February 2008 Archives
For any of you who might know this nursery rhyme, I think it can relate to our class.
Each week I know that I look at my posts to see which ones might have enticed people to bite at the content and which ones were duds. While I know that Scott and Cole have expressed the fact that the number of votes on a post doesn't determine the grade, I still think it has implications for the individual's identity and status in our online community (and potentially our classroom community). (BTW - Is our classroom community different from our online community?) When I have a post on which no one comments or votes, I wonder why no one wants to talk about the things about which I would like to talk. After all, they seem important to me. It kind of feels like that post has been out-casted and, by default maybe the author has, too. Curiosity about others' feelings has enticed me to post this idea. What does it feel like when people don't respond to your posts on the Pligg site?
Each week I know that I look at my posts to see which ones might have enticed people to bite at the content and which ones were duds. While I know that Scott and Cole have expressed the fact that the number of votes on a post doesn't determine the grade, I still think it has implications for the individual's identity and status in our online community (and potentially our classroom community). (BTW - Is our classroom community different from our online community?) When I have a post on which no one comments or votes, I wonder why no one wants to talk about the things about which I would like to talk. After all, they seem important to me. It kind of feels like that post has been out-casted and, by default maybe the author has, too. Curiosity about others' feelings has enticed me to post this idea. What does it feel like when people don't respond to your posts on the Pligg site?
Nardi's notion of inevitability captured my attention instantly because, I must admit, I have been entrapped by the media frenzy of inevitability. I blindly accepted the notion that technology will evolve and that I really didn't have a say in the matter. In a January post, I mentioned how my husband and I received an IRobot for Christmas (a robot that vacuums our floors by itself). I posed the question of whether or not we will become the Jetsons. Now my question has evolved to is it inevitable that someday we will become the Millenial Jetsons? What will stop us from heading down that path, and what are the implications for either option?
Better yet - would you want to be the Jetsons? (For those of you who are not old enough to know the Jetsons, do what your generation does - Google it).
Better yet - would you want to be the Jetsons? (For those of you who are not old enough to know the Jetsons, do what your generation does - Google it).
We have been discussion the definition of community for several class periods now (although it seems like an eternity). Cole posted the idea that lurkers are part of our community (or even our COP). To me, I still wonder whether they really are part or if there existence as peripheral participants qualifies them more as a constellation. Would you give them a membership card into our COP? Why/why not?
After last week's discussion and Wenger's piece on COPs (community of practice), I'm hooked still on Twitter and not necessarily in the way that you are thinking. I've been on Twitter a couple of times. I know that most of the enthusiasts would argue that insignificant time is, by no means, adequate to pass judgment, but I'm still feeling like I'm missing out. I finally have followers (thanks to all of you who have chosen to follow me), but I don't have the urge to post what I'm doing all of the time. Do people out there really care? Is this the glue that binds the Twitter COP together?
For that matter, is Twitter a community or a constellation, as Wenger puts it? I tried to compare my limited knowledge of Twitter to Wenger's qualifications of a COP on p.125 at the bottom, but I still feel that it's lacking. What are your thoughts regarding Twitterers? Are they a COP?
For that matter, is Twitter a community or a constellation, as Wenger puts it? I tried to compare my limited knowledge of Twitter to Wenger's qualifications of a COP on p.125 at the bottom, but I still feel that it's lacking. What are your thoughts regarding Twitterers? Are they a COP?
Wenger argues that although communities of practice (COPs) can disintegrate, they, like other species, evolve for survival. On page 98, Wegner notes the rallying nature of COPs despite destabilizing events for preservation purposes. The issue that I didn't see addressed (and maybe I missed it, which is extremely possible) is the aspect of size and its role in the sustainability of COPs. If the COP is small, will the transient nature of its members have a greater impact than if the COP has a larger practicing, active population? If so, what implications does that have for schools and the size of districts in relation to the sustainability of their COP?
One could also integrate the Rogers reading and wonder whether the rate of adoption of innovations, I'm referring to those of which are initiated by new, often ambitious and eager COP members as opposed to those which are imposed by administrative mandates, would contribute to the survival of the COP? Could the rate of adoption be compared or even equated to the rate of evolution?
One could also integrate the Rogers reading and wonder whether the rate of adoption of innovations, I'm referring to those of which are initiated by new, often ambitious and eager COP members as opposed to those which are imposed by administrative mandates, would contribute to the survival of the COP? Could the rate of adoption be compared or even equated to the rate of evolution?
In Roger's introduction, s/he discusses the process of change and the diffusion of innovations based on a number of variables. One that struck me in particular was the rate of adoption and its relation to social structure - the notion that the norms presented within the social system promote or inhibit the adoption of an innovation. I started instantly thinking of social structure as community and the community's influence over its members and vice versa. What I'm wondering is as we become a more socially connected society through Web 2.0, what will the implications be on the rate of adoption of an innovation? Rogers discusses the S-curve graph. Will rate of adoption increase so rapidly because of our ability to communicate information with greater velocity that the graph looks more like another letter? A straighter diagonal line perhaps? What do you envision the impact of Web 2.0 on change to be?
Carla is auditing our class. She comes to class and sits outside of our circle. I have heard her chime in a thought (mostly to Scott or Cole but occasionally to a small group) on a couple of occasions. What I want to know is...
DO YOU THINK SHE IS A MEMBER OF OUR COMMUNITY?
There is a method to my madness, and it involves Wenger's concept of participation. Is someone a member of a community without participation? Are there layers of community based on participation?
My thinking is that a class consists of a mixture of people that have varying levels of participation. Is someone who has a lower level of participation if any participation at all a member of the community? Does the level of participation create a hierarchy of value or status within the community, meaning the more you participate, the more you are valued in the community? You answer has implications for Carla's membership (if we decide to issue her a membership). Is she one of us? If so, is she of lesser value because her participation is not as active as other members of our community?
**DISCLOSURE - Carla, you rock! I just have been trying to ask questions and prove a point. I needed a practical, relevant, concrete example. I hope you don't mind. :-)
DO YOU THINK SHE IS A MEMBER OF OUR COMMUNITY?
There is a method to my madness, and it involves Wenger's concept of participation. Is someone a member of a community without participation? Are there layers of community based on participation?
My thinking is that a class consists of a mixture of people that have varying levels of participation. Is someone who has a lower level of participation if any participation at all a member of the community? Does the level of participation create a hierarchy of value or status within the community, meaning the more you participate, the more you are valued in the community? You answer has implications for Carla's membership (if we decide to issue her a membership). Is she one of us? If so, is she of lesser value because her participation is not as active as other members of our community?
**DISCLOSURE - Carla, you rock! I just have been trying to ask questions and prove a point. I needed a practical, relevant, concrete example. I hope you don't mind. :-)
In Wenger's first chapter, the author defines participation as interacting with others. When I initially read this definition, I instantly thought of our group's attempt to define community, identity, and design. Is someone a member of a community without participation? Are there layers of community based on participation? Does it exist as a continuum based on the level of participation? Wenger mentions how a computer isn't a participant but a dog would be, implying that a dog would be part of the community, having some effect on an aspect of the community. Our group discussed whether an onlooker would be a member of a community. To provide a more concrete example, think of a classroom. A class consists of a mixture of people that have varying levels of participation. Is someone who has a lower level of participation if any participation at all a member of the community? Does the level of participation create a hierarchy of value or status within the community, meaning the more you participate, the more you are valued in the community? In Chapter 2, discussion of participation as contributing to identity occurs. While I agree with this notion, I still have wonderings about community and participation. I'm thinking that the level of participation shapes your identity within the community thus impacting your role/status/value within the community???
#50 Today, the org chart is hyperlinked, not hierarchical. Respect for hands-on knowledge wins over respect for abstract authority.
I wrote an entry about Society 2.0 because of this statement. It made me really question the design of our societal structures and organization. I wonder though, will there still be a place for abstract thought if we only value hands-on knowledge? I think both entities have merit, for without either, consequences exist. Without hands-on knowledge, I wonder if anything would get done. Without abstract knowledge, would we have advancement beyond the practical?
#34 To speak with a human voice, companies must share the concerns of their communities.
This one spoke to me. It made me wonder about the separation between personal and professional lives, which led me to personal and professional identities. If the marketplace becomes a community conversation and companies must listen to the communities in order to survive, would the lines between the former separation become blurred? Consequently if companies listen to these conversations and make adjustments to their identities, will such changes then impact the personal and communities identities? In essence, will the reactions of either side influence change not only to themselves but also to the other to which they were reacting?
#18 Companies that don't realize their markets are now networked person-to-person, getting smarter as a result and deeply joined in conversation are missing their best opportunity.
According to the saying, "Two heads are better than one," the more thought power, the more knowledge product. I would agree that this people-to-people network is extremely powerful. Look at the VT/PSU football game - people talked (not face-to-face) and the community reacted. If companies don't engage in this process, then I would agree; they are missing the bandwagon. However, that statement warrants caution. I worry about "group think." The structure of the community will determine the power of the knowledge generated. If the community is one where multiple perspectives and conflicting dialogue are valued, then the ceiling effect of the knowledge is much higher, most likely that of a vaulted ceiling. If however, a person or small group dominates the conversation, then the ceiling effect might be one of an old farmhouse.
I wrote an entry about Society 2.0 because of this statement. It made me really question the design of our societal structures and organization. I wonder though, will there still be a place for abstract thought if we only value hands-on knowledge? I think both entities have merit, for without either, consequences exist. Without hands-on knowledge, I wonder if anything would get done. Without abstract knowledge, would we have advancement beyond the practical?
#34 To speak with a human voice, companies must share the concerns of their communities.
This one spoke to me. It made me wonder about the separation between personal and professional lives, which led me to personal and professional identities. If the marketplace becomes a community conversation and companies must listen to the communities in order to survive, would the lines between the former separation become blurred? Consequently if companies listen to these conversations and make adjustments to their identities, will such changes then impact the personal and communities identities? In essence, will the reactions of either side influence change not only to themselves but also to the other to which they were reacting?
#18 Companies that don't realize their markets are now networked person-to-person, getting smarter as a result and deeply joined in conversation are missing their best opportunity.
According to the saying, "Two heads are better than one," the more thought power, the more knowledge product. I would agree that this people-to-people network is extremely powerful. Look at the VT/PSU football game - people talked (not face-to-face) and the community reacted. If companies don't engage in this process, then I would agree; they are missing the bandwagon. However, that statement warrants caution. I worry about "group think." The structure of the community will determine the power of the knowledge generated. If the community is one where multiple perspectives and conflicting dialogue are valued, then the ceiling effect of the knowledge is much higher, most likely that of a vaulted ceiling. If however, a person or small group dominates the conversation, then the ceiling effect might be one of an old farmhouse.
After reading the Cluetrain Manifesto, I wonder about the implications of such conversation on society; I was wondering about the design of society. Thinking back to childhood, I remember my parents and grandparents talking about their jobs and how one moves "up" the job ladder. This readings suggests that the interaction of Web 2.0 is creating a structure that is no longer hierarchical. Instead it is referred to as hyperlinked. Skills are valued as compared to loyalty and age. If people have a tendency to no longer move "up," where would they go...over??? Visioning this system in place, I wonder what implications those thoughts will have on society. Will the timeless adage of "survival of the fitness" have more meaning, telling workers that no matter how old you are, you need to keep up with the knowledge of the times? Will companies, businesses, educational systems, etc. be responsible for upholding the training of their more established employees or will those responsibilities fall on the shoulders of the worker? Either option has economic implications. I would be curious to hear your thoughts regarding what such a structure, one built on conversation - the exchange of knowledge as goods, would look like. Can you visualize Society 2.0?
Jason, Doug, Keith, Becci
Version 0.8 - 1/31/08
Version 0.9 - 2/7/08
Community:
0.8 a group of people which have a sense of belonging through common circumstance or interest
0.9 a group of people which have a sense of belonging through common circumstance or interest often including interaction; the level of interaction and participation exists on a continuum from passive to active
Identity:
0.8 a way of knowing someone by way of connecting attributes through a common representation which is context specific
0.9 the layers of self perception which could be affected by the communities in which you are involved (the context) and your perceptions of those communities' feedback
Design:
0.8 (n) an organizational method
(v) the act of attributing affordances to...(you will in the blank)
0.9 no changes yet...
In Turkle's chapter, it is suggested that we are entering a culture of simulation. It is possible that we prefer to enter these simulation worlds because they enhance our realities. One quote in the text that really struck me was a boy who commented on his world in MUD by saying, "This is more real than my real life (p.10)." How can that be? Thoughts?
Later on in the text, the author mentions a teenager whose mother goes on a drug. The question revolves around whether we are controlling our emotions or whether our emotions are controlling us? When one is on a drug, to whom is one listening? Just as we have caffeine addicts who must have their daily cup (or should I say cups) of coffee, there must be some who have similar needs with technology...They feel the necessity to enter their simulation worlds or else they are lost in reality (wait...is that possible???). They become addicts to the drug, whatever the drug may be. I am proposing whether technology could be a drug of choice. If so, to whom is one listening, dealing, talking, etc. when one is logged onto interactive technology? The question is...Are you a technology addict?
Later on in the text, the author mentions a teenager whose mother goes on a drug. The question revolves around whether we are controlling our emotions or whether our emotions are controlling us? When one is on a drug, to whom is one listening? Just as we have caffeine addicts who must have their daily cup (or should I say cups) of coffee, there must be some who have similar needs with technology...They feel the necessity to enter their simulation worlds or else they are lost in reality (wait...is that possible???). They become addicts to the drug, whatever the drug may be. I am proposing whether technology could be a drug of choice. If so, to whom is one listening, dealing, talking, etc. when one is logged onto interactive technology? The question is...Are you a technology addict?
Wengel discusses the fact that we, as humans, are social by nature and therefore, learning is natural; or rather learning should be natural. Yet, our institutions are structured in such a sense that we stifle our natural tendencies and, in essence, force learning. To what extent do you agree with this notion?
To add another bend in the river, Larry Cuban, when he came to PSU, discussed how the physical setup of our classrooms is changing. This physical setup demonstrates change in philosophy. Schools of the "past" contained desks arranged in rows for example. While it could be argued that that arrangement could and most likely is present in some of our current classrooms, he argues that desks are now arranged in clusters, promoting a more social aspect to the classroom. Are we today promoting more social learning in our classrooms or are we just fooling ourselves with a mirage?
To add another bend in the river, Larry Cuban, when he came to PSU, discussed how the physical setup of our classrooms is changing. This physical setup demonstrates change in philosophy. Schools of the "past" contained desks arranged in rows for example. While it could be argued that that arrangement could and most likely is present in some of our current classrooms, he argues that desks are now arranged in clusters, promoting a more social aspect to the classroom. Are we today promoting more social learning in our classrooms or are we just fooling ourselves with a mirage?
