Dodo bird

New Technologies (ICTs) > New Skills Needed (knowledge + information = innovation) > New Schools in the Networked World (a relevant education)

Twenty-five years behind a bond desk here in New York has taught me at least this one important lesson: "The only constant on Wall Street is that things are always changing". It appears that never-ending type of change has finally arrived in the rest of the world as well. In all of human history, the relatively recent advances in technology, particularly communication technology, have brought a change to the course of human events that, in my view, lacks an historical equivalent. How come so few people see it? Robert J. Hawkins has some advice for those that poo poo the notion that schools need to change in order to prepare students and teachers to meet the demands of a "Networked World". He points out that "While much has been changed with the advances of science and technology, education and the way that students learn and teacher's teach has remained largely unchanged".(Hawkins, R., Ten lessons for ICTs and Education in a Developing World) Someone better wake up. The future is hurtling towards us at mach speed, and teachers should be the first sound the alarm to implement reforms in the way they educate their students AND themselves so both will be equipped to thrive in the information age. Educators need to be visionaries who can create innovative, dynamic, flexible and , above all, relevant educational practices to teach the skills necessary to those who will implement this new technology "as a tool to increase their productivity and creativity".(Hawkins) Hawkins' warning is an important one. Those who have the means to effectuate change, and choose not to, will have no excuse, and will go the way of the Dodo bird. Is anyone out there paying attention?

Online Dating: Finding Love at First Click

Chat

...and the Question is? The beginning of the end game

A lit review or a mini-study? That is the question. Easy as pie (I guess)so... a "Lit Review" it is! My interests and the questions that have consistently emerged from my continuing study of the social and communicative aspects of computer mediated communication have been as follows: What is the definition of intimacy in cyberspace? Are these cyberspacial interpersonal relationships truly "intimate" in nature or are they a hoax? Can the basic human need for intimacy be fulfilled exclusively online? My resources at this juncture are as follows: Lee Bee Hian, Sim Li Chuan, Tan Mon Kiat Trevor, Benjamin H. Detenber (2004)
Getting to Know You: Exploring the Development of Relational Intimacy in Computer-mediated Communication Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 9 (3), 00–00.; Yifeng Hu, Jacqueline Fowler Wood, Vivian Smith, Nalova Westbrook (2004)
Friendships through IM: Examining the Relationship between Instant Messaging and Intimacy Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 10 (1), 00–00. ; Sarah A. Birnie, Peter Horvath (2002) Psychological Predictors of Internet Social Communication Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 7 (4), 0–0.; Walther, J. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(3), 3-43. That's my short list so far and I am exploring some other sources in the next few days. Let's see if this dog will hunt.

WAR - WHY CAN'T WE BE FRIENDS

Action, action, ...we want INTERaction!

Why can't we be friends? I guess it's because so many people don't know what the word means. I think I can say I was on the right track, or better yet, my kids put me on the right track. The idea that social networking sites (SNS) are mostly tools for existing social networks made up of individuals in preexisting proximate social relations was something I was able to discover through my own “research”. It appears that the global aspect of SNSs isn't as far-reaching as some would like it to be. I’ll grant you that 3 teenagers is hardly a large enough study group, and drawing conclusions from a FtF interview about how they use Facebook isn't exact science. Yet, I find it interesting that Boyd concluded that "Large Social networks will always be mediated by and constructed through smaller communities and individual relationships." Underneath all these social networks lies the basic human desire to "belong". Being a "user" of one of these networks may make you feel part of whatever group you choose to interact with, but it doesn't make you these people's friend. You see, I would much rather have three very close friends than I would 3000 "Friendsters". Boyd sends the point home with this statement: "Individual Sociability will never operate on a global scale." I think my kids would be better off spending their time with the few close friends they interact with both online and offline, rather than waste time trying to "acquire" more so-called "friends" on Facebook. It comes down to a "quality of life" choice once again. So...why can't we be friends? Well, we can, but not by "meeting" on an SNS. Let's grab a cup of coffee instead. [Boyd, Danah (in press) "None of this is real" Structures of Participation ed. Joe Karaganis]

Bubbles De Vere

It's not the interNET it's the NETwork

Okay, so this social network thing is very interesting. If you thought social "climbing" was an art form before, I am sure you won't believe what lengths people will go to self-promote in cyberspace. My kids have listed their profiles on Facebook and they say not a day goes by where they don't at least "check in" on their home page. They are constantly updating their pictures content and I guess they are self-promoting to their circle of friends. Yet Facebook hasn't become a substitute for their FtF socialization, they simply regard it as another way of "communicating" with their friends, much like texting, video messaging, and phone calls, AND FtF interaction. These methods are all tools to them, and were it not popular to their group of friends, they wouldn't use them. My son Tommy says that what he likes best about facebook is the asynchronous communication with his friends. They like to keep in touch on their own schedule and don't care if the communication occurs in real time. As I see it, Facebook doesn't make my kids better "connectors" because they are not really looking to grow their circle of friends. They are only interested in "better" connecting with the people they already see and interact with "offline". Perhaps a word we have used earlier in this class fits best those that utilize social networking to self promote: "USERS". A "Social Network User" is as bad as it gets. Call me old-fashioned, but people who need to get somewhere on the backs of their friends, and their friends friends, are losers. They remind me of ex-Olympic gymnast Bubbles Devere. Who is always using somebody to get what she wants for herself. "Call me Bubbles darling, everybody does."