Person-Lifeworlds-Technology versus Information Ecologies

A common theme among the three papers was the nature of technological affordance and in particular, how these affordances depend on the interaction potential of users (Stahl & Hesse, 2009). Interaction potential in this sense refers to users' ability to perceive the constraints and possibilities in the activity and environment (Gibson, 1977). This echoes the other authors' argument that a shift of perception is necessary in order to understand technology and for users to be critical and reflective of the corpus of information found in information ecologies, as well as being aware of the invisible  practices and working styles present in such ecologies (Burbules & Callister, 1999; Nardi & O'day, 2000).

Model Version 1.0

The original model I had about the role of technology in education leveraged affordances as a heuristic about how to think about the role of technology in our lives. It was general, and purposefully so, since I wanted to focus on the dialectical interaction between person and environment, as well as what Husserl (1936) characterizes as our lifeworld. While the concept of lifeworld is complex, I use it here to represent both one’s personal attitudes and the sociocultural established meanings given to experiences and/or interactions with objects or persons in the world.

Model Version 2.0

In the updated model, I have chosen to specify the components of the interactions among individuals, their lifeworlds and technology. This model mirrors Nardi and O'Day’s (2000) concept of information ecologies to a certain extent. Nardi and O’Day make a compelling argument for the concept of information ecologies; local environment with various practices, values, technologies and people. These ecologies encapsulate the three metaphors or holistic assumptions and questions regarding technology as tools, texts, and systems.

Much like information ecologies, the concept of lifeworld allows us to understand the impact of lifeworld on individuals and can be further operationalized into the existing material and symbolic aspects of the human condition.  Drawing on this model, the interaction between person-lifeworld-technology can impact one’s use of material technology (as a tool) and the intention and symbolic meaning embedded in these interactions (as text) and represents the magnitude and scale of the role of technology in our lives (as a system). Nardi and O'Day presented a good overview of the complexities involved in the idea of systems, but I found it undefined and problematic since it did not seem as if the ideas were synthesized usefully. I have chosen here to define system as the replicated relations between actors which are in turn structured as social practices (Giddens, 1984).

To illustrate this model, I have selected the gaming ecology in a World of Warcraft raid instance. The raid instance represents the technological world of an online gaming environment, complete with various tools and interactions with others which are necessary for the success of any given encounter. Players must not only know how to use the material aspects of the technology, but must also pay attention to the interpretation and meaning of symbols embedded in the local environment, which functions as an enclosed system. Simply put, a person's interaction with the designed game environment (which represents technology) is informed by her lifeworld, which in turn affects her gameplay and the uptake of the technology. This lifeworld can  consist of the norms associated with what it means to play a certain class, the practices associated with the group that one belongs, but can also be affected by the lifeworld of others. On the other hand, the existence of the designed game environment presents constraints and affordances and thus changes how people interact with one another.

As I ponder on this model however, it seems to mimic Marx’s conceptualization of human society as consisting of the base (technological and social forces of production) and superstructure (beliefs systems/practices). This is not necessarily a surprise, given Marx's influence in dialectical materialism, but certainly leaves more room to explore the model currently represented.

De chilldran kanst nut reed!!!

I see the merit of Bauerlein's perspective. I really do. The numbers and test scores are alarming, the lack of reading among youths is troubling, and the fact that some folks dismiss these worries so easily is puzzling to say the least. But decrying the technologies that youths have access to is not useful. While I don't agree with a lot of Prensky's work, I do acknowledge that technologies that we have today is here to stay. There is no recourse but to contend with it.

We know youths love netspeak and shortening everything under the sun. Liek, hu dun noe dis? C'est terribad. But it's here and it's a reality. My gut reaction to this is to highlight to youths that they are never alone on the internet. There is always an audience and nothing is ever private, even if they think so. Knowing that the audience is ever present, and at the same time, encouraging the flourish of prosumer identities is probably the few ways that educators can let youths realize the importance of literacy. Writing for your friends is very different than writing for a wider audience. Making a video for home use and making a video for a bigger audience has very different implications. The audience is not passive - the audience can be highly critical. Creating artifacts (texts, images, etc.)is no longer the realm of adults, it's time to acknowledge youths' diverse literacy practices and let them learn to contend with ours.

On crafts and gender

So I got involved in Diane and Charlene's gig on the Dragon Math game. I don't exactly remember how, but I remember being interested in the game aspect of it. And why not, who doesn't love designing games, even if at times, the consumers revile your design and criticize everything from start to end. When we first sat down to talk about the design, however, I was quite hesitant. Both my team members were designing for princess-type children, you know, the kind that love dresses, wands and all that jazz. As a child growing up, I loathed the idea of playing the gender game. It wasn't fun being a girl, since boys in the yard expected you to cry and whine when things don't go your way.

However, Diane posited the idea that these crafts could be an entry-point for these little girls to get into programming at a young age. I could get into that so I shook off my lack of enthuasism and dove into it. In hindsight, I think that if the girls are not involved in the creation of their costumes, they won't get that you get the nice blinky lights through programming. So, I'm still wondering about the value of our project. Perhaps getting them a simple craft kit as Diane suggests would make me more amenable to it. It is immensely fun making poofy skirts, and even the sewing wasn't terribly hard. At the end of the day however, I have more questions than I do answers.

Reconceptualizing the arts

Hetland et al's focus on the issue of art in education is centered around the notion that there is no empirical data that proves transfer occurs. Jeff's post on this article provides a nice summary the concerns of this article, although he is unconvinced that there is a place for the arts based on their article. I would disagree to a certain extent, because the various dispositions presented in their short paper does provide a clue as to how they think skills and abilities practiced in art studios are relevant to scientific endeavors.

Unlike Hetland et al, however, I believe a simple reconceptualization of what the arts mean is in order. To merely conclude that it is simple is of course, hubris. The reconceptualization is necessary in order to answer Dewey's conundrum in his exposition of a theory of aesthetics. To Dewey, art is an act of creating and process, whereas aesthetics lends itself to indulgence and joy. Design in this sense, captures the essence of both aspects. Game designers for instance, design for a end product, or conclusion which presents "its qualities as perceived have controlled the question of production." (Dewey, 1980:48) Yves Behar, on th other hand, is a great proponent of creating products that provide experiences for users. It is no accident that his slogan is "design brings stories to life" and "life brings stories to design". Moreover, programs that combine the arts and aesthetics come together in courses offered in Parsons School of Design and Carnegie Mellon. Acknowledging that the two aspects of art and aesthetics are instrinsically related in design might signal the impact of the arts in society.

Perhaps the battle might be less about transfer or visual culture but more on the symbols and meanings of art as a cultural construct as it changes over time. Becker's (2003) presentation on the new directions of sociology of art includes the history of art from an upstream and downstream perspective. His approach touches on key aspects of why design education (or arts, if you must) is important for students. The geneology of a work of art presents to others (in the present, near and distant future) the representation of what certain members and groups in society consider as important. Virtual data arguably, has no lasting footprints due to its existence as bytes and dependency on power sources. Without the physical infrastructure and energy sources, the technologies we depend on will not exist. To put it quite dramatically, if civilization as we knew it encounters another ice age, what relics of the past will endure? Would it be mud or computers?

Computational literacy

The debate in class over computational literacy was one I really enjoyed, primarily because it represented the various views that the field has over what constitutes as necessary skills for students. One key assumption in the debate however, and the course to a certain extent, is the fact that these technologies/computers are here to stay and that we have to reckon with them.

When reading the diSessa article, I was curiously uneasy with this assumption. The article provided a broad overview and had its theoretical merits, but to a certain extent, it felt like colonization all over again. I'm not denying the benefits of technology, but the image of the torch of technology as a beacon of light that will illuminate the uncultivated, less advanced corners of the globe is unshakeable and disturbing. To this end, everyone must arm themselves with the necessary knowledge, less they be left behind. I'm left wondering why this trajectory seems to be the most viable one. Can other societies survive without a full computational revolution? Will they be relegated into peripheries and be considered "non-progressive" if they do not adopt these new technologies? Perhaps the world is getting increasingly flat as Friedman argues. However, to what extent are all societies participating? And are they participating as full members? Or are they the savages that need to be educated in order to be on the "modern progressive track"?