This triggered me to contemplate on the relationship between the need and affordance. Most people usually don’t bother to explore the functionality of the device until they have a need for it. There are some people who like to play with all the possibilities afforded by the device. I am not that type. I don’t know my phone has the recording function because I never had the need for it. (I am a practical person in a sense.) Plus, I hate read manuals. Basically I learn the features based on needs.

However, when the need came up, it didn’t occur to me that the phone might have the recording function. The solution I came up with pretty much based on the old/traditional affordances of the device. That means for one, my perceived affordance of the device was rather fixed. Phone is for calling and recorder is for recording. I don’t know the availability of such a function on my phone. How lucky I am to have a friend like Angie. Then the question here is how the manufacturer can help customers like me to be better informed of the new features of the device, especially those features that are not part of their traditional affordances?

I think a video-based walk-through might help. I’d like to watch those video showing me the how-tos  and features of the products.

 … critical technological literacy focuses on a deep, socially contextualized, and informed understanding of technology.

… creative literacies: the ability to experiment with technology in order to create and manipulate content that serves social goals rather than merely retrieving and absorbing information.

… network literacies include the ability and the impulse to effectively and ethically manipulate a range of technologies to communicate and collaboratively construct and share knowledge. (p. 107)

Burgess also pointed out that blogging, as a fluid and flexible genre, posed special challenges for students. Due to its individual ownership, students need to take initiative in experimenting and shaping the genre of blogging as their personal learning platform. Ultimately, it is students who need to decide on their preferred mode of blogging. However, many students are used to the stable and enclosed systems as CMS. This type of participatory and autonomous online activities are foreign for them. Thus a perspective shift is in need.

Although I don’t have much interest in probing into blogging as a writing genre, the issue mentioned by Burgess was indeed a valid point.

Burgess (2006) Blogging to learning, Learning to blog

“Increasingly, the digital divide is giving way to concern about the participation gap. Throughout the 1990s, the primary question was one of access. … As long as the focus remains on access, reform remains focused on technologies; as soon as we begin to talk about participation, the emphasis shifts to cultural protocols and practices. “(p. 23)

Race, class, language differences amplify these inequalities in opportunities for participation. One reason we see early adopters is that some groups not only feel more confidence in engaging with new technologies but also some groups seem more comfortable going public with their views… (p.258)

It will be very interesting to decipher how the individual perception of media affordance is shaped by the cultural and social forces. The barrier to online participation is less about access to computer and comfortable level with technology; but more on the psychological perception and cultural norms, or as the ” consequence of uneven motivations and literacies“. The perception regarding what media is appropriate to contact whom under what circumstances differs from person to person. Then how this personal perception of technology formulated poses as a very interesting question.

Convergence, as we can see, is both a top-down corporate-driven process and a bottom-up consumer-driven process. (p. 18)

The power of the grassroots media is that it diversifies; the power of broadcast media is that it amplifies. That’s why we should be concerned with the flow between the two: expanding the potentials for participation represents the greatest opportunity for cultural diversity. Throw away the powers of broadcasting and one has only cultural fragmentation. (p. 257)

In this convergence culture, we need to create a synergy between grassroots media and broadcast media. There is a balance to maintain between the top-down and bottom-up forces.

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.

Chinese youngsters regarded digital technology as essential part of their life.

As many as 80 percent of Chinese respondents agreed that “Digital technology is an essential part of how I live,” compared with 68 percent of Americans.

What surprised me was the Chinese attitudes towards online relationship and identity.

61 percent of Chinese respondents vs. 47% of American respondents agreed that “I have felt strong emotions through online interaction.

More than twice as many Chinese respondents admited that they have explored the online identity. Far more Chinese than Americans agreed that “Online interactions have broadened my sense of identity” (66 percent vs. 26 percent) and that “Online interactions have made me more self-aware” (60 percent vs. 26 percent).

As many as 82 percent of young Chinese agreed that “Interactivity helps create intimacy, even at a distance,” compared with just 36 percent of young Americans. And almost two- thirds (63 percent) of Chinese respondents agreed that “It’s perfectly possible to have real relationships purely online with no face-to-face contact,” vs. only 21 percent of Americans.

I still remember Hall’s theory concerning high vs. low-context culture. Chinese are from high-context culture which value physical contact. That’s why I am quite surprised that Chinese youngsters are more immersed in online world than their American counterparts. The virtual world seems more real for Chinese.

What is expected is the difference between Chinese and American’s attitude towards anonymity.

“One of the biggest differences between American and Chinese youth is in attitudes toward anonymity,” says Doctoroff. “In the U.S., with its cult of celebrity, young Americans see the Internet as a way of getting known, of building their personal brand; many regard the Internet as a kind of personal broadcasting medium. But whereas publicizing your name, face and opinions is seen as a step toward success in the U.S., in China it has been a surefire way of veering into dangerous territory. So for young Chinese, the Internet is the ideal place to air opinions and hear what others think without crossing the line.”

This book by Salomon is the dirtiest book I have ever read. Not dirty in that sense, but in the literal sense. I was really reluctant to bring it back at the library the other day. I am glad I did since it turned out to be quite a nice book. It sheds some lights on the distinction of technology and media. Salomon pointed out each media had four types of attributes: content, symbol systems, technologies and social settings.

A medium is closely related to a particular technology, but the medium is not to be equated with that technology, …. A medium of communication entails all four classes of components, but not all of them are equally critical in defining a medium (p. 19)

In this sense, medium is broader concept with technology as one the its attribute.

The book centers on the use of media for educational purposes. Will post more as I read more….

Kozma (1991) also defines media as  “its technology, symbol systems, and processing capabilities”. Technology might influence learning process by enabling or constraining symbol systems and processing capabilities. But of course, technology is not the only factor.

Whether or not a medium’s capabilities make a difference in learning depends on how they correspond to the particular learning situation – the tasks and learners involved – and the way the medium’s capabilities are used by the instructional design.

“Facebook isn’t intended as a venue to seek out new people, though certainly it’s possible…”.

However, Facebook is criticized for its closeness. What posted on Facebook can’t be googled. For someone people that’s a weakness; but for others, that’s exactly what attract them to Facebook. They don’t want everything they put on web to be searchable and public to everyone.

Also, Karp identify the main problem of social website as

“… the inability of the “social graph” on the web to capture the infinite variability of human relationships — and the limited nature of social applications, which don’t enable us to communicate and interact with each of the people we know in all the myriad and infinitely varied ways we do offline.”

One thing is sure, Facebook is not for everyone. And that’s is fine. As Jenkins (2006) maintained:

Compared to the one-size-fits-all diet of the boradcast networks, the coming media age would be a “feast of niches and specialties.”

What we can see is the emergence of various tools catering to different users and needs.