education

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

Ontology Is Overrated

-

Ontology Is Overrated

Shirky’s analysis of the archaic use of categorisation systems is spot on. 

The way humans have classified knowledge has, traditionally, been rigid. The methodology was to create categories under which all knowledge (such as books) could be placed. This was a solution to a physical problem regarding the actual storage of books and represented bias towards formal thinking and strict rules.

However, categorising in this manner is no longer relevant. The internet has revealed a more simple, more direct way of self-organisation (albeit quite still disorganised). Users, instead of adhering to strict categories can “tag” links and resources with numerous identifying words. Tags allow various connections to be drawn between resources more simply and more organically. 

So instead of filing a link under “Entertainment/Movies” a link can be tagged as movie, film, actor, genre, and an infinite number of other tags. These tags allow the link to be cross-compared with other links with similar tags. It’s a really efficient way of organising without forcing everything into predefined boxes.

Core to this thinking are two ideas:

1. The search function. Searching tags is an alternative to finding information. Rather than using a categorised list and browsing through it, users can search for terms, keywords and tags. The results will be more related to the user’s needs without the need for a rigid hierarchy or structure.

2. Signal Loss. The bigger the system gets, the worse the system becomes. Inevitably more and more materials will refuse to fit into categories. This makes a strict category system hard to manage and the problem becomes exponential the bigger the knowledge base becomes. However with tagging, the larger the knowledge base, the less signal loss. Relevant materials become easier to find because the tags allow for more precision.

Shirky presents a thoughtful and compelling argument for reconsidering the way we categorise. Sites like del.icio.us proved that user tagged content is an efficient, self-managing system. Regardless of the problems resulting from how users interpret and tag links, if enough users independently tag a link, then that link will be easy to search for. Differentiation becomes possible on a macro scale with a single link able to have twenty or thirty tags.

Thus, the rise of word clouds – popular tag clouds and tag searching will become more relevant and common.

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

Various Social Networking Studies

-

Various Social Networking Studies

This is more of an amalgamation of various papers by danah boyd (note the all lower case!) She’s written various reports regarding social networking, some of which are particularly interesting. She’s done a lot of research into teens online and, most importantly, boyd is an advocate of having an online presence.

People who don’t hire a candidate because of their online history will “miss out on the best minds of my generation. Bright peopl epush the edge, but what constitutes the edge is time-dependent. It’s no longer about miniskirts or rock and roll; it’s about having a complex digital presence”.

 

The Drama! Teen Conflict, Gossip and Bullying in Networked Publics

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1926349

Social Privacy in Networked Publics: Teens’ Attitudes, Practices and Strategies

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1925128

Social Network Sites: Public, Private … or What?

http://www.danah.org/papers/KnowledgeTree.pdf

Social Network Sites: Definition, History and Scholarship

http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance

-

Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance

Albrechtslund discusses the notion that online social networking is a kind of participatory surveillance. In doing so, he redefines the concept of surveillance and develops his analysis for how it is both participatory and mutually beneficial.

Albrechtslund identifies cyberspace as a spacial metaphor for the internet. There are similar related analogies such as global village, information highway, world wide web, etc. The spatial discourse relating to computers is an attempt to organise and classify the internet. However the internet is not hierarchical and is not constrained by the same laws as physical space. Therefore the internet cannot be described in terms of classic organisation. 

Furthering the non-linear view of the internet, Albrechtslund notes the interrelated space between the cyberspace and physical space. In such, it’s demonstrated that social network is not only an online practice.

Digital society has a number of key issues to be considered. One key issue is that of persistency. All information, including relationships, is stored online indefinitely. This is a consideration relating to social practices being no longer temporary, their organisation and audiences. As well as persistency, social networks are a mediated public space characterised by their searchability, replicability and invisible audiences. Searchability refers to information being made available through keywords and phrases, allowing for collection and sorting of information. Replication is the ability to detach communication (including pictures and video) from its original source. It can be perfectly reproduced, altered and put into other contexts (remixed). Lastly there’s the notion of invisible audiences. This concept is the idea that although we may have an intended audience (friends and family) there is a larger potential audience – everyone with access to the internet. 

Redefining Surveillance. Albrechtslund takes the traditional notion of surveillance and changes its purpose. Surveillance is commonly used in a hierarchical sense – the watcher and the watched – or as data collection. However social networking has created an environment where people are willingly publishing this information online. It’s free for all to see and collect. This, Albrechtslund claims, is empowering. It’s a form of social and playful surveillance. Simply put, it’s exhibitionism. 

This explains the moral panics, conspiracy theories and dystopian views of digital culture – the people who don’t understand why anyone would engage in online social networking and willingly share personal information. 

Thus, surveillance can be seen, in a social networking sense, as a mutual horizontal practice. Instead of top-down, hierarchal surveillance, people are able to watch themselves and their friends, family and acquaintances. This empowers participants, builds subjectivity and promotes sharing. Albrechtslund calls this mutuality – participatory surveillance.

  1. user empowerment
  2. social networking as space sharing
  3. mutuality

As already noted, participatory surveillance is a kind of empowering exhibitionism. It’s the self construction of identity and a tool used to rebel against shame associated with not being ‘private’. Exhibitionism is a liberating force against the refusal to be humble. 

I like this idea. We socialise with strangers and construct identities (both real and anonymous). We move from passive to active by participating in culture creation and sharing. This sharing should not be underestimated, since it is the core of how social networks function.

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

Teens and Technology – Pew Report 2013

-

Teens and Technology – Pew Report 2013

Pew Internet is a good source for quantitative data regarding teens and internet use. Their recent reports have made some interesting conclusions about teen behavior online. Most of the following data is from the Teens 2012 keynote by Dr K. Purcell.

http://pewinternet.org/Presentations/2012/July/Teens-2012-Truth-Trends-and-Myths-About-Teen-Online-Behavior.aspx

Some of the more interesting findings summarised. For the following data, the term ‘teen’ refers to the age group 12-17 (school age) teenagers unless otherwise stated.

  • 80% of teens use social networks
  • 95% of teens use the internet (the highest age group)
  • 88% of teens use a desktop/laptop computer to access the internet
  • 49% of teens use a phone to access the internet

Phones:

  • 77% of teens have a cell/mobile phone
  • only 23% have a smart phone
  • 47% of teens talk to friends on the phone several times a week or more (decreasing)
  • 69% of teens send text messages several times a week or more (increasing)
  • only 17% of teens send emails several times a week or more

Some surprises there. The low frequency of smartphones amongst teens is likely due to their high cost and relative “newness” in the tech market. Teens are more interested in texting than talking. Email is not a popular option amongst teens, possibly because it’s not considered mobile or immediate. More effort is required to email whereas texting is short and faster.

Social Media

  • 93% of teens have a facebook account
  • 16% of teens use twitter, of which 12% have an account
  • only 2% of teens use tumblr and skype
  • 27% of teens record and upload videos of themselves online
  • 62% of teens keep their profiles private (viewable only by friends)
  • 39% of adults have “friended” their children on social networking sites

Clearly teens prefer facebook as their go-to social networking venue. Very few use twitter (more common amongst adults) and almost no teens use tumblr or skype (which is surprising!). Also, teens seem to be good at maintaining their privacy online and quite a few connect to their parents on social networking sites as well.

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

Teenagers and their sleepless lives

-

Teenagers and their sleepless lives

While the BBC has done a good job of surveying wider opinions regarding teens and technology, they’ve fallen short by focusing on the views of kids who are well educated, mature and responsible. 

I don’t know how many 14 year old would use the word ‘hierarchy’ in a conversational setting, but I get the feeling that the BBC is putting quite a positive spin on teens and their technology.

Don’t get me wrong, the overall view of youth and technology should be positive … but not all teens use their tech toys in a positive way. there’s a lot of negative sides to the use of tech as well. 

It’d be good if the BBC’s thoughts on the issue were more well rounded.

Scroll to Top