Enriching Scholarship keynote, 2007, University of Michigan

2,030 views

Published on

The slides for my keynote, Enriching Scholarship 2007.

Published in: Technology, Design
1 Comment
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,030
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
67
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
30
Comments
1
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Enriching Scholarship keynote, 2007, University of Michigan

  1. 1. Emergent technologies, teaching, and learning: spring 2007 University of Michigan: Enriching Scholarship
  2. 2. Plan of the talk <ul><li>Social and pedagogical </li></ul><ul><li>Mobile </li></ul><ul><li>Gaming </li></ul><ul><li>Mixes </li></ul><ul><li>Policy and fears </li></ul>(Middlebury waterfall, spring 2006)
  3. 3. Thematics <ul><li>Emergence in </li></ul><ul><li>time and space </li></ul><ul><li>Pedagogy </li></ul>(Radio Open Source blog/podcast, 2006)
  4. 4. (“Online Communities”, XKCD, April 2007 )
  5. 5. One Web 2.0 anecdote
  6. 6. One Web 2.0 anecdote
  7. 7. One Web 2.0 anecdote
  8. 8. One Web 2.0 anecdote
  9. 9. One Web 2.0 anecdote
  10. 10. One Web 2.0 anecdote
  11. 11. One problem <ul><li>How to apprehend emerging technologies? </li></ul><ul><li>Panic/siege mode </li></ul><ul><li>Trust vendors </li></ul><ul><li>Futurism methods </li></ul><ul><li>Networks </li></ul>
  12. 12. One metaphor <ul><li>Web 2.0 and education is like gaming and education: awareness is challenging </li></ul><ul><li>Huge, financially and quantitatively successful worlds </li></ul><ul><li>Global and rapidly developing </li></ul><ul><li>Bad anxieties, policies, and media coverage </li></ul><ul><li>Perceived lack of seriousness </li></ul>
  13. 13. One metaphor <ul><li>Web 2.0 and education is like gaming and education: intersections are possible </li></ul><ul><li>Take advantage of preexisting projects </li></ul><ul><li>Mod/warp/hack </li></ul><ul><li>DIY </li></ul><ul><li>Literacy: new media </li></ul><ul><li>Influence </li></ul>
  14. 14. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>The term’s history: Tim O’Reilly, 2005 </li></ul><ul><li>Expands “social software” </li></ul><ul><li>Draws on Web history </li></ul>
  15. 15. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Microcontent, rather than sites or large documents </li></ul>(NITLE blog)
  16. 16. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Multiply authored microcontent </li></ul>
  17. 17. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Open content and/or services and/or standards… </li></ul>(Pepysblog, 2003-)
  18. 18. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>… leading to networked conversations </li></ul>(Pepysblog, 2003-)
  19. 19. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Data mashups </li></ul>(Flickr meets Google Maps)
  20. 20. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Perpetual beta (O’Reilly, now history) </li></ul>
  21. 21. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>AJAX-based projects? Also Flash </li></ul>
  22. 22. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>O’Reilly: platforms for development </li></ul>
  23. 23. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Web 2.0 components, movements </li></ul><ul><li>Collaborative writing platforms: the wiki way </li></ul>
  24. 24. I. Web 2.0 Research: wikis are textually productive -Viégas, Wattenberg, Dave (IBM, 2004)
  25. 25. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>News-gathering: wikis are socially productive </li></ul>( OhMyNews! , WikiNews)
  26. 26. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Web 2.0 components, movements </li></ul><ul><li>collaborative writing platforms: the blogosphere </li></ul>
  27. 27. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Addressable content chunks </li></ul>
  28. 28. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Distributed and/or attached conversations </li></ul>
  29. 29. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>State of the blogosphere </li></ul><ul><li>70 million blogs tracked by Technorati: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Technorati is now tracking over 70 million weblogs, and we're seeing about 120,000 new weblogs being created worldwide each day. That's about 1.4 blogs created every second of every day.” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(David Sifry, April 2007) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Chart follows… </li></ul></ul>
  30. 30. I. Web 2.0
  31. 31. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>State of the blogosphere, more </li></ul><ul><li>12 people million using three platforms, including LiveJournal: majority women (Anil Dash, MeshForum 2006) </li></ul><ul><li>Diversity: diaries, public intellectuals, carnivals, knitters, moblogs, warblogs home and abroad… </li></ul>
  32. 32. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Web 2.0 components, movements: social objects </li></ul>http:// flickr.com / <ul><li>Photo sharing: </li></ul><ul><li> Flickr </li></ul>
  33. 33. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Reach of Flickr </li></ul><ul><li>100 million images, as of Feb 2006 </li></ul><ul><li>As of October 2006, 4 million Flickr members (3/4 not in the US) </li></ul><ul><li>1 million photos uploaded each day </li></ul><ul><li>( http://www.radioopensource.org/photography-20/ ) </li></ul>
  34. 34. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Reach of Flickr </li></ul><ul><li>26 million searchable, shareable images in Flickr (December 2006) </li></ul><ul><li>Metadata is good enough </li></ul><ul><li>Gaming inspiration </li></ul>(Ben Harris-Roxas, 2006)
  35. 35. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>What can we learn from this? Ton Zylstra: </li></ul><ul><li>“ In general you could say that both Flickr and delicious work in a triangle: person, picture/bookmark, and tag(s). Or more abstract a person, an object of sociality , and some descriptor...” </li></ul>
  36. 36. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>“…In every triangle there always needs to be a person and an object of sociality . The third point of the triangle is free to define[,] as it were.” </li></ul><ul><li>- http://www.zylstra.org , 2006 </li></ul><ul><li>(emphases added) </li></ul>
  37. 37. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Folksonomy </li></ul><ul><li>User benefit </li></ul><ul><li>Search </li></ul><ul><li>Retrieval </li></ul><ul><li>Self-awareness </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http://del.icio.us/ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>for DoctorNemo </li></ul></ul>
  38. 38. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Community surfacing </li></ul><ul><li>Ontology </li></ul><ul><li>Concepts </li></ul><ul><li>Collaborative research </li></ul>
  39. 39. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Tagging museums: the Steve project </li></ul><ul><li>Users tag differently </li></ul><ul><li>Curators get it </li></ul><ul><li>(Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2004) </li></ul>
  40. 40. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Tagging libraries: PennTags </li></ul><ul><li>Coded locally </li></ul><ul><li>Also tags the open web </li></ul>http://tags.library.upenn.edu/
  41. 41. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>-Alex Iskold, The Read/Write Web , April 2007 </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/the_future_of_rss.php </li></ul>“ RSS is basically a filtered push - the user subscribes (pulls in) to channels that he/she likes, and after that content is delivered automatically.”
  42. 42. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Social object: the person </li></ul><ul><li>FaceBook </li></ul><ul><li>MySpace </li></ul><ul><li>LinkedIn </li></ul><ul><li>ZoomInfo </li></ul><ul><li>CyWorld </li></ul>“ Less than four years after its launch, 15 million people, or almost a third of the country's population, are members.” ( BusinessWeek , September 2005)
  43. 43. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Social news: </li></ul><ul><li>Memeorandum, Tailrank, Digg, TechMeme </li></ul>
  44. 44. I. Web 2.0 and rich media <ul><li>Web 2.0 influences rich media </li></ul><ul><li>Podcasting </li></ul>
  45. 45. I. Web 2.0 and rich media <ul><li>How old is the term? “… all the ingredients are there for a new boom in amateur radio. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>But what to call it? Audioblogging? Podcasting ? GuerillaMedia?” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>(Ben Hammersley, The Guardian </li></ul><ul><li>February 12, 2004) </li></ul>
  46. 46. I. Web 2.0 and rich media <ul><li>What’s happened since February 2004? </li></ul>
  47. 47. I. Web 2.0 and rich media <ul><li>What’s happened since “podcasting” in 2001? Neologisms: </li></ul><ul><li>godcasting </li></ul><ul><li>nanocasting </li></ul><ul><li>podfading </li></ul><ul><li>podsafe </li></ul><ul><li>podspamming </li></ul><ul><li>podvertising </li></ul><ul><li>porncasting </li></ul>
  48. 48. I. Web 2.0 and rich media <ul><li>New forms: profcasting </li></ul><ul><li>Bryn Mawr College: Michelle Francl, chemistry </li></ul><ul><li>Duke: Classroom recording </li></ul>
  49. 49. I. Web 2.0 and rich media <ul><li>Student program podcasting on campus </li></ul><ul><li>War News Radio </li></ul><ul><li>(Swarthmore College) </li></ul>
  50. 50. I. Web 2.0 and rich media <ul><li>Podcasts and research </li></ul><ul><li>Public intellectual </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Out of the Past </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Engines of Our Ingenuity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In Our Time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>University Channel </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Napoleon 101) </li></ul></ul>
  51. 51. I. Web 2.0 and rich media <ul><li>Instrumental to pedagogy: enhance other media </li></ul><ul><li>Handouts: Allegheny College, Gothcast </li></ul>
  52. 53. I. Web 2.0 and rich media <ul><li>Enhance other media </li></ul><ul><li>Middlebury College, Barbara Ganley </li></ul><ul><li>Podcasting with… </li></ul><ul><li>Blogging </li></ul><ul><li>Digital storytelling </li></ul><ul><li>Photography </li></ul><ul><li>Study abroad </li></ul>
  53. 54. I. Web 2.0 and rich media <ul><li>Web 2.0 influences rich media: audio </li></ul><ul><li>Freesound archive </li></ul><ul><li>DIY copyright </li></ul><ul><li>Social networking values </li></ul>(http://freesound.iua.upf.edu/)
  54. 55. I. Web 2.0 and rich media <ul><li>Web 2.0 influences rich media: video </li></ul>(Gootube? Suetube?)
  55. 56. I. Web 2.0 and rich media <ul><li>Videoblogging </li></ul><ul><li>(vlog? </li></ul><ul><li>vog?) </li></ul>(Rocketboom, Amanda Congdon) (already moved on) (Ask a Ninja)
  56. 57. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Teaching with Web 2.0: it’s not all new </li></ul><ul><li>- Web 1.0, internet pedagogies </li></ul><ul><li>Hypertext </li></ul><ul><li>Web audience </li></ul><ul><li>Discussion for a </li></ul><ul><li>Collaborative document authoring </li></ul><ul><li>Groupware </li></ul>
  57. 58. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Teaching with Web 2.0: it’s not all new </li></ul><ul><li>Earlier pedagogies </li></ul><ul><li>Journaling </li></ul><ul><li>Media literacy </li></ul>
  58. 59. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Teaching with Web 2.0: CMS involvement </li></ul><ul><li>Moodle modules </li></ul>
  59. 60. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Teaching with Web 2.0: Blackboard Beyond </li></ul>
  60. 61. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Teaching with Web 2.0: principles </li></ul><ul><li>Distributed </li></ul><ul><li>conversation </li></ul><ul><li>Collaborative </li></ul><ul><li>writing </li></ul><ul><li>Object-oriented </li></ul><ul><li>discussion </li></ul>http://smarthistory.blogspot.com/
  61. 62. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Teaching with Web 2.0: more principles </li></ul><ul><li>Ease of entry </li></ul><ul><li>Personalization </li></ul>
  62. 63. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Teaching with Web 2.0: “net.gen”: </li></ul><ul><li>“ Fully half of all teens and 57 percent of teens who use the Internet could be considered Content Creators, according to a survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project.” </li></ul>http://www.pewtrusts.com/pdf/PIP_Teens_1105.pdf
  63. 64. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>“ [S]tudents… write words on paper, yes— but… also compose words and images and create audio files on Web logs (blogs), in word processors, with video editors and Web editors and in e-mail and on presentation software and in instant messaging and on listservs and on bulletin boards—and no doubt in whatever genre will emerge in the next ten minutes. </li></ul><ul><li>Note that no one is making anyone do any of this writing.” </li></ul>Kathleen Blake Yancey, &quot;Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key.&quot; CCC 56.2 (2004):297-328.
  64. 65. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Wiki pedagogies </li></ul><ul><li>Collective research </li></ul><ul><li>Group writing </li></ul><ul><li>Document editing </li></ul><ul><li>Information literacy </li></ul><ul><li>Discussion </li></ul><ul><li>Knowledge accretion </li></ul>(Romantic Audiences project Bowdoin College, 2005-present
  65. 66. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Social object pedagogies </li></ul><ul><li>Prompts </li></ul><ul><li>Discussion object </li></ul><ul><li>Composition materials </li></ul>
  66. 67. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Social object pedagogies </li></ul><ul><li>Annotate details </li></ul><ul><li>Remix (“Make it mine”) </li></ul>Edugadget http://www.edugadget.com/2005/05/07/flickr-creative-commons
  67. 68. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>RSS pedagogies </li></ul><ul><li>Shaping Web reading </li></ul><ul><li>Pushing student-created content (mother blog, Feed to Javascript) </li></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 wrangling </li></ul>(Bloglines)
  68. 69. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Podcasts and teaching: profcasting </li></ul><ul><li>Bryn Mawr College: Michelle Francl, chemistry </li></ul><ul><li>Duke: Classroom recording </li></ul><ul><li>Learning objects: Gardner Campbell, University of Richmond </li></ul><ul><li>Duke: Course content dissemination </li></ul><ul><li>Information literacy </li></ul>
  69. 70. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Blog problem: privacy </li></ul><ul><li>Contrary to class safe space (Gary Kornblith, Oberlin College) </li></ul><ul><li>Culture of too much disclosure </li></ul><ul><li>Problem increasing archivally </li></ul><ul><li>Some responses </li></ul><ul><li>Can block comments and/or readers </li></ul><ul><li>Teachable moment: what is privacy in 2007? </li></ul><ul><li>Complement other practices </li></ul>
  70. 71. II. Mobile <ul><li>All of Web 2.0, just more so </li></ul><ul><li>Ambient </li></ul><ul><li>Accelerating </li></ul><ul><li>Annotating </li></ul>http://www.phonebashing.com/
  71. 72. II. Mobile <ul><li>(Mandatory device slide) </li></ul>
  72. 73. II. Mobile <ul><li>(Yet another mandatory mobile device slide) </li></ul>Long., MPH, ksmichel
  73. 74. II. Mobile <ul><li>(Still another mandatory mobile device slide) </li></ul>Tnkgrl
  74. 75. II. Mobile <ul><li>(How many mandatory mobile device slides can there be?) </li></ul>Carl Berger, Wei Su
  75. 76. II. Mobile <ul><li>(Found on BBC site, June 2005) </li></ul>American unilateralism
  76. 77. II. Mobile <ul><li>Pedagogies </li></ul><ul><li>Information on demand </li></ul><ul><li>Time usage changes </li></ul><ul><li>Class/world barrier reduction </li></ul><ul><li>Swarming </li></ul><ul><li>Personal intimacy with units </li></ul><ul><li>Spatial mapping </li></ul><ul><li>Mobile, multimedia, social research </li></ul>
  77. 78. II. Mobile <ul><li>Pedagogies: new forms </li></ul>John Schott, Carleton College, 2006
  78. 79. II. Mobile <ul><li>Pedagogies: new forms </li></ul>University of Umea, 2004
  79. 80. III. Gaming <ul><li>Why pay attention to this stuff? </li></ul><ul><li>Cultural presence (crossing gender and age) </li></ul><ul><li>Interface driver (watch NASA) </li></ul><ul><li>Content creation (&quot;The French Democracy&quot; (2005)) </li></ul>(World of Warcraft)
  80. 81. III. Gaming <ul><li>(Gwen, 2006) </li></ul>Why pay attention to this stuff? <ul><li>Changes in information ecology </li></ul><ul><li>Object of study </li></ul><ul><li>Pedagogical implications (James Paul Gee, Mark Prensky, Henry Jenkins) </li></ul>
  81. 82. III. Gaming <ul><li>(Rome: Total War) </li></ul><ul><li>Large issues </li></ul><ul><li>8 million players, World of Warcraft; 1 million players, Virtual Magic Kingdom </li></ul><ul><li>Violence </li></ul><ul><li>Transmedia storytelling (Henry Jenkins, MIT) </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;the new golf&quot;, Second Life (Joi Ito) </li></ul>
  82. 83. III. Gaming <ul><li>(Stacy Road, “The Phone”, 2004) </li></ul><ul><li>Moreover, diversity: </li></ul><ul><li>Current events (Kumawar) </li></ul><ul><li>Political argument (September 12th, FoodForce) </li></ul><ul><li>Religious gaming (Left Behind: Eternal Forces, 2006) </li></ul><ul><li>Literary gaming (Kafkamesto, 2006) </li></ul>
  83. 84. III. Gaming (Second Life, 2004-present) Web 2.0 influences rich media: social gaming and Web 2.0
  84. 85. III. Gaming (Second Life, 2004-present) <ul><li>Pedagogy and Second Life </li></ul><ul><li>Virtual reality, continued </li></ul><ul><li>“ emotional bandwidth” </li></ul>
  85. 86. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling <ul><li>Lonelygirl15 </li></ul><ul><li>One YouTube </li></ul><ul><li>Another YouTube </li></ul><ul><li>Myspace </li></ul><ul><li>Blogs </li></ul><ul><li>Discussion frenzy </li></ul><ul><li>Media attention </li></ul>(2006-)
  86. 87. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling <ul><li>Alternate reality games </li></ul><ul><li>Permeability of game boundary (space and time) </li></ul><ul><li>Focus on distributed, collaborative cognition </li></ul><ul><li>Increased ephemerality </li></ul>(Perplex City, 2003-2006)
  87. 88. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling <ul><li>ARG pedagogy? </li></ul><ul><li>Creation for constructivism </li></ul><ul><li>Information literacy </li></ul><ul><li>Object of study </li></ul>(Nine Inch Nails game, ongoing)
  88. 89. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling <ul><li>Political ARG? </li></ul>(World Without Oil, May 2007)
  89. 90. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling <ul><li>Flickr and storytelling </li></ul><ul><li>Tell a story in 5 frames group </li></ul>“ Gender Miscommunication” (Nightingai1e, 2006)
  90. 91. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling
  91. 92. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling
  92. 93. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling
  93. 94. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling “ Gender Miscommunication” (Nightingai1e, 2006)
  94. 95. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling <ul><li>Flickr and storytelling </li></ul><ul><li>In the Tell a story in 5 frames group, 'Alone With The Sand' </li></ul>(moliere1331, 2005)
  95. 96. One provocation (Valdis Krebs, 2004 )
  96. 97. A second provocation C.S. Mott Children's Hospital National Poll on Children’s Health, May 2007 The persistence of fears
  97. 98. Keeping up <ul><li>National Institute for Technology and </li></ul><ul><li>Liberal Education http:// nitle.org </li></ul><ul><li>NITLE blog http://b2e.nitle.org </li></ul>

×