Even after reading the chapter and thinking about the implications and ideas put forth, I come back to what is written in the beginning paragraphs prior to the Introduction. It is also fair to say and worth noting here that I have a "healthy dose" of extreme curiosity in epistemology, meaning I really want to know how others (and myself) really come to know what they believe in and value. While I can fully support the reliable research findings that many scholars and others have put forth as it relates to this subject of epistemology citing culture, geography, and formal education as key factors I am equally confronted with the "Nature VS. Nurture" argument. This puts this quote right on target for me... "... with the idea of "digital epistemologies" - ways in which, and the extent to which, phenomena like hits and ratings come to constitute indices of "truth" and "value" alongside, or in some cases in place of, more conventional epistemological criteria." (Chapter Thirteen, Page 262) This says to me as I apply it the chapter content as well as content previously discussed in Chapters 11 & 12, the consumer has developed, through various modes of input, a new literacy skill to meet the demand for attention. This new literacy skill relies heavily on the information supplied by unknown individuals that offer their opinion that certainly contain bias with or without malice. That is to say a review filled with complete or near complete satisfaction will be based solely on that experience and is likely to be free of any underlying motive (No malice), but an unpleasant experience will likely yield a malicious tone and both of these types experiences are viewed as if they did in fact occur without any needed proof by the "third party" consumer. This lay the basis that I find to be the most interesting and goes directly back to my quote... how does this new literacy have so much instant acceptance and credibility in the market community, but Not the "wiki" community. Consider this thought... many people will make a purchase based on what someone they have never met has said about a product, but will not use information from a wiki because an unknown and un-trusted individual may placed unproven information on the wiki site, in both cases the persons meet the same anonymous criteria, yet one is deemed credible and other Not. The chapter goes on to offer a scoring system that applies to both the product and the reviewer as a potential way to build consumer confidence, while also effectively creating a quick marketing tool that the consumer uses to assign attention capital. As mentioned previously... in the information market the demand is for attention... and that attention in this consumer model is based on number of reviews (positive and negative) and the credibility of those reviews; understanding that some instant credibility will be assigned to website... IE "Ebay" and "Amazon" enjoy a certain amount of instant credibility based solely on name recognition and reputation that have grown those brand names into synonymous usage like Band-Aid or Kleenex, which defy definition to the point that even children are taught to blow their nose with a Kleenex and put a Band-Aid on a scratch. This ratings game has as described by Knobel and Lankshear also offers a model for understanding how to effect change in institutional systems, in that, through attention deficit demands, quality information can be easily identified based on predetermined criteria, not just word recognition algorithms.
Wiki... "How" "Pedia" "Media" "Leaks" the fastest changing prefix in the modern English language. (pun intended), but has simple roots and a story rooted in Hawaii. The story and background speak less to name and more to the intent of its creator... quick collaboration with the emphasis on the latter... Collaboration... a word that abounds in the modern classroom vernacular. Wikis representing the new evolution in the web-based technologies from static to interactive pages or 2.0 technology also changes the sociocultural constructs or at the very least create a lateral "in-group" that exists crossculturally in my opinion. In that as identified social groups acknowledge certain literacies within the group as norms, this new interactive collaboration provides a venue for a global "in-group," which really isn't that new when considering online gaming. This led me to my particular interest in how the elements of these new literacies interact within a set of defined parameters from the cultural perspective. The quote from this chapter is more the entire sub-titled sections "(a) "Let's see" Research, (b) "Try it on" Research, (c) "Educationally Applicable" Research, and (d) "A Research Program Orientation" (Chapter 14, Page 295-298), which may seem like a cop out to choosing a more concise quote, but this area of the chapter is filled with information that resonates with me as I think about culturally responsive teaching. In that all of this additional learning (graduate classes) has very little, if any, meaning if it cannot not be reflected back into the classroom... my education has always been predicated on the primary functions that seem to follow this analogy... if I cannot touch it, taste it, smell it, see it, or interact with it then it has very little value to me. The value is Not the same for everyone, but for me it becomes a new tool or new understanding that helps me become a better learner. The old adage of "working smarter Not harder" in No way implies that you should be lazy, but rather finding better ways to use your tools. The graphic representation I chose represents that idea because it is a more useful way to collaborate... working smarter... another goal of education!
Lankshear, Colin, and Michele Knobel. Literacies: Social, cultural and historical perspectives. Peter Lang, 2011.
Cartoonstock.com: mbcn3164
3 comments:
Your comments on ratings remind me of the recent gripes on Amazon regarding reviews written in exchange for receiving a product at a free or reduced price. These reviews unfailingly come in at 5 stars, gushing the praises of multiple features of the products. A few months later, someone actually pays full price and comes back with a one star review, wondering how on earth the other people could have gotten it so wrong. The ratings end up skewed overall and you have to really be careful. Recently I've had to read things for other classes which glorify Pearson, Acuity, and Scantrons, and I feel like they are skewed the same way.
The more I teach, the more I get into the concept of the feedback loop before grades-where students and I communicate honestly about where they are, how they are doing, and what they need from me to be successful with the task at hand. In elementary, some were taught "5 sentences make a paragraph." I tell them to make sure they have fully developed the topic and expressed themselves completely before they decide what a paragraph is, rather than just counting sentences. I also do things where the members of the class rate each other's group projects and the winners get points for their houses (our school positive behavior system, modeled off Harry Potter). They are surprisingly honest when doing these things!
I'm rambling...anyway, I connect with your ideas of tangibility adding value, and your illustrations are spot on.
I love how you talk about brands becoming common names for objects like Kleenex and Band-aids. I know that I still refer to those brands as the object itself. When I was a kid I always referred to any soda as Coke, which is a fairly common thing for people from Tennessee. Working smarter and not harder is a great way to look at this chapter and I am right there with you on this one. Having only one source of impact can dampen the possible outcomes of a project, but it does sometimes feel like one person is doing all the work.
I have used wikispaces.com for class wikis since 2010 and my Game Design class uses a specific wiki with the curriculum. I have enjoyed both. As a new teacher, my worst fear was losing a student's assignment. I took comfort in their work always being there and they could turn in assignments at any time (they had internet access). What I have really realized is the benefit it is for them. They are all required to create a portfolio. With the wiki, a year or more later, they can still access work/projects/journals they are proud of and can easily insert them into a digital portfolio. (I know this because my former students come back to me because usually forget their login info and ask me to help them find their work :)
Post a Comment