January 2010 Archives

At last you get to dig into the book, "Communities of Practice". This is really Wenger's most complete formulation of his ideas. It is an extension of seminal work he did with Jean Lave:

This is a draft of an article by danah boyd. It gets at the intersection of identity, technology and community. It is a new take on an old story, but fits well within the theme of our course. It is also a good reading for our first synthesis week as it addresses many of the overlapping issues that you will have to consider. 

My name is Matt Heffron.  I am in my first semester in the Curriculum and Instruction program here at Penn State.  I graduated with my degree in elementary education in December and am now seeking my Masters and certification.  I am from Moscow, PA, right outside of Scranton.  I enjoy playing sports and going fishing with my friends in my free time.  I am looking forward to taking this course and continuing my education.

In the spirit of design...
click and move the map around... or go to full screen for a full view...

Roy Pea's article, Practices of distributive intelligence and design for education, argues that tools, environments and activities in education should be designed in such a manner that they are useful in encouraging student learning. He explains that distributed intelligence is gained from the activities that one engages in day-to-day and have a social and material dimension. Intelligence can be inherent in designed artifacts such as measuring tape that indicates diameter instead of length, legos that are designed to only be connected in away which informs their use.

According to Pea, learning can be viewed as much more than "problem solving" and more broadly in terms of each of the desires. This can take the form of activities of play that create and find as much problems they "solve". Similarly, the design of new technologies can support human activities by serving as experimental platforms in the evolution of intelligence - by opening up new possibilities for distributed intelligence. Pea's research optimism constructs learners as inventors of distributed-intelligence-as-tool, rather than receivers of intelligence as substance- ready not only to adapt to change but to contribute substantially to it (p. 82.)

Technology should be designed to enhance the exchange of intelligence. By designing better devices or applications we have a greater impact on the sharing and creation of intelligence via our interactions with the technologies we have created. Pea argues that we cannot only emphasize the effects of working with technology because that is similar to emphasizing the effects of working with tools like pencils or measurement scales. If we are comfortable teaching students how to exploit those tools (pencils, measuring tapes etc.), then why the uneasiness with electronic tools?

The NMC and ELI 2010 Horizon Report is illustrative and supports Pea's article. The issues makes it clear that there are and there will be technologies designed to further our abilities in certain areas, such as accessibility to learning materials through the use of electronic books and other. These technologies can be seen as tools for distributing intelligence (gesture-based computing, visual analysis tools, augmented reality) or to aid in access to distributed intelligence (mobile computing, open content, electronic books). The overall impact of the Horizon Report is to inform and challenge us to strive for and investigate what technologies are available and how we can use them to enhance the learning experience for the individuals we educate.

In his book, Design for the Real World, designer and educator Victor Papanek (1985), exclaims that we are all designers and that designing is integral to all human activity because it is "the conscious effort to impose meaningful order."  That meaningful order however is very much caught up in the tools, materials and the process that we use. As an example, he offers up the case of early Swedish settlers who when they began building in Delaware, "had at their disposal trees and axes. The material was a round tree trunk, the tool an axe, and the process a simple kerf cut into the log. The inevitable result of this combination of tools, materials, and process is a log cabin." This definition of design therefore further supports Roy Pea's view of distributive intelligence which emphasizes that educators should attempt to make use of their environment in designing learning and creating activities that promotes the acquisition of intelligence and therefore knowledge.

Both Pea and the Horizon Report have valuable points talking about utilization and integration of technology design in education. This is evident here at Penn State, where we have designed technologies that are enabling us to provide education to the global market.  We can discuss any variety of subjects with students from around the world.  This also speaks to Pea's discussion on how the technologies we design have the ability to transform the world in which we live.  By interacting on a global level, we have new opportunities for understanding others, exchanging ideas, and enhancing our knowledge to better improve our environments. As human understanding of the world becomes more complex, we'll need more and more tools to off-load intelligence in order to deal with the complexity.

Pea's article focuses on the notion of the renunciation of intelligence as singularly contributed by the individual agent and as a merely accomplished, but rather constructed by people in action and socially constructed.  He states that "through collaborative efforts towards shared objectives or by dialogues and challenges brought about in persons' different perspectives.(P.48)" , which supports that "distributed intelligence" is a kind of socially collaborative, constructed knowledge .  In addition, Pea mentions that environments in which "humans lives are thick with invented artifacts that are in constant use for structuring activity, for saving mental work and avoiding error", yet the invention, development and integration of these "artifacts" have forced us to adapt and engage in new learning situations that open the range of understanding and knowledge building, both individually and in collaboration.  Relating this to the education system today, we need to invest in assessing the collaborative effort of achieving shared understanding and building knowledge in collaboration. 

Pea's argument align's with John Dewey's (an author of democracy and education) notion that all human experience is social and involves contact and communication. He states that living and interacting within social environments that encompass the present body of knowledge (which is the focus of the educational system). Furthermore, Dewey explains that people live in a social world that is shaped by human experiences, and these combined experiences construct knowledge.

When incorporating "distributed intelligence" into practice in the design aspect, there are two points to keep in mind:
1. Collaborative/ Interactive: A good design is not simply one-way knowledge given, but rather getting learner involved in contributing to distributed intelligence.  Learners can exploit various means to achieve tasks. The collaboration and interaction exist not only among human beings, but also with the environment, tools, and even the designers.
2. Desire Affordance: Pea states that "the interpretation, relevance, and meaning of resources available for activity are shaped by the desires with which people come to situations (P.55)" We can see creativity emerging from situated interpretations of resources in the environment based on desires.
Both of two points support Pea's advices to get to distributed intelligence: Augment intelligence with computing, inscriptional system, guided participation and situated cognition. 

This can be related to the "Horizon Report", which focuses on how technologies in education aid in the knowledge construction process within the social framework. We know that technologies help to facilitate distributed intelligence through: collaboration without boundary; knowledge anywhere and anytime; and efficiency in satidfying desires. 

 If we use these technologies and tools and establish shared goals in building a collaborative knowledge base, students and teachers both engage in a valuable learning experience employing these resources, adapting to them and drawing on them to CREATE more knowledge in a cyclical process. Taking into consideration these new social environments, these technologies can take learning to a whole new level.

Certainly, there are some challeges and critiques that we need to notice. For example, how do teachers identify themselves in a classroom?  Should teachers be required to learn about these things in order to better meet their students' expectations? Is there larger generation gap between parents and kids because parents are not familiar with the modern communication ways? If open content is used as a powerful tool to inform a greater number of individuals, what is the motivation for individuals to register as students?  How do we differentiate between individuals who have completed the course "officially" and those who have studied the open content? Just think about it!

Taking into consideration our readings for this week, we decided to revisit our definitions...

Wesch is the keynote speaker at this year's TLT Symposium ... have you registered?

Here are the wordles from your first set of definitions.

Community

Identity

Community:
A group of people with some relationship using artifacts (props?) to collaborate, participate, communicate; Working together toward a certain goal (academic, social, task, outcome); often based on common interest


Identity:
Representation of oneself to others; includes social interaction and context;
not fixed - when in different communities or discourses, different identity is presented;
Possible that recognition as part of discourse attributes characteristics to an identity

Wordle Link - Community

Identity Link

Community is a social construct in which a member automatically receives an assigned identity and acts upon the assigned role and where other people within the community recognize the person's taking on the role. We say "automatically" is because there is an expectation placed on community members. Part of the reason one is able to enter the community is because of the identity they were able to assume.

Identity is set of characteristics that one expresses when they become part of a community. Identity is constructed through the information that one presents to others (through words and actions) about themselves. At the same time identity is also constructed by how others perceive us or the information they obtain about us.

Today:

• Video Discussion
• RSS
• Reading Conversations

Let's watch this 10 minute video ... take note this has quite a bit of explicit language in it. There is a reason for this.

Some talking points:

• What's being disruptive in the video above?
• How did you view the production of your own videos as an educational task?
• Did you prepare or think about the task differently than a traditional written assignment?
• What is it about the youtube medium that deserves different types of thinking?

From McLuhan (The Medium is the Massage, 128) ... "The main cause for disappointment in and for criticism of television is the failure on the part of its critics view it as a totally new technology which demands different sensory responses. These critics insist on regarding television as merely a degraded form of print technology."

consider that in the context of our course conversation and do a little editing ...

"The main cause for disappointment in and for criticism of [youtube] is the failure on the part of its critics view it as a totally new technology which demands different sensory responses. These critics insist on regarding [youtube] as merely a degraded form of [television]."

Do you find this as out of control as we do?

We'd like you to revisit your videos and within the context of what we've discussed and see how you might reconsider your design. Given the upcoming synthesis week, we'd like you to create a compelling and appropriate video that communicates part of your team's message. That will accompany your overall synthesis presentation.

RSS

Looking at Google Reader

Break

Team Activity

In teams you will craft the beginning of definitions of the two of our key themes, community & identity. These should reference specific pieces from the content associated with the class (readings, podcasts, blog posts, etc). Work in your team's google doc and do a final posting at the end of the allotted time.

Questions to Consider

• What is your emergent definitions of community & identity?
• How does Gee characterize community & identity?
• What is the relationship between the Discourses that Gee discusses and the Mindsets that Lankshear and Knoble describe?

Readings

• Horizon Report
• Pea

This is the first week on the cycle where you will look at design. We are taking a somewhat different approach to design as a theme. It will not be about user interface (directly) and it won't be about coding and tools (precisely), but it will be about how we as social beings interact through the artifacts that we design. It will be a theme that is integral to the structure and function of the course and the other themes. Try to think about design as a natural part of any socially mediated interaction. Pea's piece will lay some of the groundwork for this perspective and give you a chance to begin thinking about design in a new way.

Get the reading here.

Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligences and design for education. In G. Solomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47-87). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

In only a few weeks, I have already found this class to be disruptive in the sense of interrupting my usual routine and mode of thought, forcing me "out of my comfort zone" (as Michelle wrote). I am very comfortable with reading books, listening to lectures, and memorizing and organizing information in preparation for a test. After all, I've been doing these things for twenty years. I am comfortable attending class once or twice a week and then taking a break from class through the rest of the week as I work on other things. I am comfortable checking my email a few times during the course of the day, usually when I am expecting something. And I am very comfortable in unplugging myself from the world over the weekend so that I can just spend time outdoors or just be solely and completely with my wife and baby girl. 

The point of this historical perspective is to remind us that the last decade has seen transformations of a kind notable even from the long perspective of the record of human history. Our Information Age has been the most extensive and rapid in human history, structurally altering traditional economic and political arrangements on a global level and, at the same time, restructuring communication, interaction, publication, and authorship in all currently available media. Is it any wonder that many of us are wondering what will happen next -- or asking how best to prepare ourselves for what comes next?

Really worth a read and a few thoughts from the class.

Once upon a time on Facebook, participants had to be a vetted member of a community to even have an account. Privacy was a deeply held value and many turned to Facebook because of the ways in which it protected them from making public mistakes. This was especially core to youth participation. Parents respected Facebook's attitudes towards privacy and, in a shocking moment of agreement, teens did too.

If you don't know danah boyd, you should. She looks at teen behavior in social networks. Her work is very smart and really insightful. This piece looks at Facebook's new privacy policies and how they've been changed recently. Dr. boyd (she spells her name with lower case letters) was a keynote speaker at last year's TLT Symposium ... it was a killer talk and can be seen here.

The complete "Disappearing Lion" ARG video:

The Nittany Lion is Missing from TLT at Penn State on Vimeo.

The word "technology" always gives me the impression of something fancy, cool, innovative and creative; and things make my life much easier and efficient. Otherwise, the word "studying" makes me bored and unstimulating.  

 

As technology liberates women from hard chores of traditional lives, I think disruptive technology in education is a magical thing which relieves the boredom of studying. Disruptive technologies are completely new tools that change how things are done. That is, disruptive technology changes the learning process into being fun, entertaining, actively interactive.

 

Disruptive technology: technology + learning -> fun, exciting, stimulating

 

Since I don't like the traditional classroom instruction which is static and depends on the printed material, I am looking forward to lots of potential disruptive technology might have in education, which enables the dynamic and active learning.

 

http://blogs.tlt.psu.edu/courses/disruptive/2009/11/how-to-quick-post.html

 

 

Click on the youtube links for Team 2 videos on technologies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG6OZYlcBrY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=argEYxG9aZk

For me disruptive technology is the same as Rabble-rouser for learning.  A few years ago, journalist John Allen wrote an autobiography of Desmond Tutu of South Afrika which he titled Rabble-Rouser for Peace. The title was in reference to Archbishop Tutu's leadership/oratory ability to stirs up the passions of the masses for peace during the apartheid era.

Perhaps I am reading too much into the concept of disruptive technologies, but for me the concept is similar in that disruptive technology stirs up educators and asks them to re-evaluate their view of technology and the role that it plays in learning. It is taking technologies that some may see as a form of escapism and weaving it into the learning experience. This will create lifelong learners who no longer see learning as an activity that one has to make time for, but rather as something that is part of everyday.

The idea of Technology as a Rabble Rouser for Learning is that it can shake educators and learners alike and forces them to think and ask the 'what if questions'. The idea of taking that which is seen as everyday and not part of learning, something that is outside the purview  of traditional learning, and that which educational gatekeepers cannot always control  and call it learning, is terrifying for some.

Disrupt: to break apart : rupture b : to throw into disorder <agitators trying to disrupt the meeting> 2 : to interrupt the normal course or unity of (from Merriam Webster.com). 

Our team(#4) worked individually so I'm excited to see what other members have done.

This week as we reflect about language and identity, the readings provide food for thought as to how technology as the medium can provide the opportunity for students to reflect their identities and shape different types of conversations that lead to building and sharing understanding.

 

Students take on many identities on any given day; child, sibling, student, athlete, etc.  In all of these situations, a student may transition from their "core identity" to various marginal "identities". In a traditional classroom, however, there are scheduled instances where students are able to express only some of these identities, be it in Gym class, or during a special language arts projects or in the computer classroom.  The language use in each situation shapes how identities are expressed. The reciprocal relationship between language and context dictates how identities will be presented and at the same time will define the context. For example, the discourse of the classroom used to be one in which the teacher held a very authoritative role; standing at the front of the room lecturing students and engaging them in "skill and drill" style lesson plans. Students would stifle spontaneity by raising their hand and speaking only when called on. As curriculum changes and new methods and teaching and learning approaches emerge, this dynamic is slowly shifting. With the integration of instructional technologies, students are able to merge social networking forums in an instructional setting, integrating informal and more comfortable spaces of self expression into the formal venues of learning, lessening the threatening atmosphere that may stifle their true self expression.

 For instructors, the use of disruptive technologies in the classroom maybe innovative yet uncomfortable, especially if they themselves were exposed to traditional methods of learning. But in the process, instructors become learners. As they discover and familiarize themselves with the language that students use in these cyber arenas of social networking they are exposed to their students various identity facets.  Another thing to keep in mind with "language" and "identity" are the disparities that occur among differing cultures.  Verbal and non-verbal cues can have drastically different meanings from one culture to the next.  The internet has the power to eliminate or serve as a buffer for all those non verbal cues that may lead the conversation elsewhere. However, this filter may also hinder the clarity of identity as the audience may miss inflection and body language that can dictate meaning. This leads to the seven building tasks discussed by Gee. We continually and actively build and rebuild our worlds not just through language but through language used in tandem with actions, interactions, non-linguistic symbol systems, objects, tools, technologies and distinctive ways of thinking, feeling and believing. Connecting to the discussion on Discourse versus discourse, Discourse here includes socially situated identity (whos) and activities (whats). From Gee (p. 27) " If you put language, action, interaction, values, beliefs, symbols, objects, tools and places together in such a way that others recognize you as a particular type of who (identity) engaged in a particular type of what  (activity), here-and-now, then you have pulled off a Discourse."

In the past, traditional teacher's identity is as a giver, knowledge-producer, lecturer; student's, of course, is as receiver,  knowledge-consumer, and listener. Nowadays, with disruptive technology applied in class with sociocultural environment, teacher needs to have awareness that their identity has to shift to a facilitator, collaborator, or even a learner. For example, when teacher decides to give a lecture with Internet, s/he needs to know s/he is not a central-controller anymore, the learning environment will be flexible and coordinated. Students will have their own "private space", from which they could get information via different mediums, such as Wiki, Google, Twitter, etc. The more understanding of the change of the learning process, value, beliefs, tools, etc., the more clear identity a teacher/student would have. Given this situation, both teacher and students know who they are engaged in what activity. It will facilitate effective and efficient learning.  

We also find interesting the notion of how identities do not exist frozen in time, but that they require the context of the activity and other peoples' interpretations before they are truly defined. With this new context of formal merged with informal, the development of disruptive technology leads us to return to an older concept of identity: that of actions and relationships. It may be a new context and a new set of actions, but as both instructors and students adapt to these environments and interactions, our identities are expressed through both language and action.

 

The McLuhan and Fiore reading, published in 1967, predicted much of our current realities dealing with technology, the media and instruction. They illustrate their message of accessibility of information to the masses in the way they present their book. It has a collages, visuals, art and text displayed in so many different ways as to reach diverse audiences. It is translating language into forms that can be understood by many...challenging the rational linear models of language. Even referring to education then, it reflects the sad reality of today's educational system: "today's television child....is bewildered when he enters the nineteenth century environment that still characterizes the educational establishment where information is scarce but ordered and structured by fragmented, classified patterns, subjects and schedules. It is naturally and environment much like any factory set up with its inventories and assembly lines."  Sound familiar? NCLB?

 As McLuhan and Fiore explain the medium is the message and how media touches every part of our existence and "leaves no part of us unaffected, unaltered" we need to look at our cultural and social evolution as informed by the media. And of course what is media but the translation and diffusion of language, information.  Their book intends to challenge the status quo of westernized linear and perscriptivist manner of defining what is rational and logic by challenging the ongoing principle that logic and rationality depend on sequential flow of connected concepts (as presented through conventional forms of language expression such as writing and speaking). Yet the media brings forth a new form of language expression through multi-sensory devices that expand our perception of the world.

 Technology today is taking this to the next level it allows accessibility to the masses to use multi-sensory platforms of self expression. Language is translated into sound, text, art, clothing, food and it becomes a fast paced sometimes illogical "flow of concepts". This colorful diffusion of the many messages allows our multiple identities to come through in various realms.  A new world order of shared information, opinions and art is today's legacy. It is getting increasingly difficult to ignore, and as such our individual identities are now much more intertwined.

Technology has started to play an integral role in the formation of one's identity. Having an electronic information trail says as much about a person as not having an electronic information trail. This can be in large part due to what McLuhan and Fiore observed as a period of "great technological and cultural transition" which is forcing societies to review the concept of identity and identity formation. McLuhan and Fiore imply that current views of identity may be outdated or at the very least are in need of review because the current view of identity is similar to "trying to do today's job with yesterday's tool - with yesterday's concept".

Discourse when using a different tool has the potential of altering the identity of the communicators. The method that one chooses to communicate in has a significant effect on the discourse because inherent in each tool are different characteristics with different influences on the development of an identity. When one is able to see a person physically and communicates with that person face to face, the belief is that you are able to know the other person's true character because of being in the same physical space. You can read facial expressions and other body language and be able to get a more accurate depiction of the person's character which is integral to their identity. This is not necessarily the case with using the web to communicate especially when it is asynchronous. In an online environment, individuals have the opportunity to provide others with as much or as little information about themselves as they choose.  It also enables them to create a profile based on how they may want others to view them by changing information about their appearance, interests, and even their name.

Gee describes how we all use "language plus 'other stuff''" (ways of acting, interacting, talking) to establish identities (1999, 20-21). These change from one situation to another. For example, in one situation you are a father, in another you are a student. Camplese and McDonald  mentioned the increased fractionalization of identity as we find ourselves in more and more communities online (2010, 2). Each of these communities constitute a different situation in which we are adopting a different identity. We act and interact differently as part of these different communities, and in doing so assume different identities. At the same time, is the general lack of borders in the online world in some way breaking down the barriers between these different identities? I may craft an identity on facebook, but both professional colleagues and old classmates are interacting with my identity through the same digital representation of myself. To quote the character of George Costanza, 'the worlds have collided."

In "The Medium is the Massage", McLuhan talks about how each medium carries it with a message that is more powerful than the actual content the medium is conveying. New media de-emphasize hierarchies by focusing on shared authorship, collaboration, and equal ability of anyone to participate. There is no longer an inherent authority that comes from being able to disseminate content to a mass audience. As we all are receiving this message as we use the medium, we feel strange when this message is not being transmitted in the classroom. Something feels out-of-sync between the classroom and the world. Re-inventing the classroom experience to mirror the these new media, changes the rules of the Discourse.  " that the power of the medium exceeds the power of the content itself. This leads to another question: Does new technology really change the way we look at ourselves and other people?

Disruptive- turbulant, uncomfortable, squinty eye, head hurting, anything out of the ordinary...

 

In his "An Introduction to Discourse Analysis, theory and method," James Paul Gee describes identity as something fluid, a building task of language that changes depending on the words that humans use. Those words are used to get recognized as having a certain identity or role in a particular situation, which, as Gee states, demonstrates that individuals have a certain amount of agency over their identities.  He points out that people "... have to enact (an) identity at the right time and place to make it work" (1999, p.11). Identity, for Gee, can transcend language to include categorizing discourses. His theory of "big D" Discourse is introduced as a means of appropriating certain (and sometimes multiple) identities. Discourse is a combination of "characteristic ways of thinking, acting, interacting, valuing, feeling, and believing" (1999, p.21). The Discourses within which we navigate, according to Gee, affect our relationships and interactions.

   

Gee's distinction between socially situated identities and core identity (1999, p. 34) is a key point.  When most people think of identity, they think of some relatively static sense of self.  This is similar to Gee's definition of core identity, which is the continuous and relatively fixed sense of self that underlies our multiple identities.  Socially situated identities, then, are the multiple identities that we form based on different practices and contexts (Discourses).  These types of identities are ones that we may not be consciously aware that we are employing, but that are essential for interacting within particular contexts with particular groups of people. For example, these socially situated identities explain well that foreign and second language learners feel their identities changing when they speak foreign and second languages because each language requires different socially appropriate behaviors and attitudes which are fit into the culture of the language they are speaking. 

   

Critical to the field of education, Gee, when discussing how our own Discourse map/grid is the limit of our understanding, states that "it is the fundamental job of education to give people bigger and better Discourse maps, ones that reflect the working of Discourses throughout society, the world, and history in relationship to each other and to the learner" (1999, p. 32).  Wow!  The question is, how do we as teachers do that?  The use of technology seems imperative to this undertaking in that it allows students to connect with others throughout the world and perhaps become part of new Discourses. Through advances in technology students in a classroom are no longer limited to sharing their Discourses with the peers around them. Classrooms that are enabled with the World Wide Web allow students to reach out and interact with students on the other side of the world and provide a link to share and expand their discourse map in different ways than they would be able to do if the technology was not present. For example, students in an a classroom in the United States could interact with students in another classroom in Japan and share their different characteristic ways of thinking and how they react to certain things with one another which, in a world without the technology, would not be possible unless one of the classrooms flew around the world to the other. Also key for teachers is to be cognizant of the fact that our students have multiple identities and that we need to recognize and work with those different identities in the classroom.

    

Discourse study, while important in establishing the origins of identity, leaves a few questions unanswered. One question, which Gee begins to attend to in the reading, is of the validity of identity. How "real" is an identity when by merely mimicking the Discourse associated with that identity, someone can be considered a "real Indian" or a "real" California gang member? 

   

Another potential problem with Discourse theory is the nebulous origins from which specific Discourse labels arise. Gee states: "Discourses in a society emerge or die" (1999, p. 31). It is clear that Discourses are constantly evolving and that new Discourses arise, but from where do our understandings of Discourses originate? From which authority? Who establishes what language, behaviors, or values make someone a "real Indian"? Where do the definitions of certain identities come from? It seems that a certain amount of hegemony is embedded in Discourse recognition, but Gee makes it seem as if recognition work is a phenomenon that organically happens.

Media permeates every aspect of peoples' lives. In today's media-saturated world, an identitiy formation cannot be influenced merely by a single factor like family or a small community. The media is bound to infiltrate into the ongoing process of identity construction. With the development of technology, a great deal of resources  have become available to people with the multiple examples of identity that can be found in the mass media. Some people might have difficulty of finding certain expectations presented by media and whether what is an acceptable identity or not. Media constantly gives open spaces for identity to be changed and reshaped not only positively, but negatively. To end this thought we pulled a quote from McLuhan & Fiore (1967), "All media work us over completely.  They are so pervasive in their personal, political, economic, aesthetic, psychological, moral, ethical, and social consequences that they leave no part of us untouched, unaffected, unaltered. ... Any understanding of social and cultural change is impossible without a knowledge of the way media work as environments" 

 

I think of a disruptive technology is something that changes the way people interact. This includes changing how people create knowledge and organize themselves into groups.

McLuhan said the medium is the message. The Web 2.0 (for lack of a better term) world has brought with it a message that is egalitarian when it comes to knowledge creation. The authority of the book, tv news show, and newspaper are undermined by the fact that anyone can now create and distribute. The meaning of authorship changes as now anyone can copy, remix, re-edit, add, subtract.

Each conversation online enforces the non-authoritarian view. This is the message of the medium. No matter what is being said, this same message is coming across. I practically live online. I just this week have realized that I really bought into the medium's message without realizing where the message was coming from, exactly. I was hearing the message constantly without realizing it. How much did it affect my thinking without me knowing it? I paid attention to the content being transmitted by the web, without realizing consciously the message it was repeatedly sending me. This is not to say that I believe I have been brainwashed anymore than someone who does not buy into this worldview has been brainwashed by reading books. In both cases, there may be a little brainwashing going on.

Gee suggests that language has the ability to create and define situations. Language helps to identify significance, define the type of activity that is going on, determine the identities, roles and relationships of participants, distribute social capital, make connections, and privilege or disprivilege sign systems. Gee also identifies tools that can be used to analyze language in use. The tools of inquiry include social languages, discourses, intertextuality, and conversations. Gee uses these tools to analyze how people build identities and activities and recognize identities and activities. The identities (whos) and activities (whats) are framed in Discourses. Gee's distinction between 'discourse' and 'Discourse' is designed to recognize the interrelationships between social relations, social identities, contexts, and specific situations of language use and this distinction is the basis of his theory. Discourse is not only records of speaking and written words but also values, beliefs, thoughts, action, interaction, etc. All these together could reveal who are in the Discourse and what they are doing.

To reveal identities of communicators, we analyze Discourses and the key to Discourse is recognition. Discourses involve putting "language, action, interaction, values, beliefs, symbols, objects, tools and places together in such as way that others recognize you as a particular type of who (identity) engaged in a particular type of what (activity)." The society within which a tool is being used to communicate may also prescribe certain values to that tool and by association, the users of that tool. Gee states that Discourses often involve "props" and a communication tool itself may be considered a prop. Those props are part of what makes that Discourse. For example, part of "being a geek" might involve using certain communication tools, such as Twitter. This can be a two-way street, in that one who identifies himself as a geek might use Twitter in order to reaffirm his"geekiness," while at the same time his use of the tool makes it a "tool for geeks." The tool shapes the Discourse and vice versa. Within each Discourse that a person belongs to, there are common identities, beliefs, and ways of thinking, feeling, and being that are recognizable as both appropriate and defining of membership to other members of the Discourse. It is because of this that members of a Discourse can recognize others as either "insiders" or "outsiders." Additionally, being an effective and recognizable member of a Discourse suggests that the Discourse is reflected in the identities of its members. In other words, to be in a Discourse, your view of your own identity must see you as a member of that Discourse.

However, based on the tool that is used to conduct the exchange of these language, interactions, etc., it is possible that the identity of the communicator could be interpreted differently. Depending on the tool, one or more elements that comprise discourse could be hidden, displayed or altered (whether a function of choice or limitation/feature of the tool) so as to present the communicator's identity in a new or different way or cause the communicator to be recognized differently.

Gee also states that tensions can exist when one is a member of multiple Discourses. It may be difficult for an individual to resolve these differences, and indeed the tension one introduces into hi or her life by engaging in multiple Discourses can be considered an aspect of that person's identity. Discourses continually evolve, and couldn't do so without being somewhat permeable to new ideas, which is inevitable given that its members invariably have complex identities and belong to other Discourses. Thus there is an important interplay between individual identity shaping Discourse and Discourse shaping individual identity.

In McLuhan & Fiore's "Medium is the message," they claimed that all media have characteristics that engage the viewer in different way. The same message can be interpreted differently when it is demonstrated through a book, a film, a newspaper and so on. It has effect on one's understanding and each one's understanding builds a common sense in a society. Thus, it would be important to choose appropriate medium to convey message you want to convey. This is why they had one idea repeatedly in the article that they believed that we should get out of outdated psychological mental responses to the current media to catch up the trend since current media functioned differently. Current media also radically changed our relationship to the world because of the messages we can receive from different media. Media is the message and thus can be viewed as prop/tool in Gee's Discourse and we can see media is part of Discourse. We can connect this idea to Gee's article to illustrate how media shape identities of us.

 
 

Team 3 collaboratively reviewed Twitter.  In our YouTube video we examined some of the pros and cons of Twitter, in addition to potential uses it may have in education.  We look forward to reading your comments!

What is a disruptive technology? How do technologies become disruptive when they're marketed to help people and not disrupt them? What causes technology to become disruptive? These are just some of the questions that I have been asking myself for the past couple months now in my endeavors to figure out why some students in classrooms view technology as disruptive while other view it as helpful?

I think one of the main components of disruptive technology is how the technology is used by the user and the different features the technology allows the user to interact with. Let's consider the common computer. Most computers come standard factory-direct with games pre-installed on them. In many schools students are required to take a computer education course before they are allowed to graduate. One could imagine that at times during the course when the student is in front of the computer the student probably becomes bored and decides to open up a game and start playing with it to end his or her boredom. In my eyes this type of action is fine provided the student has completed all assigned work in the class and is no longer required to participate or pay attention to the teacher in class. It's when the student plays the same game while the teacher is giving a lecture or while the student should be working on an assignment the technology becomes disruptive.

I believe that technologies become disruptive when they are used in a manner that they should not be used or are used in a manner where the technology becomes an inconvenience for the person using it to where the person starts wasting time over the technology. To correct these two problems I believe we can better instruct the users of the technology on how to use the technology and the purpose of the technology. Some of you may be saying that's easier said than done. I agree with you. However, I believe the easy part will be to correct people on how to use the technology so that it doesn't become disruptive by wasting time but the hard part will be to install the purpose of the technology into the same people. Students are going to play games no matter what. Perhaps the only efficient way to prevent the technology from being disruptive is to control the technology, something I believe is not accomplished very well in our ever expanding technological field.

My first experience with the term "disruptive technology" was in an article I read last year to review as part of my application to graduate school.  I chose the article specifically because I thought the idea of disruption being a positive thing was fascinating.  The article focused on disruptive innovations as those that enter a market space where the technology was unavailable, unexpected, or consumers could not afford or use available more complicated technologies. 

When I mention to people that I am taking a class on Disruptive Technologies, their immediate reaction is typically "Oh, you mean things like Facebook, instant messaging, and Twitter that distract students in classrooms".  I feel like I need to clarify that a disruptive technology is not necessarily a distractive technology.  That is to say, my understanding of disruptive is not that it disrupts a student's ability to learn, but rather that it disrupts expectations of the "right" way of presenting, processing, or working with information and knowledge.  Similar to the disruptive innovations discussed in the article I first read, many of the disruptive technologies that can be used for learning entered a space where there was nothing similar, or where limitations of cost and access prohibited more established products from being successful.  The technologies then migrate to education, where traditional tools and methods exist, but are able to disrupt the accepted way of educating because of widespread adoption in non-educational settings.   However, in addition to the market definition of disruptive, which means that the technology enters a space where competition does not exist and then moves into existing markets, I think disruptive technology for learning doesn't necessarily always enter a market that's untapped.  Rather, it disrupts the current way of thinking about how information is delivered and knowledge is built.   

Disruptive is a rather harsh title for something that I personally believe can have great benefits if used properly. I think technology can provide many opportunities especially in education, but it depends on how it is incorporated into the class. From my own personal experience, I have worked with individuals who think that putting pdf's of readings in Angel makes their course an online course. While this can be an effective way of distributing reading materials, I believe that true online education goes far beyond that, by utilizing various types of technologies.

I think what determines whether or not a technology should be labeled as disruptive depends on how one uses it. If an instructor can see the benefits of the tools and provide structured assignments that utilize the tool in ways that benefit the class and the students' learning experience then a more appropriate name would be effective technology. If however, an instructor required students to use a piece of technology without providing any guidelines for the students, it then has the potential to disrupt the learning process. Furthermore, if a professor only uses a portion of the technology, students will spend their time exploring or playing with the tool to figure out what all it can do. Again disrupting the students' ability to learn. So to sum things up I think it's unfair to label all technology as disruptive. Many technologies have the ability to encourage learning with students. However, when technology is used improperly or if students are not provided with adequate guidance with a tool, it can be detrimental to a student's education. When this happens, the label disruptive technology can then be applied.

If you look at the word disruptive in any thesaurus it has all of these negative synonyms such as "unruly" "aggressive"...."THREATENING!!!!!"

scary, huh?

 Well, maybe if we were to look at disruptive from another angle.... as it disrupts the traditional models of "doing"; that, yes, it is "out of order" with what has been established or is generally accepted. Is this such a bad thing? I think not. Sometimes it is good to challenge the status quo. It might be an uncomfortable process, but change usually is. Personally, I think that anything that disrupts an established practice, idea or philosophy leads to questions, pondering, debating and critical thinking. It can also lead to an open dialogue where there is an opportunity for diverse voices to be heard. In the particular case of disruptive technologies with regards to education, there is no doubt that for teachers and instructors especially it might be uncomfortable to get use to the idea of allowing these types of "artifacts" and "mediums" that can cause "disruption" from the daily deposit of information. But when they learn to look at these technologies as innovative resources, the attitudes change and both students and teachers become co-collaborators and co creators of knowldge. There is no longer that dynamic of students as repositories of knowedge, but there is now a reciproicty that leads to building of knowledge and understanding. 

As Li-Huai said, the term "disruptive" was quite unfamiliar to me.
With relating the following term "technologies", I inferred the meaning as something "new" and "innovative".
New kinds of technology have been changing our life at home, works, hospitals, schools and so on. At schools, in particular, learning materials are not limited in printed textbooks any more; teachers came to choose and use various types of materials with the help of technology. This can be called the beginning of disruptiveness.

From my experience, the year when I came here as a doctoral student, I was interested in the use of multimedia in L2 learning. Films and sitcoms were the only one that I've known as a new, effective way of L2 learning. But soon, my interest came to move to another area which looks more updated- new literacies! With the notion of sociocultural theory, I became aware of the importance of close relationship between interaction among others in a certain community and L2 learning and technology makes the interaction easy and effective. This made me think the way of teaching in a different way than before.
Even though I strongly believe that disruptive technologies could have positive effect on L2 learning in classroom, I'm still not familiar with the use of the technologies such as YouTube, Twitter, Facebook. However, this is what I have to face as a teacher and also as a learner.

When I think about disruptive technologies, I think about them in two different ways.  First, I think of them from the perspective of a teacher and then from the perspective of a student. 

 

From my perspective as a teacher, disruptive technologies mean just what the term sounds like- technologies that disrupt the classroom.  At one time the idea of disruption had a negative connotation for me, in that it seemed like something that would distract students and take away from their focus in the classroom, keeping them from learning what I want them to learn in the way that I want them to learn it.  That is, of course, an antiquated (but not uncommon) way to think as a teacher.  Fortunately, both my understanding of the nature of teaching and my practice have evolved over time.  I have also developed a different understanding of the term 'disruptive', one that is more similar to the one stated in the Camplese and McDonald article (2010), where disruptive innovations are defined as those which "significantly alter current patterns of social functioning" (p. 1).  Using that definition, I understand disruptive technologies to be those technologies, both software and hardware, which help me, as a teacher, to disrupt students' current ways of thinking and help them to develop relationships and ideas that change the way that they interact with the world around them, including the information that I present to them in the classroom.  It is sometimes (ok, always) hard for teachers to give up full control of their classrooms, but if we want to bring about change in our students' lives, then we really do need to disrupt the status quo of the educational system.

 

From my perspective as a student, disruptive technologies are things that take me out of my comfort zone (sometimes WAY out of it) and push me to experience and think about things in new ways.  In my role as student, disruptive technologies are uncomfortable (actually, they are in my role as teacher, as well).  The idea of recording my voice and image and putting it "out there" for anyone to see is foreign and more than a little bit unnerving.  The idea of putting all of my assignments in a place where everyone can read them also feels somewhat awkward.  I realize, though, that using these technologies is allowing me to look at material in ways that I never have before.  It is also helping me to broaden my perspectives and it is increasing my willingness to step outside the box that students are traditionally expected to remain within.  In fact, I am experiencing what I want my own students to be able to experience through my use of disruptive technologies in the classroom.  And how liberating of an experience it is!

 

Honestly speaking, I totally had no idea about what "disruptive technology" is when seeing this course title, especially was confused with the meaning after translating in my language. After reading the description and articles, and also browsing some websites, to my understanding, "Disruptive technology" means a new technology unexpectedly displaces an established one and gradually permeates into our daily life. It is interesting to probe into the connection between disruptive technology and teaching/ learning.

For example, when tracking back to about 10 years, there were only BBCall, which we could only know someone's calling but could not talk in real time. Some years later, with communication technology progress, we can not only talk but also surf the Net, use GPS, listen to music, or even watch a movie with a cellphone. Another example is about school learning environment: I remember when I was a senior high student, there were only 2 technological setting in the classroom- radio and television. They were used for listening and watching once or twice a week for textbook-based programs. Nowadays almost each classroom has at least one computer and Internet. The function is extended to information searching, assignment handing in and real-time feedback. The identity or relationship has changed among teacher and students or students themselves. 

To me, "Disruptive Technology" means an unavoidable change, for both the whole environment and individual identity. With high-technologies, it makes our position in the society (or in the classroom) shiftable. As a teacher/ learner, we should notice these change and find out an effective and efficient teaching/ learning way to catch the time trend. 

I'm standing in a session at ELI where Gardnet Cambell is discussing Twitter use in one of his classes. His experiences mirror much of what Scott and I have experienced and hope to see happen this semester. Makes me realize you should be watching the conference hashtag ... There's just so much flowing through it. Do yourself a favor and follow #eli2010 to peek into this killer event.

Ah well, we'll see if this goes to the right place or not.

I'm Mark Baker, a first-year student in the Educational Psychology program here at Penn State. I'm currently living in a slightly dilapidated second-story apartment in "historic downtown Bellefonte" along with my wife Nikki, our ten-month old daughter Evelyn, and a slough of rats, ladybugs, and beetles. Notwithstanding the unwanted tenants, I'm loving it here; it actually reminds me of home in many ways. I'm originally from a small town in Montana (though we would call it a city over there) and so the rural nature of central Pennsylvania is pretty much what I'm used to. My wife, however, hails from Washington D.C. and so I think she gets bored sometimes (especially being stuck in Bellefonte without a car). Our daughter keeps us on our toes as she continues to learn to walk, talk, and generally amaze the heck out of her parents.

As a first-year student, I am not really sure what my academic interests are yet. Broadly speaking, I enjoy learning and teaching (I taught for Kaplan for two years). I'm working on some research now in the areas of written argumentation and persuasion, and also teacher efficacy in multicultural classrooms. In my undergraduate education, I did some research into learning strategies, such as speed reading, concept maps, and mnemonic devices. I'm also interested in statistics, psychometrics, and standardized tests. It will be interesting for me to learn about how disruptive technologies can be used to assess learning, not just facilitate it. And then there's a vague, rather fuzzy interest called "technology." Now I'm not really a techno-buff, unlike the majority of our class (or so it seems to me). At this point in the course I am realizing I am still stuck in Web 1.0 and frankly I don't really know how to use this one-button Web 2.0 yet. I don't own any smart phones or even a laptop. Our home in Bellefonte has no internet connection. Yet I believe that educators and educational researchers should have at least a working knowledge of how to use the technology that students are increasingly demanding within the classroom. That's one reason I'm here (as well as to relay that knowledge to the rest of my department), and honestly I think this will be a challenge for me as someone who really isn't used to being connected to anyone outside of my family and a handful of close friends, let alone the whole world.

Another challenge I'm already beginning to see is one of a shift in basic philosophical worldview. As a student in psychology, "learning" has been defined for me as an individual increase in knowledge. And that's the liberal, cognitive viewpoint. It is a whole other paradigm to view learning as a social construction, a conversation, a relationship. I'd never heard of Vygotsky before last semester. I guess he was always overshadowed by the more popular (at least in psychology) Russian Pavlov. Even in ed psych we mostly study individual differences, individual learning patterns, etc. It is a drastic step to discuss community. Nevertheless, I am excited to be taking that step.

Lastly, just a couple of fun facts about me are that I play the trombone (quite well, I think), I am an amateur magician, and I speak Spanish fluently (I lived in Bolivia for two years). I look forward to getting to know all of you in the next few months!

Hi My name is Sarah Stager I am from Ridgway, Pennsylvania.  My interests are diverse- I love Pilates and politics.  I enjoy research and exercise.  I am taking this class because I would like to explore new technologies with more confidence.  I am interested in the influence of technology in the scope of progressive learning, where students are explorers and teachers are merely the guide. 

This is Li-Chun Wang and I am from Taiwan. I am a doctoral student in Instructional Systems. We also discuss the role of technology in learning in our program and most people are positive to the use of technology in learning.  I am interested in integrating technology  in teaching and learning,  I use twitter, facebook, blogs, video but I am interested to follow new technologies even only for catching up to the trend. I am able to use them in a basic or intermediate level but not ask myself to be an expert.  I am not too quick on learning technologies so that I do have a concern on students' comfort when asking them using any technologies.

Though I think the use of technology is beneficial to teaching and learning, I have doubts on how people use them, especially instructors. I was a teacher in Taiwan and required to use technology in the classroom. Based on my personal observation, technology use offers fun, authentic materials, convenience of distributing class materials, etc. Of course, there are absolutely excellent advantages but I do not see much radical changes. I am curious that whether we have not pay attention to other important issues when integrating technology in learning and teaching. Besides, we also face problems and challenges when having technologies and understanding them, rather than giving up, is probably the best way to diminish the disadvantages.
  
As my personal interests, I enjoy reading, listening to music, sleeping, and watching TV and movies. In addition to those that can be done alone, hanging out with family (though I cannot have this now) and friends are equally important to me.

What disruptive technology means to me....

As I was going through the readings, I started to think about the class title and what it meant.  What makes technology "disruptive" and who does it "disrupt"?  I came to the conclusion that disruptive technology is only disruptive to those who don't understand it, can't use it, and are affraid of it.  One arguement that I hear all the time is that bringing technology into the classroom creates a distraction for students.  I think this is complete bologna.  When I was in middle/high school I didn't have any technology in the classroom and I still managed to find plenty of things to distract me: looking out the window, doodling, and day dreaming.  Instead of passing notes to one another in the classroom, students are sending text messages or IM's.  Technology didn't suddenly create distraction in the classroom, it just changed the type of distraction.

I'm still not sold on the notion that technology is "disruptive"; at least not from the viewpoint of the students.  Students know and use such technologies in their daily routines; to me, it is more disruptive to strip the students of these technologies.  If anything, I think technology is disruptive to the educators and administrators, who may not understand or be comfortable using them.

We are spending a great deal of time in this class learning to become familiar with technology and finding productive ways to incorporate them into the classroom.  What are the chances that we are going to be working in a school district that is going to have the funding to support technology use in the classroom?  If resources are available, will we have the freedom we need to use these tools?  A friend of mine teaches in West Virginia and informed me that the school's network blocks sites like youtube and other social networking sites.  How do we handle those students in our classroom whose socioeconomic status doens't afford them the access to such technologies?  Technology can be used to give shy or non-english speaking students a voice and engage students, but it can also further single out those disadvantaged students.  So I guess the use of technology can be disruptive to those students as well...

My name is Yu-Ting Kao. While it's really fine to call me Yu-Ting, I probably respond faster to my nickname, Freeman, though. I'm from Taiwan. This is my 1 yr. in C & I as a Ph.D. student. Since I am uncertain what do "interests" refer, I'm gonna assume they meant research interest. I'm interested in new literacies and how they affect/impact on ESL learners, and this is why I'm taking this class. I think it's important to have an opener attitude to all resources to enlarge education potential. Instead of repelling/doubting technology with ignorance, I'd like to obtain some new lens to view the phenomanon.

As for my relationship with technology use, I would say I'm amazed by how far it has been gone and how even farther it's gonna get going. I'm more or less open to learn new things and am still adjusting to how different people view them now. Technology affects teaching and learning a lot. On the surface level, the presentation of class activities becomes varied and somehow gears toward with more entertainment. Further, it arouses several issues of whether it's an addition or a minus to nowadays education. I'm really interested in knowing more about the debate.

I'm really clumsy at introducing myself, so I guess this is what I can offer so far. Thanks for reading till here.

Just to be clear, the items below are in addition to the weekly team writing -- this week with a focus on identity -- and the individual blog post that answers, "what does disruptive technology mean to you?"

This week, as we are out of town, we are asking you to do some independent work as a team. You can meet during class time or not, as you choose. There will be two reading assignments for this week, which focuses on identity. The first is Gee's piece about discourse analysis. The second is a art/cultural philosophy reading created by Marshall McLuhan and Quentin Fiore. It is a summation of McLuhan's core ideas in condensed and graphically novel form. It is particularly interesting in that it was written 40+ years ago and yet you will find much of what he says very contemporary.

In addition to the readings, we are also asking you to do a little exploration into emerging technologies. One of the better resources on the web for educators to tap into is Educause. Actually both of us will be at the annual Educause Learning Initiative meeting this week in Austin, TX. They produce an excellent series called, "7 Things You Should Know About ..." It is essentially a series of short white papers that answer seven simple questions about a given technology. On lots of levels it the first place we stop when researching a new technology in a teaching or learning context. Find the seven things series by visiting the Educause site (http://www.educause.edu/7Things).

With that in mind, we'd like you to look at a few of the ones they have there that perk your interests either as an individual or in your team. Once you've organized your thoughts a bit about it we'd like you to create and share a short YouTube video that lets us know the following:

• What technologies did you review?
• Why?
• Are there novel ways you could see those technologies being put to use in education?
• Are there technologies you couldn't find at the Educause site that you'd like to learn more about?

If you don't have a YouTube account, just create one and record your video. If you don't have a webcam, all the machines in our classroom have one ... otherwise, most of the campus labs have webcams available. Once your video is recorded on YouTube, you'll use the Embed Code to create a new entry at the course site with your video in it. To embed a video follow these directions:

• Log into http://blogs.psu.edu and create a New Entry at the course blog.
• Switch from "Rich Text" to "Convert Line Breaks" in the Format drop down menu
• Write and format the text for the body of your entry. (Note: The easiest approach is to describe the video first, then insert it.)
• Look for the Embed code on the YouTube page and cut and paste it into the text body of the new entry. (The embed code begins as "