A recent article from Time presented several myths about online activity. I found the second myth of greatest interest.
The second myth is exposed by data that cross references social activity by the read time devoted to a primary information source. The data are expressed as a graph with hits organized in a 2 x 2 format. So you have articles with high and low read times by articles with high and low social activity. If one assumes that greater read time indicates greater personal interest, it is surprising that low interest articles generate the most social activity. Hence, you cannot assume that those suggestions you receive as tweets resulted from a thorough review by the tweeter. Perhaps the title alone was enough to encourage sharing.
Why? Not sure, but these data seem similar to a paper we just discussed in my grad class. The paper concerned a number of effective study techniques and then noted that college students seem not likely to use these techniques even though the strategies require no more time. One commonality of the methods is that they generated more errors and were likely perceived as more difficult. Perhaps, individuals are satisfied with a passive approach that offers the impression of doing something productive.
I wonder if a similar explanation fits here. Are many tweets that reference resources a way of feeling or offering the impression to others that something meaningful has been accomplished? I propose that tweets associated with blog entries are a better approach. Blog posts typically offer more personal commentary and I would think require a little more information from a primary source. If you cannot summarize what about a source was interesting or valuable, you likely did not get much from the resource yourself. Why offer the source to others?
Getty is a stock image provider. Typically, you pay for use of the images. Getty is now offering images to bloggers and web page authors at no cost – 35 million images are available.
It is important to understand the implications of image embeds. When you embed an image (see below), you are serving the image from the provider and not from the server you use to offer your blog or web page. The Getty approach does not offer you possession of the image.
What could be a limitation of this approach. I guess it depends on how paranoid you care to be. I heard one podcaster contend that the terms of service allow Getty to change its mind. For example, it could decide to terminate the service or possible monetize the service with ads. You can see that Getty identifies that it is the source of the image (see below). If you blog, the image would eventually disappear from your front page and might change without your awareness. I must say this would not concern me – few of those who visit my site use the search feature to locate old posts. Even if they did, what would be the harm in seeing an ad?
Frontline did a program ed tech types should make certain they view and share. The program features Douglas Rushkopf (Program or Be Programmed) and his analysis of the “social currency” of social media. He proposes that teens are competing for “Likes”. My first thought as a bloggers was that this is not limited to teens because I do pay some attention to the hits my blogs generate.
What does it take to generate “likes”? Association with popular “pop culture” is a way to generate “likes”? I see it as the opposite of using famous people in your ads. Instead of the image of famous people rubbing off on a product, you have the popularity of a product rubbing off on unknown people. It works out will for all parties – free advertising and a way to attract attention.
The process of generating attention has lessons you can see played out elsewhere. Check out the process by which “liked” individuals begin to collaborate in order to magnify their popularity. You see a similar phenomenon with what I like describe as the “I used to be a teacher, administrator, librarian” types who now move from ed conference to conference as paid presenters. Check them on Twitter or whatever social platform you choose and note the frequency with which they mention each other. There seems to be no content value in these mentions (kind of like a “like”) in that there is no information to be considered, but such mentions give followers clues as to who the cool people think are cool.
I wish my ed tech colleagues would expand their scope of awareness. Attempts to determine the 10 most useful tools for teachers or which of 10 spelling apps is the best needs to be expanded to include an awareness of Internet and political issues. The opportunity to engage students at school and at home will depend on cost effective access. First it was the legal decision exempting Verizon from net neutrality and now the proposed merger of Comcast and Time Warner again with net neutrality implications.
Because we cannot rely on competition to identify which company is most responsive to users (how many options do you have for decent Internet access), this is one of those situations in which we must depend on government oversight to guard against monopolistic practices.
Sen. Franken is one voice raising concerns with the FCC over Internet issues. I sent $4 to Sen. Franken last year when he was addressing a net neutrality issue. I now continue to receive requests for money. I am not from MN and the notion that issues are decided based on the amount of money various representatives can generate is disturbing. I know this is a bit naive. Om Malik argues that these issues are being determined by the money available from lobbyists. A very disturbing situation and exactly the problem Lawrence Lessig describes in his book – Republic Lost
I read a lot of Kindle books. My wife and I have written a book available for the Kindle. The “Kindle model” offers some capabilities that are under appreciated and often unknown to many readers.
For example, I am interested in the potential of sharing highlights and annotations. I have taken the time to highlight and annotate our own book and the books I assign for me graduate classes.
I have a new fascination. I was searching our Kindle book for a specific references and discovered that I can now view the most frequently highlighted passages by readers. Do the readers highlight the same content as I highlight? Do they highlight what I think are more applied content or content I would describe as conceptual and likely to be unfamiliar. There must be something here for deeper analysis. I had thought shared highlights was something I could share or readers could share with each other, but now I see value in the annotations as feedback to the author.
Old folks are supposedly famous for reacting to their younger peers by responding to their new ideas claiming “we already tried that and it did not work”. Sorry if some of my comments seem to fit this description. However, …..
The limited time available within the school day is limited and interested parties seem to be arguing that their content be given a larger portion of the pie. I accept the value of advocacy and I consider myself relatively neutral. I become critical when it seems to me the positions taken go beyond what I think can actually be delivered. I agree that not everyone really needs what everyone gets and, that when practical financially, greater flexibility be provided. However, when it comes to innovation, two positions that cause me to react with skepticism claim a) all students need this new experience, and b) this new experience develops general skills/knowledge in ways not now accomplished by the existing curriculum. Here is where I want to see some evidence so education does not given in to the fad of the year.
Presently, there seems to be interest in something called “computational thinking.” I have no idea if this is really new or a rebranding of an earlier idea. I remember reading Papert years ago and he proposed a computational way of understanding geometry. I admit when I first thought of the way he proposed understanding “circle” I thought there was something unique about his perspective. Of course, I knew the definition of circle – a closed, plane figure consisting of all points equidistant from a point, but being able to generate this definition was not really understanding. Now, if you imagine yourself as the LOGO turtle standing on a point and you walk forward a given number of turtle steps, lower your pen and walk one more step, raise the pen, then backup the given number of steps +1, you have created a point at a given distance from a point. Turn right one unit, repeat, turn right one unit, etc. You have a circle.
I admit this is my one example. However, the difference between my ability to offer the definition of a circle and create a circle via coding has influenced my understanding of understanding. Is this reaction unique to programing or is the capacity to execute a construct through action a more general way to achieve understanding? I understand what I can do.
Flash forward to the present and recognize that computational thinking has experienced a renaissance. What I mean by this is that some in education are again promoting the value of learning to program, but also proposing more general benefits for these experiences. Clearly, those of us who have developed programming skills (now sometimes called coding) have experienced vocational advantages. Programming seems a skill for the 21st century based on the larger role digital devices play in all aspects of our lives. While I agree with the value of this particular skill as important in multiple vocations, I balk at the argument that it is a skill for all or that what students might learn through programming courses goes beyond the skill of programming.
My concern is that those in various disciplines argue too broadly for the benefits of their discipline. If a particular discipline happens to be in favor for one reason or another (STEM seems to be the in thing at the moment), there seems a tendency to embellish a bit and to argue that a skill is more than just a skill.
So, just to make a point, I think I can make the same case for several disciplines not typically considered as being broadly beneficial. For example, consider what could be learned from history. Yes, yes, I understand about important names and dates, knowing where we came from, and not repeating mistakes. However, historians should argue there is the potential to teach far more. What historians do is not what you likely learned from taking history courses. You learn what historians learned, but you do not learn how they learned it. Historians piece together accounts from multiple, primary sources. Since sources were generated by individuals with different perspectives, i.e., biases, piecing together an account of what likely happened is a great exercise in critical thinking. There is also great value in appreciating that individuals experience history from different perspectives and with different personal outcomes so the consequences of historical events is complex and multifaceted. Anyway, when explained in this manner, there is the potential here to develop very important higher order cognitive skills and such skills are exactly what reformers contend are missing as a consequence of typical educational experiences. Think like a historian.
I do promote a given activity both as useful for all and as a way to develop thinking capabilities more generally. My personal recommendation for an alteration of typical practice would be to place a greater emphasis on writing. Yes, students are taught to write, but I think they should write more as part of all classes they take. There are limits when you learn to write by writing to practice writing. Beyond the basics, you learn to write by writing to communicate. Students should write for their parents and they should write for their peers. They should write for themselves. Mostly, they should write about they learn. This seems more purposeful than writing about an arbitrary topic assigned in English class. The effort in putting something down on paper leaves far less room for the assumption of understanding than does just studying. There is something about that blank sheet of paper or monitor screen that challenges the illusion of knowing. Call it “Writing to learn” or “Writing across the curriculum”, the flexibility of writing would be my recommendation for an activity required of all and offering higher order advantages.
It appears to me that some of this most popular sessions at many educational technology conferences are the x apps in x minutes (30 in 30) and the “shoot out” (tech “experts” have a brief period of time to describe apps, devices, and services audience members are unlikely to have seen – sometimes with a winner based on the most impressive presentation) sessions. I must admit that I am a sucker for these sessions and am always curious to see just how many of the supposed novel examples I have already seen or own. The unique, the funny, and the obscure seem to earn extra points.
When I step back and think about my reaction and what must be the reaction of many since audiences seem to be large, I wonder just what participants feel they have gained. Consider that a common mantra among tech facilitators goes something like this – “it is not about the technology, it is about the learning.” This priority could not apply in the cases I describe – many examples have no utility for students and most examples are similar to existing examples already widely known to the rest of us.
Here is my concern. Any new app or service takes some investment of time to become reasonably proficient. This learning time must be subtracted from the time available for application. Of course, we want to use powerful and effective apps, but each time we find something new we must also evaluate just what the value added of the presumed advantages might be. How many times will the better app be used and will there be a cumulative advantage over what would have been used should the educator not have encountered the new opportunity.
What would be cool would be sessions based on multiple, creative ways to use a given app – 10 ways you can use Explain Everything, the versatility of PowerPoint, 20 suggestions for the educational use of the camera in student smartphones. Of course, these sessions do exist, my comment concerns the popularity of the pure “impressive me with your technology” sessions. I am making no argument that any given app or service has limited educational value. I am suggesting that “one time” uses be avoided.
You must be logged in to post a comment.