I fortuitously aggregated upon the essay Vernacular 2.0, which discusses the development of user expression as it has morphed from the 90s into the 2000s. First, her observation: “The space that we’ve researched as a new medium for the last ten years has turned into the most mass medium of them all” rings so true that it gives me pause. But the internet is not mass media as we understand that even somewhat neologistic term, given the relatively short context of “mass communication.” Thus, should a construct of mass communication whereby a few formulate and communicate messages to many be modified? Has what we call “new” media, for lack of a better term really, actually been just a new mass communication tool that has flipped all the rules of mass communication around? Maybe this is just semantics. Certainly, with the direction that “new” media has gone, with the proliferation of tools at the “common” person’s disposal, the power of mass communication is placed in the hands of a whole lot more people. Whether their message will be part of a mass communication message will depend on a number of other factors, but certainly the whole “famous to 15 people” may be true. (Although this confounds the meaning of fame and suggests it has nothing to do with mass anything but instead social distance?)
As usual, I digress. What Lialina’s Vernacular 2.0 article brought to the forefront of my thoughts is the increasingly intensified expectations for web presence today. An early assertion in the article, picking up from earlier observations about home page construction and early user expression in web environments is about the usurping from ordinary users:

“It is also clear now who owns the home with the garden and who are the gnomes grimacing on a manicured lawn in the company of plaster ducks and real flowers.” - From Vernacular 2.0

Ok, pulling that quote out of the context that abruptly requires you, the reader, to head to the essay and figure out why we’re talking about gnomes in the first place, but essentially the idea is that a home page was never analogous to a home, but to a gnome hanging out in the garden outside the home. Enter Web 2.0 interfaces: google pages, myspace, etc., and suddenly the garden gnome/traditional home page is a duck out of water among the corporatized, more standardized designs.

Certainly, on the one hand, the availability of these tools has given users a whole lot more robust usability. Whereas with a standard traditional web page, if the page got big, one struggled with file management underneath the surface, today it is possible to set up a CMS and create a database-driven web-site, where the user doesn’t have to concern themself with back-end data management. But I hear what Lialina is saying loud and clear, and for me it begs a larger question: what skills are necessary to move from an amateur to a specialist in “new media?” If you have students developing a home page, which is so 1995, is this a valuable skill and necessary step in the process of learning, or is it so old school as to be obsolete? My web design abilities grew up simultaneously with the medium, to an extent, so to me it has been a natural progression, but if one were to come in without that context, does the whole big world of creating art, objects, communication, etc. for the web seem overwhelming? Or does it seem touch-of-a-button easy as all the message-creator needs to do is learn to exploit existing tools? Which is it? Or can it be both?

I’m not sure how much my comments are adding to the discussion, but there is another dimension to Cool Cat Teacher’s assertion that kids need to be taught “digital citizenship” and Downes’ response. First, I believe that CCT was talking about information literacy rather than digital citizenship. Reverting to a semantical discussion may just infuriate those who already dislike the “all talk, no action” angle, but to me it is an important distinction. Furthermore, I think if there is any area that formal education is striving to integrate, it is information literacy. To me it is not shocking at all that a 7th grader would visit a website and consider it “published” and therefore reliable. On the other hand, it would seem that anyone interacting with the 7th grader over the information in the site should be equipped to question why he feels this is or is not a reliable source.

On the other hand promoting digital citizenship seems much broader and something that schools have not emphasized as much to date. Digital citizenship implies that the 7th grader is not only consuming information on the Internet, s/he is then synthesizing and creating new information and contributing to the digital body of knowledge, as it were. Am I off here?

In addition, I understand where CCT’s frustration is coming from. At the same time, that frustration seems rooted in a sense that this is a common sense issue– we just need to teach kids what is “right information” and “wrong information” and they will be edumacated. Unfortunately, at least as far as I’m concerned, there is a lot more nuance to navigating all of the information in our world. I have found that the instincts of many are that they just want to know what is true and untrue, they don’t want to have to think about it too much. However, in a world of multiple perspectives where we can all participate in the creation of information, there is not a choice about whether or not to navigate the gray areas and develop an ability to be more nuanced. Frankly, I don’t disagree with CCT’s son’s inclusion of alternate theories in regard to 9/11, but these assertions HAVE to be contextualized in the source of that information and couched in language such as “some people believe” and “though highly doubtful” or even “there is little evidence to support” to demonstrate the uncertainty of this information. Again, I’m thinking this is more about information literacy than digital citizenship. Thoughts?

“Technologies and scientific discourses can be partially understood as formalizations, i.e., as frozen moments, of the fluid social interactions constituting them, but they should also be viewed as instruments for enforcing meanings. The boundary is permeable between tool and myth, instrument and concept, historical systems of social relations and historical anatomies of possible bodies, including objects of knowledge. Indeed, myth and tool mutually constitute each other.” -From A Cyborg Manifesto

What are people learning when they engage in activity, interaction, and communication in Second Life? Beyond the question of whether there is a demand for learning English in SL, there is a larger question of how the tool, in this case a complex virtual world, and an understanding of a way of being within the context of the use of that tool, is an important question when we embark down this path.

What are our “historical systems of social relations and historical anatomies of possible bodies” when we start to engage with each other in virtual, increasingly multi-dimensional worlds? In the physical world, we have histories, individual and communal, that underlie our interactions. We have the ability to formulate abstract communications with each other, disembodied interactions, through written language. With the development of communications technologies we have been able to modify to more “bodied” exchanges, where the nuance of tone, pitch, and articulation in a voiced interaction convey more embodiment than words on a page, but less than an interaction with the whole person.

The development of information communication technology, the ability to digitize both written text and spoken information has fractured our sense of “distance” and “presence.” Whereas these were previously, at least colloquially, measures of space and time, we can be both distant and present with others across physical space and chronological time. But how is this new “enforced meaning” changing our communication? How does a shift from a visual online world (how I will loosely label our text/image-based internet) to a tactile online world (borrowing from McLuhan’s definition whereby “tactility is the interplay of the senses, rather than the isolated contact of skin and object“)?
One question in regards to teaching and learning in Second Life specifically is, how does the culture of that virtual world impacts the communicative process? Another question I would ask is how participation in a virtual world such as SL changes the participant, and is the way the participant is changed– the way they are forced to confront their identity and engage in communicative action– something that should be imposed on someone in the same manner we are all required to be participants in the physical world? What kind of disclaimer should be provided for learners who are required through coursework to join these burgeoning and wholly immersive tactile worlds?

I bring up this issue for several reasons:

1) Because much of the research and exploration of using virtual worlds such as SL for teaching and learning appears predicated on a wholly technologically deterministic approach whereby it has been created for us, so we must use it. Or from a technological utopianistic view that online we can explore these new identities in a wonderful way that doesn’t need to be critiqued. I haven’t seen a whole lot of critique of what ways of being are being introduced to students who engage in SL.

2) In the one class where the issue of SL has been brought up this semester, a student mentioned it as this “place online, where like, people live their lives and spend real money” with a tone as if to skeptically indicate that s/he had heard of this, but does such a thing really exist?

3) Capitalistic values (that whole spending real money aspect) are inherently and obviously perpetuated in the SL environment, and that may or may not be appropriate for language learning and/or other educational endeavors. Maybe, as English is the current lingua franca of business, that makes it the perfect learning environment for English.

And on that note, with #3 tying nicely back into more questions of how SL perpetuates or breaks previous historical patterns, I will break in search of lunch…

Although the post-teaching rush is widely documented, I find myself amazed at how exhausting teaching is. No wonder teaching colleagues at my former job thought I was insane to leave the desk behind. And yes, there is a certain reprieve in knowing that when you get up in the morning, you can sit at a desk for a few hours before having to do anything taxing, like, for example, convince 16 groggy undergrads to discuss Hofstede’s theory. But I digress from my intended topic, which is the sudden renewed interest in the topic of education in general, which was pushed to the back of my agenda when I was sitting behind said desk.

I have heard the allegations that today’s kids are digital natives, which I recently remarked was not what my new experience is. I might be being a little bit harsh. While they did not immediately seem to register understanding when they created accounts on the class blog, no one claimed to not know what a computer is or what the internets are. Actually, the whole process of getting people oriented to what they needed to post and where went fairly smoothly.

I am newly aware, acutely aware, of the tension between (1) the importance of critical thinking/higher order thinking and the rootedness of these skills in a liberal arts education and a general sense that an ability to manipulate emerging technologies is fickle, and with excellent critical thinking and problem-solving skills, today’s learners will be able to adapt to changing technical skills and (2) a fairly certain understanding that though critical thinking and problem-solving can be generally learned, there are specific skills inherent in adapting to digital technologies that many do not just “pick up” and that many find intimidating, and one must gain problem-solving experience specific to the domain of digital technologies and message design and communication using these tools to become competent in those areas. And here’s a shocker, the rest of the liberal arts world doesn’t seem to be too keen on this idea. I’m not saying there’s outright hostility, but there are definitely traditional feelings even among others who teach in digital media circles.

This brings to life, really for the first time for me, a real interest in the questions being posed out there by others about the tension between education (credentialing) and education (learning). I loved Downes’ post this week about responding to criticism about Web 2.0. He comments, in regards to, I assume K-12 institutions:

Schools were designed for a particular purpose, one that is almost diametrically at odds with what ought to be the practices and objectives of a contemporary education, an education suited not only to the information age but also to the objectives of personal freedom and empowerment.

I can’t help but wonder whether this applies to higher education too. I want my teaching to be different. I want to teach undergraduates as I would adult learners, but I’ve been told that undergraduates are different, and this might be a fair assessment. (Might be–or the advice about how to relate to students is rooted in a particular hidden curriculum which may or may not be necessary). In fact, probably too many adult learners are not self-directed, a general weakness within the assumptions of adult learning theory. I want to guide students in understanding how to find information for themselves, to navigate the digital world that is everywhere and rapidly shifting, whereas I am not confident that these are goals of most higher education instructors. And if that’s the case, talk about being irrelevant. And this attitude makes this entire post paradoxical, because I do believe that there is value in the liberal arts curriculum, but the old way of understanding what information is and how we construct it just doesn’t add up in the digital world.

So digging around a little more about rapleaf, they have an about page.

Reputation and Privacy

 

Build your reputation. Control your privacy. Empower yourself.

FACT: Your reputation online (and offline) will dictate certain benefits and services on the internet.

Will dictate benefits and services to me on the internet? Seriously?

So have you looked yourself up on rapleaf yet?

As it may be obvious, the Quechup incident really got to me. Whenever I get really upset about something, I like to understand why.

First, it was the circumstances. I received an invite from someone who is reputable in social networking circles. I don’t blame her personally, but I do think her perspective that this is not a big deal is a little off. It is a big deal because before I could trust references from her, and now I can’t. Sure, we’re not close buddies in RL, but I trusted her judgment. But obviously, due to the manner in which companies feel compelled to operate, I never should have. All of us are operating electronically on borrowed networks, of which we will not always have control.
Second, I have taken the social networking thing for granted. Social networking, for lazy people, would consist of facebook, myspace, ning, friendster–whatever sites allow you to access all your contacts via a simple log-in. Why do I say lazy? Because, of course, one could socially network via blogs or wikis or whatever, and have more local control, but you don’t get access to a larger community. But let’s face it people, we’ve all been had. When companies like rapleaf and upscoop come along, and I will add to that spock, a very clear objective of these sites becomes apparent. As ZDnet notes, a lot of personal information is being traded, and the process is not transparent for users. So is social networking really about cultivating relationships online or is at all a big scam to follow my spending habits and market shit to me.

Maybe I was overreacting yesterday, but I’m thinking pretty clearly today about where I want to stand in relationship to these companies.

Post subtitle: The end of unsolicited invites

Do I now have a personal vendetta against Quechup? Yes.

The question is why?

All they did was ask to see who else from my contact list was in Quechup. So I obliged. I’ve done it with facebook and had no problem. I did it with Linked in and was pleasantly surprised. Instead Quechup does something different.

They spam your entire contact list without telling you they are doing so.

I thought that was SO CUTE, that I would post about how sad that is, that a social networking site would engage in such a practice to build their network. I even went through the steps that I had gone through a second time in order to see if I might have inadvertently check off: SURE EMAIL MY ENTIRE CONTACT LIST. I didn’t do that at all. But I suppose now my entire contact list will be invited again.

Why does it make me so irate? I don’t know. I only checked out Quechup because I was invited, no doubt through the same duplicitous practice. I am angry because I like to know who I have agreed to email. I don’t email forwards to people, I don’t mass invite people. And then this fecockt social networking site goes in and violates my principles to advance their aims. It sent emails to people’s cell phones, it sent emails to companies that I had reported errors or problems to, it sent emails to people I haven’t talked to in years. And I intend to show my gratitude as best as I can by alerting anyone I can, to avoid this site–because it is just a front for a spam operation, as far as I am concerned.

And guess what: Other people had the same problem: here, here, here, here, and here…

Ok, I have a new respect for how viral they are, and I wonder what other sneaky stuff they are up to. Gone forever is good will toward invites for me. Seriously. Keep that in mind other would-be-community-developers. New policy: I no longer accept unsolicited invites and will educate others accordingly.