Design Theme: As one who has been involved with corporate intranets, I know that they are often conceived with lots of idealism but executed poorly. What I’m hopeful for in the future is that Web 2.0 will help take the shackles off and allow for the organization to really converse in a “normal” way, even if it’s done via the Web. My challenge to date has been the utilization of it. What’s really interesting here is that this was written in 1999 & 2001. Almost ten years later, we’re still wrestling with the same issues. Community, and to an extent, Identity Theme: As an employee of the university, I look at Stanford and MIT and see what they’re doing in terms of putting their “content” online, available to all. That, as you may expect, is putting a lot of fear into some around our hallowed halls. It reminds me of when I was a Product Manager for the online automotive classified department, and we were launching cars.com. Car dealers were very, very hesitant to become involved with this. Even if they were accepting of the concept, they definitely did not want to put their prices online. Many of them just wanted us to list “call for details” in the price field. We told them that this would not allow for an optimal consumer experience. It wasn’t until one of the big guys– a dealer with about 15 locations– decided to post its prices that the rest fell in line. I see the Stanford and MIT initiative as being very similar. It will be interesting to see how PSU, and others, follow suit. Will the “community” demand this? If so, how will the role-and the identity– of the University change? “If we give them all of our content, why will they pay us to get the knowledge?” Could you make the same argument that I can get all of the ingredients for Breast Of Chicken, bacon wrapped, banana nut bread stuffed, chestnut sauce with sweet potato puree from Wegman’s, but I’d rather pay to let Zola do it?
Wenger
First off, no offense to claims processors, but if that were my community, I think I may have trouble getting out of bed in the morning. Wenger’s descriptions of participation and reification were way too granular for me. Yes, I am engaging and participating in the world because I draw in oxygen that is part of the world around me. What I thought was a bit more interesting was Chapter Two’s discussion on Community, but I still found it a bit overwhelming and heavy to boil down. Yes, we are all part of any number of communities at any given time. I am part of a community of people who at this moment are typing on computers. I am also part of the community of husbands, of fathers, of fathers of sons, of sons of fathers, of brothers of sisters, of brothers of brothers, of Penn State alumni, of Penn State students, of Irish American, of Pennsylvanians, of fans of the Family Guy . . the list could go on and on. What I’m not getting from Wenger, and maybe it’s because it’s only Chapters 1 & 2, or maybe I’m missing it, or maybe I’m just cranky today, is “what about it”?
Dogs and cats, living together . . .
I pondered this for a while. Initially I thought that it was being alarmist– that traditional methods of learning were obsolete and we should simply all just collaborate to learn instead, and how disruptive that could potentially be to current instructional methods. Telling a 2nd grade teacher that learning is a “fundamentally social phenomenon” would like cause him or her to start sweating, as he or she considers 20 seven-year-olds loudly “collaborating” instead of sitting quietly doing “seat work”. However, as time goes on, and technology becomes more and more a part of the classroom, this may not be far from the truth. The twist is that the volume from the collaboration in the 2nd grade classroom may not come from little mouths as it will be from keystrokes. Web 2.0 will allow for more sharing, more partnering and more group, if virtual, problem-solving than ever. Consider the phenomenon of Wikpedia. I rack my brain trying to come up with the most bizarre of topics to type in there to see if anyone has written about it, and 99% of the time, it’s there. If this isn’t a great example of what Wenger is trying to illustrate, I guess I’m missing the point. This, of course, creates challenges of its own. When I was in high school, my friend and I “collaborated” on a computer science project and both failed the assignment for cheating. How can you test individuals fairly in a group-learning environment? How can you tell who did what? And who added what? And who simply “did the title page”, (which is always what I jokingly offered to do when I was part of a group writing project in grad school)? Will the lack of structure and order in this take on learning ultimately lead to this?
Clear as MUD
Though I have never gotten into any of the multi-user computer games, I can see how their appeal can take hold with its user base. It”s interesting how this kind of thing has played out over time and evolved into things like SIMS and Second Life. Even my sons’ current obsession with Webkinz can be seen as an extension of this as well. I remember when I was in business school in 1995 seeing a group of my classmates in the computer lab at all hours, playing what I now recognize from this article as some sort of MUD game. They were the early adopters then, I suppose. I just remember thinking “what the hell are they doing?” I could barely manage Excel at the time, let alone virtual worlds, so I did not pursue it. Turkle’s discussion of the concept of identity was very interesting. Her description of “Doug”, who plays 4 characters across three different games, was intriguing, but again, concerning in that he says “RL (real life) is just one more window and it’s not usually my best one”. Her description of the “Dr. Sherry” character who was alarmingly familiar to herself, but not created by her, was also chilling. After reflection, I realize that you don’t have to play a multi-user game to have an online identity. There are people that I work with who sit within a few feet of me that I almost exclusively communicate with via email because I find traditional conversations with them to be very aggravating. Face to face, I am certain that my attempts to mask my exasperation and impatience are weak. Via email, I can be friendly and courteous, and our work relationship can continue. Is that disingenuous of me to use technology this way? Maybe. But I see it as leveraging a tool to help me accomplish my work, just as I would using other software like Microsoft Office or SPSS. I would like to read the rest of this book. I think an updated edition of it would also be in order, as a lot has changed in ten years.
Party like it’s 1992
Howard Feingold’s article was like looking through old issues of a magazine. He was certainly way ahead of the curve in terms of his use (addiction to?) online communities. Some of his remarks (about plugging a phone line into a computer) made me smile. Remember those days? Interesting how at the time of the article there was little to no commercialization online going on at all, and he wonders about when and/or if that will happen. He also hints at the phenomenon of multi-tasking that is seen so often now: Teens with a laptop in front of them, 19 IM windows open, listening to an iPod, as ESPN a ticker running across the bottom of the screen in the background. He talks about the evolution of the online community, and does recognize the absence of the trappings of traditional human interactions, but he doesn’t seem to mind that he doesn’t actually get to see the faces of the WELL people. Even in his vodcasts, he seems content to have people be able to see his face, but not see theirs. Some could argue this is a very artificial existence. I wonder what would have happened if he had taken 30 minutes of those two hours a day he spent in the WELL and went outside to perhaps pull weeds or something. Perhaps he might have struck up a conversation with a neighbor and maybe learned the same kinds of things about him or her as he did about the WELL community members. At least then he might have someone who could bring in his mail when he goes on vacation or notice when his newspapers pile up outside and check on him. Seems like his online community may have grown at the expense of his real life one. I think it will be the challenge of educators using 2.0: that we remember what human interaction adds to the educational experience, and that we use the tools to enhance that interaction, not replace it completely. .
Um . . . what?
I have to admit the Pea article was very difficult for me to get through. Maybe I just haven’t been awash in academese enough, but I was wishing I had a machete in hand while I read it to try to understand what he was trying to say. I can see how his ideas of distributed intelligence can apply as I consider how 2.0 tools add value and enhance and facilitate the “accomplishment” of intelligence. He discusses how tools have evolved over time that aid and abet in man’s ability to accomplish great things, but it often goes unnoticed. Rarely does someone stop to think about the ballpoint pen that they’re using and give thanks to John J. Loud (look him up!) for his role in facilitating the ability to put thoughts on paper. We can extrapolate and see that this is how the Web 2.0 tools we’re studying today will be viewed by our children and grandchildren. It will be no big deal to gain knowledge using these tools. They likely won’t even see them as tools. In the same way that Pea discusses how children today who are learning arithmetic are assumed to have access to a calculator, we will assume that students, even today, have access and have used Web 2.0 tools to conduct their work. I’m living proof of this, I suppose. I can tell you I have been in the doctoral program now part-time for two years and have yet to set foot in Pattee because so much is available through the library Web site. I am even so geeky as to have conducted an online chat with a Pattee librarian rather than pick up a phone or, God forbid, actually haul my butt down there. This may be considered to be too much of a short-cut for some traditionalists, who may reminisce about late nights in the stacks, and think this generation is lazy. However, it’s important to remember that without the proper strategy to approach and research the work, students won’t be able to successfully use the 2.0 tools to solve their problems. Just like prior generations of learners weren’t able to successfully solve their problems if they weren’t able to effectively utilize the tools and aids they had at their disposal.
Our babysitter thinks it’s “funny” that we text her
Really enjoyed class yesterday. The conversation about the demographic breakdowns about the different features of technology made me laugh. As the parents of 4- and 7-year old boys, we have a stable of babysitters that we call upon to help us keep our sanity. We realized relatively recently that texting was the best way to communicate with them. Emails were going unanswered, voicemails unreturned. Now we know. However, when we started doing this, one of our sitters was very taken back that we would a) know this was even an option and b) would actually do it. She said she thought it was “funny” to get a text from my wife. We actually found it very useful during football season when we would want a quick babysitter check-in while my wife and I were at Beaver Stadium. Much easier to text a quick “Evrythng OK?” than try to hear a cell phone conversation with 106,000 screaming people around. The conversation about youth not even realizing that the technology they’re using is technology resonated as well. I thought about that as my family and I were flying to San Antonio to visit friends last weekend. My wife and I brought along an iPod and a Microsoft Zune. I had loaded a season of “Ben 10” onto the iPod, and my wife had loaded “Meet the Robinsons” and several Brady Bunch episodes (what can I say? The boys think it’s funny, and I’d rather have them watching Greg and Marcia than Zack and Cody). Each boy sat happily (after an unpleasant vomit episode by the younger, that is) watching their own individual shows with their own earbuds as we cruised along, and I thought to myself that this will be their expectation going forward for air travel. Buckle your seatbelt, put in your earbuds and fire up a show. As a result, their generation will avoid the “Business or pleasure?” conversations that many of us were forced to have on airplanes with our seatmates. Lucky them. Although, some of those conversations can lead to some pretty unexpected results, but that’s a story for a different blog.
Please allow me to introduce myself . . .
No, I’m actually not a huge Rolling Stones fan, but the words popped into my head, so I went with it. I’m John Dolan, a doctoral candidate in WFED, sliding into C&I territory to learn more about Web 2.0. My day job is with Penn State Continuing and Professional Education, in which I am responsible for the development and delivery of professional education programs for individuals and organizations. Part of my job requires me to use technology to communicate with the offices of Continuing Education across the PSU network, keeping them abreast of what’s new & exciting in our shop. I have been diving into Web 2.0 tools to do this recently– podcasts, vodcasts, blogs, etc. and am looking into even more in the future. I think these tools can have a very positive impact on sharing information across diverse audiences in organizations, especially those who are geographically removed from “headquarters”. The challenging part is, I’m not sure how well these efforts are being regarded, or if they’re even being used. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it listen to your podcast . . . I am fairly comfortable with using technology, but have never done any kind of coding or anything like that. I was a product manager for several years with Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, where I was responsible for the management of several online classified advertising products. This was in the heyday of the Web Economy, and I got to see the swell of excitement and then the crash back to reality. I am originally from State College, and returned to Happy Valley after living away for about 13 years in 2002. During the 13 year break, I lived in Washington, D.C., Nashville and Atlanta, and then Washington D.C. again, before returning with my wife and two sons to be closer to my family. I received my BA in Advertising from Penn State and my MBA from Vanderbilt. In addition to the aforementioned Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, I have also worked at BellSouth (now AT&T), Knight Ridder (now McClatchy), AT&T (still AT&T, sort of) and The Washington Post newspaper. I look forward to meeting you all.
What do I think disruptive technology means?
Disruptive technology is an interesting term, as it connotes some sort of out-of-control software program wreaking havoc in the workplace, turning desks upside down and spilling boxes of paperclips and folders all over the floor. However, what I believe it to mean is that it’s the development of technology tools that improve (fill in the blank). It is disruptive because it is shaking up what was being done previously, not because it is passing notes in class. Any innovation, whether technology-based or not, could be considered disruptive to what was the state-of-the-art previously.
Youtube Web 2.0
Wow! First off, who knew Kansas State had this going on? Good for them! Second, this was very visually entertaining. The creators should be proud of how they were able to communicate these themes in such a dynamic, engaging, and thought-provoking way. The message was not lost in the presentation, however, and I’m thrilled to be one of the ones who will be studying this phenomenon and trying to make sense of its place in the working world. It, I thought, got a little creepy at the end when it stated we were going to have to rethink things like family and love as a result of 2.0, but I guess I can see how you could stretch it to make a point. After all, if we are currently redefining “friends” as those on our Facebook, even though many people “friend” people they have never even met, redefining family and love cannot be far behind. This was also my first exposure to the Wayback Machine, and it allowed me to poke around to some of the sites that I worked on back in the day, and that was amusing.