Saturday, November 29, 2014

Me trying to understand Herbrechter #edcmooc


This post is me trying to get my head around the different terms used by Herbrechter in his interview (see link above). I realize I’m over simplifying; Philosophy is not my strong subject.

To understand the term “Critical Post Humanism”, I need to know how Humanism is defined; it seems to be the belief that human dignity, interests and values are of primary importance.  Humans are special. Although there are many other definitions I think this is the one that Hebrechter is alluding to.

The Post Humanists believe we are heading towards the end of Humanism or starting an era after Humanism.  They are critical of humanism in light of recent abhorrent world events, imminent environmental disaster, advances in life science (animals are pretty clever too), and advances in technology. I think they also disagree with the idea of humans being categorized as a single entity, as humans by their nature are so diverse (could be wrong on that).

The Post Humanist comes in many forms, the most far out being the Transhumanists, they believe that technology can make us more human (more special), through enhancement using technology to improve our physical and mental abilities. This would include the (once SciFi only) practices of cyborgisation and prosthesisation, as well as prolonging life etc.

So that leaves us with Critical Post Humanism, the critical post humanist believes as other Post Humanists, that we are at the end of the Humanist period, or start of a new period after Humanism, but is not prepared to throw away everything that humanism stood for.  There were some pretty good things like equality, justice etc. While their attitude towards Transhumanism is open, and they’ll take it on a case by case basis. 

Or at least that's how I understood it.

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Kolowich and Monke #edcmooc


Here is my response to the Kolowich article, followed by a brief comment on the Monke article.

Kolowich, S (2010) The Human Element. Inside Higher Ed

Kolowich believes that the addition of video to an online course can add the human touch and therefore improve retention rates.  Is he right? What aspect of the human if any, can help alleviate the distance in Distance Education. I think one thing to consider is whether the communication by video is synchronous or asynchronous.  Synchronous communication with an expert or fellow learner gives immediate feedback to a question or response to an idea, but is video any better than text live chat.  Video certainly is a closer imitator of the face to face experience.  However, text is often more considered and succinct. With regard to asynchronous communication there may be some who prefer watching a video of the lecturer reading his study notes while sat at a desk, rather than reading themselves online. Having spent 4 years studying a degree online, I did not have a yearning to see or hear my tutors, but I did find that I appreciated a quick response from a tutor on a forum or a comment on a wiki post.  It may depend on your learning style. Personally, I am happy having the tutor guiding us as to what we should read and them posting some pertinent questions for our response.  Pretty much as we are doing here. Again I believe, the issue here is fear of change. Fear by some lecturers that they are losing control over the learning, their response to this is to take the new medium and try and make it as similar as possible to the old.


Monke, L (2004) The Human Touch, EducationNext


Monke questions the use of technology in Education. He believes that "Technology education should be driven by 'human values' not by the prerogatives of the technology". It is a rewording of "technology should follow pedagogy"  Which I believe, as I'm sure most educators do is correct. There may be occasions when it seems that the technology is the driving force behind a curriculum, but often this follows the initial implementation of the technology and it eventually settles and the pedagogy once more takes ascendance.

In this article Monke, to my mind, seems to have decided it is either one thing or the other, technological or the human/natural way. Surely the ideal is to combine the two. 



Thursday, November 20, 2014

Thoughts on Fuller #edcmooc

This is my response to the Steve Fuller TEDx lecture (link below) on defining humanity, guided by the questions set by the tutors of the MOOC.

Humanity 2.0: defining humanity - Steve Fuller’s TEDx Warwick talk

First of all, I could watch/listen to this guy all night, a wonderfully charismatic lecturer.

"Education is a dying art" Fuller jokes while discussing the ancient artifice of trying to make people human through education, aspects of which are dealing with others, speaking in sentences, looking each other in the eye, justifying your opinion, taking others opinion. Initially I thought he was having a dig at someone not paying attention at the back, but I think it is a comment on how some people conceive online/distance education, how education is devalued through a lack of face to face contact. But as we shall see later, it is quite the opposite.

He goes on to talk about the modern artifice of enhancement. Enhancement of ourselves to become more fully human. If we accept that education is a path towards humanism, then I feel we are already using enhancement through technology.  The Internet gives us instant access to limitless information, our mobile devices allow to record every thought, we can store and retrieve masses of data and social networking allows us to collaborate and share ideas. While these are not physical enhancements to our own body, they are enhancements to our brains capacity to access, hold and learn new information.

Professor Fuller notes that there is a historical precedent for only some homo sapiens to be human. An idea, which is abhorrent to a modern day humanist and non fundamental theist alike, all men are created equal etc. However, he mentions that we have failed in our human project of equality for all, there are still obvious inequalities in gender, race and class throughout the world and this is reflected in education. For example, in part of the world where I currently reside, Bedouin (nomads) and their descendants are not entitled to a free state education, but are unable to leave the country as they have no passport. There are countless other examples including the lack of education for women in some countries. However, Fuller finishes his presentation by stating that the old humanist project should not be stopped in order to reassert our humanity, we must continue the fight for equality. Giving access to education for all is a necessary component of complete equality. Education technology can achieve this through providing free education for all, once there is a network. MOOCs are a prime example of how this can be achieved. Thousands of people, who are equal (e learning is a great leveller) connected, working together, sharing ideas in one space, this could include the bedouin and the girls who aren't allowed to go to school. It's got to be a good thing.

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Balfour and Stewart through Johnston's filter #edcmooc

I read three articles this week, here is my rather limited reflection on them:

Johnston, R (2009) Salvation or destruction: metaphors of the internet. First Monday, 14(4).

In the article above Johnston discusses the use of metaphor when describing the Internet, based on a study of editorials. She broadly divides the metaphors into those which are utopian (salvation) or dystopian (destruction) . Examples of salvation metaphors she quotes are the Internet helps, transforms, handles. While destructive metaphors include the Internet targets, attacks, assaults. As Johnston states when we choose to use either set of metaphors we are choosing a filter through which to view the Internet. This is obviously designed to influence the reader.

Bearing this in mind, the tutors have asked us to read the following 2 articles on MOOCs. The first by Balfour focuses on the assessment of written work, looking at two methods, one automated, the other peer review. While the second by Stewart looks at how he believes that the advent of MOOCs has created an unintentional opportunity for students to develop digital literacies through participation and collaboration.

Balfour, S., 2013. Assessing Writing in MOOCs: Automated Essay Scoring and Calibrated Peer ReviewTM. Research and Practice in Assessment, 8, pp.40–48.

Stewart, B., 2013. Massiveness + Openness = New Literacies of Participation? Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2).

Balfour and Stewart articles approach MOOCs from polar opposites.  Balfour's article is comparing 2 assessment tools, that are aiming to assess student written work on a MOOC to the same rigorous standard as work submitted on regular University Bachelors course, where there are a manageable number of students.  While Stewart is looking at how the MOOC presents an opportunity to learn new digital literacies and take the teaching out of the lecturers direct control, while the learners use collaboration through social networking, blogs and discussion boards to share expertise and knowledge. Essentially, as I see it, Balfour is writing about how some are trying to limit the change MOOCs could bring, while Stewart is writing about how we should embrace the change and use it to develop learning in a new direction.

The metaphors used in both articles back this up, Balfour's are very mechanistic, tools, mechanisms, which suggest control and reliance on something/somebody else. While the metaphors used by Stewart suggest openness, vastness, growth and movement, sea of knowledge, flow of information, sowing seeds. 

It seems to me obvious which view of MOOCs is the most desirable, which heralds a utopian future for education, rather a drab dystopian one, but I have no interest in keeping things the way they are, I have no need of an A grade paper. I want to learn and learning by sharing is the future.


Monday, November 17, 2014

The Future, in 4 short films #edcmooc

I watched 4 short films, which portray future technology from different perspectives. I will try to make sense of all these through the tutors questions and my own impressions.The films were:

Film 1: A day made of glass 2
Film 2: Bridging our future
Film 3: A digital tomorrow
Film 4: Sight

Film 1 and 2 were adverts by Corning and Intel respectively, showing how there products would seamlessly fit into our future lives, particularly into education.  The thing that struck me most about the videos, was that despite all the fantastic technology, the kids were still being taught in a very traditional way. Mostly in a classroom, while the students soaked up knowledge from the teacher/expert via the technology or the technology itself. This contrasts nicely with Stewarts article on MOOCs and the New Literacies of Participation (more on that later). Both videos are trying to portray a Utopian view of the future, as they would being adverts. However, for an old cynic like me, who has read/watched to much Scifi, I found them rather depressing, I imagine a massive underclass, who live separately, with no means to access this bright new world. 

Film 3 on the other hand I found far more representative of how I see the future. I think the overall message in "A Digital Tomorrow" is the future is never as bright as you think it is going to be. We are living the past future, now (if that makes sense), I think we all get excited about future technological developments, but once they arrive they just slot in, they become the norm and life goes on.  This is also highlighted in the video with the mix of the old and new technologies, the hand recognition to open the car door, but then she leans in and opens the boot with a latch (I thought that was really funny).  But that is how it is, in the two adverts for Cornings and Intel, the technology is all encompassing, it all matches, it's all linked, but you can guarantee that in reality, if when start using this kind of technology in education, there will still be a kid sat there with a pencil and note pad, because he forgot his "Glass", or he dropped it, or he forgot to charge it, or his parents can't afford it, or he just prefers to write things in a note book, because it helps him remember.

In film 4 we see a character who uses technology to his own advantage. The sky diving sequence is a metaphor for how he lives his life as a game. Through "badging" (a new term to me) he gains data that gives him the advantage when trying to seduce the girl. The ending is simply "restart", like in a game if you fail, you start again. This is a very dystopian view of the future when compared to the Corning and Intel adverts.

Friday, November 7, 2014

Technological Determinism and 4 short films #edcmooc

Here are my impressions of each of the 4 short films in relation to the questions posed by the course tutors and then in relation to Chandler's article. 

I apologise for the over simplifications that follow.


I really enjoyed the 4 short films. I found the article by Chandler tough going, through no fault of Chandler, but it's been a few years since I've read an academic piece of this nature. However, perseverance paid off and I found it very informative:


Film 1 Bendito Machine III

Film 2 Inbox
Film 3 Thursday
Film 4 New Media

The article: Chandler, D. (2002). Technological determinism. Web essay, Media and Communications Studies, University of Aberystwyth 


Bendito Machine III

The film suggests that technology/media has a great effect on society, all the people were obsessed with the technology to the point of worship. It also affected their behaviour, everyone doing exercises in time with the technology.  As the images got more violent so did at least one member of the group, going of to get the "TV with guns". The members of the group had no choice of media, only the one who fetched the updated technology each time. There was no interaction with the media, until the very end, when the final technology fell from the sky, a computer/the Internet, with the sound of the dial up modem suggesting a chance for interaction and connectivity, unfortunately everyone was dead.


My view of this film after reading Chandler's article is that it is certainly reductionist, the implication of the film is that it is technology at the heart of what is happening. The radio, television, computer are implied, but they all come from the same place and all look similar. There is also a sense that the development of the technology is inevitable, which implies there is a technological imperative, every time the chap wanders off you know he will come back with something bigger and better, not necessarily better for the group, but better in the sense that it is more advanced. This is also showing that the evolution of technology is progress.


Chandler divides technological determinism into strong and weak.  Strong technological determinism is when the technology is the sole cause or a necessary cause of change. While weak technological determinism is when technology is viewed as an enabling factor. This film has a strong technological determination perspective, but an obviously dystopian one. The technology is seen as the sole reason for change, but it's not a change for the better.


Inbox


On the whole I felt this film had a utopian perspective, after all they wouldn't have met, were it not for the technology, and there is the implication that they will be happy together in the future. I found this film interesting because for me it showed stages of adoption of a new technology. Stages I'm calling, through lack of any research, experimentation, self consciousness, lack of inhibition, reliance, behavioural change. When the female lead starts putting objects in the bag, she throws in whatever is to hand (experimentation), when the female lead tells the male her name, she becomes real and he quickly gets dressed (self consciousness). Then later they are both more comfortable with the technology, at one point the male double checks a message he has written, shrugs his shoulders, and chucks it in. Then when the bag rips and they can no longer communicate, both are distressed (reliance). Finally, when they meet face to face for the first time, the continue to communicate with messages on the post it notes (behavioural change). I'm not suggesting that they continued through out their relationship to communicate in the same manner, but I thought it significant.


After reading Chandler's article, I find it difficult to link what he states as technological determinism with the film. Except the overall principle that technology causes change in society, and this is only due to the fact that the couple continue to communicate by notes after they first meet (tenuous I admit).  However, (I'm guessing the article was written in the late 90s by looking at the references), it did make me wonder how Chandler would have defined technical determinism more recently with the advent of social networking and instant messaging.


Thursday


I believe that this film is trying to tell us that we are too reliant on technology. When the technology fails, the humans are of no use.  They are part of one large functioning, or non functioning machine. The main loss in this film is man's connection with nature, the wife walks through the tiny park tapping on her phone ignoring the nature around her. The only brief connection is when the baby bird hits the apartment window and the husband watches on as the bird picks itself up unaided and flies away. There is an irony in that some of the technology copies nature, the alarm clock, the machine that allows them to fly. Another loss is the sense of achievement, the couple are taken to their flying machine by a lift, which takes forever and bores them.  While the baby bird struggles day and night to learn to fly and succeeds (unaided). To me it is quite clear the the birds have agency in this film, they use the technology for their needs, wire for the nest, a satellite dish to build the nest on, they are not slaves to the technology.  This is also highlighted by the fact that throughout the film the human characters never speak, just the occasional grunt, while you can constantly here the technological drone, with the bird song loud over the top.


In relation to technological determinism, there is a strong element of reification, technology as a single whole thing, highlighted by its wholesale failure when the wire is removed.  It is also mechanistic, with machines representing technology, the aforementioned mechanical drone throughout gives this impression. Also, the sense that the humans have just given up and plod on through their tech laden lives implies that the development of technology is unstoppable, highlighting a technological imperative.


New Media


We were asked by the tutors to compare this film to the first film "Bendito Machine III". Initially the only similarity I could see was the lack of choice as to what they were viewing, listening to. In film 1, they watch whatever is shown, there is no element of choice and in "New Media" the only human character sits passively listening to whatever is being pushed to him by the aliens (for want of a better word), while the remote lies redundant on the floor. A difference between the films is Film 1 shows the process of technological development, while Film 4 shows the result. I briefly got excited when I realised that the human character in New Media was listening to the sound track of 12 Angry Men, but couldn't work out what message was being conveyed with regard to technology.


After reading Chandler's article I was able to see a great number of connections between it and New Media. This was also aided by visiting New Media creator's website, Moli studio. Where they summarise the film as "We've been invaded again...This time it's our own fault... we've created New Media". The film is both mechanistic and reductionist, technology is reduced to one thing the machines, everything else is in ruin. The technology is a monster created by man, it does as it wishes and is in control, so technology is autonomous. The film shows a technological imperative, man is certainly not in control of the technology and can't stop it. This film has a strong technological determination perspective, and like Bendito Machine III a very dystopian one.


Overall, I can't imagine that technological determinism is spouted as a solely dystopian theory, but it is quite apparent from the majority of the films above, plus the fact that to my knowledge no one was able to mention a single technology driven utopian film, that the media interprets technological determinism as a thing to be avoided. 

Monday, November 3, 2014

E-Learning and Digital Cultures #edcmooc

Glad to be part of the E-Learning and Digital Cultures MOOC, from the University of Edinburgh. I'm looking forward to exercising my brain and learning something new.

I hope I can take something of what I learn into my work as an English teacher in the technology rich environment of our college.

Already enjoyed watching the first 4 short films and trying to think of a film that depicts a technology driven utopian world, no luck there.

#edcmooc