand some of the areas in which “remix” makes some sense. However, in promoting the constructive “use” of parts of the works of other people there is an important assumption that the nuances of using such works will be appreciated. As I have said before, what I fear is that such nuances are never taught or of even greater concern that a vague awareness of such nuances becomes an excuse for taking short cuts.
I sent the paper back and requested a redo. Perhaps I should have requested a remix.