Author: thildebrand

Wow – In “Developing Personal Learning Networks for Open and Social Learning”, author Alec Couros lays out a compelling case for the use of personal learning networks in open access and distance education settings. His argument, found in George Veletsianos’ Emerging Technologies in Distance Education, is based on prevailing research from leading Canadian education leaders as well as a working example of PLNs being employed in a graduate level educational technology course from the University of Regina. I appreciated Couros’ distinction between personal learning environments and personal learning networks. Specifically, the visualizing of PLEs as a subset of PLNs provided a real light-bulb moment for me. One thing that stuck out to me was the idea that, in contrast to traditional course communities that often die out mere days after the course end date, PLNs have the benefit of lasting long after their intended purpose. The interconnectedness and interactive nature of PLNs allows them to offer sustained, long-term learning for students and facilitators alike.

Wonder – As this particular course was geared towards K-12 educators, and is obviously exploring the integration of social media and online interconnectedness in educational settings, I found myself wondering about possible implications and concerns that might arise. Particularly as it relates to the K-12 age group, I am wondering about the consequences of encouraging additional online activity. It has been known that platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, etc can lead to self-esteem and confidence issues among adolescents. While the article and university course in question were not designed to address these concerns, are they not concerns all the same? It seems that integrating social media into the classroom context and thereby encouraging the uptake of such platforms among increasingly younger students may create new issues or exacerbate known drawbacks to such frequent online activity.

Wow – I had never considered the privacy concerns of plagiarism / cheating detection software. Perhaps that is because, as a student, I have not yet been subject to them, but even still, being a student, you’re rather expected to take such measures in stride rather than putting up a serious protest. I suppose that is even more concerning.

Screening Surveillance’s videos do an excellent job of exploring the broader implications of such privacy-encroaching policies, as does Jim Luke in his blog post That’s No Plagiarism Checker. The latter alluded to the risk for such technologies to pave the way for social credit systems in higher education institutions and more broadly, society, and the former illustrated this exact result happening while raising the obvious questions in my mind – is this level of social policing okay? Are we comfortable heading in this direction?

Wonder – I wouldn’t say that I am comfortable with the level of surveillance on social platforms today. To answer the above questions, no, I don’t believe social policing to the point of regular snitching on others is an acceptable direction for society to be heading towards. Living in such a society seems dangerously comparable to life in East Germany post world war II. Do we really want to be weaponized against one another by social media?

To put this into the context of our chosen group project platform, Facebook, I think surveillance concerns are present here moreso than ever before. In recent years, Facebook has been in the crosshairs more than anyone else for their data collection and handling policies. I do not feel comfortable knowing that my online behaviours are being actively commoditized and sold to interested companies. This is one reason I have reduced my activity on Facebook. It is clear others are doing the same as the company struggles to retain technical talent amid the ongoing exodus of employees and users from it’s platform.

Luke, J. (2019, March 12). That’s No Plagiarism Checker. Retrieved March 6, 2022, from https://econproph.com/2019/03/12/thats-no-plagiarism-checker/.

Screening Surveillance (2022, February 16). #tresdancing [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUivOlVpcWA.

Wow – I found the idea that social media has, in many ways, upended the traditional flow of propaganda / information in our society quite interesting. What in past decades and centuries amounted to a top-down flow from the government and social elites to the public, is now shifting to a bottom-up movement from grassroots origins to the public spotlight. I had not heard of the term ‘ampliganda’ but it perfectly describes this phenomenon we have all been observing online for the past many years. I thought it was especially interesting how in the Twitterverse and presumably elsewhere, algorithms are structured such that even users posting in opposition to a hashtag are still inadvertently propelling said tweet further into the spotlight. I am not very active on Twitter, but I would not have considered this if I were to actively oppose a trending movement on the platform (or elsewhere).

Wonder – While I think it is a good thing to have changed the long-held top-down flow structure and fundamentally altered the ‘us vs. them’ playing field, I can’t help but wonder, much like DiResta, if this new alternative is in fact better. There are many cases where crowdsourcing information can be very beneficial, but the extent to which the crowd can now influence and deliberately manipulate information streams seems dangerous. This environment is not encouraging independent thinking but rather facilitating the hive mind which latches onto something – hashtag, tweet, Facebook status, blog post, scholarly article, fleeting thought, etc – and causes it to snowball. Fast. And often with little regard for its origins or authenticity. As DiResta so eloquently put it, “The old top-down propaganda model has begun to erode, but the bottom-up version may be even more destructive.”

DiResta, R. (2021, October 9). It’s Not Misinformation. It’s Amplified Propaganda. The Atlantic.

For this first showcase post, I’d like to revisit White and Cornu’s discussion of online engagement in their paper, “Visitors and Residents: A new typology for online engagement”, in an attempt to better understand my own online profile and specific web uses as compared to others in this class. In recognizing the shift in internet use from information-seeking to profile creation / online community participation, White and Cornu suggest that a new model of describing web users as either visitors or residents is necessary. That is, individuals that see the internet as strictly a means of sourcing information towards the completion of a desired goal, and those that cultivate online profiles and networks for the purpose of engagement and ongoing participation in this new web-based medium.

In comparing my own visitor and resident map to others in the class, it is clear that some striking differences exist both in terms of engagement level and the variety of platforms used. Shaafi’s map, for example, shows a much greater degree of resident engagement in platforms such as Instagram, mail, and even lists platforms that I am not familiar with (Slack, slither.io). Similarly, Ali’s map demonstrates resident engagement on platforms like Discord, iMessage, and WordPress. Again, platforms like Wix and Hypothes.is are unfamiliar to me. What are the reasons for these notable differences? What makes one person gravitate towards a resident role while others strongly identify with being a visitor? Why do some people engage with a plethora of platforms and others choose to participate in only a select few?

In considering the distinction between visitors and residents, the authors of one Jisc study titled, “Evaluating digital services: a visitors and residents approach”, point out that visitors often “have a defined goal or task and select an appropriate online tool to meet their needs” (Jisc, 2014). In this case, the focus is not on social visibility but rather on acquiring information that best meets the current goal / need. In contrast, the resident label describes an individual that “is going online to connect to, or to be with, other people” (Jisc, 2014). Here, social visibility and connection with other online users is the goal.

Whether visitor or resident, it is clear that one approach is not necessarily better than the other. As White and Cornu rightfully suggest, an individual’s preferred approach will largely depend on their interests, goals, and the context in which they are operating (i.e. personal, educational, professional) (White and Cornu, 2011). A further consideration may also be the individual’s concern for privacy and their appetite for leaving even a mild social trace of their activity, which could be partly attributed to the cultural context in which these individuals have grown up. This is supported by findings from an OCLC research report of online engagement among students where the authors found, “At UOC and UC3M, privacy concerns were more prevalent than reported by participants in the US, UK, or Italy.” (Connaway et al., 2017).

In conclusion, it seems there are a number of factors that could explain my own propensity to be a visitor rather than a resident. Being a mature student, I would have thought my age might be a contributing factor however this would be reverting back to Pensky’s model of categorizing users according to their age and background. Rather, my behaviour is dictated much more strongly by my preference to meet and interact with people in person rather than online, and then use the web as an information source when my circumstances require it. Similarly, my concerns over privacy generally trump my interest in cultivating and sharing a highlight-reel online persona with the world which likely explains the lower number of platforms that I participate in.

References

Connaway et al. (2017). The Many Faces of Digitial Visitors & Residents: Facets of Online Engagement. OCLC. https://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/2017/oclcresearch-many-faces-digital-vandr.pdf

Jisc. (2014). Evaluating digital services: a visitors and residents approach. https://www.jisc.ac.uk/full-guide/evaluating-digital-services

White, D. S., & Le Cornu, A. (2011). Visitors and residents: A new typology for online engagement. First Monday. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v16i9.3171

Wow – Moore’s writing about the concept of inclusion is eye-opening, to say the least. For decades, our educational model has been focused on identifying and ‘correcting’ behaviour, personality, and learning techniques among atypical students that do not conform to the standard norms. At a time when society is becoming increasingly accepting of behavioural preferences and non-conformist movements (i.e. LGBTQ+, women’s rights, freedom of choice), it is only logical that the same flexibility should be provided in educational settings that involve our youngest, most vulnerable population. That is to say, we should be teaching our children from a young age that our individual differences are things to be *celebrated*, not corrected. One sentence of Moore’s that stuck out to me, in particular, echoed this sentiment: “Teaching to diversity and inclusion is where we value the characteristics that *are* diverse, and not try and homogenize them” (Moore, 2016). I completely agree with this shift in approach and frankly, I’m rather surprised that this topic of discussion is being raised so late in society’s shift towards liberalism.

Wonder – Generally speaking, I found Moore’s writing, presentation of ideas, and her use of various social media platforms to be a successful, well-rounded delivery of this information. Putting a face to the name of the author (via her YouTube) channel is surprisingly helpful in remembering her ideas later on. Her bowling analogy was also effective at conveying her points in an easily comprehensible manner. I suppose the one ‘Wonder’ thought that I had in reading / watching her content was her advocacy for shifting our ‘aim’, so-to-speak, towards the pins that are hardest to hit (i.e. the children that are most left behind in traditional teaching methods). In no way do I oppose the idea of catering our teaching more closely to the specific needs of more marginalized students (Moore specifically references students with autism and down syndrome here), however, I wonder if completely shifting our focus towards these students would still best serve the group as a whole? Moore claims that this new approach is closely in line with the Universal Design for Learning and frequently, the supports we build for these ‘outside’ students are exactly what the ‘inside’ students need as well. Is this true? I wish Moore had spoken more to this point because the rest of her presentation depends on it. I suppose my only concern is that if we focus so completely on delivering a full learning experience for marginalized students (which I think is a great thing to do), will we still be able to keep the remaining students completely engaged? Do the learning needs of both ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ students truly overlap to the extent that Moore claims they do?

Moore, Shelley. (2016). One Without The Other: Stories of Unity Through Diversity and Inclusion.

Wow – I think the authors’ approach of describing online engagement in terms of visitors and residents is both novel and accurate. The difference between the internet of the late 1990s and that of the early 2000s is stark, and this transition has no doubt transformed user engagement at all levels. This was a change that didn’t strike me as super obvious prior to reading the article. I think the reason for that is up until ~2002 or so, my household only had dial-up internet access which more or less restricted me from becoming a serious online user. By the time I had regular internet access, the shift towards social media and online personas was well underway. I can certainly see how Prensky’s model of natives / nomads has become outdated as our use of the web has shifted from strictly information-seeking to persona creation and community participation.

Wonder – One thing that did stick out to me in reading the article was how users may have different approaches to the web depending on the context. Someone may take a resident approach in a special interest group / private group and then take a visitor approach in another professional context. This sounds great, however, it assumes distinct boundaries between the contexts such that the individual is able to seamlessly switch between roles. The article does touch on the challenges that can occur when these boundaries are blurred, however only briefly. What happens when these boundaries completely break down – particularly when your personal context becomes fully visible to your professional context (i.e. employer)? I think we are all well aware of people getting reprimanded / fired for non-work-related behaviour online. This is one reason why I would place myself as much more of a visitor than a resident in many of my online accounts. You can see from my map that LinkedIn is really the only app that I am somewhat active on – only in the sense that I have many connections and created a social web that way. Facebook, YouTube, even Gmail – I’m a bit more of a lurker, only participating in the community when I am seeking information towards a goal.

Here is my map:

White, D. S., & Cornu, A. L. (2011). Visitors and Residents: A new typology for online engagement. First Monday.

Wow – The notion of connectivism in the context of learning to the extent that the author emphasizes it is a new idea for me. In today’s rapidly changing world, we are frequently faced with situations where additional knowledge is required and may not be immediately available through conventional means. In these settings, I can understand the author’s point that having an interconnected learning network to draw from is an important skill in being able to quickly pivot and address the challenges that we face. This ability is even more pronounced when considering the increasingly shortened life cycle of information today. What we learned 5-10 years ago may not be relevant to current challenges. This rings especially true for me as I work through completing a career change as a mature student and am already witnessing the rapid evolution of learning styles and information obsolescence.

Wonder – While I have written previously about the concerning possibility of inaccurate information being sourced and propagated in PLNs, the author sheds a little bit of clarity on this when discussing the placing of value on nodes within this network. They write that ‘nodes that successfully acquire greater profile will be more successful at acquiring additional connections.’ In this way, the likelihood that a node will be deemed a valuable source of information worthy of fostering learning will depend on how well it is currently linked (i.e. how many people are treating it as a worthy learning tool and promoting it as such). Therefore, nodes that gain this recognition are more likely to continue receiving this recognition. While this doesn’t completely eliminate the possibility of inaccurate information being promoted within echo chambers, it does raise the point that the more connected a learning network is, the more users are curating and confirming the validity of the information in that network, so the more the user benefits as a learner.

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1).

Wow – I thought it was interesting how the authors of both articles suggested PLNs as a learning tool to make up for the poor adaptability of government and educational institutions. Up until recently, I had largely considered social media as a means of connecting with family, friends, and acquaintances – sure, there has always been information of all forms floating around on fb, IG, Twitter, etc, but I never considered it as a substitute or meaningful supplement to traditional learning environments like universities. To claim that the majority of our learning comes from PLNs rather than classroom settings is news to me.

Wonder – With the above suggestion that our PLNs can be valuable sources of learning that can quickly pivot in response to societal changes, I can’t help but wonder if placing such great focus on these information streams brings a subtle yet serious threat of unintentional (or intentional) misuse. Is there not a danger in being able to almost completely curate the information that we are exposed to? Does this not undermine the likelihood of developing a well-rounded perspective on controversial issues? Intentional or not, social media users will surround themselves with and participate in communities that hold values/beliefs similar to their own. These have come to be known as echo chambers and are particularly dangerous in the spread of misinformation. We have seen this in the increasingly polarized political landscape of the United States/Canada, as well as the acceptance of public health guidance/advice in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. I am not disagreeing that PLNs offer amazing advancements in interconnectedness and overall learning, however, I think this point needs to be balanced with the caution that not all information garnered from a PLN is necessarily accurate or trustworthy. The post-secondary experience provides students with a critical lens through which to assess the quality and accuracy of information we are exposed to throughout our lives. The value of this skill cannot be overstated and it should not be overlooked when advocating for PLNs in today’s world.