21 November 2013
by Aisha
0 comments
21 November 2013
by Aisha
0 comments
18 November 2013
by Aisha
0 comments
26 October 2013
by Aisha
0 comments
Luckily, the content of this conference is excellent with some exciting and inspiring presentations.
Edited to add: it seems that the problems stemmed from two sources. Firstly, it appears that the conference chair ended up organising the event as a committee of one. This is a very difficult situation (I’ve experienced it) in which the planning begins with a group professing enthusiasm and finishes with a single exhausted survivor making sure the the main priorities are met and allowing less important aspects to slide. In this context, the conference chair did a very good job! The second factor was that, for reasons unknown, the host university did not welcome the conference. Apparently, conference volunteers put up posters and university staff took them down. It also seems that when the date was booked the university said that it would be a reading week so there would be no students/classes. However, there clearly were students, classes and exams. This was the first time that I have been to a conference where I felt that the host university resented our being there but that is how it was. As a final note, on the day we finished, the corridors and display boards were peppered with posters proudly declaiming “bienvenue” to a conference due to take place the following week.
7 October 2013
by Aisha
0 comments
During the summer, I spent a week at Laurieston Hall in Scotland. In addition to being situated amidst acres of woodland and farmland, with private access to a loch, the hall is (almost) and internet free zone. There is no wifi, no mobile broadband signal and very few spots that receive even a faint mobile phone signal. This means that a week at Laurieston Hall is a week without email, Facebook, Twitter, web, online games or SMS. As someone who is connected through all of these networks, a week offline is, for the most part, welcome relief except that I found I missed Google. There were two particular occasions when I really missed the ability to turn to Google for information.
The first was when I stumbled across a book about the Solway Firth. I have sailed in the Solway and it is notable for its remoteness. It is not a well-known part of Britain but it includes ancient abbeys, industries and fishing ports. It was also the site of the last attempted invasion of England. In brief, the Solway is interesting but not a place whose history is familiar. I was hungry; I wanted to know more and I wanted it immediately. Had I been at home or even in an area with 3G I would have rushed to Google to learn as much as I could as quickly as possible. I admit, I had a book in my hands but a) it was old and b) because I was attending a workshop I was only able to read in short snatches of time c) the writing had a density that was clearly intended for slow, considered reading. The second occasion was when some friends were trying to remember the lyrics to ‘Annie’s Song’ by John Denver. Oh, for Google at my fingertips! I frequently look up music: lyrics, sheet music or performances. Collectively, we managed to recall most, but not all, of the lyrics.
This made me think about the question of whether Google is making us ‘stupid’ asked by Nicholas Carr in 2008 and more recently by Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic. A recent ‘study’ reported in the Daily Express claims that people are no longer able to remember important historical dates because they can look them up on the internet. Apparently, the only dates that people recall with ease are the Battle of Hastings and the English World Cup victory. There are two reasons to approach this article with caution. Firstly, the ‘study’ was carried out by Grant’s Whisky rather than by academics (it is arguable that whisky is far more damaging to memory than Google might be). Secondly, there is no evidence that people have ever remembered key historical dates with ease. Sellers and Yeatman published their historical parody “1066 and All That” in 1930 and the joke then was that 1066 was the only historical date that people could recall.
What would I have done about the Solway Firth and “Annie’s Song” in the pre-internet age? Would I have been more or less ‘stupid’? With regard to the Solway, I would probably have remained in ignorance. I might possibly have remembered to research it when I next went to the library but it’s likely that I would have forgotten. With ‘Annie’s Song’ the frustration of the earworm would probably have driven me to look for a book containing the lyrics and the music. I might even have gone to a music shop to buy one. So, it seems that, in some ways, Google has actually made me more enthusiastic about seeking knowledge and more willing to chase facts. The world stimulates my curiosity and Google helps to satisfy it. For example, a few years ago I spoke at a conference in Gujerat and the conference organisers arranged a trip to the Sardar Patel Memorial. I am ashamed to say that, before this, I knew very little about this great man, despite his importance in the history of India. The visit to the memorial sparked my interest and as soon as I returned to the hotel wifi, I looked up Sardar Patel. Because of the effort I put into searching for and reading information I will not now forget who Sardar Patel was and the role that he played in the development of India. Those are the important facts. I don’t remember the dates, though but then, I can always look those up; I know where to find them!
By the way, the Solway coast is an Area of Outstanding National Beauty. It is definitely worth finding out more: http://www.solwaycoastaonb.org.uk/
Links:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mr-personality/201305/is-technology-making-us-stupid-and-smarter
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science-technology/433898/Just-Google-it-Britons-lose-ability-to-remember-key-dates-because-of-search-engines
1 October 2013
by Aisha
0 comments
Academic staff routinely advise students against citing blogs in their essays. This can be a problem for students as Google and other search engines often return results for blogs and for other ‘grey literature’ above results for peer-reviewed articles unless the search is for the title of a specific article. However, even the best blogs cannot be considered ‘peer-reviewed literature ‘. There are some well-written and rigorous academic blogs in which the author discusses and cites academic literature; Professor Dorothy Bishop’s blog “BishopBlog” is an example. Any reader who wishes to check Professor Bishop’s sources can do so as everything is formally referenced. I would have no objection to my students citing this type of blog as long as they demonstrate understanding that the blog is the author’s personal opinion rather than an academic study.
The issue of citing blogs becomes more difficult for students when a blog claims to be research-informed but without citing sources. For example, I recently stumbled across a post on a parenting blog which discussed media use for very young children (http://prebabyblog.com/2013/09/tv-technology-media-iphones-toddlers-oh-my). This would be highly relevant for students on the module I teach called “Children in the Digital Age”, especially as the author asks the question, “So what is the truth behind AAP’s statement? What ARE we supposed to do and what does the research show?”* The author goes on to list several points that are supposedly research findings before coming to the conclusion that research demonstrates both benefits and drawbacks to media use so it is up to parents to make their own decisions. So far, so good. The author mentions several studies so all that the interested reader or student should need to do is to read the original studies and evaluate the arguments. However, at the end of the piece where a reader might expect to find a reference list, is this statement: “I will not cite studies I mentioned here. It’s not my job to do that. I am simply sharing what I know and believe in. It’s up to you to either take my word for it, or go and do your own research.” This is the problem for students. If the resarch has not been cited then, as far as the academic world is concerned, the research has not been read. Even though the blog post claims to be based on research, it would not be acceptable to cite in it in a university assignment.
When reading blogs, students have to ask “how do I trust what this person says? ” With peer reviewed articles, that judgement has been made by academics during the review process. With blogs, however, students are on their own and so need to evaluate claims carefully and look for correctly cited supporting evidence. It isn’t always easy!
* The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) “discourages media use by children younger than 2 years” (AAP, 2011 p1043)
AAP (2011) “Policy Statement: Media Use by Children Younger Than 2 Years” Pediatrics Vol. 128 No. 5 November 1, 2011 pp. 1040 -1045 (doi: 10.1542/peds.2011-1753)
3 September 2013
by Aisha
0 comments
impson and Walker (forthcoming) use the term ‘technolects’ to describe varieties of language used in digital contexts. We proposed this as an alternative to words such as ‘netspeak’ (Crystal 2006) in order to reflect the fact that different digital contexts have their own language conventions. Walker and White (2013) take the term a little further and write about “digital technolects” (p20). We did not coin the word ‘technolect’, it means “the technical language of a subject field; jargon” (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/technolect). However, it seemed appropriate to extend this meaning to include the language conventions of a digital communications context. Simpson and Walker cite two examples of digital contexts: fan posts on the Facebook page of the pop group One Direction and a semi-academic Wikipedia article. I still believe that ‘technolect’ is a useful word for digital language but it is probably most useful for words that are used in narrow, domain-specific contexts. For example FlyerTalk writers and members use words/phrases such s ‘FA’ (Flight Attendant) and ‘DYKWIA’ (‘do you know who I am’ = a passenger with a exaggerated sense of self-importance who demands/expects special treatment). FlyerTalk writers/members also use airport and airline codes rather than names. Other contexts have their own field-specific language. For example, users of parent blogs and forums typically use ‘DH’, ‘DD’, DS’, ‘MIL’ and other abbreviations to refer to family members. Posters on Yachting Monthly forums, on the other hand, tend to speak of their partners as SWMBO (“she who must be obeyed”; most yachting posters seem to be male). Tubenetters are somewhat obsessed with MPs (also known as MPCs). In none of these cases is the jargon difficult to learn but it can still be baffling to newcomers until they become familiar with the technolect. A feature of digital technolects is that they overlap with the more general language of the field. For example, aviation professionals and frequent flyers are likely to know that MAN = Manchester, UK; BKK = Bangkok and LAX = Los Angeles even if they have never read or posted on FlyerTalk.
However, true digital technolects are additional to ‘netspeak’. Whilst different digital discourse communities use language in different ways there will be some features that similar communities hold in common. For example, it is likely that fans of boybands will use the same types of language as the fans of One Direction cited by Simpson and Walker. One of the problems of thinking/writing about digital/online… anything… is the tendency to see the digital world as a cohesive entity, for example, cyberspace. However, as Myers (2010) points out when writing about blogs, there are many cyber-subspaces. Myers argues that rather than a ‘blogosphere’, in reality there is a myriad of blog “sphericules” (p24) each with its own discourse conventions. Fashion blogs, for example, typically contain large numbers of photographs whilst academic blogs tend to contain very few. Language is one of the main ways that people signify their membership of digital sphericules and discourse communities and this has led to the development of digital dialects: digialects.
Digialects are the result of two forces. The first of these dates back to early instances of computer-mediated communication, such as email and Internet Relay Chat in which users wanted to type quickly and communcate expressively in a low-bandwidth text-based medium. This led to the types of features identified by Herring (1999) including emoticons and abbreviations such as LOL. Incidentally, some abbreviated CMC phrases seem to have been coined in order to be abbreviated online, for example, ‘roll on the floor laughing’ (ROFL) is not commonly used in real life. The second force is mobile phone SMS where the awkward T9 keyboards and the constraints of both message length (160 characters) and screen size meant that messages needed to be brief and easy to type. This led to the use of ‘textisms’ such as ‘C U l8r’. However, technological developments have removed some of these constraints. For example, smartphones, and many feature phones, have full keyboards, predictive text and large screens which means that it is easier to type words in full and messages can be longer. Wood et al (2014*), citing a range of relevant studies, note that ‘textism’ abbreviations seem to be used less frequently nowadays but there appears to be increasing use of digialect forms such lengthening syllables/words for emphasis or use of multiple punctuation marks!!!!!! They argue that online language forms are now more about expression and affect than economy (of space and effort). The need to express themselves in ways that are appropriate to the context and community means that people need to learn and become fluent in the digialects used in the digital sphericules where they visit or reside.
References
Herring, S. (1999) “Interactional Coherence in CMC” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 4/4 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1999.tb00106.x
Myers, G. (2010) Discourse of blogs and wikis London, New York: Continuum
Simpson, J. and Walker, A. (forthcoming) New technologies for language learning and teaching in Constant Leung and Brian Street Handbook of English Language Studies. London: Routledge
Walker, A. and White, G. (2013) Technology Enhanced Language Learning: connecting theory and practice Oxford: Oxford University Press
Wood, C., Kemp, N. and Plester, B. (2014*) Text Messaging and Literacy – The Evidence Abingdon: Routledge
* is the date in the front of the book so this must be an advance copy
29 August 2013
by Aisha
0 comments
References
Walker A, (in press) “Technologies” in E. de Chazal (in press) English for Academic Purposes (Oxford Handbooks for Language Teachers) Oxford: Oxford University Press
17 June 2013
by Aisha
2 Comments
It seems that there is an irresistible urge to categorise people as ‘techies’ or ‘non-techies’. The best-known of these dichotomies is Prensky’s ‘Digital Natives’ vs ‘Digital Immigrants’ (Prensky 2001a, 2001b). Prensky’s argument was that today’s children and young people are native to technology as they are to their mother tongue and therefore have an intuitive understanding of digital tools. Adults, on the other hand, who grew up in the pre-digital age, approach technology in the way that migrants learn a new language. These ‘digital immigrants’, according to Prensky, retain the technological equivalent of a foreign accent, for example, preferring to use a road atlas rather than Google maps (this example post-dates Prensky’s 2001 articles). Prensky argued that ‘digital natives’ think differently from ‘digital immigrants’ because their brains have been shaped by their interactions with technology. The natives/immigrants dichotomy has been critiqued (for example, White and Le Cornu 2011) because it is too simplistic and too strongly correlated with age. It cannot be assumed that all young people are naturally competent with technology and that all mature adults are not naturally proficient. Prensky himself revisited this in 2009, proposing instead the concept of ‘digital wisdom’ which can be acquired at any age (Prensky 2009). Prensky still argues that the ‘digitally wise’ brain has been shaped by technology. There is no doubt that the brain is plastic so it is possible that use of digital tools may shape the brain allow the evidence so far does not show whether this leads to ‘digital wisdom’ or digital stupidity. Carr (2010) takes the opposite view to Prensky and argues that our interactions with technology lead to shallow thinking and lack of engagement with difficult texts or ideas.
Despite the lack of evidence for the existence of ‘digital natives’ the concept is extremely persistent. In an earlier post (Picky Learners) I wrote about how ‘digital natives’ has intuitive resonance but as others have argued (Bayne and Ross 2007, Bennett et al 2008, Bennett and Maton 2010, Helsper and Eynon 2010), taking the idea at face value can lead to harmful assumptions about whether and how people use technology. White and Le Cornu (2011) attempt to address this by proposing an alternative metaphor: ‘residents’ and ‘visitors’. White and Le Cornu decouple technological competence from age and instead consider the roles that technology plays in the lives of ‘residents’ and ‘visitors’ and the different ways that people view technology. ‘Residents/visitors’ is proposed as a continuum rather than a dichotomy with some people completely at the ‘resident’ end of the spectrum, with persistent online personal presence and digital interactions playing a significant part in every aspect of life. Other people are completely at the ‘visitor’ end, engaging little in digital interactions and being extremely focussed when they do make use of digital tools. Strengths of the ‘residents/visitors’ model are that it recognises that people change with regard to views and uses of digital technologies and that digital affinity is not directly related to age. The model also recognises that people use digital tools in different ways and may be ‘resident’ in with some tools but ‘visitor’ in others.
A question that neither Prensky nor White and Le Cornu consider is the purpose of a ‘digital x’ / ‘digital y’ typology of any kind. In any area of life there are people who are experts, people who are good, people who can and people who can’t/don’t. For example, there are excellent musicians, people who play well, people who can play an instrument (albeit not well) and people who have either never tried to learn or who have tried without success. However, this does not lead to a discourse about musical residents and musical visitors although such a typology would be highly relevant to music. Even so, a musical native/immigrant or resident /visitor model would not be an accurate predictor of how musical residents/visitors would cope with a new musical context. Someone who is an expert in one musical genre may struggle in another: for example, classical musicians who are trained to follow written music with precision often find it difficult to learn by ear, a skill that comes easily to people who play folk music genres (for example, Woody and Lehmann, 2010). The way that people tend to interpret a ‘digital x / digital y’ framework, on the other hand, assumes that the model has some use in predicting expectations or capability with regard to digital technologies.
To be fair, White, Le Cornu and colleagues have developed their model since 2011 and more recent work speaks of ‘resident’ and ‘visitor’ modes of use rather than dividing people into ‘residents’ and ‘visitors’ (White et al 2012, Connaway et al 2013). This is a far more useful model as it recognises that people use tools in different ways according to context. For example, someone may have two facebook accounts: one for professional and one for personal use. The professional account may be used with caution, in ‘visitor’ mode whilst the personal account is used for daily communication with friends and family.
The problem with digital dichotomies is that there is a difference between understanding what people do and categorising what people are. When it comes to technology, people use digital tools in various ways and change their use according to circumstances and need. People are not hard-wired (pardon the pun) to love or loathe technology. Even people who have found little use for digital tools can change when they can talk to their grandbaby on Facetime or watch a favourite TV show on iPlayer. It is useful, when mapping people’s lives, relationships and interactions to understand the roles of different tools and this is where a model of modes of use is particularly appropriate. Such a model need not be restricted to only two categories. It is less useful to say that an unexamined group of people is of the ‘digital x’ type and therefore need to be treated or taught in a particular fashion.
References
Bayne, S. and Ross, J. (2007) The ‘digital native’ and ‘digital immigrant’: a dangerous opposition. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE) December 2007.
Bennett, S., Maton, K. & Kervin, L. (2008) The ‘digital natives’ debate: a critical review of the evidence, British Journal of Educational Technology., 39(5), 775–786.
Bennett, S. and Maton, K. (2010). Beyond the ‘digital natives’ debate: Towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences. Journal of computer assisted learning. Volume 26, Issue 5, pages 321–331, October 2010
Carr, N. (2010). The Shallows: how the internet is changing the way we read, think and remember. London: Atlantic Books.
Connaway, L.S., White, D. , Lanclos, D., & Le Cornu, A. (2013). “Visitors and Residents: What Motivates Engagement with the Digital Information Environment?” Information Research, 18,1 (paper 556). http://InformationR.net/ir/18-1/paper556.html.
Helsper, E. & Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: where is the evidence? . British educational research journal. 36 (3), 503-520.
Prensky, M. (2001a) “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants” On the horizon. Vol. 9 No. 5 http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf
Prensky, M. (2001b) Do They Really Think Differently? On the horizon. Vol. 9 No. 6 http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part2.pdf
Prensky, M. (2009) H. sapiens digital: From digital immigrants and digital natives to digital wisdom. Innovate 5 (3). http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=705
Walker, A. (2013) Picky Learners http://www.aishawalker.com/2013/05/20/picky-learners/
White, D.S. and and Le Cornu, A. (2011) Visitors and Residents: A new typology for online engagement. First Monday, Volume 16, Number 9 – 5 September 2011
http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/3171/3049
White,D.L., Connaway, L.S., Lanclos, D., Le, Cornu, A. and Hood, E. (2012) Digital Visitors and Residents: Progress report. JISC. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/projects/visitorsandresidentsinterim%20report.pdf
Woody, R.H. and Lehmann, A.C. (2010) Student musicians’ ear-playing ability as a function of vernacular music experiences. Journal of Research in Music Education, 58(2), pp. 101-115.
20 May 2013
by Aisha
1 Comment
Today’s children are often described as ‘digital natives’ or ‘the net generation’ having grown up with digital devices: laptops; netbooks; Xboxes; Nintendo; Wiis; iPads/Pods/Phones; smartphones; Kindles… Intuitively this rings true as many people have seen babies and toddlers playing with iPads and smartphones with apparently instinctive understanding of the technology. Even in the 1980s and 1990s a common joke was to say that if you couldn’t programme your VHS recorder then you should ask a child to do it. However, this ‘digital natives’ discourse forgets or ignores two important points. The first is that many of today’s digital tools are designed to be very easy to use. Tablets and smartphones don’t come with manuals because the intention is that they should be as intuitive as possible. People don’t need to be taught how to use these devices; users learn as they use. The second point is that learning is what children do. Children learn indiscriminately from the environment that surrounds them. When babies first start eating finger foods then they will eat almost anything: broccoli, courgettes; mushrooms… Then, as they get older children start to develop preferences and many toddlers become ‘picky eaters’ who stay firmly within their gustatory comfort zones. They know what they like and they stick with it. Similarly, young children learn whatever is available. They copy the adults around them and they engage in trial and error. If dropping carrots provokes an interesting reaction from an adult then the child will do it again. If tapping icons on a tablet produces interesting effect then the child is encouraged to continue and try again with other icons (and devices).
As children grow and develop into adults they cease to be undiscriminating and become selective about what kinds of knowledge and skills are useful, relevant or interesting to them. In other words, they become ‘picky learners’. Knowles, in 1970, identified the selective nature of adult learning and established a set of principles, which he called ‘Andragogy for working with adults. Adults (and older children) know what they like and what they need so are more receptive to learning which falls into these zones. Adults whose needs or interests are served by digital tools will quickly learn to use them. For example, people whose new grandchildren live a long way away may start using Skype so that they can see as well as hear the children and Facebook so that they can keep up with family news and photographs. Previously, these adults’ communication needs had been well served by phone, letter and email so there had been no need to learn these new digital tools. For some young people nowadays, their communications toolboxes include a range of digital tools such as Facebook, What’s App and Tumblr so they use these fluently. However, and this is important, as long as their needs are met by the resources they currently use, there will be no need for these young people to learn new tools. The young people now using What’s App are growing into picky learners who use what is appropriate now and will learn new things as needed, just as their parents and grandparents do.
Knowles, M.S. (1970) “The modern practice of adult education; andragogy versus pedagogy” New York : Association Press