February 2008 Archives

I don't know what it is about this blog that makes me keep coming up with references to ancient popular culture, but it is what it is. 

Anyway, here is my response to the "Teaching with Flickr" assignment.  In my role in management education, I would use this slideshow to tee-up a small group discussion exercise on workplace dynamics and leadership.  Perhaps with an overarching question as "What would be the advantages and disadvantages of the leadership styles exhibited by the "boss" in each of these workplace-focused TV programs?"  The set would be accompanied by a handout that describes the characters and the jist of the shows for those who are not familiar.  This could be supplemented with Youtube clips of the characters that demonstrate their behaviors. 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/24132892@N08/favorites/show/

Anyone of a certain age may recall during the heyday of MTV that they actually used to play music videos instead of Real Worlding and pimping people's rides.  One artist who always raised the bar for the video industry was Madonna from back in the day.  After reading Nardi & O'Day's description of Metropolis, I recalled Madonna's "Express Yourself" video.  That Madonna. Always trying to educate us!

Anyway, I appreciated the connection and the depiction of the fear of technology replacing human interaction, which I think we as a class have wrestled with a lot.  The discussions of cloning brought home the moral impact of technological advancement and though it seems hard to make the same kinds of argument for, say, the proliferation of "Twitter" versus the advancement of cloning, I can see where the slippery slope begins.  I really liked the term  "inattentional blindness", as I think many of us suffer from that.  So many things are in our field of view, and we know that they are wrong and something needs to be done, but we can't think about it because it is so complex that if we started trying to figure it out, we'd never leave the house.  Seems that they're saying that just being aware of the blindness is enough to cure it.   I'm not sure I believe that, because there are lots of motivations in people out there that may not include "the common good" among them.   Their discussion of the atomic bomb points that out quite well. 

But who are we as educators to be the ones to decide where to draw the line with technology?    We can decide how to incorporate tools into our field, but we are not necessarily the ones creating them.  Seems that we are all responding to market demand, and this course is an excellent example of that.  Here we're taking tools that were developed to serve other needs and repurposing them for our needs (kind of like the front of the refrigerator, I suppose).   But how do we as educators become part of the "participatory design" for technology designers?  Are educators at the table?  Would we be able to ring the bell about the potential consequences of some types of technologies' impact on our students?  The Winner example of the snowmobile use in Finland was great in illustrating the unintentional consequences.   Could educators do the same?  Or would we be told to get back in the classroom? 

They may be members of someone’s community of practice!  Who knew flowers were so busy?  After reading the Coda, I immediately set out to ask the tulips I had bought for my wife from Wegman’s how they felt about the article.  They were aloof, actually, and really no more responsive than my computer was when I asked the same question of it.  In fact, the cursor just sat there, blinking at me, as if it was waiting for me to tell it what to say in response.  . . . All kidding aside, this additional Wenger assignment did little to change my opinions of his work.  Perhaps it’s just because I am relatively new in my doctoral coursework, and haven’t been exposed to many theorists on education, but I wish there was a little more black & white.  If it’s there, and I’m just missing it, please enlighten me.  

Funny that Wenger starts out his chapter on locality focusing on the same issues that we debated on Thursday about how to define community (which, by the way, should have been sponsored by CATA for as much as we focused on buses and bus drivers).  To me, though, his definition was a bit waffley.  “A community of practice can be defined by having the following 14 characteristics, except when it doesn’t.”  He states that the definition can be “stretched” to accommodate almost anything, which does not contribute to our goal of creating a shared understanding of the term.   Like Betsy, I’m still trying to figure out the big reveal here, the “and this is important, because . . . “  Perhaps it’s coming in a later assignment.

Those of you of a certain age may remember this line from an often-parodied TV commercial of the 80's.  When I read about peripheries, it reminded me of this.  I tried to find it on Youtube, but to no avail.   As the spouse of a physician, I can relate to the claims adjustors' peripherality in Wenger's chapter on boundary-- that is, their vague familiarity with some medical ailments based on the osmosis from filing claims.  After over ten years of marriage to an ER doc, I can demand a CBC, chest X-ray and Chem 7 and sound like I know what I'm talking about,  but if I were to try to spout this off in an actual hospital setting, I'd look like an idiot.  The boundary lines are clear.  This CI 597 course, and, I imagine, any graduate level course in education, is one in which the lines blur.  We are practitioners of education, and yet we are also students at the same time.  We students are, in some ways, peers of Scott and Cole and the rest of the College of Ed graduate faculty-- some of us may even be senior to them in age & level of experience-- and yet we are the students and they the teachers.  It will be interesting to see how these boundaries and peripheries weave as the semester continues. 

The boundary objects of the Web 2.0 world certainly exist-- they're just not as "physical" as some of the really exciting examples Wenger used such as claims forms.  It seems our Pligg site is a very appropriate example of a boundary object for our community of practice.  We can always share it with others outside of the community to help them to understand what we're doing either through sharing the link, or, if I were to want to share with my 78- year-old mother for some reason, print it out and let her read it. 

I responded to the "brokering" identity as he described it.  As a salesperson, I am a true broker in terms of facilitating the exchange of goods & services between my organization and my client.  However, I find that I am a broker in many other aspects of my life as well.  It's my natural tendency when meeting new people to try to figure out ways to "broker" with them-- did we go to the same schools, do we vacation in the same place, do we know anybody in common, do we both like PSU football, etc.?   I've become a fan of the "Facebook for Grown-Ups" site LinkedIn for similar reasons.  I have my connections, and I occasionally browse through theirs to see if there's anyone we know in common, or if there's someone to whom I want to "link" based on their experience or interests. 

Finally, I hate to complain, and my apologies to Wenger enthusiasts, but I have to say I am not a fan.  Maybe it's just me, but I have to read and re-read and re-read to get at what he's trying to say.  I find myself wondering what kind of dirt he must have had on his editor to allow the book to get published written this way.  Must have been pretty incriminating . . . He uses "I will" so often that I keep inserting "For my next trick," in front of it in my head as I read.  Makes it a little more entertaining for me. 

As an instructor of Comm 471:  Public Relations Media and Methods for the College of Communications, I spend a great deal of time in my class focusing on how to influence audiences, whether they are internal employees, government, consumers or the media itself.  The Rogers article on diffusion of innovation covered lots of the same issues.  My thought when reading about the boiling water in Los Molinas is that the first thing Nelida should have done was find a good publicist.  That publicist would have known who the village's answer to Oprah was and secured her endorsement of the water-boiling initiative.  Once the rest see someone they respect or admire doing it, it makes it easier for them to justify adopting it as well.  We've all heard about authors and entrepreneurs who are nobodies before Oprah takes an interest, and all of a sudden are mega-millionaires.  Same concept here.  Does Oprah really know better what's good for us?  Or does she just have the biggest microphone? 

Peer pressure plays a big part in diffusion as well.  When I was in junior high school, many of the A-lister young men of my age carried their books and school supplies around in a large army green canvas sack, tossed over the shoulder like Santa's bag of toys.  I have no idea who thought this was a more practical solution than a traditional bookbag or backpack--everything in there certainly became a big mess once inside-- but I remember feeling inadequate that I was not among the elite that was allowed to carry my stuff around in this way, and desperately wanted to have one.  We can tie this back to our MIT discussion.  MIT has thought it prudent to put all of their course content online.  If I'm a school who wants to emulate and be associated with MIT, wouldn't I want to do what they do?   On a smaller scale with an education focus, if I'm trying to get a school to adopt my technology, wouldn't I start with a well-respected faculty member to help sell my case instead of aligning with the angry instructor who ties up every faculty meeting with a litany of complaints?   

First off, no offense to claims processors, but if that were my community, I think I may have trouble getting out of bed in the morning. 

Wenger's descriptions of participation and reification were way too granular for me.  Yes, I am engaging and participating in the world because I draw in oxygen that is part of the world around me.  What I thought was a bit more interesting was Chapter Two's discussion on Community, but I still found it a bit overwhelming and heavy to boil down.  Yes, we are all part of any number of communities at any given time.  I am part of a community of people who at this moment are typing on computers.  I am also part of the community of husbands, of fathers, of fathers of sons, of sons of fathers, of brothers of sisters, of brothers of brothers, of Penn State alumni, of Penn State students, of Irish American, of Pennsylvanians, of fans of the Family Guy . . the list could go on and on.  What I'm not getting from Wenger, and maybe it's because it's only Chapters 1 & 2, or maybe I'm missing it, or maybe I'm just cranky today, is "what about it"? 

Design Theme:  As one who has been involved with corporate intranets, I know that they are often conceived with lots of idealism but executed poorly.  What I'm hopeful for in the future is that Web 2.0 will help take the shackles off and allow for the organization to really converse in a "normal" way, even if it's done via the Web.  My challenge to date has been the utilization of it.  What's really interesting here is that this was written in 1999 & 2001.  Almost ten years later, we're still wrestling with the same issues. 

Community, and to an extent, Identity Theme:  As an employee of the university, I look at Stanford and MIT and see what they're doing in terms of putting their "content" online, available to all.  That, as you may expect, is putting a lot of fear into some around our hallowed halls.  It reminds me of when I was a Product Manager for the online automotive classified department, and we were launching cars.com.  Car dealers were very, very hesitant to become involved with this.  Even if they were accepting of the concept, they definitely did not want to put their prices online.  Many of them just wanted us to list "call for details" in the price field.  We told them that this would not allow for an optimal consumer experience.  It wasn't until one of the big guys-- a dealer with about 15 locations-- decided to post its prices that the rest fell in line.  I see the Stanford and MIT initiative as being very similar.  It will be interesting to see how PSU, and others, follow suit.   Will the "community" demand this?  If so, how will the role-and the identity-- of the University change?   "If we give them all of our content, why will they pay us to get the knowledge?"  Could you make the same argument that I can get all of the ingredients for Breast Of Chicken, bacon wrapped, banana nut bread stuffed, chestnut sauce with sweet potato puree from Wegman's, but I'd rather pay to let Zola do it? 

I pondered this for a while.  Initially I thought that it was being alarmist-- that traditional methods of learning were obsolete and we should simply all just collaborate to learn instead, and how disruptive that could potentially be to current instructional methods.  Telling a 2nd grade teacher that learning is a "fundamentally social phenomenon" would like cause him or her to start sweating, as he or she considers 20 seven-year-olds loudly "collaborating" instead of sitting quietly doing "seat work".  However, as time goes on, and technology becomes more and more a part of the classroom, this may not be far from the truth.  The twist is that the volume from the collaboration in the 2nd grade classroom may not come from little mouths as it will be from keystrokes. 

Web 2.0 will allow for more sharing, more partnering and more group, if virtual, problem-solving than ever.   Consider the phenomenon of Wikipedia.  I rack my brain trying to come up with the most bizarre of topics to type in there to see if anyone has written about it, and 99% of the time, it's there.   If this isn't a great example of what Wenger is trying to illustrate, I guess I'm missing the point. 

This, of course, creates challenges of its own.  When I was in high school, my friend and I "collaborated" on a computer science project and both failed the assignment for cheating.  How can you test individuals fairly in a group-learning environment?  How can you tell who did what?  And who added what?  And who simply "did the title page", (which is always what I jokingly offered to do when I was part of a group writing project in grad school)?   Will the lack of structure and order in this take on learning ultimately lead to this?  

Though I have never gotten into any of the multi-user computer games, I can see how their appeal can take hold with its user base.  It''s interesting how this kind of thing has played out over time and evolved into things like SIMS and Second Life.  Even my sons' current obsession with Webkinz can be seen as an extension of this as well. 

I remember when I was in business school in 1995 seeing a group of my classmates in the computer lab at all hours, playing what I now recognize from this article as some sort of MUD game.  They were the early adopters then, I suppose.  I just remember thinking "what the hell are they doing?"  I could barely manage Excel at the time, let alone virtual worlds, so I did not pursue it. 

Turkle's discussion of the concept of identity was very interesting.  Her description of "Doug", who plays 4 characters across three different games, was intriguing, but again, concerning in that he says "RL (real life) is just one more window and it's not usually my best one". Her description of the "Dr. Sherry" character who was alarmingly familiar to herself, but not created by her, was also chilling. 

After reflection, I realize that you don't have to play a multi-user game to have an online identity.  There are people that I work with who sit within a few feet of me that I almost exclusively communicate with via email because I find traditional conversations with them to be very aggravating.  Face to face, I am certain that my attempts to mask my exasperation and impatience are weak.  Via email, I can be friendly and courteous, and our work relationship can continue.  Is that disingenuous of me to use technology this way?  Maybe.  But I see it as leveraging a tool to help me accomplish my work, just as I would using other software like Microsoft Office or SPSS.   

I would like to read the rest of this book.  I think an updated edition of it would also be in order, as a lot has changed in ten years.