[Home] [The Daily] [Wiki] [About] [Aggregations] [Readings]
November 6, 2009
Toward the end of our live session yesterday, Stephen referenced this article by Lawrence Lessig. It's a bit long, but does provide an interesting perspective on ways in which transparency could be negative: "How could anyone be against transparency? Its virtues and its utilities seem so crushingly obvious. But I have increasingly come to worry that there is an error at the core of this unquestioned goodness. We are not thinking critically enough about where and when transparency works, and where and when it may lead to confusion, or to worse. And I fear that the inevitable success of this movement--if pursued alone, without any sensitivity to the full complexity of the idea of perfect openness--will inspire not reform, but disgust."
Lawrence Lessig, , November 5, 2009 [Link] [Tags: none] [Comment]
Recording: Discussion - Openness and Transparency
During our live session this week, we had the pleasure of chatting with Alan Levine (the recording is listed under week 8). I enjoyed the session. Topics of blogging, openness, learning, teaching, privacy, security, etc. were addressed. , , November 5, 2009 [Link] [Tags: none] [Comment]
Here's what course members from around the world had to say. Want to join the conversation? Submit your feed. Then put this at the beginning of your post: CCK09CCK09 Social Media Revolution
As FrancisNovember 5, 2009
These links are comments posted to the Moodle Discussion Forum, Week 8. If you want to participate in the discussion, but don't want to set up a blog, then you can post here.Re: Openness
It's our social roles and circumstances that shape how we deliver our messages and interact with the rest. I think it's a complex mix of a given social context and individuals as agents and a network of meanings, events, and accidental happenings. We can focus on the individuals who as agents make things happen or change the overall direction; and we can also focus on the social context, organizations, or culture which influence the outcomes of the individual actions.
One of my students replied to this concern once by saying, "Yeah? Well by then my boss will have his beer photos in Facebook too!"
We all choose what to keep private and what to put on the web. I don't think that's a false persona, just a web persona. I keep a lot of things private in person too.
The schools are warning students now to watch out due to future employement issues. I haven't figured out what I think about that yet. Youthful indiscretions have always haunted people -- it's just we have photos of them posted now. Since we didn't have photos posted then, does that mean that it was less real, when what our stupid actions were simply bandied about among our friends? or, at the celebrity level, published in someone else's memoir?
Maybe we're just afraid that more people can see our stupidity than ever before. But the kids who've grown up with this stuff don't have an "ever before". They're not going to see the problem as that serious, and if my student is correct, who will care?
We , and our students, can simultaneously live in the world and try to change it. Being a pragmatist, I would never encourage anyone (including myself) to sacrifice an important part of their life (like their employability) to a principle, without being really sure that it was worth it. If universities and employers were rational and sensible, then we could hope that they would ignore indiscretions and look for the qualities they want in their graduates/ employees but unfortunately, stories like the one Chris Sessums told us remind us that rationality and sense can be scarce commodities.
Another approach is to 'manage' your digital identity: to keep the silly stuff within groups of friends, and when that doesn't work, push it off the front page of your search with your own presence.
I also struggle with similar feelings Kerry. But I do feel like often we miss great opportunities to further a concept or work by keeping it behind walls.
I don't really know if there is an easy way to solve this. I wonder though if what needs to happen is a rethinking of the word "value"?
Agreed! I want to be open and honest with my employer because it is way more difficult living up to an unrealistic image.
I wonder if this concern about making a fool of ourselves comes from the idea that we are experts? We have tried in the past to become the expert and everyone knows that the expert doesn't have those nasty skeletons in the closet, or they at least keep them well hidden.
What do you think are the similarities and differences in the videos?
What are the implications of such connections and networking on education and learning?November 6, 2009
It is a sad world, virtual or otherwise, when one cannot be themselves without fear of recrimination or refusal of access to services, occupations etc. Pragmatism does sound a little like fear though. What ever became of principle?
What One grows? What degree of openness is required for growth?
In this Next 5,000 days of the web, some interesting points were raised.
Total personalisation, total transparency.
With the Web and Internet:
Smarter, more personalized, more Ubiquitous.
To share is to gain. We are the Web.November 6, 2009
Do you believe those predictions?November 6, 2009
Rereading that post this morning made me smile; thank you for reminding me of it. I'm much more interested in being transparent. I'd rather present myself to an employer as I actually am than pretend I'm someone else. If I pretend, what's the best that can happen? I get hired for some job--but it's a bad fit because they hired some fantasy person that isn't really me.
In one of my previous jobs, part of our interview process was aimed at trying to find out how people dealt with problems. I remember one woman with eight years of instructional design experience who claimed she had never had a project fall behind in schedule and had never worked with anyone with a "challenging" personality. We kept trying to give her opportunities to talk about how she solved problems, but I think she thought we were asking trick questions to get her to admit she wasn't perfect. We didn't hire her; we could tell how she'd respond when things went wrong. Maybe she really did have a perfect track record--but we couldn't guarantee that everything would be perfect in our team. We wanted someone who could recover from a mistake, and she couldn't prove to us that she'd ever done so. That same kind of fear of being open prevented her from getting the job, even though her instructional design samples were good.
I'd rather hire someone who I know genuinely is the person they appear to be, and I'd rather be hired by someone who approaches it the same way.
Halliday (1978, p. 16) asserts that 'in the psychological sphere, there have been two alternative lines of approach to the question of language development including the 'nativist' and 'environmental' positions. In particular, Halliday (1978, p. 17) states that
'the nativist model reflects the philosophical-logical strand in the history of thinking about language, with it's sharp distinction between the ideal and real (which Chomsky calls 'competence' and 'performance') and its view of language as rules - essentially rules of syntax. The environmentalist represents the ethnographic tradition, which rejects the distinction of ideal and real, defines what is grammatical as, by and large, what is acceptable, and sees language as a resource - resource for meaning, meaning defined in terms of function. To this extent the two interpretations are complementary rather than contradictory; but they have tended to become associated with conflicting psychological theories and thus to be strongly counterposed'.
Furthermore, Halliday (1978, p.17) asserts that 'a functional theory is not a theory about the mental processes involved in the learning of the mother tongue; it's a theory about the social processes involved'. In this perspective, 'language is a form of interaction, and it is learnt through interaction'.
In Halliday's (1978, p. 39) social-functional view 'the key concept is that of realization, language as multiple coding. Halliday states (1978, p. 40)
'I would use the term network for all levels, in fact: semantic network, grammatical network, phonological network. It refers simply to a representation of the potential of that level. A network is a network of options, of choices; so for example the semantic system is regarded as a set of options. If we go back to the Hjelmslevian (originally Saussurean) distinction of paradigmatic and the syntagmatic, most of modern linguistic theory has given priority to the syntagmatic concept. Lamb treats the two axes together: for him a linguistic stratum is a network embodying both syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations all mixed up together, in patterns of what he calls AND nodes and OR nodes. I take out the paradigmatic relations (Firth's system) and give priority to these; for me the underlying organization at each level is paradigmatic. Each level is a network of paradigmatic relations, of ORs - a range of alternatives, in the sociological sense. This is what I mean by a potential: the semantic system is a network of meaning potential'.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: the social interpretation of language and meaning. Edward Arnold: London.November 5, 2009
Dear One, how can I apply for a different allocation of power from the network, if I'm not happy with what I've got?
(more than one sentence answers please - of you can cheat, and just make it a long sentence).November 5, 2009
I´ve found the post very interesting too, Geoff, especially this statement: "We need strong support systems and parallel learning structures for all the innovators of the current school system in order to balance the immune system reaction of the old system." There´s definitely such need for support systems. Otto speaks about switching from a 2.0 to a 3.0 approach and that sounds like a not-so-unfriendly scenario to me. I guess in other countries most institutional structures have yet to switch to 2.0, I´d say Spain is one of them. The more certain individuals and sectors evolve into 3.0 (or whatever comes next), the bigger the gap between them and public institutions reticent to change.November 5, 2009
As FrancisNovember 5, 2009
Post in Twitter and use the hashtag #cck09 to be listed here. (These should be fresh. Still working on improving the Twitter display.)RT @gsiemens: We've forced @cogdog to reflect on his Amazing Stories of openness here: http://tinyurl.com/yd8e6jn #CCK09
This newsletter is sent only at the request of subscribers. If you would like to unsubscribe,
Know a friend who might enjoy this newsletter? Feel free to forward The Daily to your colleagues. If you received this issue from a friend and would like a free subscription of your own, you can join our mailing list. Click here to subscribe.