first of all, i can't believe that this semester is over. time does fly.
looking back on 680, a lot of things happened to me. for the first time in my life, i started blog, social networking site, podcasting....
through these web 2.0 tools, i'm heading toward media literacy away from a prolonged era of media illiteracy. in terms of technology, i was sort of a traditionalist, and maybe i'll never become someone whose primary pleasure and hobby is being 'on-line'.
after using blogs and sns, i got connected to many people around me. the 'online' connection is certainly different from real life one, and i never expect them to be the same. through these media, i connect with people i know very well and also people i know only a little. in real life situation i'll be too shy to start a conversation to someone that i don't know very well, but online i get less hesitant. is this so-called the power of medium that changes 'contents' : the way we think and behave?
although such connection is never the same as deep friendship or relationship we have in real world, it certainly opens a door for broader conversation, interaction and exchange.
the most important thing happened to me through this course is the shift in my view on media.
i only saw it as literally 'medium'. as defined in dictionaries, 'something in the middle position', 'a means of effecting and conveying something'. i did not see medium as something that can change what it conveys, and i honestly didn't explore the potential well enough so far.
the impact of media and technology on our everyday life is easily taken for granted without much contemplation as it is like the atmosphere that we 'live in' and 'breathe through'.
one of my classmates from other course recently added me as a friend through facebook. it was sort of a surprise, and i willingly accepted her request. although we don't know each other very well, and rarely talk in real life, we somehow started a conversation on the online platform. and we started talking to each other more often in real life. i felt that we knew each other already from our online interaction. i wonder if i would have ever become close to this person, if it weren't for the new medium. honestly, i doubt it because me and the other person sort of belong to 'shy' species. i'm glad that new media give us more ways to let ourselves known to others and get connected with them. although this course is coming to an end, what i got out of it will last, last, last......
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Digital Divide
danah boyd's article on american class division through facebook and myspace was pretty interesting. as i myself am pretty new to social networking site-'facebook' and have never explored 'myspace', i can't really compare those two in my own words, but i've heard a lot about how immature and un-cool 'myspace' is.
what impressed me was the nature of division- it wasn't just a simple age division between highschoolers and college students. as boys suggests, there is definitely a socio-economic class factor embedded in the division. college-going youth from mainstream middle American background who grew up under parents with higher education, and youth from working-class families who are likely to stay in working-class lifestyle including those who are in the military.
what 'myspace' and 'facebook' attracts two divergent groups of teens is beyond just look and interface of those sites. it seems to me that it's a sense of being with like-mind or like-class peers.
being in a specific sns represents their class, status, ideas, future, etc.
well, i'm not sure if it's something really to lament over, as it has always happened in offline. the division of sns users is a continued pattern and reflection of the reality.
we, human being, are social animals, but honestly we don't socialize just with 'anybody'.
consciously or unconsciously, we 'deliberately' choose everything based on some sort of standards that we set as our status or identity. it can be applied to almost everything we choose- neighborhood, school, commercial brands, food, gym, friends, spouse, bars, work, etc.
what concerns me personally about the 'digital divide' is not who uses 'myspace' or who uses 'facebook'. i'm glad that at least both groups have access and knowledge to manipulate the user-oriented and participatory aspects of 'web 2.0'.
what i'm concerned about digital divide is the division between thosevwho have resources to use it and those who don't in the first place.
for many of us (living in a big city with corresponding lifestyles), having access and knowledge for the internet, web 1.0, web 2.0, web 3.0, etc, is taken for granted. but there're still a lot of people out there who don't or can't have this for themselves and for their children. i think this is troublesome.
and as an aspiring library media specialist, i think this make technology educatoin and digital/media literacy much more crucial than before. if left unattended and neglected, this divide will only grow further and eventually there'll be a great deal of individual and social costs as a result.
what impressed me was the nature of division- it wasn't just a simple age division between highschoolers and college students. as boys suggests, there is definitely a socio-economic class factor embedded in the division. college-going youth from mainstream middle American background who grew up under parents with higher education, and youth from working-class families who are likely to stay in working-class lifestyle including those who are in the military.
what 'myspace' and 'facebook' attracts two divergent groups of teens is beyond just look and interface of those sites. it seems to me that it's a sense of being with like-mind or like-class peers.
being in a specific sns represents their class, status, ideas, future, etc.
well, i'm not sure if it's something really to lament over, as it has always happened in offline. the division of sns users is a continued pattern and reflection of the reality.
we, human being, are social animals, but honestly we don't socialize just with 'anybody'.
consciously or unconsciously, we 'deliberately' choose everything based on some sort of standards that we set as our status or identity. it can be applied to almost everything we choose- neighborhood, school, commercial brands, food, gym, friends, spouse, bars, work, etc.
what concerns me personally about the 'digital divide' is not who uses 'myspace' or who uses 'facebook'. i'm glad that at least both groups have access and knowledge to manipulate the user-oriented and participatory aspects of 'web 2.0'.
what i'm concerned about digital divide is the division between thosevwho have resources to use it and those who don't in the first place.
for many of us (living in a big city with corresponding lifestyles), having access and knowledge for the internet, web 1.0, web 2.0, web 3.0, etc, is taken for granted. but there're still a lot of people out there who don't or can't have this for themselves and for their children. i think this is troublesome.
and as an aspiring library media specialist, i think this make technology educatoin and digital/media literacy much more crucial than before. if left unattended and neglected, this divide will only grow further and eventually there'll be a great deal of individual and social costs as a result.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
web 2.0 and learning
i've heard of podcast, or podcasting frequently, but i've never subscribed to one and didn't really know what it is exactly. due to my laziness toward technology, i didn't really try to figure it out for a long time, and i'm glad that now i'm catching up with this.
reading Curtis Fox's article on podcasting gave me a good understanding of its origin and use, and more importantly, it reminded me of McLuhan's thoughts on the power of media in changing 'contents', or 'thoughts' of the user.
the traditional media outlets, televisions and radios, did not provide room for less mainstream and minority (not in the ethnic context) culture, and the emergence of web 2.0 brought out a second age of 'renaissance', in which people stop being mere recipients of what technology has to offer, but started interacting and connecting with other people on the web, thus creating new contents.
blogs ans podcasts are almost identical in nature, but the only difference is blogs reach out to people by text (writing), while podcasts do the same job by audio and video.
the concept and real-life application of the web 2.0 technology is, indeed, 'democratic'. it's 'technology', information' by the people, of the people, and for the people. no where in the history of human being, people have enjoyed more democracy and autonomy than now.
in conjunction of this claim, i think young students today shouldn't be deprived of opportunities of these benefits in the name of 'traditional' education. it is quite understandable that this new technology can be intimidating and overwhelming to some traditonalists, but i don't think it's right to treat it the same way as they treat drugs, violence, and sex. it is not only backward but also harmful not to teach students this new technology, because we cannot afford to mislead the 'maturing' digital natives who actually need to develop critical and directional tools in the sea of technology.
reading Curtis Fox's article on podcasting gave me a good understanding of its origin and use, and more importantly, it reminded me of McLuhan's thoughts on the power of media in changing 'contents', or 'thoughts' of the user.
the traditional media outlets, televisions and radios, did not provide room for less mainstream and minority (not in the ethnic context) culture, and the emergence of web 2.0 brought out a second age of 'renaissance', in which people stop being mere recipients of what technology has to offer, but started interacting and connecting with other people on the web, thus creating new contents.
blogs ans podcasts are almost identical in nature, but the only difference is blogs reach out to people by text (writing), while podcasts do the same job by audio and video.
the concept and real-life application of the web 2.0 technology is, indeed, 'democratic'. it's 'technology', information' by the people, of the people, and for the people. no where in the history of human being, people have enjoyed more democracy and autonomy than now.
in conjunction of this claim, i think young students today shouldn't be deprived of opportunities of these benefits in the name of 'traditional' education. it is quite understandable that this new technology can be intimidating and overwhelming to some traditonalists, but i don't think it's right to treat it the same way as they treat drugs, violence, and sex. it is not only backward but also harmful not to teach students this new technology, because we cannot afford to mislead the 'maturing' digital natives who actually need to develop critical and directional tools in the sea of technology.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
the internet and our intelligence
reading Nicholas Carr's article on the internet and google's business just reminded me of the two different arguments of mr.Postman and mr.McLuhan about the nature and function of media. yeah, it's all about media, whether it's nostalgia to print culture, adoration of electric medium, or ever-changing almighty internet.
i remember when the internet was first introduced to the general public and started spreading on an explosive & global scale. i was quite puzzled and also scared of the new 'machine', and did not know at all how it was going to evolve or whether it was going to stay or short lie.
the way the internet changed how people access and retrieve information is mind-blowing. beyond that, the way it enables people to communicate and connect each other totally changed my old habits.
i remember, as a young girl, loving writing letters to friends a lot and going to post office, buying stamps and finally putting them in the post box. i don't know how to describe the feeling of joy... now that i think of it, it seems like a long time ago, and to my sadness it's an activity that pretty much disappeared from my life, not because i don't like it any more but because the way we communicate changed. people just don't do it anymore.
of course, i do contact people frequently, actually more frequently than before via email and social networking sites, but the nature and content is different from that of letter-writing. maybe what i feel missing is deep thinking or deep emotion involved in the process, which is also what i miss.. i agree with Nicholas Carr on this point, and doubt how google's project of the artificial intelligent will bring these back to us. or do we want some sort of artificial intelligence to do our emotional and thinking work at all? then what's left for our own intelligence?
personally i'm not a crazy user of the net. although i use them on a daily basis, my use has limited purposes: checking emails to keep up with people and projects, and doing some leisurely and academic research. the internet is one of the playgrounds that i enjoy along with others such as television, movies, outdoor activities, and daydreaming, etc.
still, the modest use of the internet brought about some changes in the way i function. i can't say it changed the way i think or read clearly to what extent, but it certainly made me less patient. at some point, i stopped appreciating the speed and amount of information i can access and retrieve, and started getting really impatient, insatiable and constantly wanting more convenience. in occasions where i encounter problems with computer and the internet, i find myself reacting like an impatient monster.
the 'super' convenience of the net technology indeed gives us indescribable benefit: more information/work done in less time, but the benefit comes with a price: we're required to do more work in less time. the internet saves us a lot of time, then we should be left with more time for rest or other leisurely activities? is it really the case? i doubt it. we are way busier than before and life is a lot more complex, and work certainly didn't get easier.
the advance of technology gives us more work under the condition of saved time. this new condition created by the internet transforms the way we use our intelligence ultimately, as the author worries.
it's been some 13 years since the internet became an indispensable part of our lives, and much has changed during the relatively short span of time, and maybe we need more time to gauge the impact of it on our intelligence or we as a whole will be interesting subjects for research for our future generations. in a way we're being experimented in the grand scheme of the internet technology and i guess that's what it is for now.
i remember when the internet was first introduced to the general public and started spreading on an explosive & global scale. i was quite puzzled and also scared of the new 'machine', and did not know at all how it was going to evolve or whether it was going to stay or short lie.
the way the internet changed how people access and retrieve information is mind-blowing. beyond that, the way it enables people to communicate and connect each other totally changed my old habits.
i remember, as a young girl, loving writing letters to friends a lot and going to post office, buying stamps and finally putting them in the post box. i don't know how to describe the feeling of joy... now that i think of it, it seems like a long time ago, and to my sadness it's an activity that pretty much disappeared from my life, not because i don't like it any more but because the way we communicate changed. people just don't do it anymore.
of course, i do contact people frequently, actually more frequently than before via email and social networking sites, but the nature and content is different from that of letter-writing. maybe what i feel missing is deep thinking or deep emotion involved in the process, which is also what i miss.. i agree with Nicholas Carr on this point, and doubt how google's project of the artificial intelligent will bring these back to us. or do we want some sort of artificial intelligence to do our emotional and thinking work at all? then what's left for our own intelligence?
personally i'm not a crazy user of the net. although i use them on a daily basis, my use has limited purposes: checking emails to keep up with people and projects, and doing some leisurely and academic research. the internet is one of the playgrounds that i enjoy along with others such as television, movies, outdoor activities, and daydreaming, etc.
still, the modest use of the internet brought about some changes in the way i function. i can't say it changed the way i think or read clearly to what extent, but it certainly made me less patient. at some point, i stopped appreciating the speed and amount of information i can access and retrieve, and started getting really impatient, insatiable and constantly wanting more convenience. in occasions where i encounter problems with computer and the internet, i find myself reacting like an impatient monster.
the 'super' convenience of the net technology indeed gives us indescribable benefit: more information/work done in less time, but the benefit comes with a price: we're required to do more work in less time. the internet saves us a lot of time, then we should be left with more time for rest or other leisurely activities? is it really the case? i doubt it. we are way busier than before and life is a lot more complex, and work certainly didn't get easier.
the advance of technology gives us more work under the condition of saved time. this new condition created by the internet transforms the way we use our intelligence ultimately, as the author worries.
it's been some 13 years since the internet became an indispensable part of our lives, and much has changed during the relatively short span of time, and maybe we need more time to gauge the impact of it on our intelligence or we as a whole will be interesting subjects for research for our future generations. in a way we're being experimented in the grand scheme of the internet technology and i guess that's what it is for now.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
wikipedia: good or evil
i often used wikipedia for research assignments at my former work . i was required to gather information on various topics that i was not very familiar with. with not much previous information or knowledge, i start searching and browsing in the internet, feeling like i was swimming in the sea of information. one day i came across wikipedia. the depth and scope of information it carried on my query just fascinated me and literally saved me from panic attack of information searching under pressure.
wow! it was so detailed and it had almost every information that i needed including pros and cons, besides that, all the hyperlinks that took me to deeper and deeper into the subject area were so helpful and time-saving.
it was just 'too' good! and then i started questioning 'what is this?' and soon after, i grasped what it is and how it's made... yes, it was just 'too' good. we all know when something or someone is 'too' good, we need to step back and question....
i applaud Wales' mission to "distribute a free encyclopedia to every single person on the planet in their own language', and it's incredible to see that one man's humble mission turned into such a powerful reality. Wales did succeed in fulfilling his mission, but wikipedia suffers an unsolved agenda: its lack of reliability. the fact that anybody can access and edit contents sounds truly democratic but also 'anarchistic'.
contributors with good will work on checks and balance, but there are and will be 'bad guys' who vandalize, as there are bad guys everywhere. without having proper mechanism for controlling those bad guys and susceptibility to misinformation, who knows what the encyclopedia wikipedia will turn into in the future?
after learning what wikipedia provides and what it doesn't, do i still use it for research? hmm, yes, to be honest. i still refer to wikipedia for a variety of queries because i can't resist its convenience, but i'm aware of its potential risks, and never use it for academic research unless my topic is too current in nature and availability of information.
overall, i think wikipedia is no doubt a power house of information, where you can begin with....but definitely not where you want to end up with.
wow! it was so detailed and it had almost every information that i needed including pros and cons, besides that, all the hyperlinks that took me to deeper and deeper into the subject area were so helpful and time-saving.
it was just 'too' good! and then i started questioning 'what is this?' and soon after, i grasped what it is and how it's made... yes, it was just 'too' good. we all know when something or someone is 'too' good, we need to step back and question....
i applaud Wales' mission to "distribute a free encyclopedia to every single person on the planet in their own language', and it's incredible to see that one man's humble mission turned into such a powerful reality. Wales did succeed in fulfilling his mission, but wikipedia suffers an unsolved agenda: its lack of reliability. the fact that anybody can access and edit contents sounds truly democratic but also 'anarchistic'.
contributors with good will work on checks and balance, but there are and will be 'bad guys' who vandalize, as there are bad guys everywhere. without having proper mechanism for controlling those bad guys and susceptibility to misinformation, who knows what the encyclopedia wikipedia will turn into in the future?
after learning what wikipedia provides and what it doesn't, do i still use it for research? hmm, yes, to be honest. i still refer to wikipedia for a variety of queries because i can't resist its convenience, but i'm aware of its potential risks, and never use it for academic research unless my topic is too current in nature and availability of information.
overall, i think wikipedia is no doubt a power house of information, where you can begin with....but definitely not where you want to end up with.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
use of technology in education (make-up)
the two articles on the use of technology in education (A Teacher's Use of Digital Video with Urban Middle School Students & The City We Want) were very interesting and also inspiring in that they showed the potential of technology on students' learning and self-representation.
most of all, the technology, especially that of digital video used in those schools did enable students to be 'creators' or 'main force' in the learning process.
by playing more participatory and creative role in what they learn, students in those places were no longer 'the oppressed'. And there was no place for 'oppressors'.
for me, the visual aspect of the technology used seems quite striking as i think it can be an invaluable supplement to our predominantly text-based educational environment (to mr. Postman's sadness).
we, human being, learn and experience concepts and things by a variety of methods, like reading, listening, seeing, touching, etc. i think giving students diverse learning tools is especially important as they are in a 'developmental' and 'progressing' stage as learners.
as the brazilian project showed, students showed real strong reaction to the tangible process and outcome of their activities. i wonder what if they were just asked to read a book and write an essay about the city that they want... would they have had the same degree of enthusiam and result?
the story of how digital media helped urban middle school students represent themselves and be themselves was also very impressive as well. By using the digital tool, urban minority students were able to express themselves better, and it helped them establish thier identity better.
after reading these articles, I got quite optimistic about what technology can do in education, and most importantly how it can solve the problem of 'digital divide' to some extent. 'digital divide' is not a simple issue and it cannot be fixed over night, or it can never be fixed, as i think it is resulted from more fundamental socioeconomic condition.
in this sense, schools can play a leading role in narrowing the gap at least by providing students opportunity to experience and experiment it.
i know implementation of it in the local school level won't be a simple matter, either, as it involves resources and training of teachers and staff. but i think positive research findings on this topic, technological development, lowering costs of hardwares and software, and better teacher training can bear significant fruits, if designed and put together under a common belief and goal.
most of all, the technology, especially that of digital video used in those schools did enable students to be 'creators' or 'main force' in the learning process.
by playing more participatory and creative role in what they learn, students in those places were no longer 'the oppressed'. And there was no place for 'oppressors'.
for me, the visual aspect of the technology used seems quite striking as i think it can be an invaluable supplement to our predominantly text-based educational environment (to mr. Postman's sadness).
we, human being, learn and experience concepts and things by a variety of methods, like reading, listening, seeing, touching, etc. i think giving students diverse learning tools is especially important as they are in a 'developmental' and 'progressing' stage as learners.
as the brazilian project showed, students showed real strong reaction to the tangible process and outcome of their activities. i wonder what if they were just asked to read a book and write an essay about the city that they want... would they have had the same degree of enthusiam and result?
the story of how digital media helped urban middle school students represent themselves and be themselves was also very impressive as well. By using the digital tool, urban minority students were able to express themselves better, and it helped them establish thier identity better.
after reading these articles, I got quite optimistic about what technology can do in education, and most importantly how it can solve the problem of 'digital divide' to some extent. 'digital divide' is not a simple issue and it cannot be fixed over night, or it can never be fixed, as i think it is resulted from more fundamental socioeconomic condition.
in this sense, schools can play a leading role in narrowing the gap at least by providing students opportunity to experience and experiment it.
i know implementation of it in the local school level won't be a simple matter, either, as it involves resources and training of teachers and staff. but i think positive research findings on this topic, technological development, lowering costs of hardwares and software, and better teacher training can bear significant fruits, if designed and put together under a common belief and goal.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Flickr Project
me, jessica & stephanie worked together on the flickr project and successfully created a new york city (dis)connection story. my part of contribution was to go visit libraries in new york city and capture every possible thing happening there. as we all know, libraries aren't just for books.
with that aim in mind, i went to nypl main building and mid-manhattan library. well, with that particular aim in mind, everything looked meaningful. libraries are certainly beyond just books. libraries mean books, dvds, database, events, classes, movies, place to rest, place to study, place to solve problems, place to escape to, place to seek silence, place to take photos, simply a good place to visit for everyone.
the following is a link to our group's project.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35856484@N06/sets/72157614956904409/
speaking of flickr, this was my first exposure. thank you, professor! for getting me out of digital illiteracy day by day. little by little i got the taste of 'tagging', and the power of medium that enables people to catalog/classify/organize thier own (visual) information and share them with other people. there is no intimidating aacr, marc21, dublin core, etc involved. instead, each individual uses their own discretion and make information organization and retrieval as easy and practical as possible. it surely reflects the concept of collective intelligence and democratization of information. flickr, indeed, is one of the pioneering examples, but not the only one. we heard of libraything.com, where one can classify their own book for her/his own convenience. all these movements or phenomena are truly revolutionary. rather than following sets of rules set by so-called establishement, people experiment and experience 'information' in every possible way.
it's democratic and entertaining!
it seem a bit too early to jump to a conclution on the full potential of tagging, and if i'm not wrong, it's only active in 'grass-root' level as of now. whether it'll stay there or move to a next level, something i can't predict for now, is hard to know.
with that aim in mind, i went to nypl main building and mid-manhattan library. well, with that particular aim in mind, everything looked meaningful. libraries are certainly beyond just books. libraries mean books, dvds, database, events, classes, movies, place to rest, place to study, place to solve problems, place to escape to, place to seek silence, place to take photos, simply a good place to visit for everyone.
the following is a link to our group's project.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35856484@N06/sets/72157614956904409/
speaking of flickr, this was my first exposure. thank you, professor! for getting me out of digital illiteracy day by day. little by little i got the taste of 'tagging', and the power of medium that enables people to catalog/classify/organize thier own (visual) information and share them with other people. there is no intimidating aacr, marc21, dublin core, etc involved. instead, each individual uses their own discretion and make information organization and retrieval as easy and practical as possible. it surely reflects the concept of collective intelligence and democratization of information. flickr, indeed, is one of the pioneering examples, but not the only one. we heard of libraything.com, where one can classify their own book for her/his own convenience. all these movements or phenomena are truly revolutionary. rather than following sets of rules set by so-called establishement, people experiment and experience 'information' in every possible way.
it's democratic and entertaining!
it seem a bit too early to jump to a conclution on the full potential of tagging, and if i'm not wrong, it's only active in 'grass-root' level as of now. whether it'll stay there or move to a next level, something i can't predict for now, is hard to know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
