Movable Type didn’t just kill off blog customization. It (and its competitors) actively killed other forms of web production.
Beyond safety considerations, there are productivity gains inherent in physical controls. When I worked in a mailroom during college, I processed packages with a very ugly keyboard-based system. I learned the machine in a single day and it quickly became part of me; the data density it could rapidly handle was enormous. In the same way that high school students bond with graphing calculators in Calculus class, we can become intertwined with these physical interfaces in a way that doesn’t force us to think when we use them. We work with them and they work with us. They could be considered one of Donna Haraway’s “companion species”.
What I would like to see in this process is a way to connect the dots from the beginning to the end of the manuscript. Something open that allows the author to detail the path taken from the genesis of the piece to the end result. This would allow scholars to post grant funding statements, researcher notes, open data, revisions, and other materials and connect this to the overall result. Viewers of the final published version would be able to look back through the links and chain of documentation to see the work that was embedded in this resultant piece.
If Facebook was a tool for confirmation bias, that would kind of suck. It would. But that is not the claim. The claim is that Facebook is quite literally training us to be conspiracy theorists. And given the history of what happens when conspiracy theory and white supremacy mix, that should scare the hell out of you. I’m petrified. Mark Zuckerberg should be too.
People exposed themselves to Facebook multiple times a day, every single day, seeing headlines making all sorts of crazy claims, and filed them in their famil-o-meter for future reference.
As I say — it’s the internet — you’re not stuck with that one story that comes to you. By going out and actively choosing a better story you will not only filter out false stories but also see the variety of ways an event is being covered.
The rapid proliferation and deployment of smart mobile, pervasive computing, social and personal technologies is changing the higher education landscape. In this presentation I will argue that new media present new opportunities for learning through digital technologies, but that such opportunities will require new literacies. This is not just my view - it reflects the views of many other commentators including Lea & Jones (2011), Beetham et al (2009) and Lankshear & Knobel(2006). Essentially, the traditional literacies that have dominated higher education in the past are thought to no longer be sufficient in the face of recent changes. I will explore a range of new 'digital literacies and competencies', discuss the concept of 'digital fluency' and highlight some new and emergent pedagogical theories, including connectivism, heutagogy, paralogy and rhizomatic learning, that seek to explain how students are learning in the first part of the 21st Century.
Steve Wheeler is a Learning Innovations Consultant and former Associate Professor of Learning Technologies at the Plymouth Institute of Education where he chaired the Learning Futures group and led the Computing and science education teams. He continues to research into technology supported learning and distance education, with particular emphasis on the pedagogy underlying the use of social media and Web 2.0 technologies, and also has research interests in mobile learning and cybercultures. He has given keynotes to audiences in more than 35 countries and is author of more than 150 scholarly articles, with over 6000 academic citations. An active and prolific edublogger, his blog Learning with 'e'sis a regular online commentary on the social and cultural impact of disruptive technologies, and the application of digital media in education, learning and development. In the last few years it has attracted in excess of 7.5 million unique visitors.
More about Steve Wheeler https://steve-wheeler.net/
By changing the approach, and importantly changing our language around technology we reframe the conversation and the connection with have with young people. If we want them to reach out to trusted adults, seek support and report incidents of cyber hate, bullying or violent extremism then we must take time to build meaningful programs that address the skills required. There is no quick fix. There are no apps or software programs that can take away all the risks and insert these skills into peer groups. We need to invest time and energy to developing authentic programs that address the complex interaction between the online and the offline worlds and our relationships within them. These are human problems, which need considered human solutions.
A broadened view of text is needed to consider the various forms and modes of text in our world. These might include text in a printed book, a street sign, a video game, a YouTube video, an animated GIF, audio podcast, etc. We can no longer look at only one form of text as “correct”, and all other forms of reading and writing as not involving true literacy practices.
It feels like we spend so much time debating handwriting sometimes that we forget about typing. I really like how you compare the different applications in a concise fashion.
You might be interested in this post from Catherine Gatt, in which she reflects on the development associated with learning to type.
The power in this world lies with those who shape the conversation. You can shape the conversation.