I like the idea of using del.icio.us to allow online classmates to virtually introduce themselves to one another. The process of adding or uploading individual bookmarks is accomplished in del.icio.us without much technical fuss, so it would certainly qualify as 'Week One' homework. The personal aspect of the task would augment the current introductory assignment of avatar creation and wiki/student page bio posting. It would also create basic 'talking points' and add to the sense of community in the group. It could highlight other kinds of collaborative projects, also.
One thing that's been cool to see is the kind of banter we're sharing on twitter. While I'm missing the easy social aspect of the on-campus class this semester, the tweets remind me that I'm not laboring in total isolation. We've done some virtual group activity and blog commenting, and that's gone very well, so I am optimistic that the 'social' part of 'social software' is there. I think the idea of bringing the del.icio.us assignment forward in the schedule would add to the idea of the class as a social community from the start.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Delicious v. Magnolia - Part 1
It's a short part one, but that's what happens when you're waiting for your bookmarks to load from del.icio.us to ma.gnolia.
So far, I've enjoyed using del.icio.us. Easy, quick, fun to tag, impressed to see the network of SCILS598F08 expand, cool to have the linear or tag cloud options when you want to see what crops up most. Apparently, chocolate, movies, and books dominate my world. And all this time I thought it was the late great Joey Ramone... Maybe it's the commemorative CBGB chocobox from the Chocolate Bar, after all. But I digress -
Pretty it is not, though I enjoy the blue-toned theme very much. For pretty, you're going for ma.gnolia. Their idea of tile icons of the pages you bookmark is thoughtful - a lot like the visual representations of your books in librarything. Also, I like the idea that you can export from del.icio.us to ma.gnolia: anything that prevents me from having to manually re-enter 77 bookmarks is good. However, it's yet to be proven that this actually works, since none of my bookmarks have shown up yet. So, Part Deux! is a must.
Both sites impress me in that there seems to be ample help and a multitude of ways to use their services. I would probably use del.icio.us more given that I jumped on board there first. Should ma.gnola deliver on its import function, it would be a very acceptable and visually impressive second.
So far, I've enjoyed using del.icio.us. Easy, quick, fun to tag, impressed to see the network of SCILS598F08 expand, cool to have the linear or tag cloud options when you want to see what crops up most. Apparently, chocolate, movies, and books dominate my world. And all this time I thought it was the late great Joey Ramone... Maybe it's the commemorative CBGB chocobox from the Chocolate Bar, after all. But I digress -
Pretty it is not, though I enjoy the blue-toned theme very much. For pretty, you're going for ma.gnolia. Their idea of tile icons of the pages you bookmark is thoughtful - a lot like the visual representations of your books in librarything. Also, I like the idea that you can export from del.icio.us to ma.gnolia: anything that prevents me from having to manually re-enter 77 bookmarks is good. However, it's yet to be proven that this actually works, since none of my bookmarks have shown up yet. So, Part Deux! is a must.
Both sites impress me in that there seems to be ample help and a multitude of ways to use their services. I would probably use del.icio.us more given that I jumped on board there first. Should ma.gnola deliver on its import function, it would be a very acceptable and visually impressive second.
Brown & Duguid: Hmmm.
Disclaimer: I used to be an English teacher, certified (and certifiable!) grades 7-12. As such, I had the pleasure of going to graduate school part-time over a series of years to earn the first MA. I took education courses and student-taught. I also grew up with two English teacher parents who had very different, clashing views of what education was, in which direction it ought to move, and whether what was occurring 'now' was 'progress'. This will be my 3rd degree; I have very definite views on what education is and is NOT.
That said, I agree with what much of B and D have to say about the perception and actuality of education as a delivery system. The only exceptions that I found as a k-12 student were in Advanced Placement classes, where instructors - often with 'Ph.D' after their names - forced us to engage with the ideas rather than rote responses. Conversely, an expensive undergraduate education provided little non-delivery learning, particularly and amazingly in my own department and field. This again reinforces what B and D had to say about undergraduate education. My undergraduate degree would fall into their category of 'credentialing' - meaning it would look good to an employer and therefore put me among the candidates selected for an interview. It would not, however, speak to B and D's idea of a community, or engagement with practitioners: the murky area that we assume is going on in education, but in reality may not be.
Let's assume that B and D are correct and that graduate school is the real connection to higher knowledge, where you are 'doing' rather than being passively 'done to'. Isn't this a lot of money to spend over 16 years in public and private institutions, only to learn that you'll need to drop another $72,000 + for another 2-4 years of active education to become a practitioner?
Let's go back to k-12. As I entered teaching in New York State, the old Regents exams were being 'supplemented' by exams in the 4th and 8th grade. Part of this was tracked credentialing: a 'Regents diploma' was worth more, in New York, than a 'non-Regents diploma'. There was more pressure to obtain these diplomas, secured by passing a series of subject-area tests and completing a 'Regents sequence' in one area. As No Child Left Behind was inflicted on New York, the pressure accelerated to capture and track weaker students at earlier ages and supplement one specific part of their education before they took the final exam sequence and were doomed to the 'non-Regents diploma' wasteland. Mind you, once you left New York State, this whole Regents diploma gobbledygook was unapplicable to any other state - and it certainly was no guarantee of better employment anywhere. What it did do, pre-NCLB, was grease the wheels for acceptance at in-state institutions at a point when in-state schools were relatively inexpensive. After NCLB, the benefit to NY was that they already had some form of testing in place.
When NCLB arrived, 'education' left the building for kids who had difficulty passing the 4th and 8th grade tests. More math, science, English, social studies; less music, art, gym, intramural, and afterschool activities. More teaching to the test, more rote responses, less time for cross-curricular learning and serendipitous knowledge. Also, more of the same kids with the same deficits in the same classes; so therefore, less chances to learn from others with varied strengths and weaknesses. Hardly educational, hardly a community of learners, and hardly a surprise to find that this kind of 'education' has extended to undergraduate institutions.
I don't see this changing in the current environment. B and D address this somewhat in their talk about centralization, but I lay the blame for this squarely at the feet of the so-called 'business model of education'. Credentialing may be the main thing high schools and colleges do, but this turns learning institutions into widget factories, where the only difference is which factory made the widget. Ultimately, the real issue is that a University of Phoenix widget is considered far inferior to a MIT-manufactured widget. Is that because we assume more learning goes on at MIT? Or is it strictly MIT's reputation? At this point, that reputation has little to do with the actual everyday learning and practice at the MIT community, and all to do with how MIT is rated - and by whom. If MIT were to sponsor a completely online degree program along the lines of the 19th century University of London model, then their online degree would have the equivalent weight of their current degree. So the question is, why don't they do this? I would go back to the business model of education: there must be some reason that an institution like MIT, with the brains to make it really work (see, I bought into the 'reputation' assumption!), doesn't move forward with it. Could it be financial? Sure, you could market it. It would be innovative. But how much money are you going to make on it? What's your reputation going to be as the new kid on the block? How do you change the perception of the market - and those who market universities - so that an online degree gains acceptance and retains an institution's reputation?
Really, what we're talking about is ephemera: not the logistics of how, but a sea change in perception. We also have to begin looking at education as a public good and not just a commodity. And as long as we throw Olympic sports under the bus for a football program, it ain't gonna happen.
That said, I agree with what much of B and D have to say about the perception and actuality of education as a delivery system. The only exceptions that I found as a k-12 student were in Advanced Placement classes, where instructors - often with 'Ph.D' after their names - forced us to engage with the ideas rather than rote responses. Conversely, an expensive undergraduate education provided little non-delivery learning, particularly and amazingly in my own department and field. This again reinforces what B and D had to say about undergraduate education. My undergraduate degree would fall into their category of 'credentialing' - meaning it would look good to an employer and therefore put me among the candidates selected for an interview. It would not, however, speak to B and D's idea of a community, or engagement with practitioners: the murky area that we assume is going on in education, but in reality may not be.
Let's assume that B and D are correct and that graduate school is the real connection to higher knowledge, where you are 'doing' rather than being passively 'done to'. Isn't this a lot of money to spend over 16 years in public and private institutions, only to learn that you'll need to drop another $72,000 + for another 2-4 years of active education to become a practitioner?
Let's go back to k-12. As I entered teaching in New York State, the old Regents exams were being 'supplemented' by exams in the 4th and 8th grade. Part of this was tracked credentialing: a 'Regents diploma' was worth more, in New York, than a 'non-Regents diploma'. There was more pressure to obtain these diplomas, secured by passing a series of subject-area tests and completing a 'Regents sequence' in one area. As No Child Left Behind was inflicted on New York, the pressure accelerated to capture and track weaker students at earlier ages and supplement one specific part of their education before they took the final exam sequence and were doomed to the 'non-Regents diploma' wasteland. Mind you, once you left New York State, this whole Regents diploma gobbledygook was unapplicable to any other state - and it certainly was no guarantee of better employment anywhere. What it did do, pre-NCLB, was grease the wheels for acceptance at in-state institutions at a point when in-state schools were relatively inexpensive. After NCLB, the benefit to NY was that they already had some form of testing in place.
When NCLB arrived, 'education' left the building for kids who had difficulty passing the 4th and 8th grade tests. More math, science, English, social studies; less music, art, gym, intramural, and afterschool activities. More teaching to the test, more rote responses, less time for cross-curricular learning and serendipitous knowledge. Also, more of the same kids with the same deficits in the same classes; so therefore, less chances to learn from others with varied strengths and weaknesses. Hardly educational, hardly a community of learners, and hardly a surprise to find that this kind of 'education' has extended to undergraduate institutions.
I don't see this changing in the current environment. B and D address this somewhat in their talk about centralization, but I lay the blame for this squarely at the feet of the so-called 'business model of education'. Credentialing may be the main thing high schools and colleges do, but this turns learning institutions into widget factories, where the only difference is which factory made the widget. Ultimately, the real issue is that a University of Phoenix widget is considered far inferior to a MIT-manufactured widget. Is that because we assume more learning goes on at MIT? Or is it strictly MIT's reputation? At this point, that reputation has little to do with the actual everyday learning and practice at the MIT community, and all to do with how MIT is rated - and by whom. If MIT were to sponsor a completely online degree program along the lines of the 19th century University of London model, then their online degree would have the equivalent weight of their current degree. So the question is, why don't they do this? I would go back to the business model of education: there must be some reason that an institution like MIT, with the brains to make it really work (see, I bought into the 'reputation' assumption!), doesn't move forward with it. Could it be financial? Sure, you could market it. It would be innovative. But how much money are you going to make on it? What's your reputation going to be as the new kid on the block? How do you change the perception of the market - and those who market universities - so that an online degree gains acceptance and retains an institution's reputation?
Really, what we're talking about is ephemera: not the logistics of how, but a sea change in perception. We also have to begin looking at education as a public good and not just a commodity. And as long as we throw Olympic sports under the bus for a football program, it ain't gonna happen.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Digg It? Eh, Not So Much.
Do I Digg it? I’m not sure.
Digg is, like Riffs, a site where you rate the content you see and it rises or falls in status based upon the ratings you award. In some ways, it can be useful, particularly if you are looking for new bites of information, news, animation, YouTube clips, etc. However, the organization of the site is so random that it is impossible not to become bogged down in irrelevant and unrelated information. I’d downrate the information I don’t need, but that hardly seems fair – it’s useful to someone, just not me.
That said, Digg has a far more user-friendly interface for this sort of thing than Reddit. Reddit’s organization of information seems far more more random, as well. So, of the two types of social bookmarking sites, Digg was a better fit for me in terms of making sense of what was going on.
Digg is, like Riffs, a site where you rate the content you see and it rises or falls in status based upon the ratings you award. In some ways, it can be useful, particularly if you are looking for new bites of information, news, animation, YouTube clips, etc. However, the organization of the site is so random that it is impossible not to become bogged down in irrelevant and unrelated information. I’d downrate the information I don’t need, but that hardly seems fair – it’s useful to someone, just not me.
That said, Digg has a far more user-friendly interface for this sort of thing than Reddit. Reddit’s organization of information seems far more more random, as well. So, of the two types of social bookmarking sites, Digg was a better fit for me in terms of making sense of what was going on.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Feed: Coming Soon!
We're pretty close to the society in Feed: and I see that as a problem.
We currently live in a digitally divided society. It is a fact that those who use evolving technology will continue to get ahead, while those without access to (or the ability to upgrade) either skills or equipment will fall further and further behind. That means that not everyone can fully take part in a society focused on technology. This society excludes people who don't own or use computers; this society excludes people who may lose television signal due to the HD conversion.
Now remember how Violet's father - too poor and too proud to purchase top of the line equipment for himself - is shut out of both society and a potential job by the lack of a feed. In his effort to make sure this does not happen to his daughter, he has to literally buy into the culture and purchase the feed. However, what he can afford just isn't enough to give her a better opportunity - and in fact the defective feed kills her. Who gets top-of-the-line equipment? Kids like Titus, whose parents can afford the best. Who gets shoddy equipment and inadequate care? Kids like Violet, whose single parent just can't afford better. This is one vision of a future in which the thorny socioeconomic issues have remained intact.
I'd have to say that our present systems are a precursor of this kind of society, simply because we're monitored in so many ways for so many things (ATM purchases, EZ Pass, cookies, etc.). Some of the snail mail and spam we receive has definitely been geared towards our continued consumption of some goods and a siren's call towards other, newer items. Combine this with the need for constant entertainment, information, and just plain noise, and how far are we from direct access? I often joked while working in education that it would be far easier to bar code kids and 'swipe' them on and off buses, not to mention in and out of classes, for attendance purposes. No more kids left sleeping on school buses; no more cutting class. So when they started putting microchips into pets so they'd be easier to find, I realized we were at a place as a society where some of us could be convinced that this was a good idea for children. Scary.
All of this strikes me. I don't want to be all doom and gloom here, but wasn't that the intention of the book? Look at how far Titus' peers are from what we'd consider humanity; who aside from Titus changes? If a society can unquestioningly accept the sudden & mass appearance of mysterious lesions and make them fashion statements, how might they accept even worse physical, social, and environmental conditions? Really, the question becomes, how many Violets will this society have to produce in order for the majority of people to realize there is a problem? And what if they never realize - are the few Tituses among them enough to change the balance of the equation for the better? I'm not all that optimistic!
We currently live in a digitally divided society. It is a fact that those who use evolving technology will continue to get ahead, while those without access to (or the ability to upgrade) either skills or equipment will fall further and further behind. That means that not everyone can fully take part in a society focused on technology. This society excludes people who don't own or use computers; this society excludes people who may lose television signal due to the HD conversion.
Now remember how Violet's father - too poor and too proud to purchase top of the line equipment for himself - is shut out of both society and a potential job by the lack of a feed. In his effort to make sure this does not happen to his daughter, he has to literally buy into the culture and purchase the feed. However, what he can afford just isn't enough to give her a better opportunity - and in fact the defective feed kills her. Who gets top-of-the-line equipment? Kids like Titus, whose parents can afford the best. Who gets shoddy equipment and inadequate care? Kids like Violet, whose single parent just can't afford better. This is one vision of a future in which the thorny socioeconomic issues have remained intact.
I'd have to say that our present systems are a precursor of this kind of society, simply because we're monitored in so many ways for so many things (ATM purchases, EZ Pass, cookies, etc.). Some of the snail mail and spam we receive has definitely been geared towards our continued consumption of some goods and a siren's call towards other, newer items. Combine this with the need for constant entertainment, information, and just plain noise, and how far are we from direct access? I often joked while working in education that it would be far easier to bar code kids and 'swipe' them on and off buses, not to mention in and out of classes, for attendance purposes. No more kids left sleeping on school buses; no more cutting class. So when they started putting microchips into pets so they'd be easier to find, I realized we were at a place as a society where some of us could be convinced that this was a good idea for children. Scary.
All of this strikes me. I don't want to be all doom and gloom here, but wasn't that the intention of the book? Look at how far Titus' peers are from what we'd consider humanity; who aside from Titus changes? If a society can unquestioningly accept the sudden & mass appearance of mysterious lesions and make them fashion statements, how might they accept even worse physical, social, and environmental conditions? Really, the question becomes, how many Violets will this society have to produce in order for the majority of people to realize there is a problem? And what if they never realize - are the few Tituses among them enough to change the balance of the equation for the better? I'm not all that optimistic!
Bloglines Gives Me Static
Yes, this week's question may very well be: "Does the use of RSS/RSS aggregators mitigate or aggravate the problem of Information Overload in today's society?" But as VP candidate, Alaska Governor, & hockey mom Sarah Palin said to moderator Gwen Ifill at Thursday's debate: "I may choose not to answer the questions you ask!"
...Well, at least not at first. ;)
- Because how can I answer the question when I can't get on my primary RSS aggregator? Right off the bat, my answer's goin' to be either a Palinesque demurral or a forceful vote for "aggravate!" after the 7th error message. Because whether you're Joe Six-Pack, a hockey mom, or a member of the hated East Coast, it sure is aggravatin' to be overloadin' on error messages and unloadin' on information. You betcha!
But on a normal day, when Bloglines works and I'm not channeling Governor Palin-via-Tina Fey, I'd say RSS aggregators help you cut through information overload. You get the information that you want, and you can pin any items you want to read later. For example, if I read the NY Times film section, I don't have to click through the home page and scroll through all the stories just to get to the ones about film. Don't want to read something? I don't have to!
Now, sure, you could be overwhelmed to see 39 new items in a particular folder. But generally you can tell from the subject line whether it's of interest or not. Where this does get tricky is when you might miss content within a blog; or even the idea that it might be valuable to read that which is not of immediate interest to you so that you stay informed. But if we're strictly talking to the question, then RSS aggregators are part of the solution, not the problem, when it comes to information overload.
So, when Bloglines works, it's downright mavericky. And when it doesn't: well, say it ain't so, Joe!
...Well, at least not at first. ;)
- Because how can I answer the question when I can't get on my primary RSS aggregator? Right off the bat, my answer's goin' to be either a Palinesque demurral or a forceful vote for "aggravate!" after the 7th error message. Because whether you're Joe Six-Pack, a hockey mom, or a member of the hated East Coast, it sure is aggravatin' to be overloadin' on error messages and unloadin' on information. You betcha!
But on a normal day, when Bloglines works and I'm not channeling Governor Palin-via-Tina Fey, I'd say RSS aggregators help you cut through information overload. You get the information that you want, and you can pin any items you want to read later. For example, if I read the NY Times film section, I don't have to click through the home page and scroll through all the stories just to get to the ones about film. Don't want to read something? I don't have to!
Now, sure, you could be overwhelmed to see 39 new items in a particular folder. But generally you can tell from the subject line whether it's of interest or not. Where this does get tricky is when you might miss content within a blog; or even the idea that it might be valuable to read that which is not of immediate interest to you so that you stay informed. But if we're strictly talking to the question, then RSS aggregators are part of the solution, not the problem, when it comes to information overload.
So, when Bloglines works, it's downright mavericky. And when it doesn't: well, say it ain't so, Joe!
Friday, October 3, 2008
Deviant!
This week's intriguing Web 2.0 site is deviantART. deviantART is a place where artists can exhibit work online and where users can track their favorite works of art and artists. It's free to look at the work at deviantART; though, understandably, there is a fee if you want to use the site to exhibit and sell your work.
What struck me was the idea that it functions as an online gallery show where you can browse and purchase multiple genres of art. Talented non-professionals have an outlet for their creations that isn't dependent on critical notice or reviews, or finding the right exhibition space. Art aficionados don't have to hit gallery after gallery looking for that one right piece. There is amazing potential here! Though, sadly, no wine and cheese. :(
Whether you are interested in still photography, documentaries, traditional art, or anime, you will find quite a bit to admire on the site. And it's kind of cool to deal directly with an artist when you enjoy their work; it just adds something extra to your enjoyment of the experience, whether you're interested in buying their work or just praising it.
What struck me was the idea that it functions as an online gallery show where you can browse and purchase multiple genres of art. Talented non-professionals have an outlet for their creations that isn't dependent on critical notice or reviews, or finding the right exhibition space. Art aficionados don't have to hit gallery after gallery looking for that one right piece. There is amazing potential here! Though, sadly, no wine and cheese. :(
Whether you are interested in still photography, documentaries, traditional art, or anime, you will find quite a bit to admire on the site. And it's kind of cool to deal directly with an artist when you enjoy their work; it just adds something extra to your enjoyment of the experience, whether you're interested in buying their work or just praising it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
