D3: on information production
Abel’s remark that one of the weaknesses of the ‘Pad – and by extension other tablets – is that it is weak on information production is particularly remarkable given that the defining feature of web 2.0 is user-produced content. If I were to fully believe his argument, then I’d be inclined to think that the ‘Pad represents a bit of a step back with regards to intertechnologies.
But I don’t – fully believe his argument, that is. Sure, the ‘Pad and other tablet devices are first and foremost app accessing machines. And whereas laptops are neatly divided between screen and keyboard space, the ‘Pad is all about the visual (or rather the haptic – that combination of the visual and tactile senses). But it’s a really small step to simply hook the ‘Pad up to a keyboard for full ‘information producing’ experience. Meanwhile, there are lots of little stands out there that make the ‘Pad a vertical screen (rather than an in-the-lap neck-wrenching device).
However, I also want to play with and pick apart the idea of “information production” a little further. The author’s understanding of information production – as I read it – is a bit oldschool: Typing.Content. That.Endures.Somewhere (in a file… or online…) Might it not be the case that the unique human-‘Pad interaction just might change what it means to produce information (or knowledge). What one sees/touches each time one uses an app is different. (Are any two bird trajectories launched at greedy piggies ever quite the same?). The app is, de facto, interactive. It responds in realtime to the tactile input of the producer. Even if the information that is produced between the user and the ‘Pad is ephemeral – disappearing the next second – is that not still information production?
Posted in: Week 09: iPad Apps
jarvise 4:48 pm on November 2, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Hi Allie,
Great points. I found this article espousing the benefits of onscreen keyboards. I hadn’t heard of haptic before. http://typingtutorsoftware.org/news/screen_keyboard/
I agree with you on the point about information production going far beyond text only.
Emily
Jay 9:52 am on November 3, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Thanks Allie.
I think there was still much skepticism surrounding the potentials of the iPad when Abel published this article in 2010. Since then, with the release of iPad 2 and a number of other tablet competitors entering the market people have begun to see the potential.
I think you are right in that tablets (not just the iPad) and applications will change our notions of knowledge production. The importance to education then I think is that information/knowledge is not quickly produced and then lost, but transfered/shared and learners are reflecting upon these new processes and how to maximize learning potential through it. This will require help from all stakeholders; ciriculum planners to design new cirriculums that incorporate new methods and meanings; educators to learn and understand the best methods for their teaching situation as some may be more able to benefit than others, as well as guiding students in developing critical skills to use devices such as the iPad effectively within learning.
Kristopher 12:28 pm on November 3, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Thank you Allie! Such an elegant way of taking on the concept of information production. If I were to build on this notion, I think that there might also be potential for authentic reflection (a fancy way of saying in the moment representations of the user’s thoughts) that hasn’t been filtered by the time we arrive at a keyboard. While there may be less content typed at one time, I believe that there is likely more content created overall.
Setting technology aside, this also links back to our traditional conception of ‘literacy’. As educators, we complain about the state of our learners’ grammar and ability to form sentences; these students have moved past perfect sentences to a point of more organic communication. These mobile devices that connect us to the world are making it much more challenging for there to be ‘standard’ rules of language.
Thanks for the thoughts!
Kristopher