It was great to get a comment from the elusive MadV after my recent post about his new video – “We’re All in This Together”. I asked if he’d do an interview and he has. He talks about the inspiration behind “The Message”, what motivates his collaborative work, and why he re-staged his 2006 YouTube hit in HD. Here it  is.

tungkol sa bidyo na aking napanuod totoo ang mga sinasabi ni mr. michael wesch,na tayong mga tao ang lumikha sa teknolohiya,pansi natin ang maraming pagbabago sa ating teknolohiya,bawat buwan ata marami ang pagbabago sa ating teknolohiya,katulad ng mga cellphone,telebisyon at kung ano-ano pa,marami ang pakinabang at magagamit natin ito para din naman sa ikakaginhawa ng ating buhay ang kompyuter,at marami din ang pagbabago at sa susunod pa na darating na panahon,hindi pa natin alam kung ano-ano pa ang pagbabago sa teknolohiya,suwerte pa nga natin dahil inabutan pa natin ang mga teknolohiya na ito.mga tao nga naman ay sadyang matatalino,hanga din ako eh…salamat sa diyos na may gawa ng langit at lupa at sa mga tao na binigyan niya ng talino at lakas…ARRIBA!!!

sa mundong ginawa ng diyos at sa maraming nagdaan na taon hanggang sa kasalukuyan ay marami ang nagbabago sa ating teknolohiya katulad ng mga celphone ibat-ibang klase ang lumalabas,dati ba may cellphone?di ba wala naman?liham lang ang ating komunikasyon nung araw,dahil mas matalino ang tao kesa sa mga kompyuter…dahil tayong mga tao ang naglikha sa kompyuter,saludo ako sa bidyo na ginawa ni michael wesch,dahil nung nakita ko ang bidyo tama ang mga sinasabi niya na atin ang ang mundo kaya natin gawin ang lahat lahat…sa ngayon ito ang nararanasan natin sa mundo maganda ang teknolohiya.pero sa darating na panahon ano pa???eh di marami na naman ang nadiskubre ang mga tao dahil mauutak tayo…at marami pa ang pagbabago sa mundo…dati may napanuod ako na video na meron na kotse na lumilipad…hindi kapanipaniwala pero totoo …mautak tayo mga tol!!!kaya natin to!!!para sa ikakaganda pa ng ating teknolohiya…magsikap pa tayo…dahil para din sa ating mga tao to…MABUHAY PA ANG TEKNOLOHIYA!!!ARRIBA!!!

Este vídeo explica qué es la Web 2.0 de una forma muy visual. Es obra de Michael Wesch, profesor de antropología cultural de la Kansas State University. La primera versión data de febrero de 2007, pero desde entonces se han hecho varias actualizaciones. La que ilustra este post es la última que he encontrado. Vale la pena invertir 4 minutos y medio en verlo.

My Media 21 project is inspired by the work of Wendy Drexler and Dr. Michael Wesch; this tweet from last week’s NEIT Conference reflects an essential question driving my Media 21 project:

As my Media 21 students have shared some new research reflections in the last week, I have felt both overjoyed and frustrated by responses.  How is it that some students have seen the last 15 weeks as the most challenging and rewarding learning experience of their lives that they hope will continue second semester while others have viewed the learning experiences more as a chore and something to simply “get done”?  Why do some students embrace reflection and original thinking while others chafe in the face of learning experiences that do not reflect the knowledge banking nature of today’s test driven educational climate?

In reflecting and returning to a reality that I faced when I adopted a literacy as inquiry stance as a classroom teacher in 2002, I am revisiting my studies of literacy as inquiry with Dr. Bob Fecho at the University of Georgia.  Just as some students resisted a learning environment I created that valued questions, not black and white answers, I see this resistance in some of my Media 21 students who seem to prefer learning activities that value regurgitation of facts rather than questioning or critical, creative thinking.  This question came up during Dr. Wesch’s keynote at NEIT:

In my corner of the world, my answer is “More than you might think.”  While some students are liberated by choice and free thought, others feel threatened by a learning environment that is inquiry driven and participatory in nature.    I can’t help but think that this phenomenon is easier to comprehend when you consider today’s students are among the first generation to grow up in a test driven school culture that is contradictory to inquiry.

What is inquiry? Here are qualities identified by classmate Sharon Murphy in Fall of 2002:

• Dis-ease. There are many questions raised without answers.

• Establishes more than the teacher as validator of knowledge/work.

• Feeling of responsibility to yourself and the class.

• Recognizes classroom as a complicated, non-laboratory place filled with complex, caring human beings.

• Fights culture of school that wants THE right answer.

• Doesn’t hide what is occurring in class and makes class part of determining what is occurring.

• Patience- doesn’t give up too quickly and realizes community/learning/inquiry doesn’t happen overnight.

Does this sound like the learning environment many school librarians crave yet find themselves hungering for it in the current educational landscape?

In revisiting my initial reading of Pedagogy of the Oppressed of 2002, Paulo Freire says the oppressed are often “hosts” of the oppressor (48) because they are so immersed in the culture of oppression.   Does this description fit today’s student who must buy into the testing culture so privileged (whether by choice or force) by public schools?  Does it also apply to many classroom teachers whose careers are judged by test scores and perhaps even our profession as school librarians as we are called upon to tie our programs to student achievement in order to “survive”?  How does the assimilation of the discourse of testing impact how students transactions with information and how they construct knowledge?

The current test driven culture values knowledge banking and correct answers; standardized curriculum and conformity to ways of knowing and learning are the hallmarks of contemporary American education.  In many schools, students and teachers feel pressured to “cover” knowledge precisely and efficiently.  Contrast these values to those Freire asserts:

“For apart from inquiry, apart from the praxis, individuals cannot be truly human. Knowledge emerges only through invention and reinvention, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other”(72).

So what does this all mean?  Right now, some key ideas are resonating with me:

• While my M.Ed. and Ed.S. studies focused on literacy as inquiry, I’m now thinking about information literacy and transliteracy through an inquiry lens.
• I’m wondering how do school libraries and librarians act as sponsors of these kinds of literacy in the spirit of Deborah Brandt’s work, Literacy in American Lives?
• I’m thinking about danah boyd’s concept and thoughts on power, information brokers, and information ecosystems as well as how inquiry plays out through these ideas.
• What are the implications of student resistance to inquiry driven learning environments and an inquiry stance on information literacy and fluency?

My big question:  how can inquiry driven learning and an inquiry stance on information literacy positively disrupt students who are entrenched and oppressed by the testing culture?  How can participatory librarianship support inquiry and students who find conversations about learning troublesome rather than empowering?   How do we address their “dis-ease” they feel as they are pushed out of their comfort zone?  How can school librarians and libraries be more effective sponsors of information literacy and transliteracy?

Nov 5th saw the  release of the latest video from MadV – the anonymous producer of the original “collab” hit.  Back in 2006 he was already a star on YouTube –  popular for illusions, which he performed in a Guy Fawkes mask. Then he posted a brief video – showing the words “One World”, written on his hand – and offered “an invitation, to make a stand, to make a statement, to make a difference. Join in. Be part of something. Post your response now.” He received over 2,000 replies – the highest number on YouTube to date. The piece he created from those responses is The Message – a four minute montage of webcam recordings of mostly teens and twenty-somethings, showing their own messages, written on their hands, accompanied by a track by Mugwai. “Respect, Compassion, Integrity, Honor, Altruism, Union…” the messages read. It’s an outpouring of yearning for positive values which culminates in ideas around human connectedness – “Together as one, United as One, We’re all in this Together… One World”.

“The Message” became a major YouTube hit – promoted on the homepage and nominated as “Most Creative Video of 2006″. It’s been much analysed and discussed. There are commentaries about the messages, and intense debates about whether there are contradictions between the statements. “The Message” has also been seen as a breakthrough work of participatory media. In “Wired” magazine Clive Thompson described it as a “curious mongrel form…a new language of video.” In his lucid “Anthropological Introduction to You Tube” Michael Wesch talks about MadV’s piece in the context of “cultural inversion”, a helpful framework for thinking about YouTube content. In everyday life, in our atomised, consumer society, we express individualism, independence, commercialism. We “crave connection, but see that connection as restraint”. YouTube, Wesch argues, offers the possibility of connection without restraint, and a space in which to express treasured alternative values of community, relationships, authenticity. Wesch’s commentary – which I wrote about back in the Summer – makes sense of “The Message”.

MadV’s latest video We’re all in this together returns to “The Message” – in high definition video. The call to action evokes the previous video, using the “One World” slogan again, adding, “This year, say it clearer”. The montage MadV has created is very close to the 2006 piece – though the high definition quality makes the young faces even more vivid, disarming. There’s an environmental theme, which though present before, is foregrounded this time.  The title, “We’re all in this together” – a quote from the 2006 contributions – underlines our inter-dependence. The video builds towards a final sequence that reads,” Hope, For our Future, You can change the world.” There’s a hand with a recycling symbol, a young man holding a globe, spinning slowly, close to the camera, and a last ambiguous message -” Wish You were Here.”

The piece is powerful, but something troubles me about this remake. The format begins to feel a bit like a party trick. MadV puts out a call, and his devoted community – there are 42,00 subscribers to his channel at this point – do as asked. They know what’s required now, and they’re playful with it – but still… MTV called “The Message” a ‘cultural shift in media’, but there’s a familiar dynamic at the heart of this – between star and fanbase. The content may be crowdsourced, but MadV calls the shots.

… but blatantly ripped from Glyn’s lecture:

In the video “An Anthropological look at Youtube,” Michael Wesch talks about people’s first “vlogs” (video blogs.) He mentioned looking up and watching a few to see how people introduced theirself not knowing who was going to look at their vlog. I looked up a view and here are the first words:

“Hi guys, so this is my first video blog.”
“This is… my first.. VIDEO BLOG! Get excited people because it’s going to be the most amazing thing of your life.. I’m Katie.”
“Hey guys, um, it’s me, Emily. Um…”
“Hey guys, what’s up? Um, I’ve never done one of these before, so.. this should be interesting. Anyway, I’m Lauren and I’m 18 and I’m vintageaerith on youtube.”
“Hi everybody. My name’s Tara and this is my first video blog.. um… I am 16 years old and I am from Manhattan, New York.”
“Helllllo – welcome to my first blog video. Number one, numero uno. Um, I don’t really know what to say other than you’re awesome cause you’re watching my video.”
“Hello youtube. So, this is my first video blog… and I’m gonna talk about stuff.. like…. my life and… the world… and… just time.”
“Hi my name is Heather and I’m 17 years old and I thought I’d start making a video blog about me having anorexia.”
“Hey! my name is Katie and this is my very first blog.”
“Hi youtuber’s and googlers and bloggers and stalkers and everybody else. Um, my name is Christina and I like boys who play guitar.”
“Hi! It’s Kari and this is my first video blog.”
“Hi, I’m Lou and this is my first video.”
“Hi, first blog, what can I talk about?”

Ok – that’s enough! I’d have absolutely no idea what I’d say if I were to make a “first video blog.” Although, I would try to stay away from “um.” However, I do find video blogging pretty awesome and definitely a form of writing. Just as someone would write in their journal, people can now “write aloud.” How sweet is that? I definitely can speak faster than I can type. How about you? What would you say on your first video blog?

You may have heard of Michael Wesch, professor of anthropology and digital ethnographer, known for his outstanding videos about the impact of information and communications technology on global society (particularly university learning). After listening to his keynote at the 2009 Association of Technologist Conference, I went to Wikipedia to find out more, and there I learned that in 2008 he had won something called The John Culkin Award for Outstanding Praxis in the Field of Media Ecology from the Media Ecology Association. So, because Michael Wesch’s videos are important and he has been called ‘the explainer’, I went to see who had won the award before and since.

I came across the best-articulated piece of technophobia I’ve encountered in a long while (and I don’t use technophobia in a rhetorical pejorative sense but a straight descriptive one). It references Postman, Debord, Ellul and Mumford (you can see most of their pictures along the top of the Media Ecology Association site), and I understand technophobia a lot better now. Here it is.

Michael Wesch is more interested in rethinking things.

Two such different winning presentations for an award overseen by an organisation which included Marshall McLuhan. Is the medium the message?

Photos of “Plinthers” taking part in One & Other by Garry Knight (Flckr)

“It is a spyhole on the nation’s secret mind, incidental fragments of humanity that weave together into a rich and  glowing mosaic…What puzzles me is why this great swathe of humanity – some weird, some dull, ordinary or  mundane, some with strange views, others kindly – all leave us with a feeling of warmth and empathy.” It wasn’t  written as a description of Antony Gormley’s mega collaborative public art project One & Other - which finished  yesterday, when the last of the 2,400 volunteers, Emma Burns, came down from the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square  after her Hillsborough Memorial piece – but it could have been.

The quote is in fact from a ten year old Radio Times review by Polly Toynbee of  Video Nation, which I was co-producing at  the time (having set the project up – with Chris Mohr – back in 1993.) It came back to me as I was pondering why One & Other and Video Nation (during its BBC 2 heyday) feel like they have something in common – despite their fundamental differences.

One & Other: Art, 2,000 participants, Random selection, Brief Participation, Public Space, Spectacle, Live, 24/7, Digital.

Video Nation: Documentary, 50 participants (at any time), Selection, Long-term participation, Domestic Space, Speech, Recorded, Broadcast schedule, Analogue.

One & Other has been much discussed – is it art? is it good art? etc etc. It’s certainly a stand-out piece that’s put art right at the heart of UK culture for the 100 days it’s been running – this blog offers a photographic record. I’ve been enthralled by the parade of inventive, thoughtful, stoical, earnest, subtle, funny, brave, poetic, and yes – sometimes dull, sometimes baffling – performances offered by the ‘plinthers’. ( And how interesting to see how pervasive ideas from performance and conceptual art have become. ) I’ve been entertained by it and moved by it, at least by the impression I’ve gained from seeing it when I went to Trafalgar Square in August, when I’ve visited the website, but mainly through watching the weekly Sky Arts show. The images of spectators in the square and the traffic to the website suggests that lots of people have felt the same.

In his farewell blog entry Gormley describes One & Other as a ‘portrait of now’.  The idea of creating a collective self-portrait was also behind Video Nation, and later behind the Capture Wales digital storytelling project that I was involved in. But more importantly what all these projects have in common is the fact that, within clearly defined parameters, the participants have been in control of how they represent themselves. The ‘plinthers’ were invited to use their hour on the plinth/stage as they wanted,  to create ‘an image of themselves’. We invited Video Nation contributors to show us their world – ‘through their own eyes and in their own words’. Polly Toynbee went on, “This is not about observing people as jokes or “characters”, turning them into figures of fun as docu-soaps do. It’s about letting the camera climb inside people’s skin to see the world through their eyes.” As the Video Nation project evolved I began to see the recordings less as documents and more as performances of certain truths that the participants wanted to share about their lives. Despite the audience gaze, they felt like the subjects, not the objects, of the exercise.

Reflecting on One & Other at the project’s end Gormley suggests that the plinth “provided an open space of possibility for many to test their sense of self and how to communicate this to a wider world.”  That works as a description of participatory media too – as the “open space of possibility” that is self-representation. It seems to me that for the spectator it can be affirming simply to bear witness to that testing, undertaken with commitment, with sincerity. (Anthropologist Michael Wesch is doing really interesting work on this. Check out his commentary on Gary Brolsma – the original You Tube star.)

This blog post is my keynote address to IACSS09.

Source

If a new technology extends one or more of our senses outside us into the social world, then new ratios among all of our senses will occur in that particular culture.

When the sense ratios alter in any culture then what had appeared lucid before may suddenly become opaque, and what had been vague or opaque will become translucent.

Instead of tending towards a vast Alexandrian library the world has become a computer, an electronic brain … (Marshall McLuhan)

This process has accelerated since these insights were first published in McLuhan’s work. The Twitter example from Infoharmoni exemplifies this I believe. (“This is a dynamic network, showing what companies the 200 most prolific tweets were talking about. Both people and companies are nodes, and the edges change over the course of the day. Everytime a person tweets about a company, an edge is added connecting that person to the company. After 30 minutes, the edge decays. The companies are labeled, and the individuals are anonymized here”.)

I did not mention McLuhan’s global village ideas I made in a post recently but I have taken the fate of equus grevyi very seriously!

Males are highly territorial, claiming prime watering and grazing areas with piles of dung called middens. They generally live alone in their territories, except when females move through during mating season. Non-territorial males travel together in groups of two to six animals. This social system differs from that of other zebras, which typically form female harems that live in one male’s territory all year. During dry months, many Grevy’s zebras migrate to greener mountain pastures, but males on prime territories often remain there year-round.

Interestingly “each zebra has its own unique set of stripes, which are as distinctive as fingerprints”.

I would like to use the ecology of Grevy’s Zebra to discuss social networks stimulated by Dan Rubinstein’s 2007 paper and my experience of connectivism through my participation in CCK08 (and CCK09).

It is a discussion about digital ethnography too inspired by some of Michael Wesch’s insights.

To be continued …

I really enjoyed ALT-C last week and not just because I won an award. It was an excellent conference and I found it a very rewarding experince from both a delegate’s perspective and as a presenter.

It was really nice to meet up with a lot of different people, some I knew, some I knew only from the web, some I had never met and those that knew me though I didn’t know them.

There was some great presentations, workshops, keynotes and debates and I felt I learnt a lot and was given a lot to think about.

I had a reasonable journey up to Manchester (no connectivity on the train) and having arrived, caught a taxi to the venue. I was relieved to see that my Glossy Poster had safely arrived though for some unknown reason at that time my flyers for my workshops and that symposium had failed to arrive.

I bumped into a few people I knew and then someone came up to me and said hello. I recognised him, but couldn’t name the face… I hate it when that happens, and after turning over their name badge (why do they always flip the wrong way at the wrong moments) I saw it was Richard Elliot from New Zealand. I am doing the keynote at ASCILITE 2009 conference so it was good to meet one of the organisers to chat and discuss the conference.

After the pre-conference buffet and chatting I headed up to the F-ALT event on post digital and managed to catch the last bit and added a little to the discussion.

These fringe events add a lot to the conference, they’re not competing with the conference, but adding a social, informal side to the conference that allows delegates to add a social learning element to the conference. It also allows delegates to discuss and present issues on stuff and technologies which at the time of the abstract submission deadline maybe wasn’t available or didn’t even exist.

Tuesday morning, saw a bright and early start with the conference kicking off proper at 9.00am. After the conference introductions we moved onto the conference keynote from Michael Wesch.

It took tens of thousands of years for writing to emerge after humans spoke their first words. It took thousands more before the printing press and a few hundred again before the telegraph. Today a new medium of communication emerges every time somebody creates a new web application. A Flickr here, a Twitter there, and a new way of relating to others emerges. New types of conversation, argumentation, and collaboration are realized. Using examples from anthropological fieldwork in Papua New Guinea, YouTube, classrooms, and “the future,” this presentation will demonstrate the profound yet often unnoticed ways in which media “mediate” our conversations, classrooms, and institutions. We will then apply these insights to an exploration of the implications for how we may need to rethink how we teach, what we teach, and who we think we are teaching.

Don’t get me wrong, I really enjoyed his presentation and presentational approach, however I do wonder and still wonder if all our learners are like his students? Are all our learners using Facebook and other Web 2.0 tools and services on a regular basis and importantly are they using them for learning?

I don’t see a Google Generation or Digital Natives in the learners I work with. Some are using Facebook and other tools, many are not. Those that are, not all are using these tools for learning.

See what you think from the recording.

I enjoyed the short papers on staff skills, some of the work that Alan Cann is doing at Leicester is very illuminating and interesting.

Then lunch and I won’t dwell on the conference catering, all I will say how much I enjoyed the coffee from the Museum Cafe across the road from the conference venue.

After sustenance we had the big debate, you know, the one about how the VLE is Dead! The debate was a lot of fun and it would appear that the delegates who attended enjoyed the debate. In a room with space for eighty, we had nearly a hundred and fifty people, many sitting and standing. We also had about two hundred people online following the live stream.

Photo source

The debate was based on the following proposition.

The future success of e-learning depends on appropriate selection of tools and services. This symposium will propose that the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) as an institutional tool is dead, no more, defunct, expired.

I know that most people realised that the debate (and especially the title) was provocative and that the aim was for a fun debate as well as looking at the issues. You are not going to be able to give serious academic consideration to the issues in an eighty minute debate.

I was pleased with the interest shown, not just at the conference, but also online on Twitter and on various blogs. Cloudworks has a list of the blogs that have discussed the issue. The “marketing” for the debate worked well (probably better than expected) with the trailer, the flyer and the numerous blog posts by me, Steve and many others…

As expected, I didn’t get to the next session, but did make Steve Wheeler’s Twitter session. A very popular session with lots of different people attending, some like me who are immersed in Twitter to people who had never used it.

After all that I missed the new ALT Members Reception, and as Gloucestershire College joined ALT this year I should have been attending. Ah well.

In the evening I went to a nice Tapas bar with Ron, Lilian and David.

More later…

What would Google do? blog author Jeff Jarvis writes that blogs and online news will soon be the main source of information for communities as the popularity of paper medium decreases.  Blog writers, those people who have a passion about something near and dear to them will become the voice of the community.

…Keep in mind that few, if any, of these bloggers and journalists have experience in business, advertising or sales.

The average person becomes the voice of the community. That can be a wonderful thing — that can also be terrifying if that person sees the glass half empty, the trash half full, the community sinking and the government stinking.

Another person can express pride, share triumphs, paint vibrant rainbows — the world needs to see both sides of the community and hear both writers.  Let them speak.  Let others respond.  A new world is here.

Jarvis writes, “Bottom line: after three years, we project that a blogger could hire editorial staff and advertising help – citizen salespeople who help support the citizen journalists – and net $148,000 out of $332,000 revenue.”

Maybe it could happen, or maybe like the ostrich egg farms from the ’80’s or the pyramid schemes that benefit the first 50 or 500 will gain some glory and money – but the blogger will have to have a reason to post and something to lure the reader back each day.  What can be so compelling that one person will follow a certain blogger?

Discussions about books, directions to free educational websites, topics that help me grow and offer data I can share with others …would entice me to return.  I’d watch creative videos that offer new ideas and I’d link to them and share with others.

Here’s a video I watched the whole way through.  When it finished, I questioned the state of learning in our universities. It made me wonder why students enter a classroom when the professor is so far behind the technology times.  The student is the teacher … and the teacher has so much to learn.

Watch and Share this video – A Vision of Students Today -

I’ve had the text of a script produced for some weeks (or months) about flat structures versus folder hierarchies. I’ve been wanting to put it up as a video, but haven’t had the time to produce it. Then, recently, a colleague Paul Wigfield told me about a text-to-video service he’d come across called Xtranormal. I was interested in the idea and wanted to give it a try. The text for my video came to hand and I pasted it in.

Xtranormal is very easy to use. You just drag the icons onto the script to change camera angle, place pauses, change expressions of your chosen character, or make the character move. I also decided on an English Male voice. A 3D movie is the end product.

The rendering can take a little while, and you need to register to save and publish your final video. That done and you’re supplied with a URL and embed code. Also, put in your YouTube account details to enable a one click upload to YouTube. (My first video is just processing in YouTube right now.)

The text of my script:

Flat structure vs folders

Tying in with my tagging video, I’ll now present the argument for adopting a flat structure approach as opposed to nested folders within uSpace. To illustrate this, I’ll be drawing on examples from Clay Shirkey and Michael Wesch.

Clay is an author of and speaker on social and economic effects of internet technologies.

Michael is a lecturer in anthropology investigating the impact of new media on culture and society. He lectures about YouTube and has made several influential videos available from there. He was announced US professor of the year 2008 last November, and has been nicknamed The Explainer.

When considering how to store and categorize information many people immediately think of using a structure of folders to compartmentalize the information. However, information specialists are concluding that there are better ways of doing this, and that we’re locked into old, outdated ways that are a poor fit for the electronic world of today. If we just consider for a few seconds some of the terminology we are using; we have “files” that we put into “folders” on our “desktop“, these hark back to how we dealt with paper.

Perhaps the simplest way of demonstrating this point is by considering your own bookmarks or favorites in a web browser. You bookmark stuff until your list gets too long, then you start categorizing into folders, but does this thing go in this folder or that folder, it can’t be both. Now you have a tidy set of folders. You start bookmarking new stuff and end up with a list of links that aren’t in folders again. Eventually you think I’ll put these in my folders. But what do those folders mean, and where does this thing go? Inevitably things get stuffed into inappropriate folders never to be found or used again. Information locked away. Then along came social bookmarking and freed us from this inappropriate system of saving our links; but that’s a different story for a different video.

So how we should categorize information on the web is by using a radical break from traditional approaches, rather than an extension of them.

People are beginning to realise that tagging offers a better way than pre-categorizing information into folders, as tagging metaphorically allows the information to be located in multiple places, which using folders does not. It’s only recently, in the passed 2 or 3 years, that this has started to become clear. This is the way Google Mail and Google Docs allow you to categorize things so they effectively ‘reside in multiple places’ at the same time.

Because of the explosion of available information on the web it’s more difficult to locate the information of interest to you, and for others to access the information you provide. You don’t want to restrict access to your information, you want to open access out. I’m still not sure enough people are currently getting this concept, even though Google Search has shown us that we don’t need categories or hierarchies; after all most research now starts with a search. So by predefining that information sits in one place, a pre-created folder, and using a categorization system that may not be appropriate for our potential information consumers we’re actually restricting access. Indeed, by leaving that information “out in the open”, giving it keywords by tagging it, and letting other people tag it, you allow more access to that information. This is what people who are handling lots of digital information are concluding. And this is the way that many web2.0 services are designed to operate. Also adopting this approach means that the consumer can group and categorize information in a way that makes sense to them, by using tag groups for example. They can pull out streams of information tagged in a specific way, so if they were interested in “supernovae” for example they could have anything with related tags delivered straight to them as soon as it is published.

So a flat structure with appropriate tagging is a more organic way of organizing information that presents the content consumer with more control to access and manage that information.

Some Diigo comments on a Chronicle piece on moving lectures out of the classroom. (Or, if you ask the piece’s author and some commenters, on PowerPoint as a source of boredom.)

I’d like to transform some of my own comments in a standalone blog entry, especially given the discussions Pamthropologist and I have been having through comments on her blog and mine. (And I just noticed Pamthropologist had written her own blogpost about this piece…) As I’m preparing for the Fall semester, I tend to think a lot about learning and teaching but I also get a bit less time.

Semi-disclaimer: John Bentley, instructional developer and programme coordinator at Concordia’s CTLS pointed me to this piece. John used to work for the Open University and the BBC. Together, John and I are currently developing a series of workshops on the use of online tools in learning and teaching. We’ve been discussing numerous dimensions of the connection between learning, teaching, and online tools. Our current focus is on creating communities of learners. One thing that I find especially neat about this collaboration is that our perspectives and spheres of expertise are quite different. Makes for interesting and thoughtful discussions.

‘Teach Naked’ Effort Strips Computers From Classrooms – Technology – The Chronicle of Higher Education

• Not to be too snarky but… I can’t help but feel this is typical journalism. Take a complex issue, get a diverse array of comments on it, boil it down to an overly simplistic point about some polarizing question (PPT: is it evil?). Tadaa! You got an article and you’ve discouraged critical thinking.Sorry. I’m bad. I really shouldn’t go there.But I guess I’m disappointed in myself. When I first watched the video interview, I was reacting fairly strongly against Bowen. After reading (very actively!) the whole piece, I now realize that Jeff Young is the one who set the whole thing up.The problem with this is that I should know better. Right?Well, ok, I wasn’t that adamantly opposed to Bowen. I didn’t shout at my computer screen or anything. But watching the video interview again, after reading the piece, I notice that I interpret as much more open a discussion than the setup made it sound like. In other words, I went from thinking that Bowen was imposing a radical view on members of his faculty to hearing Bowen proposing ideas about ways to cope with social changes surrounding university education.The statement about most on-campus lectures being bad is rather bold, but it’s nothing we haven’t heard and it’s a reasonable comment to make in such a context. The stronger statement against PPT is actually weakened by Bowen himself in two ways: he explicitly talks about using PPT online and he frames his comment in comparison with podcasts. It then sounds like his problem isn’t with PPT itself. It’s with the use of PPT in the classroom by comparison to both podcasts and PPTs online. He may be wrong about the relative merits of podcasts, online “presentations,” and classroom lectures using PPT. But his opinion is much less radical than what I originally thought.Still, there’s room for much broader discussion of what classroom lectures and PPT presentations imply in teaching. Young’s piece and several Diigo comments on it focus on the value of PPT either in the abstract or through appropriate use. But there’s a lot more ground to cover, including such apparently simple issues as the effort needed to create compelling “presentation content” or students’ (and future employers’) expectations about PPT presentations.

• Mr. Bowen wants to discourage professors from using PowerPoint, because they often lean on the slide-display program as a crutch rather using it as a creative tool.
  • damn you got there first! comment by dean groom
  • I think the more important point that’s being made by the article – is something that many of us in edtech world realised very quickly – that being able to teach well is a prerequisite to being able to effectively and creatively engage technology to help others learn…Powerpoint is probably the most obvious target because oif its ubiquity – but I suspect that there will also be a backlash when the masses start adopting other technologies… they’ll be misused just as effectively as PPT is.When we can assume that all university lecturers/tutors are effective teachers then the argument will be moot… until then we’ll continue to see death by powerpoint and powerpointlessness…I’m a drama teacher and love the idea of active rooms filled with proactive engaged learners… and if we have proactive engaged learners we can more effectively deploy technology in the mix…The world of teaching and learning is far from perfect and expectations seem to be geared towards a paradigm that says : “professors should tell me every last thing I need to know in order to get good grades and if students sat still and shut up long enough they might just learn something useful.”I even had one “lecturer” recently tell me “I’m a subject specialist, why do I need to know about pedagogy?” – sadly he was serious. comment by Kim FLINTOFF
  • On the subject specialist uninterested in pedagogy…It’s not an uncommon perspective, in university teaching. In fact, it might be more common among French-speakers, as most of those I’ve heard say something like this were French-speakers.I reacted quite negatively when I first heard some statement about university teachers not needing pedagogy. Don’t they care about learning?But… Isn’t there a point to be made about “non-pedagogy?”Not trying to be contrarian, here. Not playing devil’s advocate. Nor am I going on the kind of “anti-anti” PoMo mode which seems not to fit too well in English-speaking communities. I’m just thinking about teacher-less learning. And a relativist’s attitude to not judge before I know more. After all, can we safely assume that courses given by someone with such a reluctant attitude to learning pedagogy are inherently bad?There are even some people out there who take constructivism and constructionism to such an extreme that they’d say teachers aren’t needed. To an extent, the OLPC project has been going in that direction. “Students will teach themselves. We don’t need to train teachers or to engage with them in building this project.”There’s also a lot of discussion about learning outside of formal institutions. Including “on-the-job training” but also all sorts of learning strategies which don’t rely on the teacher/student (mentee, apprentice, pupil…) hierarchy. For instance, actual learning occurs in a large set of online activities. Enthusiastic people learn about things that passion them by reading about the subject, participating in online discussions, presenting their work for feedback, etc. Oftentimes, there is a hierarchy in terms of prestige, but it’s mostly negotiated through actions and not set in advance. More like “achieved status” than “ascribed status” (to use a convenient distinction from SOC101 courses). As this kind of training not infrequently leads to interesting careers, we’d be remiss to ignore the trend.Speaking of trends… It’s quite clear that many universities tend toward a more consumer-based approach. Students register and pay tuition to get “credentials” (good grades and impressive degrees). The notion that they might be there to do the actual learning is going by the wayside. In some professional contexts, people are quite explicit about how little they learnt in classrooms. It makes for difficult teaching contexts (especially at prestigious universities in the US), but it’s also something with which people learn to cope.My personal attitude is that “learning happens despite teachers.” I still think teachers make a difference, that we should learn about learners and learning, that pedagogy matters a whole lot. In fact, I’m passionate about pedagogy and I do what I can to improve my teaching.Yet the bottomline is: do people learn? If they do, does it matter what pedagogical training the teacher has? This isn’t a rhetorical question. comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• A study published in the April issue of British Educational Research Journal
  • http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a902053143 comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• PowerPoint was one of the dullest methods they saw.
  • Can somebody post links to especially good PowerPoint files? comment by Bill Chapman
  • I don’t think this is really about PPT, but more about blind use of technology. It’s not the software to blame but the user.Also if you’re looking for great PPT examples, check out slideshare.net comment by Dean Shareski
  • Looking forward to reading what their criteria are for boredom.And the exact justification they give for lectures needing not to be boring.Or if they discuss the broad implications of lecturing, as opposed to the many other teaching methods that we use.Now, to be honest, I do use PPT in class. In fact, my PPT slides are the very example of what many people would consider boring: text outlines transformed into bullet points. Usually black on white, without images.But, overall, students seem to find me engaging. In student evaluations, I do get the occasional comment about the course being boring, but that’s also about the book and the nature of what we discuss.I upload these PPT files to Slideshare before going to class. In seminars, I use the PPT file to outline some topics, themes, and questions brought up by students and I upload the updated file after class.The PPT files on Slideshare are embedded into Moodle and serve as “course notes,” in conjunction with the audio recordings from the class meetings. These slides may include material which wasn’t covered in class.During “lecture,” I often spend extend periods of time discussing things with the class as a whole, leaving a slide up as a reminder of the general topic. Going from a bullet point to an extended discussion has the benefit of providing context for the discussion. When I started teaching, several students were saying that I’m “disorganized.” I still get a few comments like that but they’re much less frequent. And I still go on tangents, based on interactions with the group.Once in a while, I refrain from using PPT altogether. Which can lead to interesting challenges, in part because of student expectations and the fact that the screen becomes an indicator that “teaching is going on.”Perhaps a more important point: I try to lecture as little as possible. My upper-level courses are rapidly transformed into seminars. Even in large classes, the last class meetings of the semester involve just a few minutes of lecturing.This may all sound like a justification for my teaching method. But it’s also a reaction to the frequent discussions about PPT as evil. I do hate PPT, but I still use it.If only Google Wave could be released soon, we could use it to replace PPT. Wikis and microblogging tools are good and well, but they’re not as efficient in terms of real-time collaboration on complex material. comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• seminars, practical sessions, and group discussions
• In other words, tech-free classrooms were the most engaging.
  • Does it follow so directly? It’s quite easy to integrate technology with “seminars, practical sessions, and group discussions.” comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• better than many older classroom technologies, like slate chalkboards or overhead transparencies
  • Which seems to support a form of technological determinism or, at least, a notion of a somewhat consistent improvement in the use of tools, if not in the tools themselves. comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• But technology has hardly revolutionized the classroom experience for most college students, despite millions of dollars in investment and early predictions that going digital would force professors to rethink their lectures and would herald a pedagogical renaissance.
  • If so, then it’s only because profs aren’t bringing social technologies into their classrooms. Does the author of this article understand what’s current in ed tech? comment by Shelly Blake-Plock
  • the problem here is that in higher education, student satisfaction drives a service mentality – and students WANT summised PPTs and the want PODCASTS. Spoooon feeeeeed me – for I am paying. comment by dean groom
  • A rather broad statement which might be difficult to support with evidence.If we look at “classroom experience” in different contexts, we do notice large differences. Not necessarily in a positive sense. Technology is an integral part of all sorts of changes happening in, around, and away from the classroom.It would be quite different if that sentence said: “But institutional programs based on the adoption of specific tools in the classroom have hardly revolutionized…” It’s still early to assess the effectiveness of these programs, especially if we think about lifelong learning and about ongoing social changes related to technology use. But the statement would make more sense if it were more directly tied to specific programs instead of being a blanket critique of “technology” (left undefined). comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• dream of shaking up college instruction
  • One of the most interesting parts of the interview with Bowen has to do with the notion that this isn’t, in fact, about following a dream. It’s about remaining relevant in a changing world. There’s a lot about Bowen’s perspective which sounds quite strange, to me. But the notion that universities should “wake up and smell the coffee” is something I wish were the object of more discussion in academic circles. comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• Here’s the kicker, though: The biggest resistance to Mr. Bowen’s ideas has come from students, some of whom have groused about taking a more active role during those 50-minute class periods.
  • Great points, here. Let’s wish more students were involved in this conversation. It’s not just “about” them.One thing we should probably not forget about student populations is that they’re diverse. Chances are, some students in Meadows are delighted by the discussion focus. Others may be puzzled. It’s likely an adaptation for most of them. And it doesn’t sound like they were ever consulted about those changes. comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• lecture model is pretty comfortable
  • And, though many of us are quick to criticize it, it’s difficult to avoid in the current systems of formal education in which we work. comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• cool gadgets
  • The easiest way to dismiss the social role of technology is to call tools “gadgets.” But are these tools really just gadgets? In fact, some tools which are put to good use really aren’t that cool or even new. Are we discussing them enough? Are we aware of how they fit in the grand scheme of things?An obvious example would be cellphones. Some administrators and teachers perceive them as a nuisance. Rather few people talk about educational opportunities with cellphones, even though they already are used by people in different parts of the World to empower themselves and to learn. Negroponte has explicltly dimissed the educational potential of cellphones but the World isn’t waiting for approval from designers. comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• seasoned performer,
  • There’s a larger point to be about performance in teaching. Including through a reference to Dick Bauman’s “Verbal Art as Performance” or other dimensions of Performance Theory.There’s also a more “mundane” point about a kind of conflict in universities between academic material and performance. In French-speaking universities, at least, it’s not uncommon to hear teachers talk about the necessity to be a “performer” as something of a distraction in teaching. Are teachers in front of the class to entertain students or is the classroom an environment in which to think and learn about difficult concepts? The consumer approach to universities, pushed in part by administrators who run universities like businesses, tends to emphasize the “entertainment paradigm,” hence the whole “boredom” issue.Having said all of this, Bowen’s own attitude goes beyond this simplistic “entertainment paradigm.” In fact, it sounds like he’s specifically not advocating for lectures to become a series of TEDtalks. Judging from the interview, it sounds like he might say that TEDtalk-style presentation should be put online and classroom-time should be devoted to analyzing those presentations.I do consider myself a performer, as I’ve been playing saxophone in a rather broad range of circumstances, from outdoor stages at festivals to concert halls. And my experience as a performer does influence the way I teach large classes. At the same time, it probably makes more salient the distinction between teaching and performing. comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• The goateed administrator sported a suit jacket over a dark T-shirt
  • Though I’d be the first one to say that context is key, I fail to see what Bowen’s clothes contribute to the discussion. comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• philosophical argument about the best way to engage students, he grounded it
  • A novel way to bring in grounded theory. comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• information delivery common in today’s classroom lectures should be recorded and delivered to students as podcasts or online videos before class sessions
  • Fully agreed. Especially if we throw other things in the mix such as journal articles and collaboratively-created learning material. comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• short online multiple-choice tests.
  • I don’t think he’s using the mc tests with an essessment focus rather an engagement focus – noit necessarily the most sophisticated but done playfully and creatively it can be a good first step to getting reluctatnt students to engage in first instance… comment by Kim FLINTOFF
  • I would also “defend” the use of MCTs in this context. Especially if the stakes are relatively low, the questions are well-crafted, and students do end up engaging.Like PPT, MCTs have some advantages, including because of student expectations.But, of course, it’s rather funny to hear Bowen talk about shaking things up and find out that he uses such tools. Still, the fact that these tests are online (and, one would think, taken outside of class time) goes well with Bowen’s main point about class time vs. tech-enabled work outside of class. comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• Introduce issues of debate within the discipline and get the students to weigh in based on the knowledge they have from those lecture podcasts, Mr. Bowen says.
  • This wouldn’t be too difficult to do in social sciences and there are scenarios in which it would work wonderfully for lab sciences (if we think of “debate” as something similar to “discussion” sections in scientific articles).At the same time, some people do react negatively to such approaches based not on discipline but on “responsibilities of the university.” Some people even talk about responsibilities toward students’ parents! comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• But if the student believes they can contribute, they’re a whole lot more motivated to enter the discourse, and to enter the discipline.
  • Sounds a bit like some of the “higher” positions in William Perry’s scheme. comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• don’t be boring
  • Is boredom induced exclusively by the teacher? Can a student bored during a class meeting still be motivated and engaged in the material at another point? Should we apply the same principle to the readings we assign? Is there a way to efficiently assess the “boredom factor” of an academic article? How can we convince academic publishers that fighting boredom isn’t necessarily done through the addition of pretty pictures? comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• you need a Ph.D. to figure it out
  • While I agree that these panels are difficult to use and could afford a redesign, the joke about needing a PhD sounds a bit strange in context. comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• plug in their laptops
  • There’s something of a more general move toward getting people to use their own computers in the workplace. In fact, classroom computers are often so restricted as to be quite cumbersome to use in teaching. comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• allow students to work in groups more easily
  • Not a bad idea. A good number of classrooms are structured in a way that makes it very hard to get students to do group work. Of course, it’s possible to do group work in any setting, but it’s remarkable how some of these seemingly trivial matters as the type of desk used can be enough to discourage some teachers from using certain teaching strategies. comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• The classroom computers were old and needed an upgrade when Mr. Bowen arrived, so ditching them instead saved money.
  • Getting into the core of the issue. The reason it’s so important to think about “new ways” to do things isn’t necessarily that “old ways” weren’t conducive to learning. It’s because there are increased pressures on the system and some seem to perceive that cost-cutting and competition from online learning, making the issue so pressing. comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• eliminate one staff position for a technician
  • Sounds sad, especially since support staff is already undervalued. But, at the same time, it does sound like relatively rational cost-cutting. One would just wish that they replaced that position with, say, teaching support. comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• gave every professor a laptop
  • Again, this is a rather common practise outside of universities. Knowing how several colleagues think, this may also function as a way to “keep them happy.” comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• support so they could create their own podcasts and videos.
  • This is where the tech support position which was cut could be useful. Recording and podcasting aren’t difficult to set up or do. But it’s an area where support can mean more than answering questions about which button to press. In fact, podcasting projects are an ideal context for collaboration between tech, teach, and research. comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• lugging their laptops to class,
  • It can be an issue, especially if there wasn’t a choice in the type of laptop which could be used. comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• She’s made podcasts for her course on “Critical Scholarship in Communication” that feature interviews she recorded with experts in the field.
  • One cool thing about these podcasting projects is that people can build upon them, one semester after the other. Interviews with practitioners do help provide a multiplicity of voices. And, yes, getting students to produce their own content is often a good way to go, especially if the topic is somehow related to the activity. Getting students in applied communication to create material does sound appropriate. comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• they come in actually much more informed
  • Sounds effective. Especially since Bowen’s approach seems to be oriented toward pre-class preparation. comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• if they had been assigned a reading.
  • There’s a lot to be said about this. One reason this method may be more efficient than reading assignments could have to do with the particularities of written language, especially the very formal style of those texts we often assign as readings. Not that students shouldn’t read, of course! But there’s a case to be made for some readings being replaced by oral sources, especially those which have to do with people’s experience in a field. Reading primary source material, integrating some reference texts, and using oral material can all be part of an appropriate set of learning strategies. comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• created podcast lectures
  • An advantage of such “lecturecasts,” “profcasts,” and “slidecasts” is that they’re relatively easy to build and can be tightly structured. It’s not the end-all of learning material, but it’s a better substitute for classroom lectures than one might think.Still, there’s room for improvement in the technology itself. For instance, it’d be nice to have Revver-style comments in the timeline. comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• shows movie clips from his laptop
  • This one is slightly surprising because one would expect that these clips could easily be shown, online, ahead of class. It might have to do with the chilling effect of copyright regulation or Heffernan’s strategy of getting “fresh” feedback. There would have been good questions to ask Heffernan in preparation for this piece. comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• “Strangely enough, the people who are most resistant to this model are the students, who are used to being spoon-fed material that is going to be quote unquote on the test,” says Mr. Heffernan. “Students have been socialized to view the educational process as essentially passive. The only way we’re going to stop that is by radically refiguring the classroom in precisely the way José wants to do it.”
  • This interpretation sounds a tiny bit lopsided. After all, aren’t there students who were already quite active and engaged in the “old system” who have expressed some resistance to the “new system?” Sounds likely to me. But maybe my students are different.One fascinating thing is the level of agreement, among teachers, about the necessity to have students who aren’t passive. I certainly share this opinion but there are teachers in this World who actually do prefer students who are somewhat passive and… “obedient.” comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• The same sequence of events
  • That part is quite significant: Bowen was already a reformer and already had gone through the process. In this case, he sounds more like one of those CEOs who are hired to save a company from a difficult situation. He originally sounded more like someone who wanted to impose specific views about teaching. comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• ‘I paid for a college education and you’re not going to lecture?’”
  • A fairly common reaction, in certain contexts. A combination of the infamous “sense of entitlement,” the “customer-based approach to universities,” and student expectations about the way university teaching is supposed to go.One version I’ve had in student evaluations is that the student felt like s/he was hearing too much from other students instead of from me. It did pain me, because of the disconnect between what I was trying to do and that student’s notion of what university courses are supposed to bring her/him. comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• PowerPoint lecture
  • As a commenter to my blog was saying about lectures in general, some of us (myself included) have been building a straw man. We may have negative attitudes toward certain teaching strategies, including some lecturing techniques. But that shouldn’t prevent us from discussing a wide array of teaching and learning strategies.In this case, it’s remarkable that despite the radical nature of Bowen’s reform, we learn that there are teachers who record PPT-based presentations. It then sounds like the issue isn’t so much about using PPT as it is about what is done in the classroom as opposed to what is done during the rest of the week.Boring or not, PPT lectures, even some which aren’t directly meant to engage students, can still find their place in the “teaching toolbox.” A dogmatic anti-PPT stance (such as the one displayed by this journalist) is unlikely to foster conversations about tools and learning. Based on the fact that teachers are in fact doing PPT lectures to be used outside the classroom, one ends up seeing Bowen’s perspective as much more open than that of the Chronicle’s editorial staff. comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• Sandi Mann, the British researcher who led the recent study on student attitudes toward teaching, argues that boredom has serious implications in an educational setting.
  • Unsurprising perspective. Wonder if it had any impact on Mann’s research results. Makes the research sound more oriented than one might hope. comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• according to some studies
  • Wow. Just… Wow. comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• low-cost online alternatives to the traditional campus experience
  • This could have been the core issue discussed in an article about Bowen. Especially if we are to have a thoughtful conversation about the state of higher education in a changing context. Justification for high tuition fees, the latent functions of “college life,” the likely outcome of “competing with free,” the value of the complete learning experience as opposed to the value of information transmission… comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• give away videos
  • This is the “competing with free” part, to which record companies have been oblivious for so long but which makes OCW appear like quite a forward-looking proposition. comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• colleges must make sure their in-person teaching really is superior to those alternatives
  • It’s both a free-market argument, which goes so well with the customer-based approach to learning, and a plea to consider learning in a broader way than the mere transmission of information from authoritative source to passive mass. An old saw, for sure, but one which surprisingly hasn’t been heard by everyone. comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• add value
  • This might be appropriate language to convince trustees. At some institutions, this might be more important than getting students’ or teachers’ approval. comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• not being online
  • Although, they do have an online presence. The arguments used have more to do with blended learning than with exclusively face-to-face methods. comment by Alexandre Enkerli
• might need to stay a low-tech zone to survive.
  • Rubbish there is no reason to dumb down learning; and he obviously is not teaching 2500 students at one time. PPT is not the problem here, and this really is a collection of facile arguements that are not ironically substantiated. Lowering his overhead does not increase student learning – wheres the evidence? comment by dean groom
  • Come to think of it, it sounds like the argument was made more forcefully by Young than by Bowen himself. Bowen is certainly quite vocal but the “need… to survive” sounds a tad bit stronger than Bowen’s project.What’s funny is that the video made Bowen sound almost opinionated. The article makes Young sound like he has his own axe to grind comment by Alexandre Enkerli

argggghhhh it just deleted my entire post. ok here’s is the second try:

I wanted to share with you the speech Michael Wesch gave at the Personal Democracy Forum this year about how the machine is changing the way we interact and exist socially. One of his most interesting points is that we are all fighting the culture of anonymity that exists today – this feeling that we are each one in the masses of millions and that our urge to fight that feeling and become a person with a voice is significant. His theory is that the people with a voice are people on TV – those who can command the audiences of the world and who’s ideas are listened to. He also argues that our generation has turned into a group of highly confident and self focused people. Some would argue that this is a form of narcissism – a generation that has been made to believe that companies and media will fight over the right to serve us and grant us our many wishes. Other theories suggest that this narcissism, and the focus on our self, is a mechanism to find identity and recognition in a society that does not easily provide this for us.  In this individualistic quest, we are experiencing two phenomenons: 1. A sense of disengagement from civil participation since the focus has become about us and 2. A fragmentation of our interests and power into smaller special interest groups that continue to argue and fight with each other while making little substantive progress. All of these shifts lead us to the world we live in today – where our voices are lost in the masses, our focus is too focused and our identities are struggling to find a place of their own. To learn more about Michael’s perspective, check out the video here.

Ostiralean juerga egin nuen Oreretan. AEKren txoznan boletoak jarrita zeuzkaten salgai (zer ez duten asmatuko hauek gure diruarengandik bereizteko!), eta, zoriona, boleto sariduna egokitu zitzaidan: besarkada bat! Inguruko guztiak besarkada ematen hasi zitzaizkidanean Free Hugs kanpainarekin gogoratu nintzen.

Kanpaina horrek erakusten duen gizatasuna da hunkitzen nauena, eta YouTuben bidez hedatu izana ez da nolanahiko kontua, YouTube, Internet 2.o esaten zaion hori guztia bezala, UGC edo erabiltzaileak sortutako edukiak egiten duelako, batez ere. Hartzaile izatetik esatari izateko aukera eman digutenean, zer egin dugu? Gure barrua erakutsi! Eta heroi anonimoak nonahi sortzen hasi dira, benekotasunaren bila, nortasunaren bila. Inori ezer/inor inporta ez zitzaion garaitik, edozer gauza axolagarri egingo zaigun garaira igarotzen ari omen baikara, eta horretarako edozein bide erabiltzeko prest gaude. Ezin det bideoaren musika aipatu gabe utzi: Sick Puppies taldea da, eta kantaren izena All The Same.

Pazientzia badaukazu ondoko bideoa ikusteko, uste det Interneti buruz eta teknologiari buruz daukazun ikuspegia aldatu egingo zaizula (akaso gizakiari buruz ere bai). Berriki kontatzen nuen nola jende askorentzako Facebook-en eta antzekoetan txorakeriak besterik ez direla entzuten/ikusten: “ze inporta zait neri non egon zaren oporretan?” aurpegiratzen dizute. Bada bideo horretan ematen den ideia baten sendotasunak harritu nau, eta apartekoa iruditu zait: “gure gizatasuna beldurrik edo antsietaterik gabe bizitzeko askatasuna dugu orain”.

Teknologiak eta medioek ez gaituzte urruntzen edo isolatzen, beste modu batean harremantzeko aukera ematen digute, eta batzuetan urrun sentiarazten bagaituzte ere, harremana inoiz baino sakonagoa da askotan.

Eta zergatik da hau dena garrantzitsua?

• Pertsonen arteko harremana eta komunikazioa ez dagoelako gutxi batzuen esku
• Ez delako norabide bakarrekoa
• Ez delako masarentzako sortua, baizik eta komunitateak komunitatearentzako
• Ekintza kolektiboaren abiapuntua delako gizabanakotik hasita
• Gure burua ezagutzen dugulako besteen bidez
• Inoiz baino errazagoa delako komunitateak sortzea

Gogoratu Clay Shirky.

EGUNERAKETA: Mikel Arbeloak Facebooken egindako iruzkin bati esker, El caparazón-en ikusi det badagoela Michael Wesch-en hitzaldiaren powerpointa ere. Hemen uzten dizuet. Gainera, lerro hauek idazterakoan atzean gelditu zitzaidan alderdi bat ere gogorarazi dit Dreig-ek, lanabesei buruzkoa. Lanabesak ez dira neutroak, askotan esaten den bezala pistola bat edo telebista adibide jarrita. Lanabesek moldatu egiten dute gizakia bere horretan, erabileraren kontua gora-behera. Kuriosoa egin zait bi puntutan bat egin dugula, izenburuan eta hiriaren aipamena egiten dugunean gaia testuinguratzeko.

Dr Michael Wesch – an anthropologist at Kansas State University- is looking at You Tube as a participant observer. He became an unlikely internet star himself with his brilliant 2007 video explanation of Web 2.0 – The Machine is Using Us , which has notched up over 9.5m views.  He spoke this month at the Personal Democracy Forum in NYC, delivering an update of his Autumn Library of Congress lecture – An Anthropological Introduction to You Tube .   This 5o minute lecture/video is required viewing if you’re interested in participatory culture.  It’s a lucid analysis of You Tube as social media. Wesch shows how the personal videos posted on the site allow new forms of connectedness which reflect a desire for community, relationships, authenticity. And Wesch cites “The Message” – the first You Tube “Collab” hit - as being all about the expression of these values.  The lecture is also great fun - a fine tribute to the “seriously playful participatory culture” which Wesch is interested in.

No, not some crazy 30-minute department store makeover but use of new media as part of your personal identity as a lifelong, adult, higher education learner.  If you haven’t seen the latest Michael Wesch video on YouTube, it’s definitely worth the (nearly) 34 minutes.  The theme is  redefining ‘whatever’ and ends with the very 2009 version, “I care. Let’s do whatever it takes…by whatever means necessary.”  Isn’t that what engaging in education is all about?

Education is both leadership (mostly without the ‘Brute Force Tactic’) and followership but it is mostly about defining oneself and finding a place in society.   So-called ‘ New media ‘ is now fairly mainstream.  Whether it is Twitter or a blog or a website, personal democracy and social engagement is what defines us: it defines our personally managed education network, gives us feedback and lets us learn with minimal fear and maximum experiment.  Try it!

I greatly enjoyed watching Michael Wesch’s Towards a New Future of Whatever. The two of us share a YouTube project based on pedagogy and student interaction (as an Anthropologist his research focuses on self and community, while as a Media Studies scholar, mine tends to look more closely at media forms), and because of our differences, I’m always thrilled to see what he and his gang have been up to. Their recent research on the meanings of “whatever” from conclusive, to opting out, to narcissism is funny, compelling and scary. Well done.

I also find Wesch’s findings about the hyper self-conscious YouTube self, dealing with “context collapse” to be compelling: who will see me, and which me is that anyway? Am I alone or in public? Does anyone care and do I matter? However, I also take some (constructive) issue with Wesch’s more downright rosy findings. His thesis that YouTube (and social media) allow for the possibility of “connection without constraint” relies upon blinkers regarding the many limiting corporate structures built into these sites’ architecture: the inability to speak together in written phrases longer than 500 characters as only one example. Furthermore, while I agree that both of the heroes celebrated by Wesch (see below) are inspirational, his finding that such interventionist acts are “calls to action” really minimizes the meaning of both call and action.

Writing a word on your hand, alone in your room, even if linked into a video-collage of similarly moving hands by an activist editor, may be a powerful model of (briefly) mediated community, but is certainly not a structure from whence to build social change or even its inspirational call to action. The hand act is complete in itself, providing neither theory, community nor place for its attempted completion. At minimum, communities need to be called through shared goals and analyses, built over time while in and about an acknowledged place, and in collaboration. These calls need to be focused on activities that also build upon each other and this shared logic. The work of Witness is a more compelling model than this: