** My Intellectual Flakes **

PEW/Internet published a report on teens and social media. The full report is available here. I just want to highlight some points from the report that struck me most.

Basically use of web-based social media is central to teems life. 64% of teens (12-17) have experience with online content creation of certain type, be it blog, photos or video. 55% have set up profiles on social-networking website like Facebook. 28% of online teens write blogs and gender difference is salient in this respect. Girls tend to blog more than boys. However boys excel girls in uploading and producing videos. Those who use social networking websites are more likely to write blog, read and post comments on friends’ blogs. Posting images (still or video) is important part of their digital life and often engender online interaction. When it comes to online security, teens seem to be sensible than adults. Most teens restricted access to their online content.

Multi-channel teens layer each new communications opportunity on top of pre-existing channels. Communications patterns among teens are shifting as their array of options grows. These multi-channel teens are super communicators who will use any tool at their disposal, but cell phones, instant messaging applications, and social networking channels rank higher in the panoply of their communications choices when compared with landline and face-to-face communication outside of school.

Compared to other digital media, email is the least favorite one among teens for daily social interaction.

I came across a quite interesting article by Grant McCracken. He noted that the communication through social software/website such as Facebook, twitter can be characterized as  ” phatic communication” -

This is communication with little hard, informational content, but lots of emotional and social content.  Phatic communications doesn’t get much said, but it has social effects so powerful, it gets lots done.

In this sense, the emotional and social value of such tools are paramount. The informational value took the second place. We all have such experience ( maybe mostly women) when we vent just to get things out, not necessarily seek for advice or feedback.

This notion of “phatic communication” really resonates in me since I observed that the preservice teachers’ blogs in my study are mostly emotion-laden and social-oriented. In this respect, discussion forum is quite different. Surely there might be indicators of emotion and social interaction in discussion forum, but the level might vary drastically. This is associated with the sense of ownership.

This increasingly blurred line between virtual and real life already seems overwhelming. Falling in love and marry a robot? That really sounds too absurd. But according to this article on Wired and the book she mentioned, it might be a reality by 2050.

Here are some of the reasons why robot might be an excellent lover and companion:

• • A robot can be a good dancer.
  • You can have real conversation (even intellectual one) with a robot.
  • A robot is a sensitive and responsive lover.
  • you can switch off a robot at any time and program it to your heart’s content
  • the safest sex on earth

But by my understanding, what’s vital in a relationship is the inter-dependency upon each other. We need a robot; but a robot doesn’t need us. The need to feel being needed is strongly connected to our self worth, self confidence and content with our life. But in this uneven relationship with a machine, the need for the other is unbalanced. So in this sense, a robot might be a great sex machine and companion, but never a husband.

Fred Stutzman differentiated two types of social network sites: one as ego-centric (e.g. Facebook, LinkedIn), the other as object-centric (e.g. Flickr). The basis for the ego-centric social network is the individual-centered social network; the basis for the object-centric social network is mostly the artifact or product.

Terry Anderson argues that

perhaps the best ESS (Educational social software) combines ego and object centric features allowing learners and teachers to build on both types through social exchange of their artifacts and their personalities.

Further, Terry adds on another category of social network sites specific to the educational context: adhoc transient communities, that is, communities with fluid memberships. For adult learners in the self-paced study, a stable community is very difficult to take shape due to their unsynchronized learning progress. In this circumstances, learners need to be in and out different sub-communities based on their needs.

Reflecting back on the blog community I intend to build in my study. I wonder what type it should belong to.  It’s a mixture of both ego and object-centric. Students had interact in the blogosphere because 1) they know and care about each other; 2) they are engaged in the same practice and the content of blog is close to their heart. But I don’t want this blog-supported community to be transient. The ideal situation might be that students cultivate the habit of blogging, sharing and reflecting through this project so that they can continue blogging even after the project ends.

Nardi et al. (2004) maintained that blogging is a social activity in many dimensions. Some started blogging as a response to a direct social request. Readership is the major drive for continuous and sustained blogging. Further some bloggers change the content of blogs in accordance with audience’s feedback and expectations. In this way, audience is not only the answer to why people blog, but also influence what people blog about.

They also summarized the motives for blogging as:

1) update others on activities and whereabouts
2) express opinions to influence others
3) seek others’ opinions and feedback
4) think by writing
5) release emotional tension

Some of their findings are quite similar to mine. And the paper prompted me to rethink the individual and social dimensions of blogging. The individual and social dimensions of blogging can be illustrated as the following:

In this way, any individual-oriented motive for blogging is intertwined with a social motive. It might be very interesting to explore into the interplay of these two dimensions.

Nardi, B. A., Schiano, D. J., & Gumbrecht, M. (2004). Blogging as social activity, or, would you let 900 million people read your diary? Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, 222-231.

There is an interesting article titled “Students tell universities: Get out of MySpace!). The message is loud and clear: students do want to keep their social and academic life separated. This message really should serve as a wake-up call for those educators who are enthusiastic about tapping into the educational use of social networking website like Facebook or MySpace. Maybe they should hold on for a minute and ponder: is this what students want and need? I think the application and incooperation of social networking websites for educational purposes are very challenging and difficult, if not possible. Plus their impact on students’ learning might only be indirect – through strengthening the social connections within a group of learners.

On the other hand, studies are showing the increasing evidence that the adoption of technology in various context is more to do with people’s beliefs or epistemology instead of the technical issues, such as, technical competency or infrastructure. It was pointed out that students nowadays are quite sophisticated users of technology and use it extensively in their daily life. Yet often, they didn’t realize the educational value of certain technology. Then how to cultivate this awareness becomes a key issue.

I reread the article concerning TPCK by Mishra & Koehler (2006) today and found it shed some lights on the relationships among pedagogy, content and technology. They pointed out that traditional view held that content was the original driving force, pedagogy and technology have to follow the content to be delivered. As a matter of fact, the relationship is not so clear-cut and straightforward. The addition of new technology, sometimes can give a rise to the pedagogical reengineering of the course. Or technology itself, in some cases, is the new content for the curriculum. Thus, it seems that the relationship between these three parties – technology, pedagogy and content – is a dynamic equilibrium.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dr. Mishra came to HKU and had a seminar on TPCK, (now they call it T-PACK). He was a great speaker and the seminar was engaging. He also touched upon this issue of what drives what that brought echoes in me. His attitude towards this is that what really matter is not which drives which, but the WHY question. The big “WHY” question is really the key. As long as it is appropriately tackled, the matter of which one among TPC serve as the motivator becomes a not-so-significant issue.

OK, I have to admit, my study is kinda stuck. Basically, this group of PGDE students seem not into blogging. I know since blogging is voluntary, it will inevitably be put at the lower priority in students’ busy life. But I still believe that students can benefit from it. And the benefit will be more meaningful if the participation is voluntary. Nowadays, I began to wonder, am I too idealistic?

I know making blogging part of course assessment will be an effective way to increase and motivate students’ participation. But at the same time, I believe blogging is not for everyone. So giving students’ the control and freedom can ensure more meaningful use of the technology. (It just occurred to me that I once saw a study that showed that required and voluntary online participation didn’t have much difference in terms of students’ performance.) But I still believe the beauty of blogs is to give students the freedom to explore personal meaning and social value.

But inevitably, more students’ control means less teacher control. That is to say, how the students use and benefit from it will be somewhat out of control or unpredictable. In a sense, it can be called accidental learning. Then if the teachers want to use blogs to achieve certain learning objectives, it seems a risky thing to do by giving students too much control.

I think I should start another type of blogs in addition to my reflection type entries. (kinda feel bored about that). I will recommend some technical tools I tried and really liked. So those friends who are scared away by my academic rambling can find something interesting or useful.

I am using iGoogle now and really like it. It’s like a personal online portal. Since I work on multiple computers, one at office, two at home; so I have this problem of sharing files cross computers.

There are a wealth of web-based applications or service both inside and outside of google are available for each add to iGoogle. I have added in RSS reader, notebook, sticker, To-do list, Box.net, and other small stuff like calendar and weather. I attached a screenshot of my iGoogle here. I used to use bloglines, but it seems easier to switch to Google reader and keep everything in one place. All the online notebook, sticker and to-do list are great alternatives to the paper-based version. I might misplace the slip of paper or sticker. The most important thing is that every since I set up my personal online portal, I form the habit of checking it every day, both at home and at office.

Box.net is quite easy to use and it has the feature of sharing files with others in both public and protected way. It seems quite handy for the group work.

Stephen Downes has a pretty good article concerning Facebook in the recent issue of Innovate in which he discusses the dilemma of facebook to be open or closed system.

Facebook is at once too closed and too open because the functions it serves require both openness and privacy. It is, like other social networks, trying to connect people, trying to let them introduce each other, communicate, share their thoughts and memories, and create a community. It needs to encourage openness to do this; it needs to provide members with a space where they can write and create and send messages to each other. At the same time, it seeks to protect the integrity of the groups and the communities that are formed within its boundaries. And to do this, it needs to keep the group’s transactions behind closed doors to provide, not so much secrecy, but privacy.

This is a dilemma that faces not only Facebook but educational applications in general. The closed nature of the learning management system is frequently defended on the ground that students need a safe environment where they can experiment without consequences. But at the same time, students may be more motivated to do well when they are required to present their work in public or to participate in the wider professional community. Students need groups, but they also need networks.

Stephen also pointed out as he concludes the article that:

… the nature and popularity of Facebook itself challenges the idea of what an educational application should look like. Facebook puts the social community first, with content—including, but not limited to, educational content—being the medium of exchange between them. Though the traditional learning management system will contain community features, such as a chat room or discussion area, it contrasts sharply with Facebook because it puts content first and structures interactions around the course, the textbook, or the professor.

I think Facebook, at its core, a social networking system. As a community, it’s self-emergent and totally bottom-up. Its educational benefit, if there is any, might be the by-product of social interaction. In many cases, students might prefer to keep control of their own social life and keep it separated from learning. How many students would like to  have social interaction with teachers watching? On the other hand, LMS or CMS has to put content first because it supports purposeful learning community. That is to say, the learning community created within CMS or LMS is usually top-down. Teachers use the online platform to deliver the content or extend the classroom teaching. I think it will be quiet difficult, if not impossible, for teachers to create an online space and let students to socialize, build bond, then see what they can learn.

Another thing about the Facebook is that it’s a personal social network system. While in a learning community, there is a natural boundary – class or cohort. So the social capital we can utilize is within this existing boundaries. And it’s comparatively transient since the class only lasted, normally, for 3 months.

Anyway, I guess the point I want to make is that I doubt that intentional learning community building should put relationship first. However, social interaction, both online and offline, is an important element to take into consideration when we build a learning community.