When I was reading the selections for this week, the thing that came to mind is the differing opinions of how technology will affect education if we rely on it too much because of how "dehumanizing" it can be.
Monke made the point in his article that, despite all the technological advances we've made over the years, education isn't improving because we're relying so much on technology to entertain and teach our kids, but we are losing some basic skills in the process, in particular creativity. He cites how those students who go on computers to be "wizards" at it tend to be the ones who are less creative in how to use it, and how less face to face contact is one of the causes why kids are having a harder time reading. "It may very well be that educators are trying to solve the problem of illiteracy by turning to the very technology that has diminished the experiences children need to be literate" (Monke 12).
I don't know whether he has a point or not, or if my own personal experience kind of counters that. As a child, I started reading when I was around the age of 3. My parents had told me in the past that it was because as a kid I watched a lot of "Sesame Street" and "The Electric Company," where one show taught me the letters while the other one taught me how to put them together. My son, who is now 4, is also already reading -- along with also watching "Sesame Street" at an early age, he also watched "Super Why!" and "Word Girl" for a time (his 3rd birthday party was "Super Why!" themed). Along with the encouragement and interaction he got from myself, my husband, and other family members, he can do some basic reading as well as count up to 100 when given the chance.
There again, he had help from us, as well -- obviously I don't remember if I got help from my parents, but I know with him we help him out when he encounters more difficult words (like pronouncing "hour" as "hore," which made for an interesting car ride when he saw the "one hour parking" signs). So a human touch is applied to his learning along with the technology we are given.
Kolowich in his article talks about how some institutes have started including video lectures in an attempt to "humanize" the experience. Although there is a "human" element to it, watching a video doesn't really "humanize" it for me as much as a live interaction would be. When I'm talking to my mom on Skype, that's "humanizing" for me, because we're both live at the same time. When I'm watching a professor on a video, not so much because it's still a pre-recorded lecture that could have taken place six months prior. There's still that distance that you can't avoid.
Again, it's not an either/or thing, really. Although Monke might disagree with me, it really is in how you use the technology that determines how "human" an interaction you have.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Sunday, February 10, 2013
What Makes Us Human? #edcmooc
As we get into our third week, we start to get material that talks about what makes us human and what it means to be human. Just from watching the videos so far, there's already a lot for me to be thinking about. Including how I want to apply this to the classroom when I get one.
There's going to be some spoilers in here, so if you don't want to know what happens in the videos, don't read yet.
All four of the film festival films give different interpretations of the idea of humanity. In the Toyota and BT ads, they try to present the use of technology as a way for us to make more human connections or find ways to regain our humanity. In "World Builder," a programmer uses technology as a way to create an artificial world for his wife/girlfriend in a coma as a way to "connect" with her. And in "They're Made of Meat," it shows a different take on humanity in that to alien eyes, we are just big pieces of meat with brains.
What we have to remember is that in advertising, they are trying to sell us a product. In the case of the two ads, they're trying to sell us on the idea that we've lost our "human" capacity for nature or contact, so we need their technology to help us get that back. It almost seems counterintuitive when you look into it -- what will bring us back from the overload of technology? MORE TECHNOLOGY! The Toyota ad in particular shows us a fictionalized world where everyone is a character in a video game world, and humanity has been almost completely lost (only with their product, of course, can we break free from this technology overload and be "human" again).
The BT ad is probably a more realistic version of today's world, in which we have this tendency to talk to each other via computer and other devices, but don't really "talk" to each other. Of course, it has somewhat the same message -- what will bring us back to contact with humans? MORE TECHNOLOGY! I know that as educators we experience this in our classrooms sometimes, where students are more interested in texting each other on their cell phones than talking to each other about stuff (even after we tell them to put the phones away!). I know that because my family tends to be fairly far from me I can't help but use the tech to talk with them sometimes. And being somewhat of a shy person in groups and classrooms (except when I'm teaching or performing -- it's really weird that I feel more comfortable giving a presentation than I do being on the other end of it), I find technology the best way that I can communicate sometimes.
In "World Builder," I felt that the presentation of creating an artificial world was touching in the context of the story, but to what degrees do we do that now? If you play games like "The Sims" or "Minecraft," you are creating a different, artificial world. Of course, in a game like "The Sims" you are more "God-like" as the user -- you only really get to interact with the avatar you create. In "Minecraft" there's a means to an end -- you build a house to keep yourself safe from "Creepers." When you play a game like "World of Warcraft," you are entering a pre-constructed world that you get to explore for better or worse. Later this year, I'll be taking the Coursera course "Online Games: Literature, New Media, and Narrative," where as one of the requirements of the course we were to start an account on "Lord of the Rings Online," an online game where to get to explore the world of the J.R.R. Tolkien books. But I think that digital simulations can only go so far -- as humans, we will always know that it is a digital simulation, no matter how realistic it might be. There will always be a clue in there that will tell us that something is not "real" in our minds.
"They're Made Out of Meat" is an interesting little film. But I don't think the fact that we are made out of meat can classify the idea of us being "human." This movie is sticking with me for some reason, but the film "Warm Bodies" has a lot of characters that are "made out of meat," but half of them aren't "human." What makes us human is our emotions, our feelings, the fact that we can think for ourselves and have free will on what happens to us. And the film explores that in the course of the story as one of the zombies finds himself becoming more human as the story progresses.
What a lot of these utopian/dystopian views of technology forget to take into account is that you still need a human to run them, and that is what makes them fallible. They can't think for themselves, that's what makes them machines. We have the capacity of thought, that's what makes us human.
There's going to be some spoilers in here, so if you don't want to know what happens in the videos, don't read yet.
All four of the film festival films give different interpretations of the idea of humanity. In the Toyota and BT ads, they try to present the use of technology as a way for us to make more human connections or find ways to regain our humanity. In "World Builder," a programmer uses technology as a way to create an artificial world for his wife/girlfriend in a coma as a way to "connect" with her. And in "They're Made of Meat," it shows a different take on humanity in that to alien eyes, we are just big pieces of meat with brains.
What we have to remember is that in advertising, they are trying to sell us a product. In the case of the two ads, they're trying to sell us on the idea that we've lost our "human" capacity for nature or contact, so we need their technology to help us get that back. It almost seems counterintuitive when you look into it -- what will bring us back from the overload of technology? MORE TECHNOLOGY! The Toyota ad in particular shows us a fictionalized world where everyone is a character in a video game world, and humanity has been almost completely lost (only with their product, of course, can we break free from this technology overload and be "human" again).
The BT ad is probably a more realistic version of today's world, in which we have this tendency to talk to each other via computer and other devices, but don't really "talk" to each other. Of course, it has somewhat the same message -- what will bring us back to contact with humans? MORE TECHNOLOGY! I know that as educators we experience this in our classrooms sometimes, where students are more interested in texting each other on their cell phones than talking to each other about stuff (even after we tell them to put the phones away!). I know that because my family tends to be fairly far from me I can't help but use the tech to talk with them sometimes. And being somewhat of a shy person in groups and classrooms (except when I'm teaching or performing -- it's really weird that I feel more comfortable giving a presentation than I do being on the other end of it), I find technology the best way that I can communicate sometimes.
In "World Builder," I felt that the presentation of creating an artificial world was touching in the context of the story, but to what degrees do we do that now? If you play games like "The Sims" or "Minecraft," you are creating a different, artificial world. Of course, in a game like "The Sims" you are more "God-like" as the user -- you only really get to interact with the avatar you create. In "Minecraft" there's a means to an end -- you build a house to keep yourself safe from "Creepers." When you play a game like "World of Warcraft," you are entering a pre-constructed world that you get to explore for better or worse. Later this year, I'll be taking the Coursera course "Online Games: Literature, New Media, and Narrative," where as one of the requirements of the course we were to start an account on "Lord of the Rings Online," an online game where to get to explore the world of the J.R.R. Tolkien books. But I think that digital simulations can only go so far -- as humans, we will always know that it is a digital simulation, no matter how realistic it might be. There will always be a clue in there that will tell us that something is not "real" in our minds.
"They're Made Out of Meat" is an interesting little film. But I don't think the fact that we are made out of meat can classify the idea of us being "human." This movie is sticking with me for some reason, but the film "Warm Bodies" has a lot of characters that are "made out of meat," but half of them aren't "human." What makes us human is our emotions, our feelings, the fact that we can think for ourselves and have free will on what happens to us. And the film explores that in the course of the story as one of the zombies finds himself becoming more human as the story progresses.
What a lot of these utopian/dystopian views of technology forget to take into account is that you still need a human to run them, and that is what makes them fallible. They can't think for themselves, that's what makes them machines. We have the capacity of thought, that's what makes us human.
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Going Into The Second Week At #EDCMOOC
For some reason, ever since I saw it this weekend, I can't help but think about the film I saw on Sunday while everyone else was watching Beyonce shake her tush onstage and the game got blacked out for a half hour. And I think it's because of the theme of how we don't realize how important the actual act of human connection is until we lose it.
I posted this on the boards, but this weekend I saw the film "Warm Bodies." It's a zombie flick, but has a twist in that it's the zombie that's telling the story, and he often talks about in his narration of the events about how the lack of human contact other than as his food makes him feel disconnected. (In one scene, when describing the more "advanced"zombies called "Boneys," he describes them as eating anything with a heart, but follows it up with, "Well, I do, too, but at least I feel conflicted about it.") (Spoiler) As he becomes more and more human as the story goes, it's discovered that the cure for the "corpses" is just simple human contact, and they are allowed to roam around free with the humans again within the walled city. (End Spoiler)
That got me thinking about the connection between humans and machines (which may end up becoming my final project, I don't know yet), and my own relationship to how I use machines and human contact.
I know that one of my primary uses is Facebook -- I use it to communicate not only with my family, but with friends, fraternity members, students (on a separate account set up for that). My mom I sometimes talk to on Skype. My first real use of computers to make a human connection was in college -- any guy I went on dates with I met online first. In fact, that's how I met my husband -- on AOL, through their "Love@AOL" section. (Ironic thing being that neither one of us is on AOL anymore)
My use of Facebook to communicate with my students started out as a bit of a fluke -- I had started an alternate name account, and soon after that I had gone to a professional development workshop with a lawyer who had told us that it was not a good idea to have students on our Facebook accounts, but the students I had on mine weren't so much on my account because they were students of mine as much as the fact that they were friends with my stepdaughter. So I had the girls move to the other account, and it started becoming my go-to account to send students to.
I like having the separate account for the students. It allows them to connect with me without seeing my more personal stuff. And it allows me to contact them if I need to about assignments if I'm doing a long term assignment.
I think a lot of the reason why I tend to use computers to make my human connections is because it's an outlet for me. I'm in a weird profession for a shy person to begin with -- teaching -- but being able to make those human connections online allows me to express myself and be "me." Everyone else sees Facebook as a loss of human contact, but for me it's regaining the contacts that I've lost.
I posted this on the boards, but this weekend I saw the film "Warm Bodies." It's a zombie flick, but has a twist in that it's the zombie that's telling the story, and he often talks about in his narration of the events about how the lack of human contact other than as his food makes him feel disconnected. (In one scene, when describing the more "advanced"zombies called "Boneys," he describes them as eating anything with a heart, but follows it up with, "Well, I do, too, but at least I feel conflicted about it.") (Spoiler) As he becomes more and more human as the story goes, it's discovered that the cure for the "corpses" is just simple human contact, and they are allowed to roam around free with the humans again within the walled city. (End Spoiler)
That got me thinking about the connection between humans and machines (which may end up becoming my final project, I don't know yet), and my own relationship to how I use machines and human contact.
I know that one of my primary uses is Facebook -- I use it to communicate not only with my family, but with friends, fraternity members, students (on a separate account set up for that). My mom I sometimes talk to on Skype. My first real use of computers to make a human connection was in college -- any guy I went on dates with I met online first. In fact, that's how I met my husband -- on AOL, through their "Love@AOL" section. (Ironic thing being that neither one of us is on AOL anymore)
My use of Facebook to communicate with my students started out as a bit of a fluke -- I had started an alternate name account, and soon after that I had gone to a professional development workshop with a lawyer who had told us that it was not a good idea to have students on our Facebook accounts, but the students I had on mine weren't so much on my account because they were students of mine as much as the fact that they were friends with my stepdaughter. So I had the girls move to the other account, and it started becoming my go-to account to send students to.
I like having the separate account for the students. It allows them to connect with me without seeing my more personal stuff. And it allows me to contact them if I need to about assignments if I'm doing a long term assignment.
I think a lot of the reason why I tend to use computers to make my human connections is because it's an outlet for me. I'm in a weird profession for a shy person to begin with -- teaching -- but being able to make those human connections online allows me to express myself and be "me." Everyone else sees Facebook as a loss of human contact, but for me it's regaining the contacts that I've lost.
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Corning and Microsoft #edcmooc
Okay, both these videos assume a lot about what's going to happen in the future with their products. I actually found them rather amusing, to be honest.
Points:
1) Everything is sterile. There is not a speck of dust anywhere. I can understand that in the hospital environment portrayed in the Cornell ad, but in the other scenarios it seems a little unrealistic to me. Nothing is ever that clean unless you're in a room designed to be sterile. And if you have kids, you know nothing stays clean for long.
2) Speaking of which: where are the fingerprints on the glass? We have two tablets at my house, and both are prone to fingerprints almost immediately after I wipe them down. I would think that after a day of use in the classroom those glass tablets would be coated in them.
As far as utopian vs. dystopian goes, both ads tend to show these utopian views of how their products would be used in education in different manners -- in the Cornell ad, it's completely integrated in to the classroom, with the teacher using all the tools available to her, while in the Microsoft ad the little girl is using it to do her homework. I don't know how realistic that is, considering that I know quite a few teachers who are technophobes and will only go so far as to use the laptops provided to them to grade. I'm wondering if in this world all the teachers grew up with this technology so they're more comfortable with it?
As far as how people communicate with each other, most of the communication is over the phone with video phone-type technology, which can be somewhat impersonal. But considering that "The Jetsons" predicted that we would have similar technology, it's not that far out of what we thought we would have. Look at Skype, which is a video communication tool. I use it sometimes to talk with my mother, and my mom is trying to get my brother to sign on to Skype so that we can all talk together.
It's very easy to get caught up in the new technologies, but at the end of the day you still have to think about "What would I use it for? Why do I need this?"
#edcmooc
Points:
1) Everything is sterile. There is not a speck of dust anywhere. I can understand that in the hospital environment portrayed in the Cornell ad, but in the other scenarios it seems a little unrealistic to me. Nothing is ever that clean unless you're in a room designed to be sterile. And if you have kids, you know nothing stays clean for long.
2) Speaking of which: where are the fingerprints on the glass? We have two tablets at my house, and both are prone to fingerprints almost immediately after I wipe them down. I would think that after a day of use in the classroom those glass tablets would be coated in them.
As far as utopian vs. dystopian goes, both ads tend to show these utopian views of how their products would be used in education in different manners -- in the Cornell ad, it's completely integrated in to the classroom, with the teacher using all the tools available to her, while in the Microsoft ad the little girl is using it to do her homework. I don't know how realistic that is, considering that I know quite a few teachers who are technophobes and will only go so far as to use the laptops provided to them to grade. I'm wondering if in this world all the teachers grew up with this technology so they're more comfortable with it?
As far as how people communicate with each other, most of the communication is over the phone with video phone-type technology, which can be somewhat impersonal. But considering that "The Jetsons" predicted that we would have similar technology, it's not that far out of what we thought we would have. Look at Skype, which is a video communication tool. I use it sometimes to talk with my mother, and my mom is trying to get my brother to sign on to Skype so that we can all talk together.
It's very easy to get caught up in the new technologies, but at the end of the day you still have to think about "What would I use it for? Why do I need this?"
#edcmooc
Digital Natives Vs. Digital Immigrants #edcmooc
Again, my house tends to be "gadgeted" out. I don't know whether it's because I grew up with so many gadgets as I was growing up (when they were around, we owned two different Commodore computers, and we owned a number of video cameras), but I've always felt comfortable around them once I managed to figure out on my own how they worked.
In his article, Pensky makes the argument that since the kids of today grew up around this technology they're "natives" vs. us older folks who didn't who are "immigrants." What Pensky doesn't take into account is how the kids use the technology versus how us older folks use it.
From my observation of the kids that I deal with on a regular basis at work and at home, although they might be technologically savvy in some respects such as text messaging and Facebook, anything beyond that they are very much technologically illiterate and we still need to teach the students what to do. As an example, this past week I've had to teach three different classes of seventh graders how to double space their papers that are due next week.
The older folks tend to use the technology to be social, but not in the same way, as well as true information retrieval. For example, a lot of my morning daily routine involves looking at news sites and blogs so that I know what's going on in the wide world outside of my personal universe.
My four year old son has picked up some of the uses of the technology already, but at his age it's limited -- on his mini tablet he plays games and watches videos, and on the big TV he watches Netflix (he announced this week that his favorite show was "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic." Yes, I've unintentionally started raising a "brony"). As he gets older, will he necessarily get beyond that? If I teach him along the way, I hope so. I would hope I would be able to teach him how not to abuse the privileges of having this available to him, so that he can be a proper digital citizen.
#edcmooc
In his article, Pensky makes the argument that since the kids of today grew up around this technology they're "natives" vs. us older folks who didn't who are "immigrants." What Pensky doesn't take into account is how the kids use the technology versus how us older folks use it.
From my observation of the kids that I deal with on a regular basis at work and at home, although they might be technologically savvy in some respects such as text messaging and Facebook, anything beyond that they are very much technologically illiterate and we still need to teach the students what to do. As an example, this past week I've had to teach three different classes of seventh graders how to double space their papers that are due next week.
The older folks tend to use the technology to be social, but not in the same way, as well as true information retrieval. For example, a lot of my morning daily routine involves looking at news sites and blogs so that I know what's going on in the wide world outside of my personal universe.
My four year old son has picked up some of the uses of the technology already, but at his age it's limited -- on his mini tablet he plays games and watches videos, and on the big TV he watches Netflix (he announced this week that his favorite show was "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic." Yes, I've unintentionally started raising a "brony"). As he gets older, will he necessarily get beyond that? If I teach him along the way, I hope so. I would hope I would be able to teach him how not to abuse the privileges of having this available to him, so that he can be a proper digital citizen.
#edcmooc
Determinism in Technology #edcmooc
I think the idea of technological determinism is not necessarily a "sure thing." Chandler makes the argument (at least the way that I read it) that it is, and that new technologies and their evolution is inevitable. And it doesn't seem to give way to free will in our choices for that new technology. What about our choices to reject that new technology because it isn't either useful to us in our lives?
I will be the first one to admit -- my house is "gadgeted out." To give an idea of the layout of the electronics in my house:
1) In the house we have two desktop computers: one is used specifically to watch Netflix and other videos that we find online only (it's hooked up to our flat screen television -- we don't have cable), and the other computer is my workstation computer (which tends to get commandeered by my husband and stepson when they want to play different computer games).
2) My husband has a tablet computer, and is thinking of getting another tablet that has Windows 8 that he can use for school (he was talking about selling the other one until I told him that I would take it). My 4 year old has a little mini tablet that he got for Christmas from my mother in law that he plays games on (his favorite right now is Minecraft) and watches videos (again, most often related to Minecraft).
3) When my stepson comes over to the house, he often has his laptop or one of his little gaming devices on him.
4) My stepdaughter has a mini laptop, but also has a desktop in her room that she uses to mostly watch videos and talk to friends on Facebook. There are weekends when she will have a bunch of friends over that all they'll do in her room is watch videos.
5) I have my own cheapo laptop that I use when someone has commandeered my workstation desktop. I also own a Kindle that I use for playing a few games but mostly for storing and reading classic books for future teaching jobs as well as newer books.
6) Plus, hubby has a bunch of computer parts in the basement which he is either selling or planning on using to put computers together for other people.
So, as you can see, we aren't short on technology in our house. But at the same time, except for a few instances, we don't tend to be "early adopters." My Kindle I didn't buy until a few generations later. We didn't think of getting any type of tablet computer until a couple of years after the iPad came out (which is not the one we got -- the one I'll be inheriting is an ASUS Transformer Prime). There are very few "new" websites that I'm on, so when I discover one I'll usually give it a chance for awhile, but if I don't like it I abandon it.
Maybe it's because I'm around it so much here at school and at home, but I don't feel like I'm completely "ruled" by technology. I have control of what technologies that I choose to use -- I don't tend to adopt everything that comes my way, just those things that are useful.
#edcmooc
I will be the first one to admit -- my house is "gadgeted out." To give an idea of the layout of the electronics in my house:
1) In the house we have two desktop computers: one is used specifically to watch Netflix and other videos that we find online only (it's hooked up to our flat screen television -- we don't have cable), and the other computer is my workstation computer (which tends to get commandeered by my husband and stepson when they want to play different computer games).
2) My husband has a tablet computer, and is thinking of getting another tablet that has Windows 8 that he can use for school (he was talking about selling the other one until I told him that I would take it). My 4 year old has a little mini tablet that he got for Christmas from my mother in law that he plays games on (his favorite right now is Minecraft) and watches videos (again, most often related to Minecraft).
3) When my stepson comes over to the house, he often has his laptop or one of his little gaming devices on him.
4) My stepdaughter has a mini laptop, but also has a desktop in her room that she uses to mostly watch videos and talk to friends on Facebook. There are weekends when she will have a bunch of friends over that all they'll do in her room is watch videos.
5) I have my own cheapo laptop that I use when someone has commandeered my workstation desktop. I also own a Kindle that I use for playing a few games but mostly for storing and reading classic books for future teaching jobs as well as newer books.
6) Plus, hubby has a bunch of computer parts in the basement which he is either selling or planning on using to put computers together for other people.
So, as you can see, we aren't short on technology in our house. But at the same time, except for a few instances, we don't tend to be "early adopters." My Kindle I didn't buy until a few generations later. We didn't think of getting any type of tablet computer until a couple of years after the iPad came out (which is not the one we got -- the one I'll be inheriting is an ASUS Transformer Prime). There are very few "new" websites that I'm on, so when I discover one I'll usually give it a chance for awhile, but if I don't like it I abandon it.
Maybe it's because I'm around it so much here at school and at home, but I don't feel like I'm completely "ruled" by technology. I have control of what technologies that I choose to use -- I don't tend to adopt everything that comes my way, just those things that are useful.
#edcmooc
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Utopian Vs. Dystopian #edcmooc
Well, after watching all four videos, it got me thinking about other ways that technology is portrayed in films, television, and books. I can think of two dystopian titles right now, but I might add more as they come to me.
The Matrix Films
Dystopian
Now this one is kind of a gimme. The world of The Matrix is inside of a machine most of the time, where the people are "plugged in" at all times while Keanu Reeves spouts some pseude-psychological philosophies. The films portray this kind of "utopian" world inside this machine while the people aren't aware of what's going on. Outside of this world, it's very dystopian -- the machines have taken over, and are hunting down the humans who know the secret.
"Feed" by M.T. Anderson
Dystopian
This book is a young adult novel that tells the story through the eyes of teenagers who have had an advanced form of the Internet implanted into their heads called the Feed. One character tries to fight the Feed, but with fatal results. The book outlines a world where every single purchase is catalogued so that companies can make customer profiles, and advertisements are sent straight to your brain.
#edcmooc
The Matrix Films
Dystopian
Now this one is kind of a gimme. The world of The Matrix is inside of a machine most of the time, where the people are "plugged in" at all times while Keanu Reeves spouts some pseude-psychological philosophies. The films portray this kind of "utopian" world inside this machine while the people aren't aware of what's going on. Outside of this world, it's very dystopian -- the machines have taken over, and are hunting down the humans who know the secret.
"Feed" by M.T. Anderson
Dystopian
This book is a young adult novel that tells the story through the eyes of teenagers who have had an advanced form of the Internet implanted into their heads called the Feed. One character tries to fight the Feed, but with fatal results. The book outlines a world where every single purchase is catalogued so that companies can make customer profiles, and advertisements are sent straight to your brain.
#edcmooc
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)