How do the stories we read, hear, or come to know make us who we are?
What if we could track and annotate how these stories constitute our identity and behavior? (Or perhaps rather our rational deliberations?)
If we had a map of that similar to the mapping of genomes, could that be a useful educational tool? Or a tool for better understanding others?
I think we’d want to know and highlight the biggest influences and to see “storied” context of why they are our biggest influences—why they are meaningful to us.
The resulting map would constitute a different “story genome” for each person. It would be a quantified self tool that would require constant updating and revising. I think we could learn a lot about ourselves and others.
Twitter stock has recently suffered as a result of weak earnings (and related confidence), so I’ve been reflecting on the value I place in it versus Facebook.
Everyone’s surely different, but I figure one way for me to assess it is to evaluate the differences between the list of my Facebook friends and the accounts I follow on Twitter (I have to add my handle to my own list’s URL on Twitter, but of course with my “default” settings I can’t even share my Facebook list).
So what do I see? In my case, a rather subtle difference! Even before this comparison, I recognize that in my case I use these services in very similar ways—some close friends, some strangers—in short, a mixed social bag on both accounts. But by looking closely, the “game-ish” contours of Twitter start to emerge…
where word-smithing is more important… and fun (it’s such a chore on Facebook)
where I feel like I’m actively doling out social recognition by re-tweeting and favoriting (as opposed to the more personal Facebook “like”)
where I can easily search for new ideas (and break out of my filter bubble)
where I can blend my personal and professional interests (there just isn’t room for my professional self on Facebook
where my new ideas seems to matter more than my same old self
The indicators above seem like distinctly intellectual features that such a service could offer. In all other ways, Facebook and Twitter seem almost identical to me.
I recognize that this is a very particular case, and that there are many other ways to use these services. But, head-to-head, pound-for-pound, I also suspect that there is a deeper indication here that Twitter, even (or perhaps especially) when viewed as a redundant service, is of equal social value to Facebook in the emerging world.
It was an excellent read, especially due to Lanier’s broad experience with technologies and his interest in economics. He offers educators a lot to think about, such as:
Will teaching be a middle class job (at least) in the future?
Will humans even be paid to teach?
How will education be limited by software? And how will that software hide the contribution of humans?
These are some questions at the core of his ruminating, and the thesis of the book (that the world is generally headed in the wrong direction with respect to how networks are designed and used) opened up these questions in new ways for me.
I am afraid I am quite sympathetic to his worries. Unfortunately his bleak vision of the future isn’t well-balanced by his ideas for how to mitigate the present dangers of technology and create a better world for humans.
In general, I’d like to think I’m working on a solution just by working in the education sector. But Lanier gives me pause, and a lot to think about.
I ran across this interesting frog design deck while reviewing trends in design research – a summary of the Design Research Conference 2010 (DRC) last May. A quick glimpse at the slides provides a snapshot of how designers continue to grapple with user needs, and how they respond with both simple and sensible strategies (and more than a handful of rhetoric, too).
“Magical” seems to be the best way to describe technology products in 2010. Behold Apple’s iPad:
And now Google, upon launching Instant Search, claims that their search tool “should feel like magic” (0:16).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElubRNRIUg4
Should technology feel like magic?
According to the Oxford American Dictionary, magic is “the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.”
If that’s the intention of technology companies, then that’s pretty sad. It’s the equivalent of giving up on a certain kind of technological literacy. In these ads, we’re seeing the marketing departments of two of the most influential technology corporations in the world deciding that people are more comfortable in the middle ages. Indeed, it’s a little too reminiscent of recent marketing campaigns in other sectors:
Couldn’t technology literacy be an exciting marketing strategy? Imagine:
“The iPad. It’s a step forward in software/hardware integration.” Or: “Google Instant Search: Searching ought to give you more results.” For example:
I guess literacy just doesn’t make for a good ad campaign. But when it comes to buying technology, are a majority of folks really hoping to buy magic? I’d love to see a company challenge this pathetic state of affairs with ads showing that excitement can come with understanding.
“You are innovators” is the message to the teachers at Learning.com‘s second annual professional development workshop in Portland, Oregon. I’m attending the workshop to learn more about their really interesting new software, Sky. I’m also interested to learn if their message to teachers is accurate, a wishful prediction, a hyperbolic marketing strategy, or something else. Working alongside teachers who are learning to use Sky, I begin to hope, will lead me to an answer.
Sky is the name of Learning.com’s recently-launched digital learning environment – which means, among other things, that it’s a platform for teachers and students to access instructional modules (what used to be called curriculum). Using Sky, teachers can create and assign modules (games, animations, links to online resources) to individual students, groups, or a whole class. Each student can go at their own pace or skip around, leaving a trail of data about their learning experiences.
Seeing a group of 50 teachers, librarians, administrators, and other educators learning to use this tool brought to mind a salient issue looming over the education sector: the transformation of the work of teaching from a classroom-based activity to a community-based activity. By this I mean to suggest that the horizon of a teacher’s work is expanding in two senses – both spatially (i.e., a teacher can interact with people in a distant location in a way that is perhaps easier than stepping out of the classroom and walking down the hallway to speak to a colleague) and socially (i.e., a teacher expected to interact with more people than ever).
To anyone who’s interested in education these days, this is not exactly new news. But watching teachers learn to use Sky, a metaphor floated into mind: teachers are being asked to abandon their role as performers. Software like Sky demands that teachers become increasingly like DJs. In short,
Teachers are being asked to jockey media (of all kinds) in the way that DJs jockey music.
Club DJs are very well versed in mixing music to motivate the club goers to dance and drink. Very successful Club DJs can amass real fan followings. Club DJs have historically been on the leading edge innovation when it comes to leveraging the equipment they have for the best new sounds and memorable effects.
Putting aside the goal of dancing and drinking for the moment, the part of this description that strikes me as apt is the effect DJs have on their audience: they are recognized for leveraging the equipment they have for the best new sounds and memorable effects. As companies like Learning.com put innovative software into teachers’ hands, and when these tools further extend the reach of teachers to more and more content (note: I am using “content” and “media” interchangeably, where media puts the emphasis on the diversity of available content), it seems that their role as purveyors of knowledge – and, therefore, as critics and curators of media – is made more pronounced.
Great teaching has, of course, always been about being knowledgeable about, and delivering, content (with bonus points for delivering the right content at the right time). But a significant change that software can make possible is the amount of media that a teacher has access to, and therefore, has the possibility of being knowledgeable about. And this goes beyond mere facts and static content – even beyond dynamic content, methodology, and analysis – and into the area of the learning tools that students can use in conjunction with that content and those processes.
So what are some of the new tricks that Teacher-DJs will have to learn, refine, and become known for? The following come to mind:
delivering simple, efficient, and multi-modal learning activities to students
directing students to great, fresh, and relevant resources
providing a directed (but not inauthentic) way to experience the Internet
sharing responsiblity for student work (and related actions) on school-suported publishing platforms
A related way these changes will likely play out is that authorship will increasingly become an important aspect of teaching. Whether a teacher is authoring content for students, describing and/or reviewing content for fellow teachers, or describing and/or reviewing content for a wider audience (including parents, administrators, and communities), the immediacy (and sheer reach) of the Internet will amplify the importance and potential of this work.
For example, Learning.com has ventured into the realm of positioning teachers within a network powered by sophisticated social software. Using Sky, teachers can create and share lesson plans – lesson plans they may have always had, but perhaps never before in a form that was so ready for sharing so widely. Software features that support searching for, selecting, and rating others’ lesson plans raise the significance of formerly merely digital tools (e.g., putting lesson plans online) to a new level.
An interesting effect of this kind of social software will be that there may be (will be?) increasingly more social pressure on teachers to create and share their work with other teachers. So teachers will be authors not only in the sense that students will use their multimedia assemblages (which seems like a good way to describe their products in software like Sky), but in the sense that other teachers will be able to access their work. By sharing work in this way, and as a community of teachers becomes interested in the depth and quality of a fellow teacher’s work, each teacher may subsequently be judged by it. And though this may have been the case previously on a more local level (e.g., interactions between a teacher and his/her department or administrators), social software is fundamentally changing the professional landscape of teaching by transforming social interactions between teachers.
Understood in this way, it seems that social software is becoming intertwined in what some consider the history of the de-professionalization of teaching. Though, as we see in the comparison to the work of DJs, it is also creating new possibilities of professionalism through a kind of grassroots process – where the day to day work of teachers (lesson-planning) becomes a new kind of lingua franca in valuing a teacher’s abilities and achievements. This is promising stuff. But where there can be little doubt that software like Sky will change teaching, how long it will take for the policies and realities that regulate the day to day activities of students under the watch of lumbering bureaucracies is less clear. And so,
It is still unclear if social software can be a vehicle that gives teachers more power to directly transform the education sector.
Looking into the heart of software like Sky, one sees how teachers are being asked to change the way they work in both obvious and subtle ways. Making a comparison to the work of DJs is, after all, probably not fair. But I think it’s a helpful metaphor. DJs take a lot of pride in their work, and are recognized for their unique contributions to spaces, events, and communities. Rather than evaluating a cultural shift in teaching as a good or bad thing, this kind of lens helps me better understand the kind of work teachers are being asked to do.
Are teachers innovators? Software like Sky gives them an opportunity to innovate. Not all will, but those who do will participate in an interesting transformation – and potentially a watershed period – in the history of the education sector.
David Dean, founder of Yamisee, gave a great talk about this new, e-learning tool at a EdLab today:
Yamisee is a live online learning platform that creates an entirely new marketplace for teachers and subject matter experts to share their knowledge. Much in the way eBay connects buyers with sellers, Yamisee connects independent experts with paying students. Providing everything an instructor needs to conduct classes and earn money through live online learning events is why Yamisee was selected as a 2009 Company to Watch by the Connecticut Technology Council. (from the event description)
David discussed how they are striving to make Yamisee a marketplace of learning opportunities, and it seems like he has the basic structure to make it a vibrant one.
People may not care as much about social interaction as we might think (they may prefer to crawl the web instead).
But both of these are more business-related worries than technical or conceptual problems. Overall, I’d be excited to see a social network like Yamisee be successful, because that would mean people are excited to learn new things from experts. (And that’s not always the way things seem to go these days…) It will also be interesting to see if this kind of e-learning tool is able to distinguish itself from the growing list of options.
“How do you make an institutional archive more social?”
This question was put forth by EdLab in early 2006. It’s kind of a strange question – it makes more sense if you consider how “Web 2.0” had settled in as a useful framework in our collective imagination. We faced the task of creating a digital repository for the first time at Teachers College, and we wanted to do it with style.
We created PocketKnowledge (PK), and launched it later that fall to the College community. Phil the Pocket was born. In theory, PK did everything DSpace did, but better. The community could upload and tag items. A folksonomy could emerge. Uploaders could set different permission levels to control access to their content. And so on. From the project documentation:
[We] formed a multi-disciplinary team of students, designers, software developers and institutional representatives to implement a digital archiving solution for Teachers College, Columbia University. After an analysis of existing archiving tools, our interests pushed us in the direction of developing a custom tool to serve a set of functions that was not possible with existing archiving tools, but which we determined was possible with available technologies.
Existing digital archiving software – such as the widely implemented DSpace – did not offer a “social” solution for arching. DSpace employs “gatekeepers” who oversee the uploading of new material into the archive – often librarians who grant permission to upload materials, organize the materials into established categories, and tag the material with standard keywords.
PK was designed to overturn this librarian-centric model, and put power (and responsibility) in the hands of content creators. It is different from DSpace in many ways, and is successfully social to a discerning eye.
Was PK social enough? Probably not. And the definition of “social” has only steepened in the past four years. Here is a shortlist of ideas about how it could be more social that I’ve been able to collect:
Tag any document on the fly (currently only content owners and admins can do this)
Curate new collections of items (currently only content owners and admins can do this)
Create a personal “profile” page with favorite PK items
See “popular related” items for any item
Simple versioning control for items (to better facilitate group work)
Available email updates when users interact with items and collections
I wonder what ideas others might have now. And, should we continue down this path at all? Is it time to give up on the idea of a social archive? After all, we’re social in many ways… why should my archival materials extend my range of social interactions further? (And aren’t there already better methods for this?)
In spite of these worries and concerns, I think it is still a seductive opportunity. The best answer to the question may be a relatively simple one:
“Give me an extremely lightweight publishing opportunity that supports and is supported by (and is partially obscured by) an educational institution to which I have accepted as a platform and community for intellectual work.”