This is great storytelling and visualization from www.crisisofcredit.com
Part 1:
Part 2:
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
It's not splooge, it's web 2.0!
Well, last night’s class was a lot of fun. But when isn’t it? I mean, my fellow students totally rock. We feed off each other and in a good way (we’re not co-cannibals, we’re co-conspirators).
There were a couple of things in our reading (pdf) and our class discussions that came up that really hit home for me. One thing, in particular, was about the reading we did and the concept of “create, communicate, collaborate.” I found validation in the section Technology in Education: Looking at Fiction to Find Real Possibilities. Not just in my thoughts that the arts and the sciences feed off each other, but in that web 2.0 is about user-generated content.
Ok, now that I’ve repeated myself. I will go further. One of the hurdles that I've had to get over is that I used to think of blogs as internet splooge. I thought that blogs were a bunch of people mentally masturbating and that I needed to keep myself clean by staying clear of them.
As the world has transitioned from web 1.0 to web 2.0, my analogy grew to see that there are internet voyeurs and internet exhibitionists. Hey, man, that's fine. But bloggers were the consummate exhibitionists. By nature I am a voyeur--that is, I am a lurker.
Over time, as the blogosphere grew, I found blogs that I really liked--my opinion of them grew and the splooge analaogy diminished. Yet I could still passively consume them (i.e., be a voyeur).
Well, last week I felt like I got caught. No. “Busted” would be a more appropriate word. I got busted, and my voyeurism days are over.
During class discussion, Dr. Foreman mentioned that people often read without commenting. Jeff, on the other hand, protested that he expected more comments. During class, I cringed about this, so I commented on his post (during class). I apologized that I hadn’t said it, but my comment said that I thought it was funny and relevant. He moderates his posts and the emails he gets automatically send his phone a text, so when he got a text he was prompted to look. Of course, he related this experience to the class and we all had a good laugh. Web 2.o meets F2F. It was a good example of how all this technology can still be used during class and not be off-topic or irrelevant.
And it’s not splooge.
This is a great segue to my next topic. I'm glad that our reading talks about "user-generated content." Yes. Web 2.0 is about user-generated content. Jeff generated content; I generated content in response. But when it comes to education, you have to think about this when you think about web 2.0--how do you use it for education?
You can’t just splooge web 2.0 all over people--you have to think of it as a tool. In what instances will you be able to use this tool in order to best generate understanding about information? In what instance do you think this will transform information to knowledge? How will these tools instill not only knowledge but wisdom?
What do you think?
There were a couple of things in our reading (pdf) and our class discussions that came up that really hit home for me. One thing, in particular, was about the reading we did and the concept of “create, communicate, collaborate.” I found validation in the section Technology in Education: Looking at Fiction to Find Real Possibilities. Not just in my thoughts that the arts and the sciences feed off each other, but in that web 2.0 is about user-generated content.
Ok, now that I’ve repeated myself. I will go further. One of the hurdles that I've had to get over is that I used to think of blogs as internet splooge. I thought that blogs were a bunch of people mentally masturbating and that I needed to keep myself clean by staying clear of them.
As the world has transitioned from web 1.0 to web 2.0, my analogy grew to see that there are internet voyeurs and internet exhibitionists. Hey, man, that's fine. But bloggers were the consummate exhibitionists. By nature I am a voyeur--that is, I am a lurker.
Over time, as the blogosphere grew, I found blogs that I really liked--my opinion of them grew and the splooge analaogy diminished. Yet I could still passively consume them (i.e., be a voyeur).
Well, last week I felt like I got caught. No. “Busted” would be a more appropriate word. I got busted, and my voyeurism days are over.
During class discussion, Dr. Foreman mentioned that people often read without commenting. Jeff, on the other hand, protested that he expected more comments. During class, I cringed about this, so I commented on his post (during class). I apologized that I hadn’t said it, but my comment said that I thought it was funny and relevant. He moderates his posts and the emails he gets automatically send his phone a text, so when he got a text he was prompted to look. Of course, he related this experience to the class and we all had a good laugh. Web 2.o meets F2F. It was a good example of how all this technology can still be used during class and not be off-topic or irrelevant.
And it’s not splooge.
This is a great segue to my next topic. I'm glad that our reading talks about "user-generated content." Yes. Web 2.0 is about user-generated content. Jeff generated content; I generated content in response. But when it comes to education, you have to think about this when you think about web 2.0--how do you use it for education?
You can’t just splooge web 2.0 all over people--you have to think of it as a tool. In what instances will you be able to use this tool in order to best generate understanding about information? In what instance do you think this will transform information to knowledge? How will these tools instill not only knowledge but wisdom?
What do you think?
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Taking class online
Well, I haven't really been a big fan of being an online student, but I must admit that last week's session changed my mind. I liked it that I could see the class live and interact in real time with my fellow online students, Zack and Angie. Our conversations were not only relevant, but funny, too!
Also, our guest speaker was engaging and I felt that I really learned a lot from him. What kinda bums me out, though, is that I use my Twitter account exclusively for science news updates (Mars Pheonix, Spirit, Opportunity, Cassini, Earth Observer, etc.) and I feel that by following anything other than my science updates will clutter up my Twitter account--people's random musing and updates will pepper my stream of science news.
Also, our guest speaker was engaging and I felt that I really learned a lot from him. What kinda bums me out, though, is that I use my Twitter account exclusively for science news updates (Mars Pheonix, Spirit, Opportunity, Cassini, Earth Observer, etc.) and I feel that by following anything other than my science updates will clutter up my Twitter account--people's random musing and updates will pepper my stream of science news.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Connectivism revisited
I have really enjoyed reading and listening to George Siemens on connectivism. I always say to people that I'm so glad I don't live in a vacuum (often in response to hearing a great idea), and I think that really sums up the concepts highlighted by connectivism.
He stressed that knowledge is a moving target now--adaptive and emergent. Different skills are required to deal with knowledge as a moving target rather than a stationary target; we need to manage knowledge as a process rather than a product. This leads to one of his main points: "We have defined our students with skill sets that enable them to be relevant in a world that existed about 20 years ago."
With knowledge being so fluid, he urged that our capacity to know more must be nurtured because it is far more important than putting our intellect in stasis by clinging to what we know today without the skills to continually build on it. To this end, he noted that content is the conduit for conversation and we must find ways to utilize this conduit in developing the capacity to know more.
Although I only heard 10, he said that there were 11 key elements comprising the nature of learning today with which the educational system is at odds. I'll list 9 of them here because the 10th was an ad for his blog:
These all point to something else he said and which we discussed at length in the last class session: "The reverse of knowledge happens when we have too many choices... We know how to break knowledge apart... what we need now is to know how to bind it together... so that it's meaningful for us."
I think that what he's really saying is that people need to learn how to develop an intuition for finding relevant and contextual information in general, not just their knowledge domains. As knowledge is decentralized, we must be discriminating in what we choose to consume without confining ourselves to our own specific niche or opinion.
He stressed that knowledge is a moving target now--adaptive and emergent. Different skills are required to deal with knowledge as a moving target rather than a stationary target; we need to manage knowledge as a process rather than a product. This leads to one of his main points: "We have defined our students with skill sets that enable them to be relevant in a world that existed about 20 years ago."
With knowledge being so fluid, he urged that our capacity to know more must be nurtured because it is far more important than putting our intellect in stasis by clinging to what we know today without the skills to continually build on it. To this end, he noted that content is the conduit for conversation and we must find ways to utilize this conduit in developing the capacity to know more.
Although I only heard 10, he said that there were 11 key elements comprising the nature of learning today with which the educational system is at odds. I'll list 9 of them here because the 10th was an ad for his blog:
- Anchoring (reduce mutiple stimuli and distractions, be disciplined in thought)
- Filtering (peer review)
- Connecting (connect to the right sources & info to keep us current; being personable and human with technology as well as with face-to-face interactions)
- Creating & deriving meaning (what does it mean to me and to what I'm doing?)
- Authenticating and validating information (how do we know it's true?)
- Critical and creative thinking skills (both in balance)
- Pattern recognition (how to move through it all to what is needed)
- Accepting uncertainty (are we prepared to accept a fuzzy truth instead of a simplistic falsehood?)
- Contextualizing (some people just promoting one's own perspective instead of listening to another's perspective; where was the person coming from when they generated their bit of information?)
These all point to something else he said and which we discussed at length in the last class session: "The reverse of knowledge happens when we have too many choices... We know how to break knowledge apart... what we need now is to know how to bind it together... so that it's meaningful for us."
I think that what he's really saying is that people need to learn how to develop an intuition for finding relevant and contextual information in general, not just their knowledge domains. As knowledge is decentralized, we must be discriminating in what we choose to consume without confining ourselves to our own specific niche or opinion.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
More on the Web 2.0 discussion (& two educational wikis)
I was thinking about our class discussion last week and wanted to mention what I think of when I think of Web 2.0.
When I think of Web 2.0, I think “user-generated content.” It’s not just "interactive" in that we have to interact with things (i.e., clicking on a link). I've had problems with these kinds of interactive activities because it seemed that people were making the user click just for sake of clicking -- not to add value. But now, with Web 2.0, "interactive" actually means that interacting with a thing ultimately means we are interacting with other people. With an environment that stresses user-generated content, people are creating things, putting them out “there,” getting feedback generated by other users, and interacting with the content put out by other users.
Anyway, these are the two educational wikis I found in response to our homework assignment:
Classroom 2.0 is one of the social networks I lurk in and I read their blog. They also have a wiki. The whole Classroom 2.0 endeavor is about sharing ways to incorporate Web 2.0 technologies into the classroom.
This wiki is for The Time Travel Narrative wiki. It's an online course focusing on the timeline in narrative endeavors (movies, literature, anime, TV).
When I think of Web 2.0, I think “user-generated content.” It’s not just "interactive" in that we have to interact with things (i.e., clicking on a link). I've had problems with these kinds of interactive activities because it seemed that people were making the user click just for sake of clicking -- not to add value. But now, with Web 2.0, "interactive" actually means that interacting with a thing ultimately means we are interacting with other people. With an environment that stresses user-generated content, people are creating things, putting them out “there,” getting feedback generated by other users, and interacting with the content put out by other users.
Anyway, these are the two educational wikis I found in response to our homework assignment:
Classroom 2.0 is one of the social networks I lurk in and I read their blog. They also have a wiki. The whole Classroom 2.0 endeavor is about sharing ways to incorporate Web 2.0 technologies into the classroom.
This wiki is for The Time Travel Narrative wiki. It's an online course focusing on the timeline in narrative endeavors (movies, literature, anime, TV).
Saturday, February 7, 2009
lively class
This is the more serious and reflective post...
This week's class session was pretty lively and fun. There were several things that seemed to really stand out as far as how the class views Web 2.0 in general and in relation to transferring knowledge or information.
As we spoke about the topic of connectivism, it was hard to escape the idea that truth exists externally and is constructed internally. Other learning theories might have made this external/internal relationship seem mutually exclusive, but there’s no reason for this to be the case. Web 2.0 technology is educationally useful in that the associated tools contain inherent knowledge. Also, use of the tools enable a sharing of knowledge. Instead of knowledge being unidirectional, going from one to many, it now is pan-directional, going from all to all (or many to many).
Validity seemed to be the unanimous issue, so I won’t say much about it here except that just because something is posted doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s true or that the information is valid.
We are bombarded with information and we need to sift through it to find the facts. More importantly than ever, people need to learn how to learn effectively as early as possible. The ability to think critically and to define one’s own learning goals and educational agenda are necessary.
Personally, I really liked the analogies!
This week's class session was pretty lively and fun. There were several things that seemed to really stand out as far as how the class views Web 2.0 in general and in relation to transferring knowledge or information.
As we spoke about the topic of connectivism, it was hard to escape the idea that truth exists externally and is constructed internally. Other learning theories might have made this external/internal relationship seem mutually exclusive, but there’s no reason for this to be the case. Web 2.0 technology is educationally useful in that the associated tools contain inherent knowledge. Also, use of the tools enable a sharing of knowledge. Instead of knowledge being unidirectional, going from one to many, it now is pan-directional, going from all to all (or many to many).
Validity seemed to be the unanimous issue, so I won’t say much about it here except that just because something is posted doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s true or that the information is valid.
We are bombarded with information and we need to sift through it to find the facts. More importantly than ever, people need to learn how to learn effectively as early as possible. The ability to think critically and to define one’s own learning goals and educational agenda are necessary.
Personally, I really liked the analogies!
great analogies
There were a couple of analogies that I really loved. I love analogies.
The fridge analogy was great. The outside of the fridge has lots of stuff on magnets and post-its--typically notes and photos and stuff. This is like commenting on people’s blogs, putting reminders in Remember the Milk, wikis, and the like. Then there’s the inside of the fridge which has all kinds of stuff in there for consumption. Some of the stuff is good and some of the stuff is either unhealthy or has gone bad. Sometimes you need to check with your peers, “Hey, does this milk smell bad to you?” Ultimately, you tend to avoid the yukky stuff.
The Borg analogy was also pretty good in that it points to the Hive Mind. What one drone learns, all drones learn. While there are some definite advantages of this and it reminds me of D. Dennett’s quote about a joined cognitive system. The downside is that indiscriminate consumers of the information could be misinformed by the unscrupulous participants out there.
Dr. Foreman's driving analogy was really descriptive in how navigating around all these wonderfully collaborative and user-generated content can be tricky. She said that it’s like people are learning how to drive while simultaniously trying to figure out how to get to their destination. Meanwhile, all the beginners on the road could, and more likely would, cause accidents.
The fridge analogy was great. The outside of the fridge has lots of stuff on magnets and post-its--typically notes and photos and stuff. This is like commenting on people’s blogs, putting reminders in Remember the Milk, wikis, and the like. Then there’s the inside of the fridge which has all kinds of stuff in there for consumption. Some of the stuff is good and some of the stuff is either unhealthy or has gone bad. Sometimes you need to check with your peers, “Hey, does this milk smell bad to you?” Ultimately, you tend to avoid the yukky stuff.
The Borg analogy was also pretty good in that it points to the Hive Mind. What one drone learns, all drones learn. While there are some definite advantages of this and it reminds me of D. Dennett’s quote about a joined cognitive system. The downside is that indiscriminate consumers of the information could be misinformed by the unscrupulous participants out there.
Dr. Foreman's driving analogy was really descriptive in how navigating around all these wonderfully collaborative and user-generated content can be tricky. She said that it’s like people are learning how to drive while simultaniously trying to figure out how to get to their destination. Meanwhile, all the beginners on the road could, and more likely would, cause accidents.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age
I can really relate to this quote in the article we were assigned to read, Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age , by George Siemens:
That's why I read a lot of really disparate books and blogs, because they give me ideas. As I muse on them, different connections are made.
As far as chaos and emergence are concerned, though, I'm not sure where the author is really going. Sensitivity to initial conditions has an effect on what pattern emerges. Do we just stand back and watch things emerge? Or do we try to do something about those initial conditions, trying to somehow alter or affect the emergent pattern? I believe that the latter is virtually impossible. I mean, we can have an affect, but we'd be sorely disappointed if we were actually attached to a particular outcome.
I really love the idea and phrase, "This amplification of learning, knowledge and understanding through the extension of a personal network is the epitome of connectivism." I think that "amplification" is an excellent choice of words. I think that amplification of learning (or knowledge) is very closely tied to communities of practice as well as to interdisciplinary collaborative teams. It reminds me of an article from the book What is Intelligence, called The Role of Language in Intelligence, by Daniel Dennett. He says:
Connections between disparate ideas and fields can create new innovations.It's something that my husband and I jokingly argue about because he says that innovation comes from the abuse (of a thing or knowledge), whereas I believe that it comes from its misuse (or misapplication). My view stems from the synergistic relationship between the arts and the sciences. For example, a lot of science fiction books draw from existing science, but also act as a driving force for exploration.
That's why I read a lot of really disparate books and blogs, because they give me ideas. As I muse on them, different connections are made.
As far as chaos and emergence are concerned, though, I'm not sure where the author is really going. Sensitivity to initial conditions has an effect on what pattern emerges. Do we just stand back and watch things emerge? Or do we try to do something about those initial conditions, trying to somehow alter or affect the emergent pattern? I believe that the latter is virtually impossible. I mean, we can have an affect, but we'd be sorely disappointed if we were actually attached to a particular outcome.
I really love the idea and phrase, "This amplification of learning, knowledge and understanding through the extension of a personal network is the epitome of connectivism." I think that "amplification" is an excellent choice of words. I think that amplification of learning (or knowledge) is very closely tied to communities of practice as well as to interdisciplinary collaborative teams. It reminds me of an article from the book What is Intelligence, called The Role of Language in Intelligence, by Daniel Dennett. He says:
...our brains are in effect joined together into a single cognitive system that dwarfs all others. They are joined by one of the innovations that has invaded our brains and no others: language...each individual human brain, thanks to its communicative links, is the beneficiary of the cognitive labors of the others in a way that gives it unprecedented powers.I really like Seimen's concluding statements to the article. It echoes why I am excited about being in the ITEC program and what I hope to gain from it:
How people work and function is altered when new tools are utilized. The field of education has been slow to recognize both the impact of new learning tools and the environmental changes in what it means to learn.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Hello World
Well, I just started taking ITEC 830, the Web 2.0 class, and I'm very excited about what I'm going to learn. No thoughts just yet, but more to come soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
