The Digital Divide

It has long been accepted that literacy is strongly connected to democratic and human rights. In the past, literacy was crucial for individuals to make educated decisions on current events, such as choosing which party was best suited to lead the nation going forward. In the modern day and age, digital media and the internet are allowing people to remain up to date on those same issues, but at a much lower cost to the environment, the producer, and the consumer.

It appears that digital media is the future of communication. Although it is likely that humanity will benefit from the great number of advantages it provides, many believe that the prevalence of digital media does not come without concern. According to Dobson and Willinsky (2009), the digital divide that currently exists is one of those concerns.

The term “digital divide” refers to the gap between those with effective access to digital information and technology, and those without such access. This gap could be due to a number of factors, such as the language, gender, or economic barriers found in computer and internet use (Dobson & Willinsky, 2009). While it is undeniable that this gap exists, the question of whether the divide is as worrisome as some believe is a more difficult one to answer.

Dobson and Willinsky (2009) state that “the pervasiveness of English on the Internet can form a… point of exclusion.” While this is true, and while by Canadian standards this might be problematic, that is not necessarily true for other cultures. In his 1998 essay “Cyberspace Is No Place for Tribalism,” Craig Howe argues that the attributes of the internet “are antithetical to the particular localities, societies, moralities, and experiences that constitute tribalism.”

Dobson and Willinsky (2009) also indicate that the ASCII (American Standard Code for Information Interchange) was gradually superseded by the Unicode standard, “which is capable of handling the full extent of the world’s writing systems.” This was an important step toward reducing the digital divide, the results of which can be seen in the fact that Wikipedia has entries in over two hundred languages (Dobson and Willinksy, 2009).

Gender issues are also discussed by Dobson and Willinsky. They mention that in the past, computer use was much higher in males than it was in females. They go on to say that in more recent times, “males and females report relatively similar levels of use,” which is obviously not the problem. However, what is concerning is the fact that “males tend to use computers in more diverse ways, such as programming… and desktop publishing,” and that “enrolments of males and females in secondary school courses requiring sophisticated use of computers is severely skewed, with males comprising between 79% and 90% of the student population.”

While this is also true, again this may not be hugely problematic. The number of females enrolled in higher level computer classes is not nearly as important as accessibility to those classes for females. In Canada, at the very least, high schools and universities do not turn students away from classes based on gender, and it is questionable at best whether there is a social stigma attached to a female engaged in computer and technology studies. It is possible that the divide in this case is due as much to gender interest as it is to gender inequality.

Dobson and Willinsky also touch on economic factors that contribute to the digital divide, mostly in the difference between richer, more developed nations, and in less developed nations. Although I did enjoy their work, I would have been interested in seeing a closer look at the digital divide that exists in Canada.

Being a country with a very low population to land area ratio, I expected that bringing broadband internet to the entire nation would be a challenge. Marlow and McNish (2010) confirmed my suspicion. They state that “building expensive wired connections to sparsely populated rural regions [is] a multibillion dollar challenge.” They also declare that “Ottawa’s $225-million contribution to building broadband networks… is a pittance compared with the tens of billions of dollars spent on national digital programs in… the US, Britain, Australia and even such small economies as Portugal.”

Geographic location in Canada is a major source of digital divide. With dependable, high capacity fibre optic cables being very expensive, they are only available in well populated urban areas. Rural communities, which contain about 20 percent of Canadians, are restricted to satellite or wireless connections (Marlow and McNish, 2010).

This creates two problems for people living in rural areas. First, the cost is much higher. Bates (2010) reports that the average cost for satellite is $70 per month for 1 Mbps, compared to the consumer cost for fibre optic cable of $47 per month for 10 Mbps. Secondly, satellite and wireless connections are highly unreliable (Marlow and McNish, 2010). I have had my own frustrating experience with this. I live near the edge, but well within city limits of a city with a population of 85 000. My internet drops out approximately four or five times per week, at times for more than an hour, and my ISP is unable to do anything about it due to how far I live from their building. It does appear that the digital divide due to geographic location is problematic, though it is probably more of an economic concern (ie. a lack of reliable broadband makes it difficult to attract large businesses that create jobs) rather than a human rights concern (Marlow and McNish, 2010).

The digital divide clearly exists from an international level, right down to a very local level. It is most certainly a concern for many, though in some respects it seems the problem is overstated, while in others it is understated. It is worth noting that many of the “current [digital divide] concerns parallel an earlier interest in the great literacy divide between oral and literate cultures” (Dobson and Willinksy, 2009), as we can possibly compare successes and failures in efforts to reduce the literacy and the digital divide. To conclude, I’d like to include a memorable quote from Dobson and Willlinsky (2009) who make the following statement:

“The growing global dimensions of people’s participation in digital literacy… suggest that efforts to increase opportunities for access remain a worthwhile human rights goal, much as access to literacy itself has always represented.”

Resources

Bates, T. (2010). Canada`s digital divide and its implications for other countries. Retrieved Nov. 14, 2010, from http://www.tonybates.ca/2010/04/04/canadas-digital-divide-and-its-implications-for-other-countries/

Dobson, T. & Willinsky, J. (2009). Digital Literacy. The Cambridge Handbook on Literacy. Retrieved Nov. 9, 2010, from http://pkp.sfu.ca/files/Digital%20Literacy.pdf

Howe, C. (1998). Cyberspace Is No Place for Tribalism. Wicazo SA Review.

Marlow, I. & McNish, J. (2010, April 2). Canada`s Digital Divide. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved Nov. 14, 2010, from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canadas-digital-divide/article1521631/

Sciadas, G. (2001). The Digital Divide In Canada. Science, Innovation, and Electronic Information Division; Statistics Canada. Retrieved Nov. 14, 2010, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/56f0009x/56f0009x2002001-eng.pdf

Tagged | Leave a comment

Rip.Mix.Feed.Remix – My attempt at using JayCut

For this assignment I tried using a new resource – JayCut.  For the most part it was pretty painless.  It merely took seconds to set-up an account.  The most challenging part with it was how long it took to upload media to my account.  It was rather long.  Thankfully I had other things to do so while I was uploading images I was able to do other things (multi-tasked).

The video I created was from old pictures taken on a family vacation to Maui in 2007.  My brother got married there so my family, my sister’s family, my brother and his wife, my mom and friends all made the journey.  It was pretty cool to vacation with so many people.  I really enjoyed this assignment because it brought back some good memories – can’t wait to go back!!

I am no expert so be nice in your critiques – Ryan

YouTube Preview Image
Posted in Rip.Mix.Feed | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

Websliding a science meeting

There are a lot of GEMS that I’d like to test out from RipMixFeed.  The one that stuck out right away was Webslides.

When I saw it, I envisioned showing a Webslide to my science department.  My department head is always asking for us to share resources for science, in order to improve the courses and student engagement.  So I put together this webslide on some of my favourite science sites.  I hope someone finds it helpful.

http://slides.diigo.com/list/mrborges/science-slides

As far as Webslides is concerned, I find it takes a little bit to figure out how things work. Once that happens, its pretty easy to use and an effective way of sharing bookmarks.

Warning: I’ve only been able to have Webslides run well on Firefox (haven’t tested IE), but it seems to dislike Safari and Chrome.  Then again, it might be just my computer.

Posted in Rip.Mix.Feed | Leave a comment

Mission Impossible: How Can Digital Immigrants Engage Digital Natives In Educational Settings?

I was born in 1974.  It wasn’t until 1987 that my family got our first computer – I was thirteen.  The internet didn’t start until the mid 1990’s – I had already graduated from high school by then.  Current cell phone technology far exceeds those first generation computers that I experienced in my teens and twenties.  Therefore, how can I, as a teacher, be expected to teach today’s students that have all grown up in the digital era with all this available technology?  How can I teach someone that already knows more than I do?

An interesting thing happened to me this weekend.  I was shopping with my wife and while waiting in line I happened to see a small child playing with her mother’s iPhone.  She was manipulating pictures, viewing slideshows, listening to music, etc. (the line was long because of a sale so I was casually observing for a while).  I finally had to ask the mother how old her child was – “she is 5”.  I was floored!  This five-year old knew how to use the iPhone better than most adults.  This was even more unbelievable since my wife just got the new iPhone 4 two weeks ago and has little to no idea how to use it.  It didn’t come with an owner’s manual as all the info (on how to use it) is stored in the phone or can be found on-line.  As a teacher, the first thought that came to my head when I saw this little girl playing on her iPhone was, “poor kid… when she gets to school her teachers will have no idea how to keep her engaged”.

Then I thought of this course and my recent readings.  This course started with the origins of orality and literacy and has progressed to digital literacy.  At first, I personally found this course challenging because I had to work really hard to focus on the subject matter – I wasn’t feeling engaged.  But, as we have shifted now to digital literacy my engagement and motivation has increased drastically.  I find the current module intriguing because it highlights the current struggles that I feel the public education system faces in British Columbia.

Today’s classroom couldn’t be more different than those of a generation past.  Chalkboards and duotangs have been replaced by Interactive White Boards (IWB), tablets and laptops (to name a few).   Owning a cell phone used to be a luxury – today they are part or every student’s arsenal.  It would difficult to find a high school aged student that didn’t own either a cell phone, MP3 player and/or some version of a PDA device.  “They have come of age in a digitally enhanced world and, consequently, their understanding of the world has come primarily from digital sources.” (Mabrito & Medley, 2008, p. 1)  Most would agree that today’s students are more technologically inclined than their teachers.  Unfortunately, many teachers are fearful of that they don’t understand; therefore these new technologies are seen as distractions.  Wouldn’t it be nice if we could somehow use the devices to improve student engagement and learning?

Engagement and learning are synonymous with education for a reason.  It is nearly impossible for learning to transpire if students are void of motivation.  Teachers are constantly faced with the challenge of motivating their students so that they will learn the concepts and theories that are being taught but how do they do that when they come from such a different place then the students they teach?  Prensky (2001) argued that “our students have changed radically. Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach.” (p. 1)  The chief reason for this, in my humble opinion, is technology.  Prensky (2001) brought two terms into the discussion; digital natives and digital immigrants.  Digital natives were described as those that are heavily immersed in technology and have been surrounded by it all their lives – those that were born in the digital era.  Digital immigrants on the other hand are those that are new to technology and were born prior to the digital era and thus constantly trying to adapt and keep up with “the natives”.  Today’s students are those natives and most teachers that have been entrusted with educating them are the immigrants.  According to Prensky (and I agree) “the single biggest problem facing education today is that our Digital Immigrant instructors, who speak an outdated language (that of the pre-digital age), are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language.” (2001, p. 2)

So how do teachers narrow this “information processing gap” as Mabrito and Medley (2008) put it?  I think the answer can be found in their 2008 article, Why Professor Johnny Can’t Read: Understanding the Net Generation’s Texts.  They talk about the need for teachers, the fore-mentioned digital immigrants, to spend time in the same learning spaces as their students so they can get a better understanding of what they are experiencing.  They “need to experience these learning spaces as learners before we can understand how to use them as teachers”. (p. 5)  I couldn’t agree more!  By doing this we can hopefully find new ways to present our lessons that will in turn engage our students in a more meaningful way.

It is not merely a question of learning facts about the Net-Generation culture or how to operate the latest technology; faculty members need to focus more on attempting to experience the digital world in the same way that their students do. It is not enough for instructors to accept that learning may occur in these places; they must go there as well as scholars with information to share, as researchers attempting to gain insight, and, more importantly, as learners acquiring a new kind of understanding. (Mabrito & Medley, 2008, p. 5)

I am an electives teacher in high school and therefore I don’t have the luxury of guaranteed conscription in my courses.  In order for full enrollment of my classes I have to make sure that I am not only providing my students a positive learning experience but one that also engages them in such a way that they are motivated to enroll in my course rather than some other.  I don’t pretend to have the answers or know the solutions but what I have committed myself to do is to try new things.  By introducing new experiences and opportunities, ones that more resemble the digital world they are familiar with, I am able to earn the respect of the students I teach.  Even when I am unsuccessful in my attempts I know they appreciate my effort and my willingness to connect with them.  If students today are so different then what is the point in trying to educate them with methods that they cannot relate to?  Teaching is hard enough… there is no need to compound the challenge by using language and methodologies that are foreign to today’s students.


References:

Mabrito, M., Medley, R.  (2008) Why professor johnny can’t read: Understanding the net generation’s texts.  Innovate, 4(6), August/September.  Retrieved November 10, 2010, from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=510&action=article

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. NCB University Press, 9(5), 1-6.  Retrieved, November 18, 2010, from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

Prensky, M. (2005). Engage me or enrage me: What today’s learners demand.  EDUCAUSE Review, 40(5), 61-65.  Retrieved March 28, 2009, from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0553.pdf

Source for all three images: http://www.mcgilledus.ca/content/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=103&Itemid=70

Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Re-thinking Literacy: Web 2.0 and Education

Introduction

The emergence and rapid development of Web 2.0 has resulted in a rethinking of what literacy means. Just as notions of the transfer of knowledge shifted with the advent of text and led to our basic definitions of literacy in a traditional sense, computer-mediated technology has, in an exceptionally short period of time, transformed notions of literacy and led to the emerging concept of multiliteracy. Alexander’s (2006) article, “Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning?” highlights the vast range of online applications that have been rapidly utilized across the spectrum of education and how communication is increasingly multimodal. By incorporating text, oral, visual (fixed and video), Web 2.0 affords individuals a range of ways to interact and transmit ideas and highlights the need to consider communication in terms of multiliteracy.

Definitions

Traditional definitions and notions of literacy have focused on written and printed materials and have not considered other forms of media. For example, UNESCO defines literacy as:

“The ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate, compute and use printed and written materials associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves a continuum of learning to enable an individual to achieve his or her goals, to develop his or her knowledge and potential, and to participate fully in the wider society.” (as cited by the Canadian Literacy and Learning Network, n.p)World Literacy by Country

The lack of comment on other media forms is unsurprising in that literacy has considered text to be the key vehicle of communication. In contrast to the linear nature of text-based traditional narrative, multimodal communication is increasingly diverse. Connectivism, as espoused by Siemens (2004), sees learning and knowledge as taking place through a highly connected process. In other words, it is networked and communication does not follow traditional linear patterns.

The New London Group (1996) argues that multiliteracy affords new ways to look at the complex nature of text and has two key interrelated elements. The first is the diverse ways that we create meaning in which text is interlaced with visual, audio and spatial elements. Second, they suggest that it is the diversity of language and cultural that has both local variances and global connections that help shape multiliteracy itself. A case in point is Alexander’s (2008) example of a blog which included a range of media including text, hyperlinks, video, still images, and networked discussion that crossed borders. This example demonstrates the diversity of media now commonly used online. I Alexander (2008) furthers this by noting the impact of gaming and virtual worlds which further demonstrate the multifaceted ways that information and ideas are shared.

Literacy -> Digital Flow

The four salient qualities of Web 2.0 described by Alexander (2008) arInformation Media and Digital Literacye: microcontent, social filtering, social connection, and openness. Being small, microcontent is quickly and easily accessible; therefore, the time required to digest information is minimal both in terms of writing/publishing and reading/accessing. Social filtering, with its folksonomic quality as seen through tagging, is a way for individuals to connect information found in both primary and secondary Internet sources. Connections between individuals are built through tools and websites such as blogs and Facebook and allow connections to occur. Last, Alexander (2008) openness simply refers to the fact that Web 2.0 typically places content in the public sphere. Taken together, these elements present a broad picture of the ways that the online environment differs from traditional notions of communication and literacy.

Implications for Education

Though administrative decisions and what applications are available in a particular context differ, in the educational realm what technology or medium is utilized is in the hands of the instructor or the instructional design team within the constraints of what is available. It is the instructor/designer who ultimately makes the critical choice in what tools to include and how to best do so. When technology is the tail that wags the proverbial dog, then mishaps in its application in class will follow. Multiliteracy offers innovative and engaging ways for both learners and instructors to communicate ideas and collaborate. Through interactivity and cooperation, education and learning can be enhanced and extended. Moreover, it is the multimodal aspects of new media that both require and allow learners to take a much more active role in the learning process; however, they need to transfer the multiliteracy skills to the academic and learning environment.

When information and ideas can be expressed in diverse ways, learners are also better able to choose the form that they feel best fits their needs and inherent learning preferences. When information flows in linked and new spatial forms it may also better allow for creative thinking and the immediacy found in both synchronous and asynchronous spaces can influence and enhance the communication and feedback cycle. The educator’s role in this is critical, but shifts in this new paradigm to one of facilitation and guidance.

Just as there are many positives in the affordances of Web 2.0, multiliteracies and the computer-mediated communication may have some drawbacks. Alexander (2006; 2008) does not touch on questions of how these environments may hinder depth of thought and concentration. For example, the microcontent that he sees as one of the hallmarks of Web 2.0 has limitations in engaging in developing and sustaining thought beyond more rudimentary and less complex thoughts. Furthermore, the openness and vast stores of information and networks online can be overwhelming. Sorting the wheat from the chaff is a daunting task and learning how to best distill what is or is not relevant or the veracity of a particular source or idea thread is challenging even for those more practiced at identifying meaningful resources. That said, multimodal forms of communication will continue to evolve and become increasingly entrenched. The challenge for educators is how to best harness new applications and ensure that achieving educational outcomes and understanding their appropriate and pedagogically sound use.
YouTube Preview Image

Conclusion

The digital age is still in its infancy and its evolution will continue. This will unquestionably force a continued reconsideration of the fundamental aspects of communication. Current Web 2.0 technology, and the interactive and connected aspects that it affords will undoubtedly change in novel and inventive was that further move it away from the its roots as a linear and static roots. How literacy is defined is already shifting, and multiliteracy as seen through the diverse communication means at our disposal will continue to challenge assumptions of what being literate means in the twenty-first century.

References

Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? EDUCAUSE Review, 41(2), 32-44. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0621.pdf

Alexander, B. (2008). Web 2.0 and Emergent Multiliteracies. Theory into Practice, 47(2), 150-160. doi: 10.1080/00405840801992371

Canadian Literacy and Learning Network (n.d.). Canadian Literacy and Learning Network Homepage. Retrieved from http://www.literacy.ca/

New London Group (1996). A Pedagogy of Miltiliteracies: Designing Social Futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1). Retrieved from http://wwwstatic.kern.org/filer/blogWrite44ManilaWebsite/paul/articles/A_Pedagogy_of_Multiliteracies_Designing_Social_Futures.htm

Siemens, G. (2004, December 12). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Erring with caution in a technological society- in support of the Technophiles.

Commentary on, Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology.

Thinking about a technological society requires some amount of wariness, no doubt. As humans, we always tend to have the fear of the unknown. The effects of any new technology or invention may not be immediately known. An inventor such as Theuth may have a purpose for inventing a technology but the varied uses it will present later will be unforeseen and consequently; the eventual effect on the society. Thamus rightly responded to Theuth by calling his attention to this fact.

According to Thamus, “the discoverer of an art is not the best judge of the good or harm it will accrue to those who practice it.” Postman, N (1993, p.4).

In Thamus’ response, it can be deduced that the use of a technology depends on whose hands it is in and how the possessors translate it. The resulting use and effects may not be anything close to what the inventor had in mind and usually far transcends above and beyond the imaginations of the inventor, thus the reasons such inventors have been labelled Technophiles by Postman. There could be a tendency to blame these technophiles for inventions gone wrong but we cannot blame the technophiles for an overly active imagination, infact we dare to extol them for daring to change the way we “see” things. We cannot deny the fact that the technophiles of every culture are change catalysts. In the end, the use of their inventions depends on whose hands it is.

We could suppose that the technophile merely thinks positively about how to “improve” whatever situation or culture he is presented with, the response to his invention however, cannot be determined by him. Thus he must be prepared to accommodate the critics, and skeptics, embracing the promoters of his invention while paying close attention to their comments for further improvement. The irony of it all lies in the possibility that the critic or technophobe that is kicking against the technology will probably use the same technology as a mode or medium to present his argument or disapproval.
A technological invention whose entry is heralded by desires to “get better” will have better chances of acceptance since the circumstances could be said to be favorable. It will be explored and even though met with initial skepticism still finds its way into the fabric of society, daring to infact take it over, so much so that the society begins to conform to the resulting effects of the technology instead of the technology conforming to the society’s way of life. This is what we refer to as change, whether or not it is “for the better” depends on whose hands it is and whose opinion you seek.

“Once a technology is admitted, it plays out its hand; it does what is designed to do. Our task is to understand what that design is- that is to say when we admit a new technology to the culture, we must do so with our eyes open.” Postman, N. (1993 p.7).
A discovery, invention, tool or techne could mean many different things in different hands. The inventor of the concept may have had a different thing in mind. This usually would be in response to a perceived need. Focusing on “solving” the problem produced by the perceived need. It is unlikely the inventor would be able to actually conceive the potential of the invention until it is placed in the hands of the users. The Theuths’ of society cannot control the eventual or precipitated use of their inventions. As Postman suggested, “it is inescapable that every culture must negotiate with technology, whether it does it intelligently or not.” Postman, N. (1993, p5). It is not the inventors’ job to determine the eventual use of his invention- good or bad it still speaks to the acceptance of the invention, at least in my opinion.
Writing; in the judgment of Thamus is useless-a burden to society but in the hand of Theuth, it is an accomplishment-a sure receipt for memory and wisdom. Theuth would have put in much thought into this particular invention and processed or imagined how it would be used by Egyptians to improve their memory and wisdom. Wearing Theuth’s thinking cap, I suppose his thoughts must have been such that if the thoughts of the renowned wise men of Egypt were written, then every person seeking wisdom could study what has been written and thus would be tapping into the wise minds of these sages of the time, while at the same time adding their own to and improving and building on existing wisdom- much like the information database of today. It is my guess that Theuth being futuristic, in his imagination had seen the future and in his wisdom was creating a bridge connecting orality to literacy, the snag however was that Thamus was short-sighted and did not catch the vision.

I conclude with excerpts from the poem titled “hands.” I think about the poem and liken the irony therin to technophobes and technophiles. It makes me wonder the position I take with technology. Am I the technophobe or technophile? The technophobe in my opinion is the one who sees the “great” potential and so I pledge my support for them.

Hands:

A golf club is almost useless in my hands.
A golf club in Tiger Wood’s hands is a 4 Major Golf Championship.

A rod in my hands will keep away a wild animal.
A rod in Moses’ hands will part the mighty sea.

A sling shot in my hands is a toy.
A slingshot in David’s hands is a mighty weapon.

Nails in my hands might produce a bird house.
Nails in Christ Jesus’ hands will produce salvation for the entire world.

REFERENCES

Hands. Accessed online on Nov 16, 2010 from: http://www.pmchurch.net/HandsPoem.htm

Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. Vintage books. New York.

Posted in Commentary 2 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Grand Canyon Rafting!

Since starting the MET program in the fall of 2008, I have been introduced to and have used many Web 2.0 tools. It is truly amazing how much Web 2.0 has evolved even in just 2 years. Web 2.0 tools seem to come and go in and out of the limelight, however, one tool has remained at the top of my toolkit. The standout tool for me has definitely been animoto, specifically animoto for education. With an account as an educator, you are not limited to 30 second videos. I have used animoto several times in my classroom with my students to showcase their learning and for preparing visuals for school-wide assemblies.

For the Rip.Mix.Feed. assignment, I chose to use animoto to capture an adventure that I took this summer which is near and dear to my heart. My dad had planned a family trip to raft the Colorado River on a 6-day trip well over a year ago. When he passed away unexpectedly in May of this year, my family decided to take the trip as a tribute to him. The trip had been a 30 year dream of my dad’s and it was only right that we follow through with our summer plans. Enjoy the following video of our great adventure rafting the mighty Colorado River this past August:

YouTube Preview Image

Alternatively, view on animoto.

Camille

Posted in Rip.Mix.Feed | 4 Comments

Literacy: Exploring Communities of Practice and Identity

Please click on the link below to view my major project:

Literacy: Exploring Communities of Practice and Identity

Thank you!

Melanie

 

Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Rip.Mix.Feed (Digital Story Telling)

Hi!

I was curious about all the movie making options online so I did a bit of a search. I tried using the first website I found via Google (Movie Maker Online) and I did not have much luck.  In the end I created a video on Animoto and then exported the video to Youtube.  The pictures in the video were taken during my time on UBC campus and I found the music from FreePlay

YouTube Preview Image

Thanks!

Melanie

Posted in Rip.Mix.Feed | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

Audiovisual Development and Education

Audiovisual Development and Education

If a picture is worth a thousand words, what about a video? In his book Writing Space, Bolter explains that “remediation” happens when our writing space changes with the development of technology. He suggests that when we study the history of writing, we should always ask:

How does (the new) writing space refashion its predecessor?

How does it claim to improve on print’s ability to make our thoughts visible and to constitute the lines of communication for our society?  (Bolter, p13)

Even though the Bolter’s argument focuses on electronic writing, I believe the same applies for audiovisual (AV) media. The development of AV started around 1930s. At the time, it provided a revolutionary way for people to communicate – our expression is no longer limited to verbal, but can also be visual (or both at the same time). With its specific affordances, how do AV media make our thoughts visible? How did they impact the way we communicate and teach? In this essay, the development of audiovisual (AV) media is revisited to explore the impact of AV on the importance of printed text and for education.


Development of Audiovisual Media

1. What is AV?

AV materials are both visual and verbal, and are available in various forms and sizes. They include film and video, which were produced by machines like film projectors, lantern slide projectors, tape recorders, television, and camcorders. This list continues to expand as people seek to communicate through multimedia.

2. Origin of AV:

The development of audiovisual media was based upon visual media. At the early stages of AV development, 52% of American schools were using visual films and 3% were using sound films according to a National Education Association (NEA) survey performed in 1933. AV development started to gain momentum after WWII. One of the reasons is that people came back from the war with first-hand experience of rapid, massive training through the use of motion pictures and other AV media. Since then, more people were receptive to the idea of learning from AV. In addition, the baby boomer generation started going to school. New schools were built with new AV equipment, and hence there was a need for technological and pedagogical support. Positions were created for building and district audiovisual coordinators. In 1947, the Department of Visual Instruction (DVI) of NEA in the United States changed its name to the Department of Audiovisual Instruction (DAVI), which developed into today’s Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT).

3. Mission of DAVI

In 1950, the first DVI president, Harry Wilson, stated the missions of the DAVI as follows:

The necessity for teaching more and more without increasing the class period, school day, or graduation age; the futility of trying to provide meaningful learning experiences without showing that which cannot be adequately expressed or understood thru words alone / the tragic neglect of the paramount responsibility for building better citizens of the nation and of the world by instilling desirable attitudes and appreciations thru the use of dramatic, emotionally derived learning—these are some of the vital problems which can be solved best, if not only, thru the use of audio-visual materials. (“AECT History.” 2010)

It is interesting that AV was viewed as the best, or the only solution to “teaching more” and providing “meaningful learning experience” in limited time because our goals for using educational technology today is still the same. It is also interesting that Wilson pointed out the possibility to express more contents with AV, which is impossible with text alone. AV was seen as a media to complement, but not replace text.

The impact of AV on Education

The integration of AV in the field of education was made possible by the contribution of many people. They include Thomas Edison, James Finn, and Edgar Dale.

1. Thomas Edison

The great inventor of ­phonograph and motion picture believe that “motion picture is destined to revolutionize our educational system and that in a few years it will supplant largely, if not entirely, the use of textbooks.” (Thomas Edison, 1922)

Until now, motion pictures are often used to supplement teaching, but have not replaced textbooks. It seems like textbook is going to stay, though it might be presented in different forms to include different media. Looking into Edgar Dale’s insight provides some hints as to why this is so.

2. Edgar Dale’s Cone of Experience

In 1946, Dale’s cone of experience was published his textbook, “AudioVisual Methods in Teaching”.  The cone of experience (Fig. 1) was a tool for media selection, with in a continuum from concrete teaching techniques and instructional materials at the bottom of the cone, to the most abstract techniques at the top.

Figure 1: The original labels for Dale's ten categories are: Direct, Purposeful Experiences; Contrived Experiences; Dramatic Participation; Demonstrations; Field Trips; Exhibits; Motion Pictures; Radio; Recordings; Still Pictures; Visual Symbols; and Verbal Symbols.

Many misconceptions arose, that the amount of content retained increases with the level of concreteness of the learning experience. This misconception was cross referenced in many papers in the discourse, as demonstrated in Figure 2 and 3.

Figure 2. Percentages were added to Dale’s Cone of Experience.

Figure 3. Instructional Strategies and Retention Rates.

Numbers were attached to the different media presented in the cone without the backup of research data. Dale clarified that there is no rank or order to the level of efficiency in communicating through media that are concrete or abstract.  In fact, different media would be appropriate for specific learner and task. He acknowledged that “words can be a powerful and efficient means of conveying ideas even for the youngest children.” (Januszewski, p13)

Dale believes that “we ought to use all the ways of experiencing that we can” to have rich, full, deep and broad (learning) experience and understanding.” (Januszewski, p13)

Figure 4. Edgar Dale.

Dale’s cone of experience was very influential in the field, as it was the first attempt in the discourse of the field to integrate media with learning theories.

3. James Finn

In 1963, James Finn, the president of DAVI at the time, defined “AudioVisual communication” in his article “The Changing Role of the AudioVisual Process in Education: A Definition and a Glossary of Related Terms”:

Audiovisual communication is that branch of educational theory and practice concerned primarily with the design and use of messages which control the learning process. (Robert and Ronald, p 65)

The term “messages” within this definition indicate the shift in focus away from the AV equipment (tape and films) to design of the content that is being communicated.

Conclusion

The discourse of both Finn and Dale, two influential scholars in the AV movement, agree that it is not the medium that controls the efficiency of communication, but appropriate media, or a combination of medium needs to suit particular user and content. Text has different affordances than AV media; effective communication is achieved by different media complementing, but not replacing each other.

Reference

“AECT History.” AECT. Web. 17 Nov. 2010. <http://www.aect.org/about/history/>.

“AVCR.” AECT. Web. 17 Nov. 2010. <http://www.aect.org/about/history/avcr1.htm>.

Bolter, Jay David. Writing Space: Computers, Hypertext, and the Remediation of Print. Mahwah (N.J.): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001. Print.

“The Human Touch: in the Rush to Place a Computer on Every Desk, Schools Are Neglecting Intellectual Creativity and Personal.” Web. 17 Nov. 2010. <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MJG/is_4_4/ai_n6335687/>.

Januszewski, Alan. Educational Technology: the Development of a Concept. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, 2001. Print.

“Print Media Vs. Broadcast Media | EHow.com.” EHow | How To Do Just About Everything! | How To Videos & Articles. Web. 17 Nov. 2010. <http://www.ehow.com/facts_6389859_print-media-vs_-broadcast-media.html>.

Reiser, Robert A., and Donald P. Ely. “The Field of Educational Technology as Reflected through Its Definitions.” Educational Technology Research and Development V45.N3 (1997): 63-72.

Posted in Research Paper | Leave a comment