Despite the rough drafts and editing, my presentation is still longer than the stated maximum. The original version was thirty long minutes of me jabbering, but this refined version is concise and coherent. It is just shy of ten minutes but my main fear was further trimming something that had already been cut so fine. I did not want an incoherent mess after spending twenty plus hours on a product (that is with the writing and rehearsing time)! Can you tell that I am nervous about going over the time length? I believe the final product may just save me from any penalties. I really want to use a screen recorder but I could not get it to work on my computer. Check one out here. The difficulties I had uploading the video should not be understated, Windows Movie Player disorganized my audio repeatedly (several times to be exact) but I'm stubborn and finally found a version of PowerPoint that converts videos into MPEG-4. I love MPEG-4, fast and clean conversion!
Please enjoy and comment!
Educational Technologies
I have also shared the presentation on SlideShare. Please note that the presentation must be downloaded to hear the audio. Check the link below:
The concept of computational thinking seemed to be a natural progression for the previous week's examination of digital identity and digital citizenship. Have a problem that needs to be solved? Why not utilize computational thinking?! Wing (2006) notes, “computational thinking confronts the
riddle of machine intelligence: What can humans do better than computers? and
What can computers do better than humans” (p. 33)? Computational thinking is the reformulation of a complex problem into one that can be managed. The components which comprise computational thinking differ between theorists but essentially utilize the four components as depicted in the image above. These components include decomposition (breaking the problem into simpler problems), pattern recognition (analysing similarities between problems to find a solution), abstraction (removing the unnecessary elements from the problem), and algorithm design (a set of rules or instructions to follow) (Shute, Sun, & Asbell-Clarke, 2017, p. 145). It is important to note that technology could potentially overcomplicate a problem. The emphasis should be on solving problems efficiently and effectively (Shute, Sun, & Asbell-Clarke, 2017, p. 151). The process helps streamline problem-solving which in turns makes students more discerning and effective learners and future problem-solvers.
Computational thinking has an origin in the work of constructionist theorist Seymour Papert and the seminal work of Wing (2006) (Shute, Sun, & Asbell-Clarke, 2017, p. 143). Constructionism is the experiential idea that learners construct mental models of understanding. In constructionism learning occurs most effectively when creating tangible objects, which includes project-based learning and problem-based learning, and builds on Jean Piaget's theory of constructivism (Cakir, 2008, pp. 194-198). Computational thinking certainly falls in line with my interest in game-based learning. Check out the retro video below on the work of Seymour Papert and an interesting debate between Paulo Freire (critical pedagogy theorist look here for more information and check out my post on critical digital pedagogy here) and Seymour Papert on the future of schools and technology:
Seymour Papert
Um Encontro Inesquecível entre Paulo Freire e Seymour Papert Check out the following videos for an in-depth analysis and explanation of computational thinking presented by Jeannette Wing:
Jeannette M. Wing - Computational Thinking and Thinking
About Computing
Jeannette Wing: Computational Thinking Checkout the videos below for an overview of what computational thinking is in a nutshell:
Working in the sphere of coding is the perfect application of computational thinking. The process requires one to use all components of computational thinking. To try coding for yourself try Scratch or Tynker. There are some excellent resources here too!
My Foray into Bitmoji https://www.bitmoji.com/
Sources
Cakir, M. (2008). Constructivist Approaches to Learning in Science and Their Implications for Science Pedagogy: A Literature Review. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 3(4), 193-206. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35.
Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J., & Jiménez-Fernández, C. (2017). Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the Computational Thinking Test. Computers in Human Behavior,72(C), 678-691.
Shute, V.J., Sun, C. & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142-158.
This week is truly dedicated to the concepts of digital literacy and digital citizenship as presented respectively in the article by Buckingham (2015) Defining Digital Literacy, and the article by Emejulu and McGregor (2016) Towards a Radical Digital Citizenship in Digital Education. Both articles argue that to educate with technology requires educators to first educate about using technology. Emejulu and McGregor took this a step further by analysing the consequences of technologies and the liberating potential of technologies through the concept of radical digital citizenship.
The Dangers of the Internet
While Watching Ask Yourself: How could we mitigate the
associated and direct risks of Digital Media and Technology?
Emjulu and McGregor (2016) note, "radical digital citizenship we mean praxis through which individuals and groups: (1) critically analyse the social, political, economic and environmental consequences of technologies in everyday life; (2) collectively deliberate and take action to build alternative and emancipatory technologies and technological practices" (p. 1). The article provided a vastly fascinating and meticulous examination of the underlying consequences of our contemporary use of digital technologies. I had the privilege of presenting the information and consequential activities related to the article. Before delving into the information one needs to ask themselves: What does it mean to be a citizen? What is the ideal we strive for in the "real" world? As the digital sphere is merely an extension of the real world and thus the inequalities that permeate our neoliberal society are transferred into a techno-capitalist system; How can we recognize our role in perpetuating the inequalities and what can we do to employ these technologies in an emancipatory capacity? To often we are naive or apathetic about the production process and impact of our consumer goods. Who is negatively impacted by our convenience? Who is exploited or excluded? How can we change this this? Will we change this system? Check out the videos below for a fascinating peak at the impact of our technological driven society:
What’s a smartphone made of? - Kim Preshoff
Conflict Minerals, Rebels and Child Soldiers in Congo
Internet Scamming in Ghana
Inside China's High-Tech Dystopia
The internet, video games, streaming, smart phones
and a host of other technologies provide a new medium to represent the world and children are engaging with technologies as cultural forms (Buckingham, 2015, p.22). How we educate our children in the real world should be held to the same standards in the digital. Check out the following videos below:
Extracurricular empowerment: Scott McLeod at TEDxDesMoines
I took the opportunity to generate an infographic of radical digital citizenship using the "free" component of https://www.easel.ly/
https://www.easel.ly/browserEasel/9657697
To practice a radical digital citizenship is to resist the
idea that a neutral technology exists. Technology always reflects the interests
of scientists, engineers and capitalists. By critically analysing the social
construction of technology, we can map the effects of particular kinds of
technology beyond its ‘intended’ applications (Emejulu & McGregor, 2016, pp.
10-11). Developing an awareness how digital media are constructed and of the rhetoric
employed in interactive communication is essential. In the context of digital
media, it is crucial to understand who is communicating and why they are communicating
that message and by extension a critical examination of the invisible
commercial influences that seek to acquire your information (Buckingham, 2015,
p. 26).
Emejulu and McGregor ask, “What does radical digital
citizenship mean for digital education” (p. 13)?
Digital education must move away from apolitical or
politically naïve posture. We need to resist the idea that neutral technology
exists.
Check out the videos below for further information.
The Terrifying Cost of "Free” Websites | Adam Ruins Everything
Humans Need Not Apply
The article, Towards a Radical Digital Citizenship in Digital Education, uses social movement theorist Manuel Castells (2012) claims that
we have become a ‘network society’, which implies that, "hegemonic power lies with those who control, programme and connect dominant
networks … citizen counter-power is contingent on the ability of social
movements to ‘reprogram’ networks" (Emejulu & McGregor, 2016, p. 7). The article's authors both engage in research related to social activism. Check out Emejulu's page here and McGregor's page here. Emejulu and McGregor (2016) argue “the ‘old’ power relations
within the supposedly ‘new’ terrain of digital activism help to shape
articulations and actions that challenge romanticised ideals of open,
democratic and non-hierarchical relations within a ‘network society’” (p. 8). Social media affords avenues of protest for a variety of individuals on a global scale (Bonilla & Rosa, 2015, p. 7-8; Khazraee & Novak, 2018, pp. 1-2). The ideal figure is regarded as a ‘network-extender’ who is not bound to time or place and tolerant of difference (Emejulu & McGregor, 2016, p. 9). Individuals previously anchored by to regions or nations are now free, unless
held back by poverty. Digital citizens under techno-capitalism, are
compelled to pretend everyone
is on the same level of privilege and that no institutionalised
inequalities exist (Emejulu & McGregor, 2016, p. 10). The two constitutive elements of radical digital citizenship require the critical analyses of technologies and collective action for developing digital emancipatory technologies (Emejulu & McGregor, 2016, p. 10).
One Year After Michael Brown: How A Hashtag Changed Social Protest
How Smartphones Change The Way You Think | Jeff Butler
Bonilla, Y., & Rosa, J. (2015). #Ferguson: Digital
protest, hashtag ethnography, and the racial politics of social media in the
United States. American Ethnologist, 42(1), 4-17.
Buckingham, D. (2015). Defining digital literacy. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy: Special Issue 2006-2016. 21 - 34. Retrieved from www.idunn.no/dk.
Emejulu, A., & McGregor, C. (2016): Towards a radical digital citizenship in digital education, Critical Studies in Education, DOI: 10.1080/17508487.2016.1234494
Khazraee, E., & Novak, A. (2018). Digitally Mediated
Protest: Social Media Affordances for Collective Identity Construction. Social
Media Society, 4(1), Social Media Society, March 2018, Vol.4(1).
The focus for this week is the contemporary conception of digital identity. Both selected readings, When Atoms Meet Bits: Social Media, the Mobile Web and Augmented Revolution by Jurgenson (2012) and Visitors and Residents: A New Typology for Online Engagement by White and Le Cornu (2011) spoke of the fallacy of digital dualism and argued for a more integrated view of the physical world and digital world. Jurgenson (2012) argued that the digital and physical enmesh to create an "augmented reality" (p. 84). While White and Le Cornu offered a replacement for Prensky's Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants in the form of a new continuum based typology. White and Le Cornu (2011) state, "our Visitors and Residents typology should be understood as a continuum and not a binary opposition" (p. 5). This continuum avoids the generalizations of Prensky's dualistic theory or we end up viewing the world as the film The Matrix (Jurgenson, 2012, pp. 84-85).
https://laurenbedfordportfolio.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/matrix-pill.jpgTechnology will always shape the people in terms of relevance and applicability. If the technology is relevant to a person it will naturally be incorporated into their daily lives. As an avid gamer, born and bred in the warm glow of Nintendo games and the chime of dial-up internet, I am no stranger to technologies influence in my daily life. Social media exploded on the scene while I was in high school and quickly became a popular means to stay in touch with others. Now I have continual access to my smart phone, social media, online gaming, and video streaming. Upon reflection on playing Second Life, a massively multiplayer online role playing game (MMORPG), I asked myself: Am I my user profile, username, or avatar rather than myself online. Sometimes I become my digital self, particularly when I am attempting to be articulate in a professional sense or when I am frustrated while gaming. Further, one should ask when engaging with social media: do you find your self-worth from social media or does it lift you up? It is a balance for me. I can not quit. For me, the digital and physical occupy the same realm and therefore my reality has always been augmented.
Check out this incredibly succinct and thoughtful video:
Is Social Media Hurting Your Mental Health? | Bailey Parnell | TEDxRyersonU
How Social Media Shapes Identity | Ulrike Schultze | TEDxSMU
Discussion in class focused on our redefined relations and identity online. How we portray ourselves online is often a reflection of our true self; an expression of freedom or professionalism. Unfortunately there are individuals that berate or belittle the works or ideas of others online; these individuals have earned the moniker troll. As Coles and West (2016) note, "'trolling' refers to specific type of malicious online behaviour, intended to disrupt interactions, aggravate interactional partners and lure them into fruitless argumentation" (p. 233). Trolling behaviour has the potential to great harm and is pervasive throughout online media (Coles & West, 2016, p. 233).
The world's greatest internet troll explains his craft
https://imgur.com/gallery/G0Zf8yi
Net neutrality is the concept that all data should be treated equally. Linked with net neutrality and under the umbrella of an "open internet" are the concepts of decentralization of technological power, social justice, lack of internet censorship, transparency, and open standards. Berghel (2017) rhetorically asks, "How does net neutrality fit within today’s neoliberal
politics?" To which Berghel responds, "In short, it doesn’t" (p. 68)! Berghel uses, "
neoliberalism to denote an uncritical vision of unregulated
markets, privatization of public assets and resources, and antipathy to public
support of social programs that’s affiliated with crony rather than
laissez-faire capitalism. Under this definition, government largely serves the
interests of the power elite and military industrial complex—through corporate
welfare (government subsidies/subsidy economics), procorporate tax policies (for
example, foreign investment credits), loose monetary policy (for example,
quantitative easing), deficit spending, and pro-monopolistic practices—and its
legitimacy is measured by its potential contribution to corporate profit" (p. 68). Neoliberalism in this regard is diametrically at odds with the concept of net neutrality and an open internet. There are ways as users we can fight back. Online tools like Disconnect and Ghostery or the search engine DuckDuckGo avoid and block online tracking. The conversation in class around net neutrality really got me thinking of the television show Silicon Valley and a concept the show introduced, that of a decentralized internet.
Here is an article from wired in 2017 on the new decentralized internet and here is one from 2018 on the arrival of a glitchy decentralized internet. We are achieving a free system but there is a long way to go in a neoliberalist system.
We're building a dystopia just to make people click on ads | Zeynep Tufekci
The reflection this week was exhaustive but offered plenty of conversation and insights.
Sources
Berghel, H. (2017). Net Neutrality Reloaded. Computer,50(10), 68-72.
Coles, B. & West, M. (2016). Trolling the trolls: Online forum users constructions of the nature and properties of trolling. Computers in Human Behavior,60(C), 233-244. Retrieved from CRKN Elsevier ScienceDirect.
Jurgenson, N. (2012). When Atoms Meet Bits: Social Media, the Mobile Web and Augmented Revolution. Future Internet, 4(1), 83–91. doi:10.3390/fi4010083
Sest, N. & March, E. (2017). Constructing the cyber-troll: Psychopathy, sadism, and empathy. Personality and Individual Differences,119, 69-72. Retrieved from CRKN Elsevier ScienceDirect. White, D.S. & Le Cornu, A. (2011). Visitors and Residents: A new typology for online engagement. First Monday. 16(9). Retrieved from https://firstmonday.org/
