Mobile Technology is here to stay. It is a fact of academic life.
Many of us may try to resist integrating mobile technology into our classrooms. However, the fact is that it is now a part of our students' lives and it is something as teachers we need to think about whether we work in a traditional classroom or online. What are some ways in which mobile technology has changed the classroom?
First, there is the positive ways. Students have access to information on their mobile devises which can broaden the curriculum. Instructors no longer have to rely on outdated information and can bring in topical issues. This is true of all majors. Another advantage is that higher education students can be sent out of the classroom to learn, observe, and experience what they are learning in context. I often use my class time to send students out and observe while keeping in touch via mobile technology. Using technology in the classroom also helps the instructor to give instant feedback as students work in class. I am able to point to different resources or help students learn how to navigate through information, developing their information literacy, communication, and critical thinking skills.
Outside of class, students can contact their instructor or TA outside of office hours. This is especially important for adjuncts and contingent faculty who may not have access to offices or private spaces for discussion. And new mobile technologies allow for more natural conversation through facetime, skype, or google hangouts. I also am able to update my students, giving them access, through mobile apps for programs such as Trello.com, edmodo, googledocs, youtube or blackboard, to updated resources, feedback, and assignments. Finally, for "temporary" faculty, students can maintain a relationship once a faculty member has left the university. Social networking sites such as facebook or linkedin allows faculty to maintain that relationship which can be a reciprocal relationship for graduate school and employment. I will check in with my former students when I'm revising my classes to get real world feedback so my course stays relevant.
However, more often than not, faculty know the downside of mobile technology. Students become distracted with their technology and social media, neither listening to the instructor or classmates (if they do happen to be focusing on class work) nor being engaged in the class (checking email, messages, or facebook or even studying for another class). For an instructor it is difficult to know when a student is taking notes on their mobile device or communicating with someone outside of class (although grins during a discussion of marketing law are a dead give away).
There are also technology difficulties, such as the digital divide (those who have more advanced technology compared to those that don't), power outages, access to wifi (or lack of access), lack of support for individual devices, and incompatibility with other digital devices. Many faculty members are not confident to use technology that they either are unfamiliar with or have no academic support for. In addition, designing activities for effective use of mobile technology in the classroom may be time consuming as there may be technology testing and training used. For example, there are different designs for smartphone use, tablets, and laptops. Smartphones require a different format than computer based content. In addition, each screen shot on a small mobile device can be linked but normally can't be seen as a whole product.
Finally, the ability for students to reach an instructor 24/7 can lead to an adjunct or part-time instructor interacting with students above and beyond the time for which they are paid. Students rarely distinguish between a tenured, full-time, or part-time instructor and may expect unlimited access.
In this week's #adjunctchat, we will trade some best practices for using mobile technology (m-learning) both in traditional classes and online classes. We will look at the use of mobile technology in academics as a whole and the challenges for adjuncts specifically.
1) Do you allow the use of mobile technology in your courses? Why or why not?
2) What are some challenges in using mobile technology (especially for adjuncts/contingent faculty)
3) How might you integrate mobile technology into your teaching?
4) What boundaries do/might you need to create for effective use of mobile technology with your students?
5) What resources would you like to have when developing activities, resources, instructional design, technology for mobile use in the classroom?
This discussion is open to anyone interested in mobile technology in the classroom. I'll try to put up some links of examples I've used in my classes.
Showing posts with label mobile technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mobile technology. Show all posts
Monday, July 14, 2014
Saturday, March 22, 2014
Distributed groups and mobile technology
A short history
Twenty years ago, I was working on a management training program for Hungary. The program, funded by USAID,the Pew Foundation, and USIA, was headquartered in the State University of New York's Office of International Programs in Albany, drawing on the resources of 26 campuses (university centers, colleges, technical colleges, and community colleges). In addition to the program headquarters, the program had a Center for Private Enterprise in Budapest which worked with affiliates in 3 provincial towns/cities as well as Budapest and a program group at the University of Buffalo (a SUNY research university). Each group had its own way of working, and my job as project manager was to coordinate it. We used faxes, conference calls, carriers, overnight/express mail, and towards the end, we were in the dawn of the internet, learning how to "program" emails, routing them through university servers from the US, to Austria, Germany, and Switzerland, finally sending them to universities in Hungary who would hand deliver them to our Budapest offices.
Distributed groups back then required a core group through which communication would pass. If technology or even a vital member of the group was missing, the work of the group could be delayed for days or even weeks. While the majority of work being conducted was in English, Hungary was just coming out of the cold war years, so English was not a commonly spoken language. Due to Hungary's history as part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, many spoke German as a second language. As the only German speaker in the group (and then it was limited), this meant that I needed to be available in case we had to communicate with the Center's clerical staff, who were in the process of learning English. I would go in many mornings for conference calls or our Center's managerial staff would have to stay late because of the time difference.
Fast forward to 6 years later, when I was asked to come to take over a project that was ending. There had been 2 previous project managers before me who had been moved to take over other more important projects. Again, this was a USAID funded project, but this time there was a head of project on the ground who handled most of the logistics. My role as Project Director was mostly administrative: financial approvals, budgets, report writing, communicating with the funding agent, writing contracts, making travel arrangements outside of Paraguay. By this time, however, we were communicating via computer (desktop dial up internet). In addition, the Head of Project had a cell phone that we could reach when he was not in the office (either at onsite training or after hours during the summer when there was a 2 hour time difference).
This helped distribute the power between the distributed group so there did not have to be one central location for decisions. In addition, the internet made communication more efficient as an email could be left overnight for someone to access the next day. However, due to the computer still being tied to a line, if a person was away from the office for any length of time, a colleague would need to access and review their emails. Our office, while multilingual, at times would not have a language specialist to translate correspondence. I was recruited a number of times to translate for our projects in Brazil and Mozambique because I could decipher Portuguese. However, we had to have emails written in Russian either translated into English, put on hold for our Russian speaker to return, or forward the email to another location for the Russian speaker to access. While some work could be distributed, the technology still required some central coordination. In addition, it was still time consuming.
How has mobile technology affected distributed groups?
So how are things different, 14 years later? Even the fact that I am aware of what my former colleagues are doing is a difference. I can keep up with their work peripherally through the web, facebook, and linkedin. When I asked one of my former colleagues for a letter of recommendation, she gave me her cell phone number. She might have been out of the country, but she checked her messages and email via cell phone when needed. She would bring her computer so she could work on projects while she was out of the country. This meant that for more urgent matters, she could make decisions that needed immediate attention. Of course, this also means she is multi-tasking more and team members may know less than they did before if she decides not to share her knowledge or information.
In a recent chapter I wrote about mobile technology, researchers (Ladner, 2008; Julsrud & Bakke, 2009) found that there is a blurring of the lines between work and home life. While a member of management may have more flexible time (as my colleague now has), he or she may also have more time taken out of their home life/leisure time as they are expected to be "on call" and available at all times in case of emergency. My dissertation also had evidence that the more important members of a distributed group are those that can "translate" information from one group to another. In this case, translate was not only to put into terms that others can understand, but also the language and cultural foundations needed to communicate across borders.
Distributed groups means that employees are working with other team members that they may never have met face to face. In any work team, individuals want to present a social identity that will make collaboration easier. In addition, a team prospers from members accessing the social and knowledge networks of other group members. Wallis and Law & Peng found workers controlled their identities in the workplace through mobile phone filters such as turning off the phone, limiting who had their phone number (including trading phones to get a new phone number, thus cutting off access to those with whom they did not want to communicate), and developing contact lists on their mobile phone. They developed different communication strategies for different social groups to limit how they presented their social identities for different contexts. The mobile technology gave them agency to communicate and behave as required by their social/knowledge networks (distributed group) and context. My own research supports this, with members of distributed groups sharing or withholding information depending on their perception of how their knowledge was valued within a group. The mobile phone allows group members to access knowledge and social networks, but either publicly (i.e. conference call, social media space), privately (texting, email) or personally (sharing texts or emails if they appear of value, yet acknowledging ownership to the individual rather than the group).
Mobile technology also allows the social networks related to distributed groups to create new in-group norms and values from those of the departments, social groups, or communities in which they work and live. A third culture that superseded their physical environment(s) can be created through mobile interaction within their social networks. Portus (2008) had these findings in her study on mobile phone use in the Philippines. This is a common outcome of distributed groups (Julsrud & Bakke , 2009), which mobile technology helps to maintain. Mobile technology allows for different pathways for interaction, group development, team culture and relationship building, and knowledge sharing.
References:
Julsrud, T. E., & Bakke , J. W. (2009). Trust, friendship, and expertise: The use of email, mobile dialogues, and SMS to develop and sustain social relations in a distributed work group. In R. Ling, & S. Campbell (Eds.), The reconstruction of space and time: Mobile communication practices (pp. 159-190). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Ladner, S. (2008). Laptops in the living room: Mobile technologies and the divide between work and private time among interactive agency workers. Canadian Journal of Communication, 33, 465-489.
Law, P., & Peng, Y. (2008). Mobile networks: Migrant workers in Southern China. In J. Katz (Ed), Handbook of mobile communication studies (pp. 55-64). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Portus, L. (2008). How the urban poor acquire and give meaning to the mobile phone. In J. E. Katz (Ed.), Handbook of mobile communication studies (pp. 105-118). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Wallis, C. (2011). (Im)mobility mobility: Marginal youth and mobile phones in Beijing. In R. Ling, & S. Campbell (Eds.), Mobile communication: Bringing us together and tearing us apart (pp. 61-82). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Wallis, C. (2013). Technomobility in China. New York: New York University Press.
Yonkers, V. (2012). The effect of workplace collaborative writing on the development of knowledge within distributed groups. Dissertation. University at Albany. Available on Proquest.
Twenty years ago, I was working on a management training program for Hungary. The program, funded by USAID,the Pew Foundation, and USIA, was headquartered in the State University of New York's Office of International Programs in Albany, drawing on the resources of 26 campuses (university centers, colleges, technical colleges, and community colleges). In addition to the program headquarters, the program had a Center for Private Enterprise in Budapest which worked with affiliates in 3 provincial towns/cities as well as Budapest and a program group at the University of Buffalo (a SUNY research university). Each group had its own way of working, and my job as project manager was to coordinate it. We used faxes, conference calls, carriers, overnight/express mail, and towards the end, we were in the dawn of the internet, learning how to "program" emails, routing them through university servers from the US, to Austria, Germany, and Switzerland, finally sending them to universities in Hungary who would hand deliver them to our Budapest offices.
Distributed groups back then required a core group through which communication would pass. If technology or even a vital member of the group was missing, the work of the group could be delayed for days or even weeks. While the majority of work being conducted was in English, Hungary was just coming out of the cold war years, so English was not a commonly spoken language. Due to Hungary's history as part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, many spoke German as a second language. As the only German speaker in the group (and then it was limited), this meant that I needed to be available in case we had to communicate with the Center's clerical staff, who were in the process of learning English. I would go in many mornings for conference calls or our Center's managerial staff would have to stay late because of the time difference.
Fast forward to 6 years later, when I was asked to come to take over a project that was ending. There had been 2 previous project managers before me who had been moved to take over other more important projects. Again, this was a USAID funded project, but this time there was a head of project on the ground who handled most of the logistics. My role as Project Director was mostly administrative: financial approvals, budgets, report writing, communicating with the funding agent, writing contracts, making travel arrangements outside of Paraguay. By this time, however, we were communicating via computer (desktop dial up internet). In addition, the Head of Project had a cell phone that we could reach when he was not in the office (either at onsite training or after hours during the summer when there was a 2 hour time difference).
This helped distribute the power between the distributed group so there did not have to be one central location for decisions. In addition, the internet made communication more efficient as an email could be left overnight for someone to access the next day. However, due to the computer still being tied to a line, if a person was away from the office for any length of time, a colleague would need to access and review their emails. Our office, while multilingual, at times would not have a language specialist to translate correspondence. I was recruited a number of times to translate for our projects in Brazil and Mozambique because I could decipher Portuguese. However, we had to have emails written in Russian either translated into English, put on hold for our Russian speaker to return, or forward the email to another location for the Russian speaker to access. While some work could be distributed, the technology still required some central coordination. In addition, it was still time consuming.
How has mobile technology affected distributed groups?
So how are things different, 14 years later? Even the fact that I am aware of what my former colleagues are doing is a difference. I can keep up with their work peripherally through the web, facebook, and linkedin. When I asked one of my former colleagues for a letter of recommendation, she gave me her cell phone number. She might have been out of the country, but she checked her messages and email via cell phone when needed. She would bring her computer so she could work on projects while she was out of the country. This meant that for more urgent matters, she could make decisions that needed immediate attention. Of course, this also means she is multi-tasking more and team members may know less than they did before if she decides not to share her knowledge or information.
In a recent chapter I wrote about mobile technology, researchers (Ladner, 2008; Julsrud & Bakke, 2009) found that there is a blurring of the lines between work and home life. While a member of management may have more flexible time (as my colleague now has), he or she may also have more time taken out of their home life/leisure time as they are expected to be "on call" and available at all times in case of emergency. My dissertation also had evidence that the more important members of a distributed group are those that can "translate" information from one group to another. In this case, translate was not only to put into terms that others can understand, but also the language and cultural foundations needed to communicate across borders.
Distributed groups means that employees are working with other team members that they may never have met face to face. In any work team, individuals want to present a social identity that will make collaboration easier. In addition, a team prospers from members accessing the social and knowledge networks of other group members. Wallis and Law & Peng found workers controlled their identities in the workplace through mobile phone filters such as turning off the phone, limiting who had their phone number (including trading phones to get a new phone number, thus cutting off access to those with whom they did not want to communicate), and developing contact lists on their mobile phone. They developed different communication strategies for different social groups to limit how they presented their social identities for different contexts. The mobile technology gave them agency to communicate and behave as required by their social/knowledge networks (distributed group) and context. My own research supports this, with members of distributed groups sharing or withholding information depending on their perception of how their knowledge was valued within a group. The mobile phone allows group members to access knowledge and social networks, but either publicly (i.e. conference call, social media space), privately (texting, email) or personally (sharing texts or emails if they appear of value, yet acknowledging ownership to the individual rather than the group).
Mobile technology also allows the social networks related to distributed groups to create new in-group norms and values from those of the departments, social groups, or communities in which they work and live. A third culture that superseded their physical environment(s) can be created through mobile interaction within their social networks. Portus (2008) had these findings in her study on mobile phone use in the Philippines. This is a common outcome of distributed groups (Julsrud & Bakke , 2009), which mobile technology helps to maintain. Mobile technology allows for different pathways for interaction, group development, team culture and relationship building, and knowledge sharing.
References:
Julsrud, T. E., & Bakke , J. W. (2009). Trust, friendship, and expertise: The use of email, mobile dialogues, and SMS to develop and sustain social relations in a distributed work group. In R. Ling, & S. Campbell (Eds.), The reconstruction of space and time: Mobile communication practices (pp. 159-190). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Ladner, S. (2008). Laptops in the living room: Mobile technologies and the divide between work and private time among interactive agency workers. Canadian Journal of Communication, 33, 465-489.
Law, P., & Peng, Y. (2008). Mobile networks: Migrant workers in Southern China. In J. Katz (Ed), Handbook of mobile communication studies (pp. 55-64). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Portus, L. (2008). How the urban poor acquire and give meaning to the mobile phone. In J. E. Katz (Ed.), Handbook of mobile communication studies (pp. 105-118). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Wallis, C. (2011). (Im)mobility mobility: Marginal youth and mobile phones in Beijing. In R. Ling, & S. Campbell (Eds.), Mobile communication: Bringing us together and tearing us apart (pp. 61-82). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Wallis, C. (2013). Technomobility in China. New York: New York University Press.
Yonkers, V. (2012). The effect of workplace collaborative writing on the development of knowledge within distributed groups. Dissertation. University at Albany. Available on Proquest.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
The Mobile Professor
One thing that #acwrimo has done is to remind me to blog my research ideas and insights as I'm developing them. With that in mind, I've decided to talk about some new research I am considering. Many of the ideas are still in the early stages, but the more I read and participate in online groups, the more I'm convinced this is research that needs to be done.
The Mobile Adjunct
Currently, I am involved in #adjunctchat, a community that meets on twitter at Tuesdays at 4:00 PM, New York time. This is open to anyone in the world who is interested in contingent faculty issues, either as a researcher, an administrator, faculty friend of contingent instructors, or (of course) an instructor that works in a temporary position, full-time or part-time, long-term contract or short-term contract, for one university or multiple, by choice or by necessity.
Recently, we had one of our followers suggest that we discuss online contingent faculty issues. We also have discussed controlling the adjunct's work environment. In many cases, adjuncts either share office space, don't have office space, or work in a virtual office, connecting with colleagues, administrators, or students online.
My own officemate teaches at two different universities, resulting in managing her resources, physical and virtual, between two distinct university cultures (one school is a large public research university with a high level of diversity, the other is a world renowned technical university with many international students, but little diversity). At times, there have been some comical mix ups as she has arrived at school with the wrong resources for the class she is about to teach. She is not as open to new technology, but she does rely on a netbook to access student records, courses resources, and student communication.
The Personal Communication Society
Yesterday, while reading an article I am writing for contribution to a book a colleague is working on, I came across Campbell and Park's (2008) idea of personal mobile communication. They point out that research indicates that people communicating using mobile devices in a public place, in fact don't necessarily perceive the conversation private (they are in a public place), but rather as personal.
This distinction is important because people become uncomfortable if they are forced to hear a personal conversation in a public place, trying not to ease drop or infringe on those who are in the middle of a personal conversation in a public place. In addition, Rettie's (2008) research suggests that there are different ways in which devises are used depending on the level of intimacy between people using mobile devises. The deeper level of intimacy, the more likely communication in a public space and time will be disguised.
In other words, communication perceived as deeply personal can still be conducted in public spaces, but some type of code will be used to allow for personal interaction (e.g. teens using texting and abbreviations when parents or other friends are in the room). There may also be signals given that an interaction should be conducted in private (i.e. change in location or devise) in which the interaction may not be personal. An example of this would be taking a business call in a restaurant.
By separating personal from private, I was able to understand a phenomenon my students and I noticed last year. My students interacted on facebook differently depending on what devise they used. While the privacy settings were the same for computer and mobile technology, they were more familiar (slang, communicated on topics in a way that was less socially acceptable, swearing)on mobile devises than when they communicated on a desk top computer.
It is possible that young adults perceive mobile technology, as Campbell and Park suggest, as more personal, resulting in a more intimate register. This would also explain the dichotomy between published incidences of sexting, uploading of socially unaccepted behavior on youtube, and cyberbullying against Pew's findings that American youth are concerned about their privacy. Pew pointed out this dichotomy in their report saying to teens managed their privacy while also sharing more personal information online.
While I have been looking for data (primary research reports and journal articles) on mobile technology use that supports Campbell and Park's theory, Rettie is the only one that I have found so far that begins to address this dichotomy. One reason is that it may be difficult to operationalize private and personal.
Researching the Mobile Professor
So, combining my interest in contingent and temporary employees, and my current interest in mobile technology, I have decided to create a research agenda looking at mobile devise use of adjuncts/contingent faculty. My first research will be on private, public, and personal in mobile communications. This is especially important for adjunct faculty who may have to use their own personal devises to communicate with students, and at the same time have federal laws that require their interactions be private. However, faculty that do not have private physical spaces to interact with students will need to carve out a public space that allows for personal interaction or personal interaction that needs to be conducted in private spaces such as a car or online space.
Part of the conditions that add (or negatively impact) an adjunct is his or her social network. Therefore, it would be interesting to understand what social networks adjuncts create and how they maintain them. For example, now with mobile technology, adjuncts can create more permanent relationships with their students without a close intimacy. Likewise, as an adjunct leaves a position for a semester, are they better able to maintain professional relationships with administrators? With the potential of mobile technology creating sociomental communities (Chayko, 2007), why aren't adjuncts better socialized within departments or the universities? Are adjuncts now being heard because they are creating sociomental communities because they are being forced to interact with mobile devices? Related to this would be determining how adjuncts find each other (which has been a problem with unionizing specific campuses).
By starting with these questions in looking at contingent faculty and mobile technology, I will be able to then extend this research into all types of temporary and/or contingent workers including consultants (private and government), emergency workers (including local government, hospital, utility, national guard, first responders), temporary or seasonal workers, and per diam workers (nurses, teachers, laborers).
Resources
Mary Chayko (2007). The portable community: envisioning and examining mobile social connectedness. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 3 (4), 373-385.
Scott W. Campbell and Jong Jin Park (2008). Social Implications of Mobile Telephony: The Rise of Personal Communication Society. Sociology Compass, 2 (2) 371-387.
Ruth Rettie (2008). Mobile Phones as Network Capital: Facilitating Connections. Mobilities, 3(2), 291-311.
The Mobile Adjunct
Currently, I am involved in #adjunctchat, a community that meets on twitter at Tuesdays at 4:00 PM, New York time. This is open to anyone in the world who is interested in contingent faculty issues, either as a researcher, an administrator, faculty friend of contingent instructors, or (of course) an instructor that works in a temporary position, full-time or part-time, long-term contract or short-term contract, for one university or multiple, by choice or by necessity.
Recently, we had one of our followers suggest that we discuss online contingent faculty issues. We also have discussed controlling the adjunct's work environment. In many cases, adjuncts either share office space, don't have office space, or work in a virtual office, connecting with colleagues, administrators, or students online.
My own officemate teaches at two different universities, resulting in managing her resources, physical and virtual, between two distinct university cultures (one school is a large public research university with a high level of diversity, the other is a world renowned technical university with many international students, but little diversity). At times, there have been some comical mix ups as she has arrived at school with the wrong resources for the class she is about to teach. She is not as open to new technology, but she does rely on a netbook to access student records, courses resources, and student communication.
The Personal Communication Society
Yesterday, while reading an article I am writing for contribution to a book a colleague is working on, I came across Campbell and Park's (2008) idea of personal mobile communication. They point out that research indicates that people communicating using mobile devices in a public place, in fact don't necessarily perceive the conversation private (they are in a public place), but rather as personal.
This distinction is important because people become uncomfortable if they are forced to hear a personal conversation in a public place, trying not to ease drop or infringe on those who are in the middle of a personal conversation in a public place. In addition, Rettie's (2008) research suggests that there are different ways in which devises are used depending on the level of intimacy between people using mobile devises. The deeper level of intimacy, the more likely communication in a public space and time will be disguised.
In other words, communication perceived as deeply personal can still be conducted in public spaces, but some type of code will be used to allow for personal interaction (e.g. teens using texting and abbreviations when parents or other friends are in the room). There may also be signals given that an interaction should be conducted in private (i.e. change in location or devise) in which the interaction may not be personal. An example of this would be taking a business call in a restaurant.
By separating personal from private, I was able to understand a phenomenon my students and I noticed last year. My students interacted on facebook differently depending on what devise they used. While the privacy settings were the same for computer and mobile technology, they were more familiar (slang, communicated on topics in a way that was less socially acceptable, swearing)on mobile devises than when they communicated on a desk top computer.
It is possible that young adults perceive mobile technology, as Campbell and Park suggest, as more personal, resulting in a more intimate register. This would also explain the dichotomy between published incidences of sexting, uploading of socially unaccepted behavior on youtube, and cyberbullying against Pew's findings that American youth are concerned about their privacy. Pew pointed out this dichotomy in their report saying to teens managed their privacy while also sharing more personal information online.
While I have been looking for data (primary research reports and journal articles) on mobile technology use that supports Campbell and Park's theory, Rettie is the only one that I have found so far that begins to address this dichotomy. One reason is that it may be difficult to operationalize private and personal.
Researching the Mobile Professor
So, combining my interest in contingent and temporary employees, and my current interest in mobile technology, I have decided to create a research agenda looking at mobile devise use of adjuncts/contingent faculty. My first research will be on private, public, and personal in mobile communications. This is especially important for adjunct faculty who may have to use their own personal devises to communicate with students, and at the same time have federal laws that require their interactions be private. However, faculty that do not have private physical spaces to interact with students will need to carve out a public space that allows for personal interaction or personal interaction that needs to be conducted in private spaces such as a car or online space.
Part of the conditions that add (or negatively impact) an adjunct is his or her social network. Therefore, it would be interesting to understand what social networks adjuncts create and how they maintain them. For example, now with mobile technology, adjuncts can create more permanent relationships with their students without a close intimacy. Likewise, as an adjunct leaves a position for a semester, are they better able to maintain professional relationships with administrators? With the potential of mobile technology creating sociomental communities (Chayko, 2007), why aren't adjuncts better socialized within departments or the universities? Are adjuncts now being heard because they are creating sociomental communities because they are being forced to interact with mobile devices? Related to this would be determining how adjuncts find each other (which has been a problem with unionizing specific campuses).
By starting with these questions in looking at contingent faculty and mobile technology, I will be able to then extend this research into all types of temporary and/or contingent workers including consultants (private and government), emergency workers (including local government, hospital, utility, national guard, first responders), temporary or seasonal workers, and per diam workers (nurses, teachers, laborers).
Resources
Mary Chayko (2007). The portable community: envisioning and examining mobile social connectedness. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 3 (4), 373-385.
Scott W. Campbell and Jong Jin Park (2008). Social Implications of Mobile Telephony: The Rise of Personal Communication Society. Sociology Compass, 2 (2) 371-387.
Ruth Rettie (2008). Mobile Phones as Network Capital: Facilitating Connections. Mobilities, 3(2), 291-311.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Help with new technology trends for 2013/14
Each summer, I choose one or two new emerging technologies to learn. Last summer I worked with edmodo and mendeley. I ended up using Edmodo, but not really catching on to mendeley (nor did my students as it was a bit limited in collaborative work, we found). I also started playing around with pintrest, which had mixed reviews with my students, however, I've found some use personally.
This Spring, I was given an ipod to use as part of a "flipped classroom" project, along with clickers. However, I found the two technologies created information overload. So my goal for the summer is to work more with the ipod, including learning how to create effective learning videos.
So I need your help. Does anyone know of good videos on how to create a learning video? Or does anyone know of good learning videos? (If there are no how to create a learning video, this just might be a research project I can do next fall).
I also would like suggestions on new technology, technology used in new ways, new software being used, and apps that my students may be using (i.e. snapchat, google +) and/or businesses might be using for collaborative work or communication. I am especially interested in data visualization (including mindmapping or flowcharts) apps and/or video apps.
You can either make the suggestions in the comment area here, and/or tweet them to @comprof1 using the hashtag #cmc2014. I will vet out the best suggestions and present them in my blog.
This Spring, I was given an ipod to use as part of a "flipped classroom" project, along with clickers. However, I found the two technologies created information overload. So my goal for the summer is to work more with the ipod, including learning how to create effective learning videos.
So I need your help. Does anyone know of good videos on how to create a learning video? Or does anyone know of good learning videos? (If there are no how to create a learning video, this just might be a research project I can do next fall).
I also would like suggestions on new technology, technology used in new ways, new software being used, and apps that my students may be using (i.e. snapchat, google +) and/or businesses might be using for collaborative work or communication. I am especially interested in data visualization (including mindmapping or flowcharts) apps and/or video apps.
You can either make the suggestions in the comment area here, and/or tweet them to @comprof1 using the hashtag #cmc2014. I will vet out the best suggestions and present them in my blog.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
The mobile classroom
As part of the flipped classroom, I was given an ipad to use. At first I was excited because I thought I would be able to tape and project some of the classroom activities (very important in communication education). However, I soon found that logistically this was difficult. An unexpected outcome that was noted when my class was observed was that the mobile devise also put a barrier up between my students and I. To film, they could not make eye contact with me. This meant many disengaged from me, acting as they would act if I had left the room (going off topic, not working on the activity, etc...).
However, I have learned that the ipad is very useful as I manage my class. Often, I will project an activity (either powerpoint or googledoc) so students can follow the activity goals and requirements. However, this makes it difficult if they have questions that I need internet access to answer. For example, they may ask for an example of how something works. Using the ipad, I can access a resource and show it to them (rather than just explain it). In some cases, students will copy down or access the resource on their own smart phones.
This has been especially useful in modeling technology use for my students. For example, students will come to me saying they can't find a resource. I will go through the process, showing them how to access/search for resources. This means they no longer can say, "I don't know how..." and hope to end the learning there. Now I can show them at the same time allowing them to save face since this can be done during group or individual work. I also don't have to bore those that already know by repeating the process on the classroom screen.
The use of tablets and other mobile technology gives me the tool to individualize learning for my students. It also aids in the just-in-time learning many students have come to expect.
However, I have learned that the ipad is very useful as I manage my class. Often, I will project an activity (either powerpoint or googledoc) so students can follow the activity goals and requirements. However, this makes it difficult if they have questions that I need internet access to answer. For example, they may ask for an example of how something works. Using the ipad, I can access a resource and show it to them (rather than just explain it). In some cases, students will copy down or access the resource on their own smart phones.
This has been especially useful in modeling technology use for my students. For example, students will come to me saying they can't find a resource. I will go through the process, showing them how to access/search for resources. This means they no longer can say, "I don't know how..." and hope to end the learning there. Now I can show them at the same time allowing them to save face since this can be done during group or individual work. I also don't have to bore those that already know by repeating the process on the classroom screen.
The use of tablets and other mobile technology gives me the tool to individualize learning for my students. It also aids in the just-in-time learning many students have come to expect.
Monday, July 30, 2012
NBC's censoring of the Olympics: Social media and lost opportunities
Let me begin by stating I am a big fan of the Olympics. Overall, NBC, the American television corporation with rights to broadcasting the Olympics, with one exception, has done a pretty good job of covering the games on its free, open access station. They have included a wide variety of sports in all day (more or less)coverage.
However, they have really missed the boat on their social media/online coverage, which could have real repercussions from fans in the future. It also points out how ignorant the corporation is about social media and the "new" media the it purports makes this the first "social media" Olympics.
My history with the Olympics
As a child, I remember waking up early in the morning or in the middle of the night to watch the first "live" satellite broadcasted Olympics. Living only 90 miles from Lake Placid, the winter Olympics were always followed closely in my family. Then the Broadcasters learned that they could get better viewing numbers (and thus higher advertising rates) if they saved the most popular events until primetime (7-11PM). Soon, only certain events were available for viewing. This was the first line of censureship by American broadcasters of the Olympics. Only events in which American won were shown. There was a general outcry as fans of a certain sport in which there was popularity and good representation by the US (e.g. hockey, bobsledding, equestrian)were not shown unless there was a win. Viewership of the Olympics fell.
During the Atlanta Olympics, sametime coverage was extended and the networks learned that they could develop fans for lesser known sports. I remember watching the equestrian field jumping one afternoon and became entranced (as did others, which I learned later). Broadcasters learned that there was a market during the day, especially for the summer Olympics.
For the China Olympics, I finally had access to high speed internet which allowed me to view streaming video. The Olympics became even more exciting as I was able to watch video (some of it raw footage) on little known sports that the general population might not be interested in (i.e. fencing, rowing, white water canoing/kayaking) and some better known sports that might not be widely watched in the US (i.e. soccer). It was wonderful being able to access footage not shown on the TV, but watching primetime for the major sports.
By the winter Olympics in Vancouver, however, things had changed. I was no longer able to go to the NBC site to view the Olympics. In addition, NBC had migrated some of the events I was interested in on to their cable channels. I was not willing to pay $1200 a year for cable (in which I have very little interest as I do not watch much TV for the most part during the year, and we live on a limited budget). A new form of network censureship took over in which I was limited in watching only those sports the network deemed as important and I was limited in accessing information via the internet. I was able to find some footage on YouTube and NBC did post footage 24 hours later. I could understand the network wanting to get as much viewership as possible via television to ensure maximizing advertising profits.
Speed forward to this year. I was so excited when I heard NBC had a special app to view the Olympics on mobile technology. Then I went to the NBC Olympics home page and discovered that not only could I not watch the Olympics live, but the only video available was "highlights" (fluff pieces and edited versions of the live video). According to the NBC Olympics site:
In other words, NBC has put a block on all Olympic video so that countries in Africa and Asia have more internet access to the Olympics than in the US (unless you pay for your television through cable).
Why is this bad?
While I understand the marketing decisions NBC made due to income from cable companies (trying to get their numbers up so they can charge cable companies higher viewership fees), NBC does not understand that viewers without cable are now frustrated and do not want to watch the Olympics. Cable companies and production companies have learned that viewers want alternatives and individualization (viewing on demand) in their viewing habits. They don't want to be forced to view on cable or nothing at all (viewers that access televisions through DSL are also blocked from videos on the NBC site).
I am surprised that NBC has been allowed to have such a monopoly in which all information is limited to what NBC allows out. One exception is twitter. I have been able to access images and information from twitter. However, I'd like to access video. I feel such resentment towards NBC, that I would NEVER get cable as I don't like being blackmailed into something. Interestingly enough, looking at the schedule, CNBC and MSNBC don't really carry very much of the Olympics. So this is just a way of using the Olympics to blackmail viewers into getting these TV stations.
While we complain about other governments blocking content that is unacceptable for the population to access, we allow corporations to do the same thing. Only filtered information is available about the Olympics. This makes me wonder what other aspects of broadcasting will begin to become filtered. What if NYSE were to come to an agreement with a broadcaster that NYSE information could only be available through cable? This means that a certain group in the population (those that don't have cable or access to cable) would always be excluded. This gives new meaning to the digital divide.
A missed opportunity
On the part of NBC, I feel that in their wish to control all aspects of information about the Olympics demonstrates their lack of understanding about power of the internet and mobile technology. One of the most amusing, yet disturbing, examples was their attempt to integrate social media into their broadcast (no doubt trying to emulate ABC's Good Afternoon America and Live with Kelly's success).
NBC assumes that all who do not subscribe to cable also do not have mobile technology. Their "bait and switch" tactics in advertising that they had an app in which people could access live streaming did not add that you needed to have cable television subscription with CNBC and MSNBC in order to use the app. They lost out on a large potential income stream by not selling the app for use by those who did not have a cable subscription. I know of many who would have paid for it.
The webpage for the NBC Olympics really needs improvement. It is very difficult to navigate and find out information (other than the fact that really you can't use it unless you subscribe to CNBC and MSNBC). Finally, the Today show is not taking advantage of the games to the best of its ability. I was very disappointed this morning (and have decided I will do all my work from 7-10 when the Today show airs in my area) at the content. I was not interested in the calories food in England have or the fashions of England. I did want to see the entire skeet shooting competition in which the American winner shot 99/100 and set an Olympic record for most consecutive gold metals in the summer Olympics. At that point, the interview (which was good) could take place. The Today show could be a tease for the evening tape delayed events (i.e. showing tape delayed or live qualifying events so those watching in the evening would want to see how it ended).
However, they have really missed the boat on their social media/online coverage, which could have real repercussions from fans in the future. It also points out how ignorant the corporation is about social media and the "new" media the it purports makes this the first "social media" Olympics.
My history with the Olympics
As a child, I remember waking up early in the morning or in the middle of the night to watch the first "live" satellite broadcasted Olympics. Living only 90 miles from Lake Placid, the winter Olympics were always followed closely in my family. Then the Broadcasters learned that they could get better viewing numbers (and thus higher advertising rates) if they saved the most popular events until primetime (7-11PM). Soon, only certain events were available for viewing. This was the first line of censureship by American broadcasters of the Olympics. Only events in which American won were shown. There was a general outcry as fans of a certain sport in which there was popularity and good representation by the US (e.g. hockey, bobsledding, equestrian)were not shown unless there was a win. Viewership of the Olympics fell.
During the Atlanta Olympics, sametime coverage was extended and the networks learned that they could develop fans for lesser known sports. I remember watching the equestrian field jumping one afternoon and became entranced (as did others, which I learned later). Broadcasters learned that there was a market during the day, especially for the summer Olympics.
For the China Olympics, I finally had access to high speed internet which allowed me to view streaming video. The Olympics became even more exciting as I was able to watch video (some of it raw footage) on little known sports that the general population might not be interested in (i.e. fencing, rowing, white water canoing/kayaking) and some better known sports that might not be widely watched in the US (i.e. soccer). It was wonderful being able to access footage not shown on the TV, but watching primetime for the major sports.
By the winter Olympics in Vancouver, however, things had changed. I was no longer able to go to the NBC site to view the Olympics. In addition, NBC had migrated some of the events I was interested in on to their cable channels. I was not willing to pay $1200 a year for cable (in which I have very little interest as I do not watch much TV for the most part during the year, and we live on a limited budget). A new form of network censureship took over in which I was limited in watching only those sports the network deemed as important and I was limited in accessing information via the internet. I was able to find some footage on YouTube and NBC did post footage 24 hours later. I could understand the network wanting to get as much viewership as possible via television to ensure maximizing advertising profits.
Speed forward to this year. I was so excited when I heard NBC had a special app to view the Olympics on mobile technology. Then I went to the NBC Olympics home page and discovered that not only could I not watch the Olympics live, but the only video available was "highlights" (fluff pieces and edited versions of the live video). According to the NBC Olympics site:
Q: What is required for accessing Live Extra content?
A: You will need to verify that you subscribe to a cable, satellite or telco video tier that includes CNBC and MSNBC. There is no additional charge.
Q: Is account verification required for accessing video other than live streams?
A: Yes, but only full-event replays (e.g. an entire basketball game) within 48 hours of an event’s conclusion. You will NOT need to verify your TV subscription to view the extensive collection of competition highlights, interviews, athlete profiles, etc., available on NBCOlympics.com.
Q: Can I access live streams anywhere other than NBCOlympics.com and the NBC Olympics Live Extra App without verifying?
A: No. Olympic video will not be available to U.S. viewers on other websites or Apps.
In other words, NBC has put a block on all Olympic video so that countries in Africa and Asia have more internet access to the Olympics than in the US (unless you pay for your television through cable).
Why is this bad?
While I understand the marketing decisions NBC made due to income from cable companies (trying to get their numbers up so they can charge cable companies higher viewership fees), NBC does not understand that viewers without cable are now frustrated and do not want to watch the Olympics. Cable companies and production companies have learned that viewers want alternatives and individualization (viewing on demand) in their viewing habits. They don't want to be forced to view on cable or nothing at all (viewers that access televisions through DSL are also blocked from videos on the NBC site).
I am surprised that NBC has been allowed to have such a monopoly in which all information is limited to what NBC allows out. One exception is twitter. I have been able to access images and information from twitter. However, I'd like to access video. I feel such resentment towards NBC, that I would NEVER get cable as I don't like being blackmailed into something. Interestingly enough, looking at the schedule, CNBC and MSNBC don't really carry very much of the Olympics. So this is just a way of using the Olympics to blackmail viewers into getting these TV stations.
While we complain about other governments blocking content that is unacceptable for the population to access, we allow corporations to do the same thing. Only filtered information is available about the Olympics. This makes me wonder what other aspects of broadcasting will begin to become filtered. What if NYSE were to come to an agreement with a broadcaster that NYSE information could only be available through cable? This means that a certain group in the population (those that don't have cable or access to cable) would always be excluded. This gives new meaning to the digital divide.
A missed opportunity
On the part of NBC, I feel that in their wish to control all aspects of information about the Olympics demonstrates their lack of understanding about power of the internet and mobile technology. One of the most amusing, yet disturbing, examples was their attempt to integrate social media into their broadcast (no doubt trying to emulate ABC's Good Afternoon America and Live with Kelly's success).
NBC assumes that all who do not subscribe to cable also do not have mobile technology. Their "bait and switch" tactics in advertising that they had an app in which people could access live streaming did not add that you needed to have cable television subscription with CNBC and MSNBC in order to use the app. They lost out on a large potential income stream by not selling the app for use by those who did not have a cable subscription. I know of many who would have paid for it.
The webpage for the NBC Olympics really needs improvement. It is very difficult to navigate and find out information (other than the fact that really you can't use it unless you subscribe to CNBC and MSNBC). Finally, the Today show is not taking advantage of the games to the best of its ability. I was very disappointed this morning (and have decided I will do all my work from 7-10 when the Today show airs in my area) at the content. I was not interested in the calories food in England have or the fashions of England. I did want to see the entire skeet shooting competition in which the American winner shot 99/100 and set an Olympic record for most consecutive gold metals in the summer Olympics. At that point, the interview (which was good) could take place. The Today show could be a tease for the evening tape delayed events (i.e. showing tape delayed or live qualifying events so those watching in the evening would want to see how it ended).
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Mobile Technology: An instructor's viewpoint
I was a member of a panel at a recent CDETG conference on Mobile Technology. CDTEG is a group of people interested in integrating technology at the higher ed level. The group, started by a classmate of mine, is comprised of instructional designers, members of ITS, employees of educational technology developers, professors and instructors, and administrators/Educational Technology policy makers in upstate/northeastern New York state. The organization is set up to create a dialog and share information about issues around educational technology at the university level.
This last meeting was on mobile technology, something that I have noticed is a growing trend in my classes. I thought it might be useful for my readers to read about some of the take aways from the conference that I will be including in my teaching this year.
1) One of the first speakers was a project manager for an online syllabus developer, Itellidemia. I had never thought of the mechanics behind mobile technology (partly because I don't use apps on any of my own mobile technology...my phone is just that: a phone, not access to the internet). However, since many of my students use their phones and pads/tablets as their access to the internet, it is important that I understand the technical requirements behind apps.
2) There are two different types of apps: read only and interactive. As the presentation by the project manager at Intellidemia and the ITS programming team from the College of St. Rose explained, Native Apps are those that are designed to work with a specific device. For example, St. Rose developed an interactive registration app where students could check on the status of a class during registration, and be put on a waitlist to be notified via their phone when a seat opened up. This required customization between the different phone types (i.e. droid, blackberry, iphone). The other type of app is a read only which means that the app is webbased in which a phone can access the web for information but cannot interact/change information. Student notifications of events or class cancellations used this technology for mobile technology. An instructor or administrator would need to access the site via a computer or Mac, and once the information was changed, a mobile technology formatted version would be available to students via their mobile device. Technologically, this is a lot easier for ITS departments to program, but it also means less customization and interaction.
3) Students need intrinsic motivation to use apps and mobile devises educationally. In my own experience, (this was part of my presentation), you can offer alternatives that students can access mobilely, but ultimately it is up to the student to decide which tool (if any) they want to use or will engage them. For example, I had a very interesting program I assigned, that students could down load onto the ipod or watch using their laptop. I thought students would prefer this to reading a boring article about the same topic. However, about half of the students did not do the assignment. Some students just preferred to read rather than watch a video on line.
Our discussion at CDETG concluded that not all students like to use technology to learn, nor do they have access to mobile technologies that will interact with the material. So it is important to provide alternatives for students. One affordance that mobile technology allows is different means of access depending on student preference for learning.
4) Often, instructors are unaware of the opportunities/affordances of new technology. Also, because of the wide range of technologies and limited time faculty have, there is resistance to changing or adopting new technology. It is important, therefore, to identify faculty members that might be interested in integrating new technology into their teaching and use them for pilot programs.
Empire State College (I was a member of their adjunct faculty at the advent of online learning) does a good job of getting their faculty to use new technology by choosing volunteers they will train and support during pilot projects, then getting the faculty to recruit colleagues who become interested when they see what can be done with the new technology. They used this format in mobile technology, drawing faculty from education, business, science, and humanity departments. Each faculty member created a pilot program for their own course, which was then assessed by the ITS department. The results were disseminated during the required annual training sessions. Having concrete goals and outcomes for the pilot programs helped convince faculty members that there was a role in education for mobile technology.
5) A major consideration for faculty is that they don't have time to learn all of the possible apps or different types of mobile technology available for their students. The group concluded that a faculty member does not need to know how specific devises work or what apps are available. Rather, they need to know what technology can do and have their students find specific apps or instructions on how their particular devise works.
Among the affordances instructors and instructional designers need to consider are a) how the technology will be used (read only or interactive), b) formatting so that it will be accessible to mobile devises (i.e. format is narrow and/or in small chunks so it will be easy to find read on a smaller mobile device), c) why the technology will be accessed mobily, d) when (in what context such as class, homework, administrative updates, etc...) mobile devises will be used to access course content/activities, e)support available to the student and faculty in developing mobile content (level of ITS support, support from the devise or app).
In my own teaching, I know integrate mobile technology into my classes by sending students out of the classroom to work on activities and keeping in touch with them as I (and other students) stay in the classroom. I also allow student to access resources through their mobile devises on certain activities. Sometimes I will have them begin without their mobile devices, then allow them later in an activity to access the devices.
This summer, I am trying to learn more about mobile devices and technology that interact with it. This is one of the reasons why I am playing around with twitter (yes, I plan to send students out of the class room and use twitter to communicate with them). One tool I am going to try out is a create-your-own app site recommended at the conference.
Related blog: The Instructional Design Guy
This last meeting was on mobile technology, something that I have noticed is a growing trend in my classes. I thought it might be useful for my readers to read about some of the take aways from the conference that I will be including in my teaching this year.
1) One of the first speakers was a project manager for an online syllabus developer, Itellidemia. I had never thought of the mechanics behind mobile technology (partly because I don't use apps on any of my own mobile technology...my phone is just that: a phone, not access to the internet). However, since many of my students use their phones and pads/tablets as their access to the internet, it is important that I understand the technical requirements behind apps.
2) There are two different types of apps: read only and interactive. As the presentation by the project manager at Intellidemia and the ITS programming team from the College of St. Rose explained, Native Apps are those that are designed to work with a specific device. For example, St. Rose developed an interactive registration app where students could check on the status of a class during registration, and be put on a waitlist to be notified via their phone when a seat opened up. This required customization between the different phone types (i.e. droid, blackberry, iphone). The other type of app is a read only which means that the app is webbased in which a phone can access the web for information but cannot interact/change information. Student notifications of events or class cancellations used this technology for mobile technology. An instructor or administrator would need to access the site via a computer or Mac, and once the information was changed, a mobile technology formatted version would be available to students via their mobile device. Technologically, this is a lot easier for ITS departments to program, but it also means less customization and interaction.
3) Students need intrinsic motivation to use apps and mobile devises educationally. In my own experience, (this was part of my presentation), you can offer alternatives that students can access mobilely, but ultimately it is up to the student to decide which tool (if any) they want to use or will engage them. For example, I had a very interesting program I assigned, that students could down load onto the ipod or watch using their laptop. I thought students would prefer this to reading a boring article about the same topic. However, about half of the students did not do the assignment. Some students just preferred to read rather than watch a video on line.
Our discussion at CDETG concluded that not all students like to use technology to learn, nor do they have access to mobile technologies that will interact with the material. So it is important to provide alternatives for students. One affordance that mobile technology allows is different means of access depending on student preference for learning.
4) Often, instructors are unaware of the opportunities/affordances of new technology. Also, because of the wide range of technologies and limited time faculty have, there is resistance to changing or adopting new technology. It is important, therefore, to identify faculty members that might be interested in integrating new technology into their teaching and use them for pilot programs.
Empire State College (I was a member of their adjunct faculty at the advent of online learning) does a good job of getting their faculty to use new technology by choosing volunteers they will train and support during pilot projects, then getting the faculty to recruit colleagues who become interested when they see what can be done with the new technology. They used this format in mobile technology, drawing faculty from education, business, science, and humanity departments. Each faculty member created a pilot program for their own course, which was then assessed by the ITS department. The results were disseminated during the required annual training sessions. Having concrete goals and outcomes for the pilot programs helped convince faculty members that there was a role in education for mobile technology.
5) A major consideration for faculty is that they don't have time to learn all of the possible apps or different types of mobile technology available for their students. The group concluded that a faculty member does not need to know how specific devises work or what apps are available. Rather, they need to know what technology can do and have their students find specific apps or instructions on how their particular devise works.
Among the affordances instructors and instructional designers need to consider are a) how the technology will be used (read only or interactive), b) formatting so that it will be accessible to mobile devises (i.e. format is narrow and/or in small chunks so it will be easy to find read on a smaller mobile device), c) why the technology will be accessed mobily, d) when (in what context such as class, homework, administrative updates, etc...) mobile devises will be used to access course content/activities, e)support available to the student and faculty in developing mobile content (level of ITS support, support from the devise or app).
In my own teaching, I know integrate mobile technology into my classes by sending students out of the classroom to work on activities and keeping in touch with them as I (and other students) stay in the classroom. I also allow student to access resources through their mobile devises on certain activities. Sometimes I will have them begin without their mobile devices, then allow them later in an activity to access the devices.
This summer, I am trying to learn more about mobile devices and technology that interact with it. This is one of the reasons why I am playing around with twitter (yes, I plan to send students out of the class room and use twitter to communicate with them). One tool I am going to try out is a create-your-own app site recommended at the conference.
Related blog: The Instructional Design Guy
Friday, October 15, 2010
How mobile technology and facebook is changing how we communicate
I have noticed lately that the emails I get from my students are shorter and much more direct. I have also noticed that some of the comments on my kids' facebook seem almost cruel in their brevity, communicating something that can be misunderstood. After doing some quick analysis, I realized that those messages that stood out as being "different" were sent from mobile technology. After a little more investigation, I realized that the way in which facebook is being used is changing as more and more people have mobile devises that interact with the internet.
My nephew just got a droid. He is a teacher in his late 20's, not a teen. However, if I want to get a hold of him quickly, I have found facebook as the most effective tool. Facebook is becoming the format of choice for informal communication. As a result, companies using facebook who are formal or spamming (I'm sure it's called something else, I'm just not up to date with the jargon) may turn off potential customers (just as people don't answer the telephone at dinner time any more due to telemarketers).
As younger people get used to being informal on facebook delivered via mobile technology and as they develop their own protocols in communicating via mobile texting, they may not make the register change when sending a message via the internet (which will show up as an email)by mobile phone. This might be why recent emails I'm receiving from my students are very direct and to the point. Sometimes, it almost resembles an order; other times they provide me with very little information (including their name!).
The biggest concern is that this style of writing can be brutal (for lack of a better word), lacking in any empathy. Received by the wrong person, these messages can cause hard feelings. Surprisingly, my own children seem to be immune to this (they don't seem to be as insulted as I am about things written about them on facebook). When I pointed out to them that they would probably be upset if someone said that to them face-to-face, they did not see the similarities in the intention. However, as I remind them on a regular basis, not all people are immune to the change in language, register, and communication mode, so they are often having to modify what they would write. My son got a kick out of the Saturday Night Live skit last week on the facebook filter ap "Damn, my mom's on facebook."
My nephew just got a droid. He is a teacher in his late 20's, not a teen. However, if I want to get a hold of him quickly, I have found facebook as the most effective tool. Facebook is becoming the format of choice for informal communication. As a result, companies using facebook who are formal or spamming (I'm sure it's called something else, I'm just not up to date with the jargon) may turn off potential customers (just as people don't answer the telephone at dinner time any more due to telemarketers).
As younger people get used to being informal on facebook delivered via mobile technology and as they develop their own protocols in communicating via mobile texting, they may not make the register change when sending a message via the internet (which will show up as an email)by mobile phone. This might be why recent emails I'm receiving from my students are very direct and to the point. Sometimes, it almost resembles an order; other times they provide me with very little information (including their name!).
The biggest concern is that this style of writing can be brutal (for lack of a better word), lacking in any empathy. Received by the wrong person, these messages can cause hard feelings. Surprisingly, my own children seem to be immune to this (they don't seem to be as insulted as I am about things written about them on facebook). When I pointed out to them that they would probably be upset if someone said that to them face-to-face, they did not see the similarities in the intention. However, as I remind them on a regular basis, not all people are immune to the change in language, register, and communication mode, so they are often having to modify what they would write. My son got a kick out of the Saturday Night Live skit last week on the facebook filter ap "Damn, my mom's on facebook."
Sunday, August 16, 2009
A new way of typing?
I wrote the following comment on Karyn Romeis's blog post about new software to teach typing:
It made me think of how difficult it is to change our patterns (both individually and culturally--in any society) to reflect new ways of doing things. What often happens is that those with greater power might deem what is acceptable or not.
I have found this in my data analysis for my dissertation. Because it was taking so long to create new processes, and because some group members were in a more politically viable position (department) than others, new processes were ditched to revert to the old templates (with some adjustments) and ways of doing things. However, before the big boss stepped in and began to set procedures to expedite the work, there was a high level of learning within the group (between group members). Many expressed their hope that they were creating a new format to present training within their field.
But, alas, there was just too much difficulty in changing those work patterns.
One of the problems I think I have in using a cell phone is the unlearning of patterns and relearning of new patterns. It is much easier for me to use facebook as it does not require the "unlearning" of anything. I do believe my kids are finding new ways to type that are every bit as effective as the way I type. However, it is considered "wrong" because it is a change of patterns, by necessity in light of the technology they are using.
Interestingly enough, my daughter was taught touch type, but does not use the process. Since getting a facebook account and a cell phone, she uses a two finger (forefinger and thumb) process that I see many of her generation using at a much faster rate than she ever used using all of her fingers.
I wonder if touch type teaching will change because of these new technologies.
It made me think of how difficult it is to change our patterns (both individually and culturally--in any society) to reflect new ways of doing things. What often happens is that those with greater power might deem what is acceptable or not.
I have found this in my data analysis for my dissertation. Because it was taking so long to create new processes, and because some group members were in a more politically viable position (department) than others, new processes were ditched to revert to the old templates (with some adjustments) and ways of doing things. However, before the big boss stepped in and began to set procedures to expedite the work, there was a high level of learning within the group (between group members). Many expressed their hope that they were creating a new format to present training within their field.
But, alas, there was just too much difficulty in changing those work patterns.
One of the problems I think I have in using a cell phone is the unlearning of patterns and relearning of new patterns. It is much easier for me to use facebook as it does not require the "unlearning" of anything. I do believe my kids are finding new ways to type that are every bit as effective as the way I type. However, it is considered "wrong" because it is a change of patterns, by necessity in light of the technology they are using.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Elearning of the future: Mobile technology
I've been wanting to write this post for a while, but just did not have the time. As I commented on Michele Martin's blog
The media's new frenzy seems to be twitter. But many are overlooking the impact that mobile technology is having on our communication and access to information. One reason twitter is taking over is because the short messages are perfect for mobile phone access.
Ken Allen recently had a post about the impact of mobile technology on writing. Texting, in its various forms, is creeping into my student's papers. Will this mean that in the future writing conventions will include "i" and "u"? Perhaps. But the current state of truncated language in text messages do have a unique feature that will limit the extent of "texting language." Take a look at Ken's post. My initial observation is the "accented" language use. For example, my kids would never use "hiv." In fact, they would probably "translate" his title of "hiv u evr wundird wot it wiz lyk b4" as haf u evr 1Nderd wat it waz lIk B4." This leads to be believe texting will be more "regional" with some standard conventions internationally.
What does this mean for Elearning?
It would seem to me that the younger generation will use mobile technology as a means for not only communication but also learning and information sharing/gathering. However, it is likely this won't be in text form. Complex ideas will be difficult to convey in short textual spurts.
However, as my daughter pointed out, the new technology has powerful multi-media apps that will allow students to listen to lectures, watch video clips, and even post comments in a multi-media format (i.e. using a camera feature on the phone). It would appear that the current text based preference for communication among the younger generation will swing back to oral and visual communication for learning.
It is important that we begin to consider the ways we can integrate these new technologies into elearning, before it is too late. Michael Hanley has recognized this trend and posted a series of useful posts on using mobile technology for training. It is a good start. But we need to begin to recognize the importance of "place" of learning and how the portability of elearning technology will change access to education.
Each generation creates their own tools aside from their parents. 20 somethings have been using facebook and now others are catching up. Teens (of which I have two) are using mobile technology. My daughter was just lamenting that "Trackphone doesn't have any apps" (yes, she used apps which I am sure most 20 somethings don't use). "Can I get an itouch? They have cool apps." Did I mention that she is 13?
The media's new frenzy seems to be twitter. But many are overlooking the impact that mobile technology is having on our communication and access to information. One reason twitter is taking over is because the short messages are perfect for mobile phone access.
Ken Allen recently had a post about the impact of mobile technology on writing. Texting, in its various forms, is creeping into my student's papers. Will this mean that in the future writing conventions will include "i" and "u"? Perhaps. But the current state of truncated language in text messages do have a unique feature that will limit the extent of "texting language." Take a look at Ken's post. My initial observation is the "accented" language use. For example, my kids would never use "hiv." In fact, they would probably "translate" his title of "hiv u evr wundird wot it wiz lyk b4" as haf u evr 1Nderd wat it waz lIk B4." This leads to be believe texting will be more "regional" with some standard conventions internationally.
What does this mean for Elearning?
It would seem to me that the younger generation will use mobile technology as a means for not only communication but also learning and information sharing/gathering. However, it is likely this won't be in text form. Complex ideas will be difficult to convey in short textual spurts.
However, as my daughter pointed out, the new technology has powerful multi-media apps that will allow students to listen to lectures, watch video clips, and even post comments in a multi-media format (i.e. using a camera feature on the phone). It would appear that the current text based preference for communication among the younger generation will swing back to oral and visual communication for learning.
It is important that we begin to consider the ways we can integrate these new technologies into elearning, before it is too late. Michael Hanley has recognized this trend and posted a series of useful posts on using mobile technology for training. It is a good start. But we need to begin to recognize the importance of "place" of learning and how the portability of elearning technology will change access to education.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Gadgets you can't live without
In the January 2 US edition of the Financial Times, there was an article on "The gadgets I never leave home without...". I saved the article to read through at a later time.
This weekend, however, I was caught on the interstate going to pick up my son. Fortunately I had left a bit early, but I had forgotten my cell phone. Later I found out that there was a shoot out about 1/2 a mile from where I sat stuck in traffic. The highway was closed and evacuated, and I was able to pick up my son. Had I had my cell phone however, I could have found out if the alternate routes I could take home were backed up or not. I also could have used a mobile device that allowed me to access the internet to see if I could find out information on what the problem was on the internet (I thought it was a traffic accident, and was in fact moving up closer to the area where the person was shooting).
Trends for busy professionals
Interestingly enough, these are the same gadgets listed by most of those interviewed for the FT article. Most had some sort of cell phone, usually with internet access. Other interesting gadgets needed were memory sticks/flash drives, devices to recharge batteries (when are they going to invent a solar powered recharger?), and satellite phone (to be used regardless of location).
I feel that mobile technology will become increasingly important for trainers, as cell phones have podcasting features, access to the internet, mini keyboards, and camera features. Already, many of my colleagues who teach on line courses have students accessing those courses through their blackberries and iphones.
So what gadgets can you never leave home without? What gadgets could you never teach without?
This weekend, however, I was caught on the interstate going to pick up my son. Fortunately I had left a bit early, but I had forgotten my cell phone. Later I found out that there was a shoot out about 1/2 a mile from where I sat stuck in traffic. The highway was closed and evacuated, and I was able to pick up my son. Had I had my cell phone however, I could have found out if the alternate routes I could take home were backed up or not. I also could have used a mobile device that allowed me to access the internet to see if I could find out information on what the problem was on the internet (I thought it was a traffic accident, and was in fact moving up closer to the area where the person was shooting).
Trends for busy professionals
Interestingly enough, these are the same gadgets listed by most of those interviewed for the FT article. Most had some sort of cell phone, usually with internet access. Other interesting gadgets needed were memory sticks/flash drives, devices to recharge batteries (when are they going to invent a solar powered recharger?), and satellite phone (to be used regardless of location).
I feel that mobile technology will become increasingly important for trainers, as cell phones have podcasting features, access to the internet, mini keyboards, and camera features. Already, many of my colleagues who teach on line courses have students accessing those courses through their blackberries and iphones.
So what gadgets can you never leave home without? What gadgets could you never teach without?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)