Yaël and I worked towards an understanding of who a digital learner is and how they connect to each other. It was interesting to me to see a very different take on the articles. Yaël had checked up on some apps that exploit those who do not stay up to date on their privacy settings. A point she made that I had not quite brought to the surface of my thoughts yet was that many times it is the integrations that make our everyday lives easier that allow for these exploitations. For example, there is an app called Girls Around Me which shows girls in their real-time locations in the local area. More specifically, “These are all girls with publicly visible Facebook profiles who have checked into these locations recently using Foursquare.” (Brownlee, 2012) This stopped me in my tracks. The app links to social networks from foursquare and provides this information to anyone on the app. I keep my Facebook on lockdown, I don’t link my sites to my social media and I make sure that my location services are turned off whenever possible and this still makes me uncomfortable. Brownlee sums it up beautifully, “It’s that we’re all horrified by how exposed these girls are, and how exposed services like Facebook and Foursquare let them be without their knowledge.” (Brownlee, 2012)
We must keep adapting to anything that technology throws our way. As adults we understand this. It is for this reason that adults also know that we need to change our learning as the technology available to us changes as well. “What is required to succeed in education is a theory that is responsive to the context of constant flux, while at the same time is grounded in a theory of learning.” (Thomas & Brown, 2009) There needs to be constant movement in learning and what we know to respond to the pace at which technology is changing. In fact, this is neatly summed up in the concluding statement, “Where traditional models of learning have moved from models of direct knowledge transfer to broader notions of skills, we believe that neither of these is sufficient to explain and account for the fundamental epistemic shifts and new affordances that 21st century presents.” (Thomas & Brown, 2009) The interesting this is that students tend to be equipped to respond to this shift in technology within their personal lives outside of the classroom, it is the educational system that is lagging behind. These students are rarely seen without a cellphone or some sort of digital device. It is finding ways of connecting the learning to the classroom and back to their personal lives. This also applies outside the traditional classroom, Jenkins states that “The challenge is how to connect decisions in the context of our everyday lives with the decisions made at local, state, or national levels” (Jenkins, 2009) Students sometimes do not see the implication of their learning to their “real lives” and therefore are not interested in investing time or effort into it. “It is clear that different youth at different times possess varying levels of technology- and media-related expertise, interest, and motivation.” (Ito, et al., 2010) Learning and technology should never be considered separate entities. Even when there are examples of digital media far removed from the classroom, students still find ways to learn and succeed. Media is not isolating youth but “Contrary to popular images of the socially isolated geek, almost all geeking out practices we have observed are highly social and engaged” (Ito, et al., 2010) These students who work to cultivate their digital lives are developing skills they will need in the ever-changing landscape of digital media. I personally wish that my education has incorporated more digital media and learning. I sometimes find myself awash in technology and far behind my peers in technological literacy. As a recent example, I have avoided twitter because of the negative aspects related to an employer finding a twitter profile with less than desirable tweets on it. I am not learning how to tweet at a much slower pace than my peers. Thankfully, Yaël has been willing to guide me in the right direction. As I reflect on my learning I can see how a closed twitter like platform would have benefited me by providing a safe place to post my thinking before having it displayed to the rest of the world. In closing, I agree with Brownlee that “our approach to education and learning needs to be as rich and complex as the challenges and opportunities we face.” (Brownlee, 2012) We can not use a one size fits all model and we can not remain stagnant in our teaching practices if we are to continue to prepare students for the modern world. Works CitedBrownlee, J. (2012, March 30). This Creepy app isn't just stalking women without their knowledge, it's a wake-up call about facebook privacy. Cult of Mac. Ito, M., Baumer, S., Matteo, B., Boyd, D., Cody, R., Herr-Stephenson, B., . . . Tripp, L. (2010). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media. Cambridge: MIT Press. Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: media education for the 21st century. Cambridge: MIT Press. Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S. (2009). Learning for a world of constant change: Homo sapiens, Homo Faber & Homo Ludens revisited. University of Southern California.
0 Comments
Thinking about machines and how they have power and revisiting the past readings was very interesting. Given my perspectives based on the later readings these had even more context for me. I had touched base with Yaël and discussed the relationship between technology of the past and technology of the future. In looking back on her blog, I noted a very different focus. I had focused on machines of the past and a focus towards the future. She and I both discussed the benefits to technology and the drawbacks.
So, what is the point? The benefits of technology depend on the user not the technology itself. If there is not training and an effort to keep technology unbiased then the technology will “amplify whatever pedagogical capacity is already there.” (Toyama, 2015) This leads us to the following question: what is in place to stop misuse? The first level would be ourselves, we are all responsible for our own behaviors, but after that we understand that it is the norms of an online group will put restrictions on behavior “, a set of understandings constrain behavior, again through the threat of ex post sanctions imposed by a community” (Lessig, 2009) Some people may claim that this is not enough. This is why there are also laws regulating the online world and according to Lessig, “We should worry about a regime that makes invisible regulation easier; we should worry about a regime that makes it easier to regulate” (Lessig, 2009) This being taken into account, it could be said that teachers reject technology due to it being a hindrance instead of something that benefits the learner. When looking deeper into Yaël’s blog post she discussed not having good use of technology and in the article by Kentaro Toyama I read this from his perspective. When discussing schools that had been given technology to use he found that without support, “the machines were locked away, and the computer lab was repurposed.” (Toyama, 2015) Even when machines are not locked away (for their own safety or otherwise) we find that “Students are often asked to copy-and-paste bits of information they find online into PowerPoint slides without being challenged to think about how to select good material or how to construct a strong argument.” (Toyama, 2015) This is not to say that technology can never be used positively or in a way that benefits the user. We must remember that it is not the technology that is at fault it is the user. The systems we use should be assumed to hold biases and “As with other criteria for good computer systems, such as reliability, accuracy, and efficiency, freedom from bias should be held out as an ideal.” (Friedman & Nissenbaum, 1996) It is important that as a community we analyze this and make sure to analyze the technology before liberally applying it to our students for use. This being said there are studies that show that using technology in the classroom can be highly useful. In fact technology can provide “a phenomenological lens to explore the complexity of these literacy practices draws on ‘notions of the sensory, unfolding material world and the multimodal, textual and “imagined” digital world’” (Toomey, 2017) We can learn from Toyama who stated that “By inventing and disseminating new, low-cost devices for learning, we believed we were improving education for the world’s less privileged children“ (Toyama, 2015) but he slowly realized that without constant revisiting of the programs and training the programs did not work effectively like they did in the trials. In fact, much of the technology was very difficult for teachers who did not receive training. They did not receive the support and information required to keep their students on task and “For teachers already struggling to keep their students engaged, a computer is less help, more hindrance.” (Toyama, 2015) This all being said we can look at the beginning of his article on the MultiPoint program and see that it did work. In fact, the article addressed exactly what made the technology successful. They had partner schools with teachers and principals that were involved, the students focused on the tasks given to them, and the researchers helped to assist with implementation. This needs to be happening in schools. In my own teaching career, I watched as budgets were slashed. Not for technology itself but for support staff for that technology. Our school started with a dedicated technology help person and slowly that job was absorbed into the “media center” as time went on this job became less about the technology and more about another hand in the library. Just like in the article, the computers were locked away and teachers had to learn about the technology on their own and fight to keep it. When faced with such pessimistic outlooks it is hard to remember that the technology itself is good, but the support and training is what keeps it alive. Works CitedFriedman, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (1996, July 3). Bias in Computer Systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, pp. 330-347. Lessig, L. (2009). Cyberspaces. In L. Lessig, Code version 2.0 (pp. 120-137). New York: Basic Books. Toomey, M. (2017, October). Engaging the enemy: computer games in the English classroom. Literacy Learning: the Middle Years, pp. 38-49. Toyama, K. (2015, June 4). Technology won't fix america's neediest schools. It makes bad education worse. The washington post. Throughout these articles I was enthralled. I grew up with the evolution of cyber security and more specifically the “protection of youth”. I quickly found that this wasn’t actual protection but instead was a sheltering from anything that was deemed unsavory by my parents. This is not to say that my parents were incorrect in their thoughts about the internet and how unsafe it can be, but rather that they wanted to shield me from a world that is not unwholly separate from the physical world that existed without the internet. The two concepts that I will be focusing on are that youth are searching for their own space and themselves on the internet and also that the internet is not dangerous in itself but is simply an extension of the world that we already live in.
The first concept, that the online world is not a separate entity, is clearly fleshed out in the readings. “Technology’s primary effect is to amplify human forces.” (Toyama, 2015) When technology is introduced it does not change what was already lurking in the peripheries it simply allows it to come out into the light. We also can reference previous readings by looking at "the ways human ends are powerfully transformed as they are adapted to technical means." (Winner, 1988) There is no doubt that technology allows for terrible and dangerous things to be spread quickly and without control, but they have to come from somewhere. “There is little doubt that technology inflects age-old issues in new ways” (Boyd, Marwick, Aftab, & Koe Maeve, 2009) but it is not about if the internet is dangerous but if we can protect children from people using the internet. “Children and teenagers face considerable risks in their everyday lives and need adult support as they navigate those risks, and information technologies have presented new possibilities for victimization and crime.” (Fisk, 2016) This does not exclude the everyday life of youth but encompasses it. Many people who did not grow up with technology in their lives do not see technology as a social activity but as work related materials. We can understand that “computers have appeared to many as an anti-social technology, as an intrusion of instrumental work life into the home.” (Fisk, 2016) This is not close to the truth. It connects youth to their friends, classmates, and people from all areas of the world. It is as fearful to some as the telephone once was. Just as my grandparents complained about youth not writing hand written letters my parents complain about people not writing emails anymore. The language that is “online” and not true English as even entered the everyday language of youth with pushback from the older generations. However, “If the Oxford English Dictionary is able to recognize the importance of these types of words in today’s culture, then millennials should be able to use them in informal situations without judgement.” (Beg, 2017) When we consider youth and how they use the internet we need to understand that when it comes to youth seeking out others and searching the internet for these more deviant people and beliefs “they are simply looking for spaces where they can socialize with one another.” (Fisk, 2016) I have read more articles than I can count on how millennials are ruining the way that “it” has always been done. More specifically, I read an article on how memes are connecting youth. It addressed internet slang is important because it creates an in group in which the speakers become exclusive. The article stated that “This creates a culture between teenagers that some question whether is acceptable or not.” (Beg, 2017) This is not a new concept or a new movement. If we didn’t have the internet, then the people in power would complain about something else about youth culture. It is in the nature of youth to seek their own truth and alternatives to the path set forth by their parents. “Those spaces that youth are allowed in without direct supervision are increasingly marked by technological surveillance, ranging from surveillance cameras to smartphone enabled GPS tracking.” (Fisk, 2016) Children and young adults are desperate to break free and find areas in which they can be themselves. These youth need to be taught about “correcting others, being open to being corrected oneself, and working together”. (Davidson & Goldberg, 2009) This is not to say that parents are incorrect in trying to limit the exposure of youth to negative influences and dangerous things. Fisk states, “Although adults usually do know best and youth typically want them to know best, there is value to having spaces where young people can learn lessons for themselves.” (Fisk, 2016) It is not about online and offline roles or rebellion. “The risk constituted around online sociality is that of failing to fully realize the potential offered by both information technologies and youth themselves” (Fisk, 2016) Works CitedBeg, A. (2017). BEG: Memes connect millennials and improve society. MarquetteWire. Boyd, D., Marwick, A., Aftab, P., & Koe Maeve, M. (2009). The conundrum of visibility. Journal of Children and Media. Davidson, C. N., & Goldberg, D. T. (2009). The future of learning institutions in a digital age. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Fisk, N. (2016). Framing internet safety. MIT Press. Toyama, K. (2015, June 4). Technology won't fix america's neediest schools. It makes bad education worse. The washington post. Winner, L. (1988). The Whale and the Reactor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. When starting these readings I was highly interested in the perspectives that were being put forth. One of the main concepts that was highlighted in the reading was the power of words. I am very familiar with the term “gamification” however I did not have any knowledge of the pushback against this terminology. According to Merriam Webster, gamification is “the process of adding games or gamelike elements to something (such as a task) so as to encourage participation”. (2010) Simple and straightforward. As with many things that seem simple they become much more complicated when their layers are pulled back. According to Ian Bogost “names offer powerful ways to advance a position” (2011) and this is especially true when it comes to gaming. This concept of words having power and cheapening or making something seem more intriguing due to words was repeated throughout. I have personally experienced a lot of frustration when it comes to the way companies approach their applications and “games”. For example, I have an app for healthcare that tries to assign points in response to health care milestones. This is the easy prepackaged way that the articles address gaming. Bogost coins this “pointsification” as a more accurate description of this process.” (2011) Applying this process to games makes it easy and marketable and “allows organizations to tick the games box without fuss.” (Bogost, Persuasive games: exploitationware, 2011)
This leads us to a separate problem. Gamification is Bullshit states that “-ification is always easy and repeatable” (Bogost, 2011). It takes credibility away from people who work very hard to create meaningful games. By using “gamification” “it takes games—a mysterious, magical, powerful medium that has captured the attention of millions of people—and it makes them accessible in the context of contemporary business.” (Bogost, Persuasive games: exploitationware, 2011) So where does this leave us? We have corporations who say that what they are doing is simply making their apps user friendly and those within the gaming community that say that it is ruining games. There must be a happy medium where the companies can make their apps user friendly and interactive without simply using a check in the box strategy. What worries me most is that “children need to know when they are being targeted by commercial appeals, and how the information they provide can be used by commercial corporations.” (Buckingham, 2007, p. 48) When this is not made plain it becomes very easy to trick children into giving out information they would otherwise keep to themselves. After discussing what makes gamification so insidious I also noted what the articles discussed in regards to what makes games good. “Good games confront players in the initial game levels with problems that are specifically designed to allow players to form good generalizations about what will work well later when they face more complex problems.” (Gee, 2003) Games should grow with the learner. They shouldn’t be a tick in the box method that fills the quota for a producer. “Games can show us how to get people to invest in new identities or roles, which can, in turn, become powerful motivators for new and deep learning in classrooms and workplaces.” (Gee, 2003) This, of course, relates back to connected learning. There should be “weaving” or connecting ideas and knowledge across different pools of knowledge. (Cazden, 2006) Gamification could be good if used in this way, but because the word has this connotation behind it there is no way for it to regain the positive power it could have. I have loved games like Minecraft that allow for me to create new worlds within the game. Some players have made complete replicas of their towns and cities. True building skills and work that correlates back to future careers and real life. Why wouldn’t we encourage this for children (and adults)? It is from these readings that I understand how gamification is bad because of the way that the producers cheapen true game design and the process of games. On the other hand, the readings also addressed how 'good' games can be used in educational settings even when not directly connected to the content due to connected learning. The learner is able to create scenarios that they would normally not be able to experience and learn from it. Games deserve more than to be simply "gamified" versions of boring concepts. Works CitedBogost, I. (2011). Gamification is bullshit. Wharton Gamification Symposium. Ian Bogost. Bogost, I. (2011). Persuasive games: exploitationware. gamasutra, 1-4. Buckingham, D. (2007, November 1). Digital media literacies: rethinking media education in the age of the internet. Research in comparative and international education, pp. 43-55. Cazden, C. B. (2006). Connected learning: "weaving" in classroom lessons. Pedagogy in Practice (pp. 1--18). University of Newcastle. Gamification. 2011. In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved November 10, 2017, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamification Gee, J. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. ACM computers in entertainment, 1-4. Steinkuehler, C., Squire, K., & Barab, S. (Eds.). (2012). Games, Learning, and Society: Learning and Meaning in the Digital Age (Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139031127 |
Details
AuthorEllie E. Archives
November 2017
Categories |