Category: Social Change

What sets connectivism apart?

 In the maelstrom of seemingly unlimited learning theories, evaluating the defining characteristics of particular theories can help to determine the one most applicable to a given situation, or which have the broadest application to learning in general. As I considered the various readings on connectivism this week, one of the most striking assertions I saw was George Siemens’ statement that “In a networked world, the very manner of information that we acquire is worth exploring. The need to evaluate the worthiness of learning something is a meta-skill that is applied before learning itself begins.” (Siemens, 2005) In most previous learning models, increasing internally-held knowledge has typically been seen as the end goal of any learning activity. Connectivism counters that in today’s world, where people will encounter a never-ending progression of new situations and increased available knowledge, a lot of knowledge does not need to be internalized, merely accessible. The theory holds that being able to find relevant knowledge and ignore unhelpful input is likely to be a more useful skill set than memorizing new processes or facts that are likely to change frequently, or be pertinent only rarely. The theory doesn’t preclude the possibility that people can and will internalize certain learning that remains stable and germane to their life or work. It merely highlights the prevalence of tools that can store and retrieve facts that used to rely on individuals’ retaining them. Very few people remember a long list of phone numbers anymore. Instead, they usually have them programmed into phones and other devices. Simple cooking tasks like how to boil eggs, calculate measurement conversions, or substitute ingredients are quick and easy to find online, so many people look them up each time they need to do the task rather than devoting memory to the process.

In a workplace, last week’s procedures for a particular situation may have been updated as outside factors changed. In this case, remembering the older process too well may in fact interfere with using the new one correctly. Many organizations maintain an internal wiki or blog to store the most recent information. Users can check it to make sure they know the most current version. Learning then involves being able to find and correctly interpret the desired knowledge. Searchable email systems make that another viable system to disseminate information. When in doubt, a person can easily search for keywords about the topic, then use the time stamps to be sure they are using the correct version. In this case, a good subject line, and the ability to choose fruitful search keywords are far more important than memorizing new procedures. When seeking a novel solution to a problem, a good learner will pinpoint applicable information in the sea of facts and opinions available across a spectrum of fields that initially may or may not seem related to the subject at hand. With the assembled data, they can create a resolution for the current need and still remain ready to update anew when situation changes.  

Resources:

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved from: https://jotamac.typepad.com/jotamacs_weblog/files/Connectivism.pdf.

The Race for Attention

The race for attention is nothing new.  People like being noticed and they being paid attention to.  This has been true since before history was recorded. What is new, is that the race for attention is now being fought virtually by tech companies.  Our mobile devices now demand more of our attention than we ever demanded or tried to achieve from other people. Our time is being spent not with people, but with our phones as we check our notifications, social media posts and play online games. 

Tristan Harris in his TED talk “How a handful of tech companies control billions of minds every day” mentions how that race for attention is changing our world, our conversations and our relationships including how we want to have them. I completely agree. People no longer know how to talk to anyone else unless it is through a device.  The art of conversation is starting to disappear.

It is not rare to go to dinner with friends and have everyone get their phones out after the food is ordered and check in with social media, notifications, emails, texts, etc. People are addicted to checking their notifications, checking their email and making sure they are “not missing anything” when in fact, they are missing IRL (in real life) interaction.

Most people joke that “Google owns me” but it is not really a joke. Mark Stone wrote in a Techvibes article “ Google Owns You. But You Already Knew That, Right?” describing just how much of our personal information Google owns.  The other tech companies are no different.

People have become complacent about lack of online data privacy and the amount of time and effort social media demands.  This complacency is creating a vicious cycle where tech companies are becoming more and more persuasive and learning better techniques so that we will give them more of our attention.  As we give them attention we have less attention for our IRL.

Tristan Harris proclaims that “we need new models and accountability systems. So that as the world gets better and more and more persuasive over time” the “goals of the persuader must align with the goals of the persuadee” and be accountable and transparent to what we want.  We need to lose our complacency and group together to demand those new models and accountability. It is not ok to lose ourselves to the virtual world at the expense of our relationships in the real world.

What are your thoughts on the race for attention?  Do think people understand the amount of time they spend online?

Social Media as Community Organizing

I work in a small city of just under 30,000 people. In a lot of senses, it’s a bedroom community, as most people that live there commute to work in one of the much larger cities nearby. The city and residents pride themselves on a very strong sense of community, a vibrant downtown and excellent engagement in causes both local and global. As an example, within my workplace, we have nearly 300 active volunteers per year, which calculates out to an equivalent of approximately 1% of the city’s residents being active in the library, a rather impressive quantity, given that many other causes in town are also well-supported.

I have frequently observed the impact of social media on various causes and information-sharing in the city. I am aware of a minimum of three Facebook groups moderated by local citizens used to disseminate information, share opinions, publicize events, and elicit support for various causes. Various colleagues have joined them as an additional avenue to spread information about library offerings and have an eye on topics of local interest. I subscribe to one of the groups and can think of many times that I have seen its role in shaping public sentiment or garnering attendance for rallies, vigils, or City Council meetings.  It can be a dumping ground for people’s negative attitudes, complaints about traffic, bad manners, or local policies. However, it has also been used to get word out about local candidates and why they’re running, as well as campaign events for folks to learn more about them. I’ve seen organizers use it to get carpool arrangements started for more distant marches and rallies, and to share suggestions on how people can comment on upcoming legislation or potential City policies before they are voted on or enacted. Local hot topics include fracking, intergovernmental relations, and some of the local festivals. All of these have plenty of posts by people sharing their opinions with various levels of civility, and also give like-minded folks a place to hear about meetings or other gatherings where they can learn more about or further advance their causes.

We frequently think of social media being used to organize people that are geographically spread, and that is clearly a major impact it can have to unite people that may never meet. It’s interesting to see it also used to streamline communication for people that live in the same place and want to connect in person but may not know about their joint interests or local manifestations of those causes without the medium of these community stream-of-consciousness style conversations.