I am a regular TWIT podcast listener. In a recent show, Leo spent a significant amount of time commenting on a Boy Scout “patch” for learning about copyright, fair use, etc. The tone of the comments as well as comments provided by other technology sources (boingboing criticism) was critical because of the connection with the Motion Picture Association of America and the “narrow” position on copyright being promoted. To me, this is a situation in which everyone is “right”, but everyone seems to talk around certain realities. Copyright is probably overly restrictive, but blatant stealing of content occurs. Too many use the extreme positions as justification to do whatever they want to do. I tried searching Boy Scouts of America to see if there was a position at the national level, but did not find anything. Presently, this appears to be California “project”.
The idea of using technology to integrate and leverage modest contributions made by many people appeals to me. Some may expect far more of technology, but while we are waiting for these grand visions to pan out, why not simply try to identify the type of things that present technology does very well. My list (without devoting much thought) would include:
Store large amounts of information
Search large amounts of information
Provide access from anywhere and at any time
Do math stuff
These simple characteristics provide the basis for “social software.” Individuals connecting when convenient add information to a collective pool (access and storage). Such information may take many forms (audio, text, etc.) and be differentiated on multiple dimensions (data, metadata). Some metadata (e.g., votes, rankings) might be processed in a quantitative fashion (the math thing). The value in these processes results from aggregating both information and wisdom.
The challenge in successful applications (e.g. wikipedia) probably has more to do with psychology than technology. No matter how low the barrier to participation, something must motivate a critical mass of individuals to make contributions. I am assuming the motivational issues may even change across the history of a particular product or service. Getting something started – the early stages – is probably the most difficult. While it may be easier to make a significant contribution while little is in place, there is less assurance at that stage that a final useful product will ever materialize.
I have been working on my own little social software experiment. I am working to develop a social bookmarking site specifically focused on technology in education. The idea is to accumulate a collection of useful web sites, descriptions, tags, and ratings.
It is the cost/benefit thing I have yet to figure out. There is some effort in visiting such a site and using it to explore. In my own project, I think I am past the point at which this is the problem – people visit and use the resources (simple stats). However, there is a larger amount of effort in contributing sites, tags, and ratings. Unfortunately, there is an even greater amount of effort in registering to use the site. My situation requires that I demand this level of inconvenience and sharing of personal information (with me only) before I can offer the opportunity to spend more time to actually contribute information to the site. Not a good combination.
I do not feel I have much of a choice. My experience with blogging (this site) is that unless registration is required the amount of personal effort I must spend to deal with spam and other forms of inappropriate content is simply too much. My host (my university) would get upset if I operated a site that ignored the issue of inappropriate content. Commercial sites do not have to operate according to the same standards and tend not to worry too much about those in education.
For the next 19 days, you have the opportunity to contribute an artifact to Yahoo!’s Time Capsule. Your contribution could be in the form of text, an image, a video – something that can be represented in a digital format. A contribution is intended to fit within a theme – beauty, fun, home, faith, sorrow, etc.
Recent posts appear within a whirling globe of documents for your examination (see below). Click on a document and view the contents.
On Nov. 8, the contents will be sealed and stored by the Smithsonian.
Perhaps the most interesting feature of the project is the international perspective. You can view documents organized by theme, but you can also view themes organized by language – One World, Many Voices. Very cool!
You might want to take a look at K12Online Conference (2006). The conference “presentations” will be posted beginning the week of October 23. The conference appears to be an attempt to mimic the experiences of a traditional (FTF) conference in a virtual setting. It appears you can even apply for grad credit if you are so inclined. A preconference keynote by David Warlick is already available.
I just returned from the Midwestern Educational Research Association (MWERA) conference. The juxtaposition of these two “conferences” might represent an opportunity to consider conferences as professional development opportunities. The trip to Columbis, OH, probably cost me about $1000 (trip, room, food) and part of the question becomes whether there is enough benefit in a FTF conference to justify the expense. In a way, this is a specific case of the more general issue of how FTF and online experiences differ.
What benefits do I experience out of a conference?
Exposure to keynotes and presentations
Exposure to vendor wares
Free form opportunities for conversation with colleagues
Opportunity to explore a new place
Options to these experiences may exist in a virtual space (including images from the remote location). I am guessing that the key issues will involve a) comparative satisfaction with these experiences and b) finances (who is willing to pay for what – spend money to go, spend money to expose participants to products, pay money to encourage presentations by people the rest of us want to “learn” from).
One of the “techniques” we employ when we write is to take “nay-sayers” arguments and turn them back on those individuals. For example, some have argued that technology removes students from “real” experiences. The suggestion might be that students studying biology would be required to experience the living world through a computer screen and that this would not be a good thing. The issue is really whether what you claim to happen really happens. In response to those who assume technology advocates are encouring a focus on biology from the keyboard, we suggested that what biology students experience when they are allowed to explore their environment might be improved if they used cameras, probes, etc. and then return to their classrooms to process the artifacts they have created during their experience. We provide examples from our work settings and it becomes clear that what we demonstrate is not “your father’s or mother’s field trip”. Take this approach in exploring the conference experience. Perhaps what some suggest is a benefit of either the virtual or FTF experience is really accomplished in a better fashion in the other setting.
There will be more as this experience unfolds. I encourage you to at least take a look.
I read a recent blog post (which I seem unable to locate to cite here – add a comment if you recognize the source for such comments) concerning the culture of fear that has developed around all things online. In addition to our collective fascination with various gloomy topics, our focus is maintained by those who profit from turning the capture of online predators into reality TV or who raise concerns and then offer their advice as authors or consultants.
I like Art Wolinsky’s wiredsafety site and the approach taken there. The online videos are a nice resource teachers might use.
My servers conspire against me. Somehow, they “know” when I leave town and immediately generate some problem that I cannot fix remotely.
I am in Columbus, OH, to provide a presentation for the Midwestern Educational Research Association. The conference has a theme focused on technology this year so that provided the basis for their invitation to have me present. I am having a good time, attending sessions, taking notes, meeting people, etc. Somehow, the server that I use to offer my collection of bookmarks recognizes that I am not in town and decides to shut down. I added some new bookmarks to this system just yesterday. It has never failed in the nearly a year I have been experimenting with this service. I attend conferences maybe a max of two weeks per year and somehow it knows.
I am taking this as a sign of affection. My dog acts up when I leave town, too.
The “social bookmarking” data are intact and the site will be reactivated on Monday (I hope ;)).
The political ads tend to annoy me. The short duration, carefully scripted presentations never answer the questions I want answered. In fact, they contain little of what I would regard as actual information. It almost seems that such ads are crafted to avoid offering specific information. This may be the case because small segments of such ads could be abstracted and used by opponents to offer counter claims.
I have decided that the election season provides a great opportunity to collect and analyze political ads. Perhaps such a task might serve as a way to develop general literacy skills. Here are a couple of personal observations.
1) Why are our politicians always “fighting?” They will, as our champions I assume, fight for higher taxes for the wealthy, lower taxes for us all, health care, protection for our children, etc. Why do they assume we will respond to what they would like to be represented as a competitive and combative environment? Maybe understanding the focus of the political process in this manner is the problem. Maybe the focus should be on getting things done, making progress, coming to an agreement, or some similar way of representing what is necessary to change things.
2) I am trying to understand what is really meant when a candidates suggests they will operate according to regional values. As in, “I will fight for our North Dakota values.” I live on the eastern border of North Dakota so I get confused by the messages touting both North Dakota and Minnesota values. Maybe those of us living near the border have somehow tainted our values by exposure to those of the nearby state. Actually, I am wondering if such values differ and I wonder if I would list the same list of values as most others from my state. Perhaps there is a bit of intended deception here. Maybe the intent is to suggest that I will represent your values and you know what your values are because you are a North Dakotan. It is kind of a “fill in the blank” claim and safer if there is never a need to be more specific.
3) Another thing that annoys me is the reference to longevity and generational attachment to the state. I was not born in North Dakota, but I have lived there for approximately 30 years. Does this mean I have less of an attachment to the state than some 25 year old politician who was born in the state and is running for the state legislature? Perhaps North Dakota values are in the water and there is a critical period for being influenced by such values that ends when one reaches the age of 2.
4) Another factor that seems to be prevalent in ND ads is imagery with a rural focus. Pictures that might show a candidate as a young girl “on the farm” or a candidate “hunting ducks” seem always to be worked in to a 30 second ad. Even in North Dakota, most folks don’t live on a farm and I would guess most are not hunters. I actually grew up on a farm, but that was in Iowa so I guess that does not count. I sometimes wonder if they dress these folks up in hunting gear, warn them which end of a gun is which, and find a nice rural scene to get a few pics. There must be some intersection between North Dakota values, multigenerational local heritage, and killing birds, but I cannot identify exactly what it is.
The examples I mention here may not apply in your area. Perhaps farm scenes are replaced with factory scenes. Perhaps a scene from a rural cafe is replaced with a scene from a city deli. I am guessing no one wants to claim being from the suburbs.
What does any of this have to do with real issues? I assume the intent is to help voters identify with candidates and then hope that assumptions regarding common interests (values) follow. Why not simply make clear statements regarding how you stand on specific issues? Is it that there is not enough time to explain anything in 30 seconds? Is it that specific positions get candidates in trouble because voters will identify points of disagreement? I don’t know, but it does bother me that what works, I assume candidates are getting expert advice on what works, offers so little actual information and assumes so very little of those who consume these efforts to influence. Maybe students are the place to start.
What types of imagery are used in ads supporting a candidate vs. attack ads? How is language selected? Are the ads offered by competing candidates allowing voters to understand how candidates stand on the same issues? Make up your own questions.
