Liberate Technology for Education!

The most striking aspect of the article “Ten Lessons for ICT and Education in the Developing World,” (Hawkins) was how many of the challenges, and in many cases, the proposed solutions, were similar to those faced in educational institutions in the “developed” world. For example, the lack of understanding and vision about the fundamental changes in the world / economy and how technology can and should significantly change the educational process to better prepare young people to thrive in the new century sounded all too familiar. So too were the resulting misalignment of curriculum and testing with the new kinds of learning supported by ICT. And the lack of adequate funding resulting in too little equipment, too little speed and reliability of equipment and Internet access, and too little ongoing professional development for teachers also were parallel – if not equal – situations.

However, the steep growth in wireless technologies described in both articles (e.g. according to Donner article, 80% of world’s population lives within range of a mobile / cellular network) provided a glimmer of hope. For the reasons alluded to in the Hawkins article, in most cases I believe it will not be schools that lead the way to innovative 21^st century uses of technology in education. Wireless access – around the world – presents a potentially liberating opportunity for “educators” in and out of schools (separately and in collaboration) to develop compelling uses of technology that can ultimately be incorporated into formal educational institutions. Such collaborations may breathe some needed new approaches and funding sources into traditional educational technology settings.

Final Project Overview

My final project will be a literature review of research on the potential of technology use to foster civic engagement among young people. The review will focus on the active use technology and do it yourself (DIY) media in building the capacities of young people to be active participants in self-government, i.e. to effectively learn, practice and internalize “civic skills” such as defining problems, deliberative processes, collaborative goal setting and problem solving, communicating across diverse groups, etc. Due to time limitations, the literature review will not include use of the Internet or other digital information solely for accessing politically relevant information, or for increasing voter participation among young people.

Articles may be found in journals in the several fields engaged in these issues including youth development (e.g. Applied Developmental Science, Journal of Research on Adolescence), communication (e.g. Communication Research, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication) and political science (e.g. Political Communication, PS Online).

Potential articles identified to date include:

Carpini, M. X. D. (2000). Gen.com: Youth, Civic Engagement, and the New Information Environment. Political Communication, 17(4), 341-349.

Keeter, S., Jenkins, K., Zukin, C., & Andolina, M. W. (2003). Three core measures of community-based civic engagement: Evidence from the Youth Civic Engagement Indicators Project, Child Trends Conference on Indicators of Positive Development.Washington, DC

Montgomery, K., Gottlieb-Robles, B., & Larson, G.O. (March 2004). Youth as e-citizens: Engaging the digital generation. Washington, DC: Center for Social Media, School of Communication, American University. Retrieved from http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/ecitizens/youthreport.pdf

Pasek, J., Kenski, K., Romer, D., Hall Jamieson, K. (2006). America's Youth and Community Engagement: How Use of Mass Media Is Related to Civic Activity and Political Awareness in 14 to 22 Year Olds. Communication Research, 33, 115-135.

Weller, S. (2003). 'Teach us something useful': contested spaces of teenagers' citizenship. Space and Polity, 7(2), 153-171.

Woodard IV, E. H., & Schmitt, K. L. (2002). Political socialization in the Digital Age: The 'Student Voices' program. In S. L. Calvert, A. B. Jordan & R. R. Cocking (Eds.), Children in the digital age: Influences of electronic media on development (pp. 83-99). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Youniss, J., Bales, S., Christmas-Best, V., Diversi, M., McLaughlin, M., & Silbereisen, R. (2002). Youth civic engagement in the twenty-first century. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12 (1), 121-148.

I will also be reviewing the material on the MacArthur Digital Media and Learning Project Web site, especially the blogs and writings in the “Civic Engagement” section. A book on civic engagement and young people was slated to be published in September, 2007 as part of the MacArthur project. Including the following chapters and important authors, I hope it is published in time for this project:

"Civic Engagement and the Internet: Developing technologically-rich educational programs to promote civic participation online and offline"
Marina Umaschi Bers

"Doing It For Themselves: Young People and e-participation from the ground up"
Stephen Coleman

"Contesting Cultural Control: Youth Culture and Online Petitioning"
Jennifer S. Earl and Alan Schussman

"Digital Media and Youth Civic Engagement: Intersections of Practice and Policy"
Kathryn C. Montgomery

"Public Voice and Civic Literacy in the Always-on Era"
Howard Rheingold

"TakingITGlobal: Using Online Community to Create Real World Change, A Case Study"

Who You Talkin' To?

The idea that intrigued me the most this week was boyd’s concept of the “flattening” of social networks on social networking sites and the tension that creates in managing one’s presentation and performance between disparate groups. After reading this week’s articles, I took a “fieldtrip” through Facebook, jumping around the pages of a number of teenagers / young adults in the networks of a young person I know. While most of the users were high school students, thus not yet faced with having to present very “professional” images to anyone (except, perhaps conscientious college admissions staff), I observed this tension on the page of one young woman who graduated from college last year and is now working for a communications company. Her active networks included friends from high school, college, and her new job. While her profile was appropriately “casual professional,” I noticed that some of her friends’ postings seemed a bit informal and suggestive to be comfortably viewed by a work audience. I wondered if such rocky junctures would naturally be worn down as everyone in her networks got older and into the work world, or it would be advantageous to have separate sites for different audiences where one could be more free to maintain a forum for personal and informal communication (although Facebook seems to be moving in the other direction by expanding out from schools to the wider world).

The other concept from the readings that I observed on my online fieldtrip was the finding that Facebook was useful in building maintained social capital. The networks I explored were mostly made up of high school seniors and college freshmen (who graduated last June from the high schools where the current high school students still were). I noticed quite a bit of communication between those groups – originally geographically connected -- while the college freshman had already established substantial networks at their new schools. This phenomenon, as well as the findings that use of social networking environments supports the generation and maintenance of bridging social capital, seems potentially useful for the building of a youth civic network. By designing opportunities for such online networking across diverse existing school, organizational and neighborhood networks, I hope facilitate the creation and maintenance of weak ties that could lead to sustained civic communication and action.

Connect!

The concept that most intrigued me in this week’s readings was the power of computer networks to facilitate the flow of information among weakly tied groups, and the importance of such connections in providing access to diverse resources. This phenomenon was noted on both the individual level (Donath and Boyd - p.80), and the group level (Garton, Haythornthwaite, Wellman – p.79). In an almost counterintuitive way, it was pointed out that [while] “the number of strong ties an individual can maintain may not be greatly increased by communication technology, but the number of weak ties can increase substantially, resulting in an increase of available information and opportunities.” (Donath and Boyd - p.80) These attributes describe the benefits of a large, heterogeneous network.

This conjured in my mind the analogous biological importance of broadening the gene pool, of “cross pollinating” beyond one’s own immediate tribe in order to maximize the health of the human species, of the importance of diversity. Simply put, it’s healthy to connect to networks, people and ideas that come from outside your own existing “dense clusters” of strong ties.

Since most of the reading and thinking we have been doing to date has focused on how CMC affects individual communication dynamics, this change in perspective has been useful in terms of my thinking about creating a civic network. It’s made me think about the usefulness of such a platform to act as a hub to connect currently loosely connected, or disconnected groups. And how the health of the civic body could be improved through the strengthening of those connections.

Dazed and Confused

As mentioned in previous posts, my real life goal (at least the one relevant to this blog) is to develop a youth civic network in my community of Jersey City. So my intention is to make the final project part of the R&D for that project. Until this week, I was thinking that I would try to do a mini-study testing out some kind of civic dialog / problem solving at one site. However the more I am reading, the more I feel like I need a broader and deeper theoretical framework on which to base my network / curricular design. So now I am thinking that I should do a literature review instead.

I think that my next step is to narrow down the focus of the review. After reading articles and scanning lists of references, it seems that my project / interest straddles several research areas that don’t necessarily have much overlap. So far I’ve identified the following strands:
* the role of online participation in community and political discourse and action (adult);
* the role of online use in youth development (though not usually related to civic engagement);
* civic education (in various forms) and youth development (not usually related to technology).

I am feeling a little overwhelmed with (somewhat) relevant info seeming to come from a number of directions. Since I can't become an expert in all areas in the next months, I would love a little guidance from you to help get me going in the right direction!

Where I'm at Now

The recurring themes and questions that seem to keep popping up for me concern the interplay between existing / pre-existing societal forces (e.g. cultural, economic, political) and developing online structures and cultures. As more and more of the readings describe, the “online world” is really on a continuum of relationships, expectations etc. existing offline. I suppose the recurring question of most import for me is how to best design online community building environments to strategically deploy the affordances of CMC to maximize the potential for enhancing interaction, understanding and problem within and across existing “communities.”

While my initial questions (can the Internet maintain its egalitarian nature, will technology be used for higher level learning in poor communities, will constant electronic communication cripple our young) still stand, at this point I feel less paranoid than reflected in my initial post. As reflected in the paragraph above, through these several weeks of reading, talking and thinking about the nature of the online world, it feels less “other” and thus more within the arena available for thoughtful action. Through increased understanding of the nuances and theories of human interaction on the Internet, my initial questions have evolved into “how to” design online environments so that the answers to those questions are positive.

Identity

To be quite honest I am still reeling with too many thoughts and questions to wholeheartedly disagree with any of the concepts presented. If anything, it’s perhaps a matter of degree. I buy the general postmodern idea of complexity and multiplicity of “identity,” and that it’s constructed through interactions (including online) and changes over time. I agree that we present ourselves differently to different audiences, putting forward varied “identity markers” in different situations. The many stories of people playing out various aspects of their actual or desired selves on MUDs (to positive or negative ends) attests to the undeniable “realness” of those online experiences. And while I cringe a bit at thinking of myself as a cyborg, I can’t deny the increasing interaction between human and machine, as well as the artificial limbs of my older relatives.

I guess the aspect I feel most frustrated by is the lack of new theoretical frameworks (that I’m aware of) connecting all this to the present (and future) online world, which is much more visual and oral. As Alice Marwick noted in her podcast, this reality makes the anonymity of the “text only” web impossible. In addition, the exploding diversity of Internet access moves us into an online world in which written language no longer reigns. Without reducing identity to a set of fields in a database, as the corporate world already has, according to Marwick, what is the new definition of online identity?

What is Real? (week 4)

While I found the Baym and Walter articles useful in picking apart the aspects of CMC and looking at how they combine with user expectations, intent and environmental conditions to produce different kinds of interpersonal results (and relating these scenarios to various communication and other theories), I found myself most intrigued by the concept of what is “real.” Whether talking about projected image, relationships or community, I began to feel that in many cases, the distinctions between "virtual" and "real" were pretty murky.

For example, as quoted in the Walther article (p. 28), “People are more satisfied in particular relationships and situations to the extent that their desired identity images are supported, validated, or elicited” (p.93 – Schlenker 1985). The way in which virtual reality extends this possibility was poignantly represented in the segment of the CBC video featuring the young man with Cerebral Palsy dancing at the disco in Second Life. But this statement struck me as universally true in the FtF world as well.

In my “real world” and “real community” I am working to design a youth-based civic network. These readings/ viewings / listenings were useful in helping me to start thinking about which aspects of the community problem solving process might be best conducted online v. offline, synchronous v. asynchronous, etc. Generally, how to use the features of CMC to lower the barriers of participation among young people and enhance communication between young people and adults in the community. A couple of ideas that resonated were the use of anonymous structures for brainstorming (but not decision making), and thinking about use of the Web as a presentation / publishing tool more than as a communication / process tool.

Is the Information / Knowledge Society Fundamentally Different?

I guess the big idea / question that intrigued me in this week’s readings is whether our increasingly information / knowledge based society (however defined) is / will fundamentally change the social order, and if so, to what end. While Dyson’s “manifesto” presents an energetic and optimistic future where power will be decentralized, and human freedom enhanced, it ain’t necessarily so. As Webster states in his conclusion, “Indeed, what is most striking are the continuities of the present age with previous social and economic arrangements, informational developments being heavily influenced by familiar constraints and priorities.”

These divergent visions relate very much to my thoughts and concerns of last week about how egalitarian a nature the Internet will be able to maintain in the midst of the ever increasingly consolidated media industry. But keeping with the social construction of technology idea, I think that question will have at least as much (probably more) to do with the organization of segments of society than the technologies themselves.

Week 2 - Tech Determinism and SCOT

1. The maintenance of the egalitarian nature of the Internet (e.g. Net Neutrality) is of great concern to me personally and politically. Often conflicting socio-economic forces interacting with technological structures in the political arena make the ongoing structure of the Internet still very much in play. As Pinch and Bijker noted, the meaning of the artifact (the Internet, in this case), is different for different groups. And “stabilization” has not yet occurred. I think it is especially crucial the generation of “digital natives” coming of age is educated about the need to advocate, on a public policy level, for a reality that many take for granted.

2. While the focus of many educational technology leaders in k –12 education is in students developing “21^st century skills,” (e.g.. critical thinking, problem solving) I don’t find that this thinking has really grabbed hold on the ground of many k-12 schools. In the context of this week’s readings, this struck me as an example of the ongoing interplay of societal forces and the development of technological tools. For example, while many widely available software programs (e.g. Microsoft office applications), as well as Web 2.0 tools lend themselves to 21^st century learning, and are thus purportedly supported by the business community looking for an appropriately educated workforce, the often conflicting force of increasingly “accountable” school districts is leading to schools often grasping onto technology use in almost the opposite way. That is, they are often using it to standardize and centralize student achievement tasks and data. This is especially true in poorer communities where NCLB accountability poses the greatest challenges. I guess my question is whether the development of educational technology within the socio-economic / political forces as played out in K-12 schools is actually increasing the intellectual divide among students, and teachers, for that matter.

3. At the risk of revealing my age, I am concerned about the unintended consequence of the ubiquity of mobile communication devices, especially among young people. I wonder about the role of constant electronic communication (e.g text messaging) on brain development, e.g. the ability to concentrate and be fully in the physical moment.