Archive for the ‘Digital literacy’ Category

‘Doubt’ movie trailer remix by meg

October 4, 2009

A couple of weeks ago, I watched the movie ‘Doubt,’ starring Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffmann. The IMDB summary for the film reads,

“Set in 1964, Doubt centers on a nun who confronts a priest after suspecting him of abusing a black student. He denies the charges, and much of the play’s quick-fire dialogue tackles themes of religion, morality, and authority.”

Great film, a proper morality play. What I also loved about it was the way it commented on new technologies and the changing times. So I thought I’d do a remix along the lines of a movie trailer, as seems to be all the rage (check out Scary Mary Poppins … it’s a cack!). Here’s the radio edit … I made a dance mix too, but I prefer the shorter version, myself :) . Hope you like it. I think it’s kinda fun!

Opinion: Remembering and other forms of knowing

October 23, 2008

One thing that strikes me as I teach people about moving around the web is how much we privilege remembering over other forms of knowing.

This has gotten me thinking about types of knowledge and how and why we value them, and how they link to remembering as a form of knowing. So, I’ve done a short analysis of what I think is going on as a way of explaining why this privileging might occur.

Let’s start with three common forms of knowledge — declarative, procedural and conditional — and take them apart a bit.

Here’s a basic representation:

Declarative Procedural Conditional
Knowledge about What How Why
Cognitive form
Memory Remembering Understanding
Products Facts, information, descriptions, principles Actions,* skills, performance, know-how, things, doing Thought, thinking, consideration,
evaluation, innovation
Process Contextual Concrete, observable Abstract
What is evaluated
Recollection Circumstance Concepts

In my observation and experience, most Aussies rank ‘knowing how’ at the top of a hierarchy of knowing. This isn’t really surprising, as ‘knowing how’ to do stuff is of great value to us: we see ourselves as practical people, as people who can fix things, as people who are problem-solvers with a can-do attitude. And ‘knowing how‘ to do stuff means all those things I’ve pulled out in the above table: remembering steps, using skills to complete a task, and producing a measurable, observable performance that evaluates circumstances.

A further, more general, explanation could also be that procedural knowledge is perceived by most people as the most imperative and useful for web purposes: “I just need to know how to make it work, before I gather too much information about what it is and the principles that underlie its function, and before I think about why I might want to use it.”

‘Knowing how’ to do stuff is thus seen as a right and good thing, and therefore something that is assigned a price above that given to the declarative and conditional ways of knowing.

But it is the cognitive form of remembering that is of interest to me in this post, because when people ask me about their web travails, “How do I do X?” and I respond, “I don’t remember … I know that you can do it, though, just let me have a quick look,” I’m often challenging their assumptions about the primacy of procedural knowledge. And giving a declarative answer to a procedural question makes many people uncomfortable because, as I’m arguing here, the ‘doing’ of a thing is valued more highly than is either understanding why you might do it, or having facts about it in the first place.

It’s also surely the case that ‘doing stuff’ tends to yield more tangible and measurable products (which are relatively easy to evaluate) than does thinking about stuff or identifying principles (which are harder to evaluate). Which is not to say that ‘knowing how’ is unimportant or irrelevant in. But it is to say that an approach to knowledge that privileges one form of knowing over others prevents us from bringing together all the ways of knowing into an attitude that could, quite frankly, help us learn quicker and more deeply, no matter the context.

____________________

*Here I’m thinking of ‘actions’ along the lines of Aristotle’s praxis.

Bookmark and Share

Tech’n'Teach: Wiki experiences in the classroom

September 26, 2008

Tech\'n\'Teach icon

This week, I attended a very insightful seminar on using wikis in a university course. Patricia Abbot is lecturer and course co-ordinator for Theology, Psychology and Human Experience at the Canberra campus of the Australian Catholic University and, earlier this semester, she decided to use a wiki as an assessment item in her course.

For the assignment, students were asked to buddy-up and then develop a wikispace around a particular topic. Patricia described her experiences with using wikis in class during the seminar, but she also invited a student, Fiona, along to report on the learner’s perspective.

Here are some findings:

Student perspective

  • WetPaint was the wiki application used by the class. The application itself worked fine, but students were frustrated by how different web browsers viewed and supported their wikis.
  • Most students worked up their content in MS Word and then did a copy-and-paste into the wiki itself. As a consequence, much of students’ document formatting was lost, especially if they’d used Endnote to create footnotes.
  • Students met early on, in their pairs, to discuss the wikispace they would build, but then worked on their ‘own’ bits individually.
  • Fiona said she enjoyed the task, but felt that teacher expectations needed to be made clearer up front.
  • The 1200-word limit set by the teacher for the assignment was almost impossible to keep to.
  • Students weren’t sure how to reconcile the informality of a web-based format such as a wiki, with the formality of the essay format, which they were more used to.

Teacher perspective

  • Patricia used herself as a benchmark: knowing that she is reluctant to learn a new communication medium, Patricia felt that if she could learn to use a wiki fairly quickly, then just about anyone could. In the end, Patricia felt she misjudged this.
  • Some students struggled with the medium, but Patricia felt that they just needed more practice, not that the wiki itself was hard to use.
  • Patricia also made the point that we don’t stop having orals, just because some students aren’t good at orals: we expect them to master the medium of the oral presentation, and it’s the same with any other media, including wikis.
  • The idea was to have students use the medium as it’s meant to be used: as a collaboration space for students to build their understanding of the topic. But the fact that students did their work separately from each other, in Word, annulled the value of the wiki as a collaborative tool.
  • Teachers need to plan for problems.
  • Students need explicit learning experiences in how to use the medium for their learning.

Some further points came out of the discussion:

  • Perhaps referencing and citation needs to be thought of differently in this context — students were trying to import footnotes from Word, when more creative ways of dealing with formatting and academic rigour could have been found.
  • Students probably need more, ongoing support from the teacher in how to use a wiki (or any other new learning technology) than they are currently getting.

I’ll be interviewing Patricia for EdCom in the coming weeks, so look out for a podcast on the topic soon. Patricia has also kindly made her own reflections on the project via a pdf document (PDF, 316 KB).

Bookmark and Share

Opinion: Rethink your ideas about tech support

September 25, 2008

Target Image

One not-so-minor assignment I’ve set myself at present is to change teachers’ thinking about tech support. Just a small thing, then.

It’s true that in the past — with clunky, difficult Web 1.0 technologies — we’ve had to rely on techies to do some proper hard-core stuff for us, such as fixing bugs in software or resetting webpages that we’ve managed to bugger up, or dealing with server issues. But now, with the much more stable and reliable technologies of Web 2.0, we no longer need someone hanging off the end of a phone, dealing with the numerous problems we’ve created for ourselves.

The reason is that Web 2.0′s software-as-service (i.e., online applications such as wikis, blogs and social networks) is pretty much bulletproof: you can’t break this stuff as you could break stuff in the old days of Web One. Which in turn means we have much less need of a help desk staffed by a real-live human person, just in case.

The point is this: once you are in the world of Web 2.0, you have to shift the model of support that you’ve got in your head. Help in WebTwoLand comes in the form of googling solutions for yourself, checking out FAQs, and trawling the web to find the geek who has already solved your problem for you and kindly posted a solution in a discussion forum.

Forget phoning the help desk. Forget The Manual. Forget, even, pressing F1 (always a trepidatious proposition to start with!). Instead, search YouTube and find a video tutorial or visit a how-to site (there’s plenty of them out there). You can help yourself in this environment simply by thinking differently about tech support and how you get it.

Bookmark and Share

Opinion: It IS about the technology

September 24, 2008

Target Image

You hear it all the time at education seminars, conferences and keynotes: “It’s not about the technology, it’s about the people.” Well, excuse me, but what a platitude — and how easy to get eduweb sceptics and the generally afeared on side when you tell them what they want to hear! Having said that, however, I am being a bit provocative in my title for this post …

Of course it’s about the people, but what’s often missing from the trite, unreflective maxim referred to above is the fact that people are technology, technology is people. We cannot be homo sapiens without technology.

Our mistake is to think of technology as only shiny, whizzy things that go bang. After all, a pencil is a technology. Writing itself is a technology. Indeed, a rock can be a technology, depending on the use to which it is put (I’m thinking ‘stone axe,’ here).

But to let the ‘It’s All About the People’ people off the hook, let’s acknowledge that they’re onto something, because what they’re pointing to is the need to focus more on the people than on the technology itself, if only because people are rather more inscrutable and intractable and difficult to handle than is the technology. This might seem counter-intuitive to some, but, when you think about it, it’s easier to figure out how to change the display order of a wiki page than it is to change the way a person thinks about, understands, and engages with their own relationship to technology. So, let’s work with the people, and acknowledge their apprehensions and help them make sense of how the technology works, but let’s also not lose sight of one of the things that makes us human to begin with.

Bookmark and Share

Target: The new digital divide

July 11, 2008

Target Image

I’m finally making my way through a report that’s been sitting on my desk for months, Bridging the Digital Divide: Creating opportunities for marginalised young people to get connected, available from VicHealth. What’s interesting about the report is that its findings in terms of ICT usage by marginalised young people largely support those of reports into other demographics. That is to say, marginalised young people (p. 2):

  • Are confident in their ICT skills
  • Use Instant Messaging, email and social networking services to communicate, and to maintain and build relationships
  • Create profiles on social networking sites such as Bebo and Hi5
  • Are aware of the potential dangers online and have ways of dealing with unwanted contact

Furthermore, in a finding that surprised the reports’ authors, the study showed that ICT plays a larger role in the lives of marginalised young people than previously thought. This surprise reflects a common assumption that I frequently come across when talking to both school and university teachers: that is, that ‘a good number’ of students have poor access to technology, or that a similar number are still on dial-up. Here are some results for the marginalised demographic:

  • 97% of participants in the study had access to the Internet: 44% at home, 30% in a library, 18% at school and 10% each from an Internet cafe or at work (p. 19).
  • 49% had broadband access, and 13% were on dial-up. 5% used wireless (p. 19).
  • Over half of participants accessed the Internet at least a few times a week (p. 40)
  • The young people involved in the study felt they had ICT skills of a high standard (p. 40)

This study reflects what Green and Hannon point out in Their Space: Education for a Digital Generation, that is tbat the new digital divide is more about access to knowledge, than it is about access to hardware (p. 17, pp 59-60). It’s knowing how to use these emerging technologies to best effect (in work and school and life) that’s going to be important from now on.

Bookmark and Share

Target: Digital faith and moral panic

April 25, 2008

Target ImageIn a recent Demos report out of the UK (Their Space: Education for a digital generation), Hannah Green and Celia Hannon identify a number of ICT myths held by the moral panickers and by the followers of the digital faith. Here they are.

Moral panic myths

  • The internet is dangerous for children. The Demos research showed that most children are aware of stranger danger on the internet and are quite capable of self-regulating (p. 32). This is consistent with the findings of other reports such as that put out by the NSBA (pdf, 1MB).
  • Junk culture is poisoning young people and taking over their lives. Green and Hannon basically point out what an oooooold argument this is: youth culture always challenges the orthodoxy, they write, and they further point out that where once TV was the target, now the blame is spread across a wider spectrum of media (p. 34).
  • No learning happens and digital technologies are a waste of time. On the contrary, students are deploying a broad range of skills when using ICTs, which, the authors argue, often gives students the confidence to succeed in other, more formal contexts (pp. 35-36). Indeed, Green and Hannon demonstrate that children are often more able to identify educationally beneficial computer games than are adults (p. 36-37).
  • Report cover imageThere is an epidemic of internet plagiarism in schools. Plagiarism should not be conflated with new ways of accessing information, say Green and Hannon (p. 38), and we need to teach students the higher-order thinking skills of critique, interpretation, assessment and evaluation.
  • Young people are disengaged and disconnected. This is just flat-out wrong. Many students are using ICTs to engage with cultural and political issues and many also seek mentoring via their connections (p. 39).
  • We’re seeing the rise of a generation of passive consumers. Not true. Students are taking part in media communities, gaming communities, networking communities, you name it, and often there is a large element of production, communication and creativity going on with what Net Gen are doing online (p. 40-41). Hardly passive.

Digital faith myths

  • All gaming is good. There are different orders of digital activity in gaming, say Green and Hannon, and we need to be aware of that — just as many children are themselves, and not all activites are equal (p. 42).
  • All children are cyberkids. Here, we have to be careful not to talk about a certain set of behaviours demonstrated by those with high access and motivation with a whole generation. Green and Hannon found that there was a gap between ‘everyday communicators’ and the ‘digital pioneers’ (p. 42-43).

Bookmark and Share

Target: Older people and ICTs

February 27, 2008

Target ImageWe know from the CIBER report (pdf) I referred to in a previous post that many older people are starting to catch up to younger people in terms of ICT competence. But what else can we say about older people’s attitudes to ICTs?

OfCom, the Office of Communications in the UK conducted a study (pdf) (why isn’t there more Aussie research??!!!) in July 2006 on just that topic. Here’s what they found:

  • Age is one of the most significant factors influencing whether or not people engage with ICTs (p. 1); however, attitude and character are key to whether or not people are actually connected to the internet (not health, age or income)
  • Tailoring the learning environment specifically for older people is essential to engaging them in taking up ICTs (p. 4)
  • Those who are not connected will find themselves increasingly excluded (p. 1)

Attitudes could be broken down into four segments, with two user-types (pp. 3-4):

  • Current users: Absorbers (obliged to learn computers at work) and Self-starters (had learnt themselves)
  • Non-user: Rejecters (people who, for diverse reasons, rejected ICT uptake entirely and disengaged (keen to learn, given the right circumstances)

Interestingly, for the most experienced users of tech, there was little emotional involvement; the opposite applied (feelings of wonder, excitement, fear, anxiety) to those who were less experienced (p. 5-6).

What we can certainly take away from the OfCom report is that older people who currently aren’t engaged in ICTs will certainly become so given patience and understanding on the part of those who teach them.

Bookmark and Share

Target: Information behaviour of youngsters

February 18, 2008

Target ImageIn a recent post I pointed to CIBER’s report on Information behaviour of the researcher of the future (pdf) which showed that Net Gen behaviours aren’t necessarily specific to one discrete age group. Nevertheless, the report did present some findings about the search activities of the younger demographic:

  • The fit between search engines and students’ life styles today is ‘almost perfect’ — much better than is the fit for physical or online libraries (p. 7)
  • The speed of young people’s web searching indicates that they spend little time in evaluating information for accuracy, relevance or authority (p. 12). But this also seems to be a pre-Web phenomenon (p. 23)
  • There is little direct evidence that young people’s information literacy is any better or worse than before (p. 12)
  • Young scholars are using tools that require little skill and are satisfied with very basic forms of searching (p. 14)
  • Young people find it difficult to assess relevance when presented with a long string of hits (p. 12)
  • It is likely that young people have good parallel processing skills, but it is unclear whether they are similarly developing the sequential processing abilities required for ordinary reading (p. 18)
  • There is no evidence that young people are expert searchers. Studies pre-Web also reported that young people had difficulty in selecting search terms. (p. 22)
  • There has been an increase in full-phrase searching, but this, too, predates the Web (p. 22)

I think the most important thing we need to take away from this report is the notion that the lack of sophistication and critique that characterises young people’s information searching is not a new phenomenon, brought about by being online: rather, youngsters have always had trouble evaluating and assessing information for relevance — perhaps it’s just that now their information searching behaviour is more public.

Bookmark and Share

Target: We are all becoming Net Gen

February 16, 2008

Target ImageThe CIBER research team at University College London has just published a report that examines the Information behaviour of the researcher of the future (pdf). The report shows that it is not only youngsters but people from all age groups who exhibit certain behaviours when dealing with information on the internet. Here are some of the things CIBER found to be true across the generations when it comes to online behaviour:

  • Young people are more competent with technology, but older users are catching up fast (p. 18)
  • All of us are exhibiting increasing intolerance for information delay, not just the Net Gen (p. 19)
  • More and more people are ‘power browsing’ through virtual libraries (p. 10; p. 19)
  • Individual, personality and background factors are probably more important than generation when it comes to needing to feel constantly connected to the Web (p. 19)
  • We are increasingly looking for ‘the answer’ rather than a particular format (e.g., monograph, journal) (p. 8 )
  • Scholars are beginning to pre-publish their work through blogs, wikis and personal websites (p. 27)

These findings make perfect sense to me, because I increasingly see in myself and other, older net users many of the characteristics that are said to define Net Geners. What’s not important here is the age of the user but the fact that learners (most of whom will be young people) will be coming to us with certain ways of behaving in the cyber information environment. We need to know what those behaviours are.

Bookmark and Share


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.