you can see the recording of this session (and other featured sessions) here - if you get chance, i'd recommend checking it out. most of you will probably be familiar with the videos from his cultural ethnography students - even so, if you haven't heard him talk before, it's nice to hear his own spin on the way things have developed, and the fact that he seems to be quite overwhelmed by all the attendion. also, check out the digital ethnography netvibes page for a sense of the dynamics and busy-ness of what's going on in his classes.
one of the things i find interesting about this conference is how there are lots of parallels between individual sessions - but that in the majority of cases, they're presented with enough of a spin on them, and with enough substance behind them, that it doesn't get boring or cliched (yet!). for example the idea that media literacy is as much about instilling a sense of social responsibility as it is about giving students the skills to use new tools and technologies has been quite strong in some sessions, and this one was no exception.
there are also some interesting comparisons between the current 'revolution' in education and the changes in the 1960s; and a look at how current criticisms of teaching new media literacy (it's pandering to students, abandoning traditional literacy, difficult to implement) can also be turned around as criticisms of the 'back to basics' movement.
well worth checking out, anyway.
Showing posts with label social. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social. Show all posts
Wednesday, 21 January 2009
opening keynote
been struggling to write this up as although the speaker was very engaging, the topic of the session - virtual worlds - is one that just leaves me cold. i'm relieved to know (via a combination of talking to people here, tweeting, and e-mail) that i'm not alone in this - so will try to articulate my problem with it (and not get caught up in the but-they-just-look-horrible-and-nerdy gut reaction that i always have).
the speaker began by stating that virtual worlds are naturally occurring online learning environments, and that by harnessing them we can start to engage students with the sorts of debate and problem solving activities that they carry out within these environments. at this point, i was open to being convinced that there was something in this - she showed examples of the strategies that players use within things like world of warcraft, and how they come together to gather, analyse and debate data, but that all they really think they're doing is trying to cheat the game. there was lots of analysis of the processes of scientific enquiry, and about the social networks that people develop - she talked about how virtual worlds act as 'the new golf' - ie, as a culturally significant way of developing and gelling networks. she also talked about how analysis of the discussion forums demonstrate that the vast majority of posts tend to be about social knowledge construction; and compared the sort of mobilisation of neighbour-networks used by the obama campaign (yes, every session yesterday made reference to the election in some way. apparently it's quite significant?). anyway, back tonerdual virtual worlds - these points are very well and good...except...
it seems to me that the sorts of behaviours she was talking about are developed within a very particular forum, with a very particular purpose - it's an unforced leisure pursuit that people do for fun. do those sorts of behaviours really transfer out of the context? are the behaviours mirrored in other interactions, other pursuits in the real world, let alone in education? and if we try to replicate these behaviours and processes with a different aim, will it really achieve the same end - when it stops being something that's done for leisure and becomes something with a very definite purpose and for a specific reason, won't that change the dynamics?
there was a question about whether the sorts of behaviours discussed were representative of all players (inhabitants? i'm not sure what to call people who use/live in virtual worlds?), and also about whether it's the game or the discussion of the game which is the most important element.
hmmm, that doesn't quite sum up everything i wanted to say, but my battery is running low, and i need to go and set up for my session. maybe return to it later - in the meantime, any comments, questions or counter arguments are more than welcome :)
the speaker began by stating that virtual worlds are naturally occurring online learning environments, and that by harnessing them we can start to engage students with the sorts of debate and problem solving activities that they carry out within these environments. at this point, i was open to being convinced that there was something in this - she showed examples of the strategies that players use within things like world of warcraft, and how they come together to gather, analyse and debate data, but that all they really think they're doing is trying to cheat the game. there was lots of analysis of the processes of scientific enquiry, and about the social networks that people develop - she talked about how virtual worlds act as 'the new golf' - ie, as a culturally significant way of developing and gelling networks. she also talked about how analysis of the discussion forums demonstrate that the vast majority of posts tend to be about social knowledge construction; and compared the sort of mobilisation of neighbour-networks used by the obama campaign (yes, every session yesterday made reference to the election in some way. apparently it's quite significant?). anyway, back to
it seems to me that the sorts of behaviours she was talking about are developed within a very particular forum, with a very particular purpose - it's an unforced leisure pursuit that people do for fun. do those sorts of behaviours really transfer out of the context? are the behaviours mirrored in other interactions, other pursuits in the real world, let alone in education? and if we try to replicate these behaviours and processes with a different aim, will it really achieve the same end - when it stops being something that's done for leisure and becomes something with a very definite purpose and for a specific reason, won't that change the dynamics?
there was a question about whether the sorts of behaviours discussed were representative of all players (inhabitants? i'm not sure what to call people who use/live in virtual worlds?), and also about whether it's the game or the discussion of the game which is the most important element.
hmmm, that doesn't quite sum up everything i wanted to say, but my battery is running low, and i need to go and set up for my session. maybe return to it later - in the meantime, any comments, questions or counter arguments are more than welcome :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)