Uncategorized – Social Media and Digital Cultures

Connectivism

“Technology is altering (rewiring) our brains. The tools we use define and shape our thinking.”

George Siemens sums up a big 21st century phenomenon with this one-liner. As new technology enters our homes and offices, the way we approach problems is changing. Information is now readily available in a way that it has never been before.

Rote memorization of content is now obsolete. Spending time learning facts and figures that you can access at any point from your smart phone doesn’t make the most logical sense. However, as Seimens states in the Ed Surge article “‘Our Technology Is Our Ideology’: George Siemens on the Future of Digital Learning:

[I’m] worried that, rather than advancing our human potential, many edtech companies and universities are perpetuating the status quo. While machine learning and automation are obviating the need for learners to memorize content and develop routine skills, current edtech solutions still focus on helping learners develop these capabilities, he says.

As we race to modernize education, we have to be careful about what the platforms are teaching us. Are they reinforcing old fashioned notions of education? Or are they “[driving] students to hone their uniquely human traits—the ones that will help them thrive in an increasingly automated world” (McNeal)?

Every platform has an agenda as well. As we have discussed in this course, it’s important to be cognizant of the fact that where we get out information has biases of its own. Or in the case of social media, the platform will advertise to your belief systems to raise its own profit margins. As discussed in the Tristan Harris TED talk, companies use our own brain chemistry to get us to click more, check-in more, and post more.

But these platforms also allow people from different learning communities to come together and share their expertise. The pipelines created for information in these communities allow for people to recognize that information is every-changing and not static. It also empowers people to contribute even in small ways as part of the big picture.

This is the element that I think is important to focus on. The ability for people to access knowledge from experts in a vast learning community is going to drastically open access to information. Things like MOOPs will begin to challenge antiquated notions of the college experience.

As Siemens says ” “If we do things right, we could fix many of the things that are really very wrong with the university system, in that it treats people like objects, not human beings. It pushes us through like an assembly-line model rather than encouraging us to be self-motivated, self-regulated, self-monitoring human beings” (McNeal).

Is Knowledge Acquired?

Connectivism is a learning theory that knowledge is not acquired and that learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions. Stephen Downes, one of the founders of Connectivism, stated in his blog post “WHAT CONNECTIVISM IS” in 2004 that “at its heart, connectivism is the thesis that knowledge is distributed across a network of connections, and therefore that learning consists of the ability to construct and traverse those networks”.

I both agree and disagree with this theory. Knowledge can still be acquired, and should still be acquired, through self learning. Knowledge starts somewhere, it does not appear spontaneously. Knowledge is gained through personal experiences, critical thinking, reading, discussions and your network of connections. The connections we form can aid in our learning, but we can not limit our learning or knowledge to our connections.

As I work with students in higher education, I find a prevailing thought process that teachers jobs are to give them information. They do not need to do the readings and answers should just be given to them. I find this lack of ownership towards learning to be a side effect of connectivism. Before you can contribute and also gain knowledge from your network, you must have a baseline of knowledge yourself which can only be acquired through self learning.

What we learn is up to us. It is not up to others to learn for us and then share that knowledge.

Let’s connect – Connectivism

Prompt A. Connectivism has a core proposition — knowledge is not acquired. What does that mean? If knowledge is not acquired, then what instead?

Those that believe in Connectivism believe that “learning does not simply happen within an individual, but within and across the networks.” (Wikipedia). My big struggle with this question and prompt is that it sounds like to me that the individual brings nothing to the table on their own and that only through a group are he/she able to learn. I agree with the Connectivism approach that large health issues or educational issues can only be solved by a network of individuals however, each person still brings a set of understandings to the table.

Knowledge is acquired through various means, reading, conversations, following social networks, etc. As I read from these various sources I am acquiring new knowledge that I can bring to different conversations or different problems to tackle. Meaning, as I gain new knowledge, whether I do that on my own or not, and I bring that new knowledge into my network I am contributing as an individual. But at the same time I am gaining from conversations from a larger group and we in turn are solving issues/challenges through Connectivism. But I still brought my own knowledge to the conversation (to the group, to the network).

All that being said, I am a huge fan of connectivism and I believe there is endless potential for those to learn if he/she are willing to connect with larger networks, for example, PLN’s. I too prescribe to the theory that the room is the smartest person in the room theory. I absolutely believe that we are “smarter” and more “affective” in problem solving as a connected group than we are as an individual.

So thankful I was exposed to Connectivism and I really look forward to reading more about it.

Connectivism as Pedagogy

Distributed Cognition as Pedagogical Movement

What is Connectivism? – Lorente D’Vidal, CC BY-NC 2.0

The beauty of a blog is that it provides one with a platform to express an opinion, to agree or disagree with the most brilliant of minds. The blog provides validity to a voice, although possibly an artificial one. For, who am I to say? I am just me; but this is my blog; so I get to say. But how do we sift through all of the voices – including our own? This is, I believe, what George Siemens is concerned about, when he addresses the need to synthesize fragmented information distributed online – to make meaningful connections – in order to avoid the problem of individual knowledge-seekers caught in a “private universal phenomenon of conceptually inappropriate views of the world” (Connectivism TEDxNYED, 3/6/2010).

The answer that George Siemens provides is Connectivism, an approach to learning design that begins with the recognition that our digital spaces allow us infinite paths to content and curriculum. From here, Siemens moves to the premise that knowledge must now be “seen as existing in networks, and learning as forming and navigating these networks” (Learning and Knowing in Networks: Changing roles for Educators and Designers, 2008). Through the “curatorial, atelier, concierge, and networked roles of educators” we must “collapse” or “centralize” the vast sea of information that is accessible in decentralized online environments down to points of connectedness (p. 3). The conduit for making these connection points is the technology itself; data networks are the pipelines – both literally and figuratively – to form the personal learning networks necessary for learners to access understanding.

No small task for teachers. No small task for technology. In fact, possibly Siemens would say that technology becomes the teacher, or at least the connector and collector of knowledge. These infinite technologically-formed networks become the storehouses for knowledge. One gets a sense that, if knowledge resides in these connections or networks, and if the networks reside in technology, then technology is the source of knowledge itself. Is this taking Connectivism to an extreme? I think that is exactly what Siemens is doing with his concept of “distributed cognition” (Siemens, 2008, p. 11).

Certainly technology is a complicated labyrinth that requires meaningful connection-making. Technology as a means and a mode of distributing information and communication shapes society, culture, and education, and could greatly benefit from some new highways and byways to improve its effectiveness as a learning tool. I agree with Siemens that technology and online “media fragments understanding” and that we need to find ways to “weave together narrative coherence that permits individual students and educators to relate well” (Connectivism TEDxNYED, 3/6/2010). But what are we to do with Siemens’s lofty and definitive statements: “Technology is philosophy. Technology is ideology” (emphasis his)? Would it be too great a leap for Siemens’s Connectivism to say that if we can harness technology, if we can “collapse” the online information stream into “a point of connectedness,” then we can unleash truth itself?

Or possibly Siemens is not attempting to define truth in terms of technology. Certainly his Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age (2005) is focused on knowledge, even though it is an ever-fleeting goal because of its “shrinking half-life” (p. 1). But does this necessarily mean that knowledge only exists within personal learning networks? Is there only network “distributed cognition” and no other internal, or even external, places to discover, even acquire, knowledge?

Undoubtedly, technology is a core element of any educational enterprise in our media age. We do indeed need new pedagogical pathways for navigating our digital spaces. As Jennifer Englund explains, Siemens first presented Connectivism because he felt a new theory was needed “that addresses the exponential growth and complexity of information available on the internet, new possibilities for global communication, and the ability to aggregate different information streams” (What is the theory of connectivism?” (10/14/2013). My only difficulty here lies in the term “theory,” since Connectivism, in my view, does not explain learning and knowledge acquisition (or the lack thereof), as much as it gives us a new route and new transportation tools toward learning. In this way, Connectivism is more of a learning design or methodology. So I need to side with Pløn Verhagen (2006) and Bill Kerr (2007), among others, who see Connectivism as pedagogy rather than theory (Siemens, 2008, p. 11).

But Connectivism as practice and pedagogy rather than theory assigns an important role to each of us in education. Siemens (2008) spells this out clearly: “First, teachers interact with learners and content in a different manner. The internet has caused a power shift in classrooms, as learners now have greater access information, experts, and peer learners. Secondly, instructional designers, due to the developing complexity of tools and availability of open education resources, play an educational role of directing educators to tools and resources” (p. 19). Taken as a pedagogical movement, Connectivism is worth joining and its methods worth adopting. Not as the only way to aggregate and distribute knowledge, but certainly a most promising one.

Constructing Knowledge

The act of acquiring knowledge may not be as straightforward as we may have previously thought. Connectivism has a core proposition — knowledge is not acquired. Within this theory, it explains that knowledge is constructed and built from connections rather than absorbed. When we think about learning in a scientific lense, this statement of knowledge not being acquired actually makes a good amount of sense.

Although a memory begins with perception, it is encoded and stored using the language of electricity and chemicals. Here’s how it works: Nerve cells connect with other cells at a point called a synapse. All the action in your brain occurs at these synapses, where electrical pulses carrying messages leap across gaps between cells. The electrical firing of a pulse across the gap triggers the release of chemical messengers called neurotransmitters.

The typical brain has about 100 trillion synapses, which are the points where nerve cells in the human brain connect with other cells.
PUBLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL, LTD.

These neurotransmitters diffuse across the spaces between cells, attaching themselves to neighboring cells. Each brain cell can form thousands of links like this, giving a typical brain about 100 trillion synapses. The parts of the brain cells that receive these electric impulses are called dendrites, feathery tips of brain cells that reach out to neighboring brain cells.

In order to enrich these memories or new concepts, we repeat the information in our heads and apply it to truly remember it. So with all this in mind, just acquiring knowledge will not mean anything until you apply it; or in other words connect it things around you.

George Siemens explains connectivism in this analogy: “The pipe is more important than the content within the pipe. Our ability to learn what we need for tomorrow is more important than what we know today.” What we can take from this is that if we do not apply our knowledge and seek out for more, we will not progress. Imagine if scientist just accepted what we know about certain diseases and didn’t try to further investigate. Knowledge is only useful when use to progress.

Image result for constructivism — https://www.wooclap.com/en/blog/inside-classrooms/blended-learning-blog-n10-objectivist-vs-constructivist-approach-to-learning-and-instruction/images/1.jpeg

Sources: https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/human-memory1.htm
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324179.php
http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Connectivism
https://www.hetl.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/HETLReview2013SpecialIssueArticle1.pdf

Evolution of Technology

My hasn’t technology changed! From handwritten letters to phone calls with wired phones and now 10 second pictures and videos as a part of daily conversation. As mentioned in Tristan Harris’ Ted Talk, generation Z is all about Snapchat as their main method of communication and no longer uses text messages but uses the messaging system that Snapchat provides. While this may seem a rather small change from iMessage or text message, Snapchat has a team of engineers that analyze what is being sent and reactions to what is being said. Gossip is no longer between you and your friends but is now being analyzed by the company and using your life to better their business.

Image result for snapchat data mining — https://image.slidesharecdn.com/agnslides1-160712030644/95/mining-social-media-data-annual-giving-5-638.jpg?cb=1468292925

Now there is a saying that there is “no such thing as bad publicity” and Harris notes this in his presentation that this is just how companies like Snapchat and Facebook feel. Whether the reaction is angry or happy, reactions require a post that people will share or comment on continuing the usage of the website and application.

Just a number of days ago I was discussing jewelry with a friend over snapchat, the following day I had ads on my instagram for jewelry even though I had previously looked up jewelry in my browsing history. We have all become somewhat desensitised to our privacy on our phones be little to none, but where does it end?

Are We Really In Control? Technology and Its Ethics

As I listened to Tristan Harris’s Ted Talk, How a handful of tech companies control billions of minds every day, I was reminded of an assignment that I give to my middle school students. I require them to read articles covering both sides of an argument in order to help them answer the question “Is technology helping or hurting us?” I agree with Harris’s point that tech companies are manipulating us towards things that are not necessarily the best for us, but that this same power could be used to encourage us in more healthy and positive pursuits. One of the articles that I require my students to read is, Is Technology Killing Our Friendships? by Lauren Tarshis. Tarshis’ article suggests that technology is “killing” the friendships of teens by giving them the illusion that they have true friendships just because they have 500 friends on Facebook. The reality is that they actually never reach a deep level of friendship with any of their “friends” outside of liking the persona that each person has created online. Yet, they have been convinced that “friended” equals friendship. Harris suggests that social media could be used to “..empower us to live out the timeline that we want.” He suggests that if we were given the opportunity to instead of posting a controversial question online, we could use that same platform to plan a dinner party where the conversations can be had in person, building those relationships in person while furthering the same controversial discussion, we would be creating a much more healthy timeline. Tarshis’s article makes the same point. Human contact is key to our continued social growth.

Harris explains that these tech companies have divisions of people who’s only focus is to manipulate our actions online. They have created the ability to “… precisely target a lie only to those people who would be more susceptible to it.” To me, this is terrifying. I agree with Harris when he suggests that “The only form of ethical persuasion exists when the goals of the persuader are aligned with the goals of the persuedee.” This sounds wonderful and very idealistic. As much as this would be what is best for the masses, what is the likelihood of these corporations giving up their power over us? As I look at my students faced with the choice “Is technology helping or hurting?” and I am surprised. There is always a significant number of students when confronted with the data, who actually argue that technology is hurting us. This gives me hope for our future around Harris’s position on ethics. I don’t believe that the internet and social media are inherently evil. They are benign on their own, but it makes me wonder what it would take to convince these tech companies to use their “power” for our good?

What’s Behind the Curtain?

My fourth grade teacher was a novel experience for me in a lot of ways. He was my first male teacher and my first teacher to assign long-term projects. He taught a group of us to play guitar after school. As a first-year teacher assembling a classroom library from whatever he had at home that was remotely suitable for elementary students, he introduced me to several series and characters that I would otherwise not have met that early. (Thank you, Mr. Haas, for my enduring love of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy and Get Smart!) He helped our class write and compose two songs, and then record them in an actual studio. I presume that somewhere during that year, we covered the expected academic topics, as well, as we all seemed to be ready for fifth grade the following year.

But one of his most lasting impacts on my thought patterns was the unit we did on advertising. We looked at various strategies used for selling, including both what they looked like and why they worked. We were sent home to find examples of each and describe the components of the ads. I can’t say advertising doesn’t work on me, but I can say that I tend to notice and attempt to deconstruct its methods and goals more often than some folks I observe. That unit was what caused a flash of recognition in me for Tristan Harris’ line, “what we don’t talk about is how the handful of people working at a handful of technology companies through their choices will steer what a billion people are thinking today.” (Harris, 2017) There are plenty of methods of advertising, and the internet is not the only outlet. It’s just one of the most potent and omnipresent. With a relatively small number of individuals at the helm and making many of the decisions about what we see, how we see it, and whose viewpoints get heard, it’s still a good idea to have some idea about how our experience on the internet is curated and shaped before we even encounter it. As I investigated the question, I encountered a 2015 multi-part report from MIT Technology Review, entitled “Persuasive Technology.” It was their May/June 2015 Business Report section. In an article entitled “Technology and Persuasion,” (Byrnes, 2015,) the researcher describes methods to keep people hooked on a particular game by recognizing behaviors that might mean they are getting bored and responding to those, or how a corporate wellness provider group uses data and game designers to maintain engagement from the workforce at a higher level than previously achieved. The researcher also cited an ad firm’s use of tracking data to better choose more effective advertising for individual users. Another article entitled, “New Technologies Persuade in Old Ways,” (Anders, 2015) specifically called out some of the strategies that have been used in some form to guide people’s behavior since time long before the internet was a consideration. Anders described these strategies as: “reciprocity, likeability, authority, scarcity, consistency, and social proof.”(Anders, 2015) If you think about those for a few minutes, you will readily see them at work all around you. Most of us would rather buy from or participate with a company that we see as friendly to us and/or our causes. We like to follow people’s feeds that may respond to us and boost our profile. We readily follow other users’ or experts’ advice and reviews on products and services, and items that sell out or advertise a limited number of opportunities are catering to our need for things that we see as limited.

If you’re interested in how companies may be programming you, take a look at one of these articles, or some of the others in the edition. They all seem to be short and easily digested. What did you learn, and how will it affect your outlook or behavior moving forward?

Anders, G. (2015, March 23). New technologies persuade in old ways. MIT Technology Review, Volume 110, No. 3. Retrieved from: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/535831/new-technologies-persuade-in-old-ways/?set=535816.

Byrnes, N. (2015, March 23). Technology and persuasion. MIT Technology Review, Volume 110, No. 3. Retrieved from: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/535826/technology-and-persuasion/?set=535816.

TED. (2017, July 28). How a handful of tech companies control billions of minds every day | Tristan Harris. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C74amJRp730.

Connectives: Our brains on technology

George Siemens writes “Technology is altering (rewiring) our brains. The tools we use define and shape our thinking.” This quote brings up several concerns, but first let me talk about how I connect with the quote.

In my 26 years of life I have seen the rise of technology from Dial up to wifi; from AOL messenger to snapchat. This changes our thinking and our way we deal with the world around us. For example until I received my own smart phone, which was not until my freshman year of college. I would care less what was going on in the greater world around me, other than what I saw in the newspaper and the nightly news. Since having a smartphone I changed to have notifications, popups and internet searches about the most recent news. This hinders the notion and ability to purely live in the present. This like everything has positive and negative effects.

Some of the more negative aspects of this constant connection to the technology we use everyday is a disconnect with the present. we focus on not only the present, but of the future and we have become impatient.

I remember a time when it would take four hours to load a map to use for classwork. This was a nature thing and relatively short for how detailed the map was back in the early 2000’s. Now with the advancement of technology we become impatient at things not loading instantly or in a shorter amount of time.

However hope is not lost, we have some control on how our brains become wired with technology, we can re-set, and press restart on aspects of how our mental processes address technology. This is not easy as we have become addicted to our technology, but being able to unplug for a couple hours everyday, and be cognizant more of the actions and movements that are around us, we can address some of the effects that technology places us in.

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.