EME5404: Stupid is as stupid does, sir.

In my wanderings this week to find resources for my journal, I stumbled down the path we explored in Instructional Computing I: Is the internet making us stupid? I don't want to completely veer off onto that path, but considering that question does help to further understanding of how digital technologies have changed the way we access, consume, and process information. In the previous course, I stated that my reading patterns have changed. I now tend to skim material rather than read it closely. My attention span is maybe a few pages at a time. In an online article, if the author doesn't grab my attention and keep it within the first few paragraphs, I'm gone. So, as Carr (2008) believes, we humans are sacrificing our capacity for deep thought and linear processing. Rather than taking in high quality information in a logical way and processing it in a linear fashion, we now grab bits and pieces from various sources, clicking from link to link to link – and we LIKE getting this constant flow of new information. To put it in more common terms, we've been formally dining at the Waldorf Astoria for millennia; now we are grazing at the Golden Corral.

Alang (2010) believes this shift in human thought and processing is not necessarily a bad thing. He argues that this change in thought patterns may be necessary – and even beneficial – for the complex, multi-layered world in which we live. He further suggests that our world is so interconnected that we need to be able to navigate through the web of information, and linear thinking just won't serve that purpose.

Okay, so where does that take us in terms of accessing and evaluating quality information? Obviously, the web puts a plethora of information at our fingertips. Some of it is excellent, but quite a bit is garbage. I think I can address the issue of quality and put it in the context of changing thought patterns, and tie it all back to this week's reading. Hear me out, because I'm going to jump around a bit.

Let me first start with the issue of eBooks and changing thought patterns. Electronic publishing is on the rise, and much of the impetus is provided by textbook publishers (Miller, 2010b; Young, 2009). It only makes sense; publishers can cut costs and increase revenues by selling more eBooks. That's not the only incentive, however. As Miller notes, some education entities – California, for example – are establishing mandates to move to eBooks, citing in part reduced costs for students. From a student perspective, I can see additional advantages beyond cost savings. Modern eBooks aren't just electronic copies of the paper text; many are interactive, media infused learning experiences that function in the non-linear fashion that more of us tend to think. Students can bookmark, highlight, notate, and even share comments. They may be able to access a linked podcast or simulation, or possibly even an interactive assessment. So publishers are responding to the "new way of thinking" by creating non-linear, cross-connected electronic texts (Young, 2009).

That brings us to finding and consuming valid, reliable, high quality information. Another movement that has been afoot for a while and continues to grow is open source, or open access, digital publishing. This refers to collections of texts, journals, multimedia, and learning objects that have been developed by knowledgeable professionals and, in most cases, vetted by a panel of experts via peer review. The technology infusion of these resources may vary, but they offer a valid and reliable alternative to both expensive commercial products and non-peer reviewed resources. Many good examples are available from the Open Educational Resources Center for California, which was set up to support legislation in California that requires textbooks to be available in electronic form by 2020 (Miller, 2010a; Miller, 2010b).

As always, I want to leave you with a couple of videos to consider. This week, I have two. The first, from Money Talks News (1:24 mins), addresses the high cost of college textbooks by suggesting a few ways students can locate cheap or free resources. The other is from Texas Curriculum (1:36 mins) and addresses legislation that establishes a foundation for adopting open source textbooks in primary and secondary education. I think this second one is particularly important, because we often think of open source publishing in terms of higher education (I do, anyway). With the budgetary challenges faced by the nation's primary and secondary schools – both public and private – open source materials may provide one way to stretch finances further without compromising instructional integrity.

What are your thoughts or experiences with open source materials? What about your thought processes? Has the internet changed the way you find and use information?

 

Money Talks News (Producer). (2010, January 4). 3 Places to get free textbooks [Web video]. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/HxryAJ6N67o

 

Texas Curriculum (Producer). (2011, February 3). Open source textbooks [Web video]. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/YRLvCoq_BjI

References

Miller, M.H. (2010a, February 9). New web site lists free online textbooks. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogPost/New-Web-Site-Lists-Free-Online/21165/?sid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en

Alang, N. (2010, June 15). For better and worse, the web is changing how we think. Techi. Retrieved from http://www.techi.com/2010/06/for-better-and-worse-the-web-is-changing-how-we-think/

Carr, N. (2008, July/August) Is Google making us stupid? The Atlantic Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/6868/

Miller, M. H. (2010b, January 14). California law encourages digital textbooks by 2020. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogPost/California-Law-Requires/20526/?sid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en

 

EME5404: On the move

When I was a kid, mobile devices consisted of a slingshot, pocket knife, magnifying glass, and pocket-sized book of flower and insect classifications. The guide-on-the-side was my grandmother, who knew everything about every tiny plant or living creature. Together with some of my many cousins, we roamed through fields and trails picking up rocks, bark, grasses, flowers, and bugs, carefully examining them, discussing their features, and skimming through the book trying to classify what we had. Grandmother coached us, giving hints to help us find the right match. Sometimes we broke up into groups and would meet up to share our finds, collaborating to determine just what we had found.

I often wonder how things would have been different if I had mobile technology as a kid. In a way, the natural curiosity that was fed by my primitive "mobile apps" is what has fueled my adoption of technology as an adult. As new technologies have emerged, I've immersed myself in learning about them and trying the ones that appealed the most to me. Sometimes I find things I love, like my laptop, and other times I adopt things that I consider necessary evils, like my smartphone. For years, I put off buying a smartphone because I like being untethered at times and didn't want to spend the money for the data service. Now, however, I find that my smartphone has become as important as my laptop. The smartphone provides me with access to all my email accounts, texting, GPS, the web, a camera, my reading apps (Nook and Kindle), voice recorder, and even radio and TV. As much as I loathe the device, I now cannot live without it.

Thinking back to my days as a kid, a smartphone would have really supported my investigative hikes. I could see myself using the web to replace my pocket classification book. I could have photographed my finds and posted them to a site like Facebook. It would have made sharing finds with my cousins on another trail almost instantaneous. Grandmother could have managed us all via Twitter. Given that opportunities for in-depth learning about plant and animal life were not part of the formal curriculum at school, having my own device to support informal investigation of the world around me would have helped broaden and enrich my formal learning in class.

Making connections between people and leveraging technology to share content and solve problems are advantages of using mobile devices (Wagner, 2007). In a world where the learning environment is constantly challenged by lack of funds, high-stakes testing, overcrowded classrooms, and overworked teachers, mobile technology offers an informal intervention that individual students can use to augment and expand on what they learn in class.

This week, I leave you with a short (6:36 mins) video of teachers discussing the hows and whys of integrating mobile technology into the learning environment. From my perspective, I think one of the things we have to consider – especially with children – is the role that natural curiosity plays in the learning process. If we could use mobile technologies to harness that curiosity, we may have a powerful intervention on our hands. What do you think? Is it possible to leverage natural curiosity? What would the benefits or drawbacks be?



References

ACU (Producer). (2011, March 1). Thoughts on the state of mobile learning [Web video]. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/AQgCXEoTap4

Wagner, E. (2007, February 20). Mobile matters: Why learning professionals need to care [Archived web conference presentation]. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/mobile-matters-why-learning-professionals-need-care

EME5404: Virtually Yours

Multi-User Virtual Environments (MUVEs)

The challenge in delivering effective distance education remains the same: establishing and supporting presence.  We have come a long way in figuring out infrastructure, pedagogy, accessibility, collaboration, communication … but we still have work to do in terms of helping online participants establish and maintain presence in the online environment. Presence refers to the perception that others are present and engaged in an online exchange. But just how do we facilitate that element of presence online?

Varying opinions exist, of course. We can look toward theoretical approaches, pedagogy, instructional design, and so forth for the answers. Technology is another source to consider. Some experts believe that the use of multi-user virtual environments (MUVEs) can help to support the development of social presence, and, by extension, the learning experience. The videos and readings this week all gave various examples of MUVE implementations for different age groups that served, at least in part, to facilitate online presence. Presence is just advantage of using a MUVE, however. The readings cited numerous other contributions MUVEs can offer when used to facilitate learning delivery.

MUVEs improve opportunities for and support activities such as team building, collaboration, and community building (Gee, 2008; Ussery, 2010; Wallace, 2010). Furthermore, the virtual environment opens up opportunities for students to act in novel and creative ways (Bers, 2008; Ussery, 2010). Ussery (2010), in particular, provided numerous examples of things that could be done in the MUVE that would otherwise be difficult or impossible:

• In-world presentations: Overcomes some of the logistical issues with trying to facilitate presentation skills in online classes. 
• Student-led field trips or field trips to 3D simulations or models of concepts. 
• Access to resources or experts that would require significant travel or money to access otherwise.

Ussery (2010) and Gee (2008) both noted that the MUVE environment allowed students a safe place to practice skills that could not be pursued in real life. Examples included simulations of emergency situations, dangerous experiments, or any scenario where the cost of failure in the real world is high. I once reviewed a simulation created for military applications where a "terrorist attack" had taken place. Simulated bodies were all over the place, buildings had been "blown up," and so forth. The players had to evaluate and care for the injured and work on locating the perpetrators. It was very easy to become engrossed in the simulation.

In reviewing the literature this week, it seems that MUVEs could offer benefits to various individuals and groups. Wallace (2010) noted that high context (relies on communication factors other than speech) and highly sociable individuals seem to be more willing to participate and interact with the broader range of participants in MUVE. So it is reasonable to believe those individuals my benefit from the MUVEs. Individuals who are more hands-on in their learning styles could also benefit, because MUVEs offer the opportunity to apply new knowledge immediately. Bers (2008) cited some advantages to having children engage in a MUVE to develop civic engagement. Children were able to engage with other participants and the environment on their terms, to listen in on conversations where they were less prepared to participate actively, and to take action privately. They were also able to apply new knowledge and concepts immediately within the environment. This is not to say that MUVEs are a solution for any of these demographics, but rather that they may offer certain benefits.

I want to close this week with a look at virtual worlds in education. It seems like their use is slowing down, but there are still some interesting initiatives taking place. One is the MERLOT 3D Campus. Some may know MERLOT as a repository for learning objects and other learning materials. So it makes sense that MERLOT would voyage into the land of MUVEs. You can watch a brief over of MERLOT's Second Life based virtual environment, and then visit the Center for Learning in Virtual Environments (CLIVE) website.

Sify Innovative Solutions (Producer). (2011, November 28). Virtual worlds in higher education [Web video]. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/PDgmR4sbUaM (2:17 mins)

California State University. (2012). The Center for Learning In Virtual Environments (CLIVE). Retrieved from http://clive.merlot.org/index.html

If you are feeling adventuresome, visit CLIVE in Second Life. The link is on the CLIVE website. I have to admit, I visited and did not find much – perhaps because this is the weekend and very few people were visiting. But I have heard from other educators that Second Life is losing some of its popularity. Indeed, I found several "islands" I used to visit that either appear to be abandoned (outdated or broken information) or are gone all together. What do you think? Has the day of the MUVE come and gone, or is it still a viable option for online learning delivery?

References

Bers, M. U. (2008). Civic identities, online technologies: From designing civic curriculum to supporting civic experiences. In W. O. Bennett (Ed.), Civic life online: Learning how digital media can engage youth: The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation series on digital media and learning (pp. 139-160). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Retrieved from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/dmal.9780262524827.139

Gee, J. P. (2008). Learning and games. In K. Salen (Ed.), The ecology of games: Connecting youth, games, and learning: The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation series on digital media and learning (pp. 21-40). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Retrieved from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/dmal.9780262693646.021

Ussery, J. (2010). Expanding educational realities – Exploring interactive and immersive learning experiences. Session presented at EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative 2010 Annual Meeting, Austin, TX. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/blogs/gbayne/eli-session-expanding-educational-realities-%E2%80%93-exploring-interactive-and-immersive-learning-experiences

Wallace, P. (2010). Some of my students are not human! Avatar interaction and collaboration in virtual worlds. Session presented at EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative 2010 Annual Meeting, Austin, TX. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/blogs/gbayne/eli-session-expanding-educational-realities-%E2%80%93-exploring-interactive-and-immersive-learning-experiences

EME5404: Credibility and Your Online Self

Last week, I ended with the thought that verifying authenticity of web content is the reader's or consumer's responsibility. It's kind of the "caveat emptor" of the web. This week's topic considers that responsibility, and addresses how information consumers can improve their ability to evaluate web resources. Related to that is how we represent ourselves online, because an individual's online presence goes hand-in-hand with his or her credibility. So in addition to evaluating the credibility of resources we consume, we need to build in credibility to the resources we produce by creating and maintaining a reliable and professional online presence.

Although source credibility has traditionally included factors like the speaker's physical appearance and composure, online source credibility boils down to credentials, web presence, and the integrity of the associated web site (Flanagin & Metzger, 2008). In terms of web site integrity, consumers can consider several factors including the sponsoring organization, the currency of the information, and the presence of contact, copyright, and privacy information. For example, when the sponsoring organization is a university or other academic institution, the government, or the military, the information can usually be considered credible.  Likewise, if a website appears to be updated and maintained regularly and lists contacts and policy information, the sites credibility is probably fairly strong (Flanagin & Metzger, 2008; Lankes, 2008; Nortel, 2011). This short (6:05 minutes) video from Nortel describes ways information consumers can evaluate the integrity of online information.

 

 Obviously, the Internet has certainly had a hand in vastly expanding the resources educators and learners have available to them. In my own situation, being able to direct students to resources like an online video or a blog allows me to bring in expert testimony or opposing viewpoints that might otherwise be hard to access. It also gives students the flexibility to locate resources to support their own work and to publish what they then create. In fact, some learners might find they no longer need to be part of an institutionalized learning environment. Certainly, the "open education" movement has brought actual course material from well respected universities, such as Stanford and MIT, right to Joe and Jane Internet's computer screens. Not all open sources are as clearly reliable, however, which makes learning to discern credibility even more important (Flanagin & Metzger, 2008).

Because source credibility is a key factor in identifying authentic and reliable web resources, content creators need to be concerned with how they present themselves online. Therefore, managing your web presence is important to establishing yourself as a reliable source (Lankes, 2008; Nortel, 2011). Lowenthal and Dunlap (2012) recently published an excellent piece on establishing and managing web presence for academic professionals. It is an excellent and quick read, and provides images and short video tutorials to demonstrate some of the principles discussed. You can access the article here: http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/intentional-web-presence-10-seo-strategies-every-academic-needs-know

Academics may wish to follow some of the suggestions in the Lowenthal and Dunlap (2012) article and consider publishing draft materials to a web site, blogging, Tweeting, and engaging in other forms of collaborative web publishing and interactions. As the authors point out, it is essential to leverage all your connections in the best way permissible to help build your own credibility. In addition to building and maintaining a current profile, academics should also consider contributing to peer reviews, critiques, and recommendations of the work of their colleagues. All these activities can affect an individual's online credibility. The more complete an individual's profile and the easier his or her work is to find, the better he or she will look when others find an academic's work (Nortel, 2011).

So while consumers are ultimately responsible for validating the credibility of the sources they visit online, they are also responsible for helping form the credibility of different resources. Consumers can offer their own critiques, reviews, and recommendations of various online resources and contributors. When consumers transition into the producer role, they can make their own case for credibility by providing an accurate representation of their identity, qualifications, and connections in the online world. It's a balancing act where we all have a role to play.

Resources

Flanagin,A., & Metzger, M. (2008). Digital media and youth: Unparalleled opportunity and unprecedented responsibility. In M. Metzger & A. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility: The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation series on digital media and learning (pp. 5-28). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Retrieved from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/dmal.9780262562324.005

Lankes, R. D. (2008). Trusting the Internet: New Approaches to Credibility Tools. In M. Metzger & A. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility: The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation series on digital media and learning (pp. 101-122). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Retrieved from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/dmal.9780262562324.101

Lowenthal, P., & Dunlap, J. (2012, June 6). Intentional web presence: 10 SEO strategies every academic needs to know. EDUCAUSEreview Online. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/intentional-web-presence-10-seo-strategies-every-academic-needs-know

Nortel (Producer). (2011, April 23). Discovering the internet: Credibility [Web video]. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/WQXPtveRevc

 

EME5404: "I'm sure you are who you say you are…"

This week's topic was social networking. The subject matter dealt with participation in social networking, online identities, and privacy. This week's literature focused primarily on teen agers and young adults, but much of it is extensible to all netizens. (You youngsters can look up "netizen.") As a participant in online social culture since the Wild, Wild, West (www) days, I've been through several iterations of my online self. As I mentioned in my post last week, I've had many identities, including my "real-life" identity, in the online world. Many services now are forcing participants to use their real-life identities. I was shocked last summer to find out that a blog I kept anonymously on Blogger (a Google service) was suddenly public with my REAL NAME attached to it! As much as I loved that blog, I had to delete it. The reason I kept it anonymously was so I could voice some controversial viewpoints that might cast me in an unfavorable light with some people. It wasn't really bad or offensive – just controversial.

Privacy – for whatever reason – is a key concern for many online participants, even younger users (boyd & Hargittai, 2010; boyd, 2007). boyd (2007) notes that teens tend to falsify their online profiles mainly to block their parents, but adults have reasons for doing so as well. Women, for example tend to be more cautious online to protect themselves from becoming crime targets. Others may wish to protect their personal identity from known connections for various reasons (boyd & Hargittai, 2010). While users may feel justified in masking their real identities online, many service providers, as I have mentioned, take the opposite view. These service providers take the position that having users reveal their true identities is essential for an "authentic" web experience (Carnegie Council, 2011). Who should have the final say in how users present themselves online? Is that an individual right, or are service providers justified in insisting that we all present our true selves? Under what circumstances should users be permitted to conceal their identities, or is that right undeniable?

I stand in the corner of user-controlled identities. The responsibility for verifying authenticity belongs to the reader/consumer. Producers may have many reasons for remaining anonymous, not all of which are nefarious. Further, initial research suggests that authentic identities may not be effective in promoting more civil online dialog (see last week's post).

Check out the video from the Global Ethics Corner, a Carnegie Council initiative, and let me know what you think!

References
boyd, d. (2007). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), MacArthur Foundation series on digital learning  - Youth, identity, and digital media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

boyd, d., & Hargittai, E. (2010). Facebook privacy settings: Who cares? First Monday, 15(8). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/3086/2589

Carnegie Council (Producer). (2011, November 18). Privacy and responsibility on the internet: Who should control your identity on the web? [Web video]. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/6cN5XJ_02_o

EME5404 - Self perception in the real and digital worlds

Just a quick disclaimer: As part of a course I'm taking on instructional media, I am required to keep a journal. It seemed to make sense to use TechMate for that purpose. If you are reading along from the course, my journal posts begin with the course ID, EME5404. If you are here for the ride, well, enjoy. Feel free to let me know what you think in the comments.

---

Every time I wander down the path of real versus digital life, I am reminded of my own journey over the past 18 years or so. I am also reminded of how those two lives, real and digital -- once so distinct, now seem to converge. Part of that convergence has to do with the way people use technology now, while some aspects rely on the push by certain service providers to have all online profiles under the users' real names. Is that good? Bad? Or is it just the evolution of technology.

In the Wild West days of the World Wide Web, everybody wanted to be somebody else. For whatever reason, we all valued our privacy. We knew the web was filled with cyber stalkers, perverts, identity thieves, and various other unsavory creatures. So people chose "handles" or nicknames for their online profiles. Some people used the same handle for all their profiles while other people chose to project a different image on different sites.

Over the years, I have had various online handles. Most of them have been named after cars. Usually, the handle I chose depended on my purpose for a particular site. If I was there to be friendly and sociable, I used a handle I cared about and identified with. If I was at the site to be a troll (an obnoxious poster), I used a handle that represented my purpose and, I hoped, would not link back to me. But that was the beauty of the early web – you could hide behind an assumed identity. You could make up a profile and give it a persona that represented the type of person you always dreamed of being. Or you could be a troll and nobody would be any wiser.

Of course, that troll part was (and still is) a bit problematic. Acting under a pseudonym seemed to embolden people. That became especially apparent in certain discussion forums and in the commenting sections of news stories. Some people would say whatever came to mind, regardless of how cruel or inconsiderate it was. It seemed as though the ability to remain anonymous overcame the restraint that most of us would show in a face-to-face conversation. Civil conversation was abandoned. As a result, some sites have taken steps to move away from anonymous profiles. Facebook, Google+, and other services now require users to register under their given names and not a pseudonym.  Certain news sites now require commentators to use their Facebook profiles to post comments on news stories. Whether the move is or will be successful is yet to be seen. If recent observations in Korea are any indication, the use of real names does little to reduce aggressive behavior online (Ferenstein, 2012). So while we are busy becoming our real selves online, is it possible that we will one day revert back to our assumed identities? And is our "real self" online even the same as our real self in person?

I often say that my online self is more interesting than my real self. Online, even though anonymity is not what it used to be, we still have the ability to be funnier or friendlier or wittier than we are in person. Given time to think up a comeback or Google something, we look much better online than when we are stammering in person, struggling to find the right words or grasping to remember what some pundit said on the news last night. We have the chance to become that "techne-mentor" Ito et al. (2010) describe.

If you consider what Ito et al. (2010) found in their study of youth culture and media ecologies, that the use of online media is often an integral part of real life, it is really not feasible to return to the Wild West days of the web. We really cannot go back and become anonymous again; we can't be trolls, or pirates, or mermaids, or Jedi knights. But maybe we can be better versions of ourselves – something to live up to.

References

Ferenstein, G. (2012, July 29). Surprisingly good evidence that real name policies fail to improve comments. AoL Tech. Retrieved from http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/29/surprisingly-good-evidence-that-real-name-policies-fail-to-improve-comments/

Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittani, M., boyd, d., Cody, R., Herr-Stephenson, B., … Tripp, L. (2010). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Google launches 'Drive' cloud storage service | StAugustine.com

Google launches 'Drive' cloud storage service | StAugustine.com

Another choice for cloud-based storage rolls out to consumers this week. Personally, I already use Box and like it, but I'm willing to look at Google because I already use several Google services. Although I'm hesitant to store sensitive information on the cloud, certain data is a no brainer. Take photos, for example. Over the past two years, I've copied nearly all my digital photos to web storage. I still have them on personal media, but having them in the cloud gives me a back up. The importance of this is critical. Cloud storage is more secure against crashes and regularly backed up by the service. About two years ago, had both my main computer and my external hard drive back up crash with weeks of each other. Between the two, I had years of digital photography stored that chronicled my childrens' early lives. The media on the computer was totally lost after back up to the external drive, so when the external drive crashed I lost all access to those image (and other important data). The external drive can be recovered, but it's expensive and I haven't had the funds to do that yet.

Obviously, cloud computing isn't perfect. Google would be well served to remember that many users still  have unreliable data access, making total cloud computing impractical. For users like me, who choose not to subscribe to mobile access, cloud computing is likewise not a full-time solution. Data protection is also a concern. What assurances do I have that other entities are not accessing data I consider confidential if I put it in the cloud? So there are still several critical concerns that need to be addressed before full-time cloud computing becomes a reality for all users. For now, however, cloud apps are a great way to share and collaborate, and cloud storage is excellent for easy back up.