Thursday 31 January 2013

How Virtual Can We Go?

In exploring the world of online consumerism one is exposed to a seemingly  infinite virtual space of unlimited mediums. The question that continued to plague me throughout this online consumer exploration, was how virtual can human kind go?  What are the physical, financial and psychological risks involved with online consumerism and are we taking them seriously?

 Do consumers lose something when they exchange physical consumerism for virtual consumerism? CBC Doc Zone (2011) covered the topic of counterfeit products describing a very untrustworthy $500 Billion dollar counterfeit industry and it goes beyond the scope of online fashion  into more serious industries like medicine (CBC Doc Zone, 2011).  Paying attention to where your products are being produced is a skill that online consumers should prioritize.  But are online consumers even aware of the greater implications and influence of their online consumerism? The idea that consumers are part of the problem isn't lost on Yuanfeng (2013) who shares his opinion that "the major problem in Western culture is hedonism and consumerism" and that " you are not the victims...but the prime culprit" (Yuanfeng, W., 2013).    

The idea of virtual superficiality seems prevalent in online consumerism.  Koles and Nagy (2012) studied the virtual consumption of Second Life citizens and noted that most of the transactions and social interactions  focused around shopping and clubs (2012, p. 95) and that the citizens focused the majority of their attention on appearances.  The psychology of individuals who participate in virtual reality games appeared to display a pattern that, "voiced certain negative emotions in relation to aspects regarding their real lives, expressing a certain fear of existence in a boring real world...serve as a buffer to compensate them for potential inadequacies in their real lives..." (Koles, B. & Nagy, P., 2012, p.95).  

I wonder what the correlation is between the amounts of time spent online in terms of consumerism and the level of life satisfaction of those individuals.   I've heard of students and young graduates who become addicted to being online and I can't help but think there has to be some sort of connection to emotional stability and online escapism.  Individuals who spend a majority of their leisure time consuming online or even just in the physical world seem to be using consumption as a means to avoid something much deeper, "This vicarious participation is able to mask, at least temporarily, the underlying emptiness of wasted time" (Csikszentmihalyi, M., 2008, p.162). Am I being narrow minded to cast such a negative light on this issue?  How can we continue to develop online consumerism to  involve digital citizens on a deeper level to engage their critical thinking skills in order to avoid the potential negative impacts of online consumerism?  Do we even know what all of the negative impacts of online consumerism are?

References: 

Blicq, A. (Writer), Blicq, A. (Director). (2012, January 10). Counterfeit Culture (Television series Episode). In Merit Motion Pictures (Producer), CBC Doc Zone. Ottawa, ON: CBC Canada. Retrieved From: 
http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/episode/counterfeit-culture.html

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2008). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publisher.

Koles, B., & Nagy, P. (2012). Virtual customers behind avatars: The relationship between virtual identity and virtual consumption in second life. Journal of the Theoretical & Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 7(2), 87-105.

Yuanfeng, W. (September 2, 2011). Western countries should rethink consumerism. English: People's Daily Online. Retrieved from: http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90780/91343/7587442.html

Thursday 24 January 2013

Digital Learning with a Human Touch

Asynchronous (self-paced, highly independent forms of teaching) complemented by synchronous (taught from a remote location, teacher-lead, temporally-dependent) forms of teaching are best blended to meet the diverse learning needs of online students  (Murphy, E., Rodriguez-Manzanares, M.A., & Barbour, M. 2011, p. 2). Just as I am an online student and require the flexibility of asynchronous teaching/responding schedules, I like the synchronous aspect of direct human connection with feed-back and feed-forward to motivate me.  However, it is easy to recognize that synchronous learning environments may be better geared towards younger students who may not have developed a sense of self-discipline as Murphy et al. explains, "for younger learners, the structure of synchronous DE may be better suited to their academic schedules and their need for spontaneous guidance and feedback" (2011, p.3).

I see the benefit for students to engage in both asynchronous and synchronous learning, as Murphy et al. explain that, "Synchronous communication appeared to support personal participation, including motivation and increased convergence on meaning, social relation and the exchange of information with a lower degree of complexity than what would be communicated with asynchronous communication" (ibid. p.3).  I think it is important for students to develop their ability to interact with their peers socially, learning how to communicate verbally with attention to tone, body language and vocabulary. These synchronous lessons are important for when they enter the work force, for example:  learning how to be comfortable on a video  Skype interview, or leading a WebEx meeting.  Having these practical skills are great for preparing students for their professional careers as these are all used in professional society whether their careers are from home or in an office setting.  And asynchronous learning is very useful if students are shy or introverted because they have the ability to contribute to online discussions in a less imposing way.  Students are enabled to take the information shared by their peers and process their thoughts on the subject matter without feeling pressured to give the first thing that comes to mind.  They are able to reflect on a deeper level than if they were expected to answer in a limited time-frame (Murphy et al. 2011, p.3).  The blended approach allows for digital learning with a sensitive, human touch because it pays more attention to different learning needs and abilities.

I think it is important to reiterate the ideas that Rourke and Coleman (2011) stressed, "educators need to approach e-learning from the perspective that the pedagogy drives the technology" and that "educators who choose to embrace technology for learning do so with a clear educational rational and a solid pedagogical grounding" (Rourke, A. & Coleman, K. 2011, p. 14).  The sensitivity toward students who may not have a solid technological background is important and scaffolding will need to have particular attention paid to it to ensure students don't get discouraged, overwhelmed and lose motivation (ibid 2011).  I think it is very easy for educators to forget that not everyone has daily access to digital technology or unlimited use of the internet.  With the blended asynchronous and synchronous approach to learning, educators "can fulfill different types of needs and foster the participation of people with different capabilities and competencies" (Zi-Gang Ge, 2012, p. 2). 

References: 


Murphy, E., Rodríguez-Manzanares, M. A., & Barbour, M. (2011). Asynchronous and synchronous online teaching: perspectives of Canadian high school distance education teachers. British Journal Of Educational Technology, 42(4), 583-591

Rourke, A., & Coleman, K. (2010). E-learning in crisis: should not the pedagogy lead the technology? Journal Of Education Research, 4(3), 265-282.

Zi-Gang, G. (2012). Cyber asynchronous versus blended cyber approach in distance english learning. Journal Of Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 286-297.

Thursday 17 January 2013

Digital Growth: Creating context for Canadian copyright

The global community needs to be aware of more than just their digital citizenship.  Each digital citizen needs to be provided with information on the laws and rights of their national digital community.  The fact is, individuals aren't able to be a good digital citizens if they don't know the laws.  I recently became aware of the term "Digital Citizenry".  Once I was made aware of this idea my digital consciousness was born.  My ability to connect and participate within the digital community was given a language and I am now learning the digital language and digital laws in order to grow so that I may develop a good digital character rooted in strong digital ethics.  

The question that has recently plagued me is, who takes responsibility for the millions of 'digital orphans' who have noone to educate them about their citizenship or the digital laws that exist and will inevitably change throughout time?  Horava (2010) directs the responsibility towards educational institutions, namely librarians and indicates the opinion that, "nobody in academia is in a better position to teach this than librarians who instruct patrons in classroom settings, online tutorials, and at service points like reference desks and reserve departments" (Horava, 2010, p. 4). I agree that librarians are in an ideal setting for the role of educating students and other educators about laws concerning copyright but what about those individuals who have not been in school since digital technology became main stream? Or those who don't actively participate or attend high school on a regular basis? And those who don't attend university? 

And once responsibility has been established how do we ensure digital laws are properly understood and followed?  Horava (2010) also noted that even in a well established and organized system like university "mobilization of organizational resources to support a coordinated, effective approach to communication is a major issue" (Horava, 2010, p.10). One of the representatives in Horava's (2010) study describes the evident confusion surrounding role responsibility and clarity of copyright in his quote, "The depth and breadth of understanding of copyright issues required to respond to some copyright questions and the lack of anyone on our campus with such responsibility" (Horava, 2010) p. 10).  This study was done in 2010 and may not be as relevant in 2013 but I have to wonder if it is still possible for educational institutions to be unclear on who is responsible for learning and staying up to date on copyright laws?  

We take for granted our knowledge of common laws in our own physical countries, jay-walking is illegal, stealing is illegal, it is illegal to inflict physical harm on others, etc.  But what about when you're downloading music, film and other digital files from illegal websites? Current issues of copyright infringement and filesharing lawsuits are headlining online news websites. Do these scenarios count?  Do they matter in relation to designating positions of educational responsibility? I think these problems can be addressed with the help of designating a role within educational environmets.  Horava (2010) says that the "libraries should designate a staff position that will coordinate copyright activities and education with the library" (Horava, 2010, p. 28) But whether the institutions have the resources to designate a specific position is another question. 

The internet is such a powerful tool but on the other side of the machine is a dynamic living being with a heart, a soul, a psyche; a varying degree of moral standard.  It is too easy for some digital citizens to forget or turn a blind eye to the fact that copying someone else's work, be it music or an essay, without the permission of that author is stealing. And it goes beyond the basics of just copying.  There is then the need to deconstruct copyright infringement even further in terms of quantity of copying, intention of copying, rewrites, parody, the list goes on (Reynolds, 2010). It is imperative that each digital citizen know that digital laws exist and what they mean in order to protect and empower digital users on both ends of the creator/user spectrum. Managing The Legal Risks of High-Tech Classrooms (Nynych 2011) was an essential guide that helped to clarify and streamline my understanding of copyright by providing "a clear set of laws and simple procedures...ensuring that creators are able to protect their creations, and receive economic benefit from them" (Nynych, 2011, p.2).    

Copyright is a law that for the most part evaded my comprehension.  After some discussion, direction, reading, and research I can confidently take my new knowledge of copyright and the amendments made in August 2012 to Bill C-11 (wikipedia 2013) which include new and modern digital mediums , apply it to my digital citizenship and practice it not just in my digital lifestyle but in my teaching practice with reference to fair dealing (CMEC 2012). I want to be a valuable member of my digital community which means I will take on some responsibility for teaching the 'digital orphans' what I have learned in addition to my own continued learning and digital growth.

References: 


Horava, T. (2010). Copyright communication in Canadian academic libraries: a national survey. Canadian Journal of Information & Library Sciences34(1), 1-38.

Justice Laws Canada (2012). Copyright act. Retrieved from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/FullText.html

Nenych, L. A. (2011). Managing the legal risks of high-tech classrooms. Contemporary Issues In Education Research4(3), 1-7.

Reynolds, G. (2010). The impact of the Canadian copyright act on the voices of marginalized groups. Alberta Law Review48(1), 35-53.

Wikipedia (2013). Copyright Act of Canada. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_Canada

Thursday 10 January 2013

The Journey Towards Digital Community



The idea that I am living a digital lifestyle is a novelty to me despite the fact that I have an active profile set up on Facebook, LinkedIn and 2 email accounts.  I don't even have television because I use my laptop for all of my media usage. Yet despite all of that "Digital Citizenry" is a new term for me.   A term that has immediately become essential to the future well being of everyone who lives a digital lifestyle.  The fact that I began using computers in school as early as 1991 and haven't even heard or conceived of this term disturbs me but therein lies the solution.

Parents begin the process of teaching their children right from wrong, good and bad from the moment they are born. And if parents choose to allow their children to participate with digital technology before school, it should technically be their responsibility to teach their children the same morals and abide by the same ethical codes of conduct when interacting with others online. 

When the child embarks on his or her educational journey I wholeheartedly agree that school boards should accept the responsibility to "take on the task of creating academic and character education programs tailored for raising an intelligent, caring generation of students who understand the responsibilities and opportunities associated with living a digital lifestyle." (Ohler, J. 2011)  The fact is that most North Americans use and are exposed to some form of digital media, no matter what their socio-economic status is, before they enter a school environment.  I strongly believe there should be integrated programs in place and that it is both the government and the school board's responsibility to ensure this facet of education is being addressed. 

Not having taught in the Canadian school systems as of yet, I don't have a fair assessment of what the state of digital citizenship looks like in the classroom first hand but I can say that if a video can be taken of someone being beaten up, not just at the school but in the classroom and then it is posted on YouTube, the state of digital citizenship looks dire.

The fact that only 8.2% of Teachers and 19.8% of Administrators are 'very aware of digital citizenship issues and only 'some teach students about these issues' (Hollandsworth, R., Dowdy, L., & Donovan, J. 2011) seems appalling and unacceptable.  It is not enough to just be aware of these issues, educators need to teach these issues.  And yes, it will absolutely need to involve everyone from parents, to media specialists, to technology professionals, to students, etc.  

The difficulty is educating parents in order for them to effectively educate their children before entering school.  Again, myself as an example, the term digital citizenry is new.  I'm an adult and I'm capable of understanding the psychological effects of my digital expressions but a child is just learning the idea of consequences from their actions.  The digital community provides a very powerful position for an individual who has not yet learned the concept of personal responsibility.  So while I agree that firewalls and chaproning children while they research is a band-aid fix and not a solution, I believe scaffolding should be an integral method for proper integration into the digital community perhaps starting with parents first.  I think it needs to involve Government and inter-national media campaigns.


References:

Hollandsworth, R., Dowdy, L., & Donovan, J. (2011). Digital Citizenship in K-12: It Takes a Village. Techtreds: Linking Research And Practice To Improve Learning, 55 (4), 37-47.

Ohler, J. (2011). Digital Citizenship Means Character Eduation for the Digital Age. Kappa Delta Pi Record,
48(1), 25-27.

Pacino, M.A., & Noftle, J.T. (2011). New Literacies for Global, Digital Learners. International Journal of Learning, 18(1), 477-485.

Burnett, C. (2011). Pre-service teachers' digital literacy practices: exploring contingency in identity and difital literacy in and out of educational contexts. Language & Education: An International Journal, 25(5), 433-499.