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.