“21st Century Literacies” compiled by Cathy N. Davidson
Media theorist and practitioner Howard Rheingold has talked about four “Twenty-first Century Literacies”—attention, participation, collaboration, and network awareness—that must to be addressed, understood and cultivated in the digital age. (see, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/rheingold/category?blogid=108&cat=2538). Futurist Alvin Toffler argues that, in the 21st century, we need to know not only the three R’s, but also how to learn, unlearn, and relearn. Expanding on these, here are ten “literacies” that seem crucial for our discussion of “This Is Your Brain on the Internet.”
• Attention: What are the new ways that we pay attention in a digital era? How do we need to change our concepts and practices of attention for a new era? How do we learn and practice new forms of attention in a digital age?
• Participation: Only a small percentage of those who use new “participatory” media really contribute. How do we encourage meaningful interaction and participation? What is its purpose on a cultural, social, or civic level?
• Collaboration: How do we encourage meaningful and innovative forms of collaboration? Studies show that collaboration can simply reconfirm consensus, acting more as peer pressure than a lever to truly original thinking. HASTAC has cultivated the methodology of “collaboration by difference” to address the most meaningful and effective way that disparate groups can contribute.
• Network awareness: What can we do to understand how we both thrive as creative individuals and understand our contribution within a network of others? How do you gain a sense of what that extended network is and what it can do?
• Design: How is information conveyed differently in diverse digital forms? How do we understand and practice the elements of good design as part of our communication and interactive practices?
• Narrative, Storytelling: How do narrative elements shape the information we wish to convey, helping it to have force in a world of competing information?
• Critical consumption of information: Without a filter (such as editors, experts, and professionals), much information on the Internet can be inaccurate, deceptive, or inadequate. Old media, of course, share these faults that are exacerbated by digital dissemination. How do we learn to be critical? What are the standards of credibility?
• Digital Divides, Digital Participation: What divisions still remain in digital culture? Who is included and who is excluded and how do basic aspects of economics, culture, and literacy levels dictate not only who participates in the digital age but how we participate?
• Ethics and Advocacy: What responsibilities and possibilities exist to move from participation, interchange, collaboration, and communication to actually working towards the greater good of society by digital means in an ethical and responsible manner?
• Learning, Unlearning, and Relearning: Alvin Toffler has said that, in the rapidly changing world of the twenty-first century, the most important skill anyone can have is the ability to stop in one’s tracks, see what isn’t working, and then find ways to unlearn old patterns and relearn how to learn. This requires all of the other skills in this program but is perhaps the most important single skill we will teach. It means that, whenever one thinks nostalgically, wondering if the “good old days” will ever return, that one’s “unlearning” reflex kicks in to force us to think about what we really mean with such a comparison, what good it does us, and what good it does to reverse it. What can the “good new days” bring? Even as a thought experiment—gedanken experiment—trying to unlearn one’s reflexive responses to change situation is the only way to become reflective about one’s habits of resistance.
Group items matching
in title, tags, annotations or url
2More
Measuring Classroom Progress: 21st Century Assessment Project Wants Your Inpu... - 8 views
-
""21st Century Literacies" compiled by Cathy N. Davidson Media theorist and practitioner Howard Rheingold has talked about four "Twenty-first Century Literacies"-attention, participation, collaboration, and network awareness-that must to be addressed, understood and cultivated in the digital age. (see, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/rheingold/category?blogid=108&cat=2538). Futurist Alvin Toffler argues that, in the 21st century, we need to know not only the three R's, but also how to learn, unlearn, and relearn. Expanding on these, here are ten "literacies" that seem crucial for our discussion of "This Is Your Brain on the Internet." * Attention: What are the new ways that we pay attention in a digital era? How do we need to change our concepts and practices of attention for a new era? How do we learn and practice new forms of attention in a digital age? * Participation: Only a small percentage of those who use new "participatory" media really contribute. How do we encourage meaningful interaction and participation? What is its purpose on a cultural, social, or civic level? * Collaboration: How do we encourage meaningful and innovative forms of collaboration? Studies show that collaboration can simply reconfirm consensus, acting more as peer pressure than a lever to truly original thinking. HASTAC has cultivated the methodology of "collaboration by difference" to address the most meaningful and effective way that disparate groups can contribute. * Network awareness: What can we do to understand how we both thrive as creative individuals and understand our contribution within a network of others? How do you gain a sense of what that extended network is and what it can do? * Design: How is information conveyed differently in diverse digital forms? How do we understand and practice the elements of good design as part of our communication and interactive practices? * Narrative, Storytelling: How do na
1More
Code of Ethics of the American Library Association | Advocacy, Legislation & Issues - 0 views
6More
Businesses told to exploit social media - 0 views
-
"The move toward social media is as big a change as Gutenberg and the printing press," said Karl Long, a product manager at Nokia. "Social media is the ability for anyone to publish anything without any cost."
-
The panelists said businesses are beginning to recognize the benefits of having conversations with consumers.
- ...3 more annotations...
-
real estate agents, for instance, are using Web sites that include reviews from clients after their homes have been sold.
1More
bikemanhattan.info | building a more bike-friendly community in Manhattan Kansas - 2 views
10More
The Internet and Social Life (Annual Review of Psychology 2004) - 1 views
-
However, the Internet is not merely the Swiss army knife of communications media. It has other critical differences from previously available communication media and settings (see, e.g., McKenna & Bargh 2000), and two of these differences especially have been the focus of most psychological and human-computer interaction research on the Internet. First, it is possible to be relatively anonymous on the Internet, especially when participating in electronic group venues such as chat rooms or newsgroups. This turns out to have important consequences for relationship development and group participation. second, computer-mediated communication (CMC) is not conducted face-to-face but in the absence of nonverbal features of communication such as tone of voice, facial expressions, and potentially influential interpersonal features such as physical attractiveness, skin color, gender, and so on. Much of the extant computer science and communications research has explored how the absence of these features affects the process and outcome of social interactions.
-
Sproull & Kiesler (1985) considered CMC to be an impoverished communication experience, with the reduction of available social cues resulting in a greater sense or feeling of anonymity. This in turn is said to have a deindividuating effect on the individuals involved, producing behavior that is more self-centered and less socially regulated than usual. This reduced-information model of Internet communication assumes further that the reduction of social cues, compared to richer face-to-face situations, must necessarily have negative effects on social interaction (i.e., a weaker, relatively impoverished social interaction).
-
The relative anonymity of the Internet can also contribute to close relationship formation through reducing the risks inherent in self-disclosure. Because selfdisclosure contributes to a sense of intimacy, making self-disclosure easier should facilitate relationship formation. In this regard Internet communication resembles the "strangers on a train" phenomenon described by Rubin (1975; also Derlega & Chaikin 1977). As Kang (2000, p. 1161) noted, "Cyberspace makes talking with strangers easier. The fundamental point of many cyber-realms, such as chat rooms, is to make new acquaintances. By contrast, in most urban settings, few environments encourage us to walk up to strangers and start chatting. In many cities, doing so would amount to a physical threat."Overall, then, the evidence suggests that rather than being an isolating, personally and socially maladaptive activity, communicating with others over the Internet not only helps to maintain close ties with one's family and friends, but also, if the individual is so inclined, facilitates the formation of close and meaningful new relationships within a relatively safe environment.
- ...7 more annotations...
-
STIGMATIZED IDENTITIES McKenna & Bargh (1998) reasoned that people with stigmatized social identities (see Frable 1993, Jones et al. 1984), such as homosexuality or fringe political beliefs, should be motivated to join and participate in Internet groups devoted to that identity, because of the relative anonymity and thus safety of Internet (compared to face-to-face) participation and the scarcity of such groups in "real life." Moreover, because it is their only venue in which to share and discuss this aspect of their identity, membership in the group should be quite important to these people, and so the norms of such groups should exert a stronger than usual influence over members' behavior. This prediction was confirmed by an archival and observational study of the frequency with which stigmatized-group members posted messages to (i.e., participated in) the group: Unlike in other Internet groups, participation increased when there was positive feedback from the other group members and decreased following negative feedback (McKenna & Bargh 1998, Study 1).
-
ON-LINE SUPPORT In harmony with these conclusions, Davison et al. (2000) studied the provision and seeking of social support on-line by those with grave illnesses, and found that people used Internet support groups particularly for embarrassing, stigmatized illnesses such as AIDS and prostate cancer (and also, understandably, for those illnesses that limit mobility such as multiple sclerosis). The authors point out that because of the anxiety and uncertainty they are feeling, patients are highly motivated by social comparison needs to seek out others with the same illness (p. 213), but prefer to do this on-line when the illness is an embarrassing, disfiguring, or otherwise stigmatized one, because of the anonymity afforded by Internet groups (p. 215).
-
Accordingly, Kang (2000) has argued that one potential social benefit of the Internet is to disrupt the reflexive operation of racial stereotypes, as racial anonymity is much easier to maintain on-line than off-line. For example, studies have found that African Americans and Hispanics pay more than do white consumers for the same car, but these price differences disappear if the car is instead purchased on-line (Scott Morton et al. 2003).
-
Yet racism itself is socially stigmatized-especially when it comes to extreme forms such as advocacy of white supremacy and racial violence (see McKenna & Bargh 1998, Study 3). Thus the cloak of relative anonymity afforded by the Internet can also be used as a cover for racial hate groups, especially for those members who are concerned about public disapproval of their beliefs; hence today there are more than 3000 websites containing racial hatred, agendas for violence, and even bomb-making instructions (Lee & Leets 2002). Glaser et al. (2002) infiltrated such a group and provide telling examples of the support and encouragement given by group members to each other to act on their hatreds. All things considered, then, we don't know yet whether the overall effect of the Internet will be a positive or a negative one where racial and ethnic divisions are concerned.
-
People are not passively affected by technology, but actively shape its use and influence (Fischer 1992, Hughes & Hans 2001). The Internet has unique, even transformational qualities as a communication channel, including relative anonymity and the ability to easily link with others who have similar interests, values, and beliefs. Research has found that the relative anonymity aspect encourages self-expression, and the relative absence of physical and nonverbal interaction cues (e.g., attractiveness) facilitates the formation of relationships on other, deeper bases such as shared values and beliefs. At the same time, however, these "limited bandwidth" features of Internet communication also tend to leave a lot unsaid and unspecified, and open to inference and interpretation.
-
As Lea & Spears (1995) and O'Sullivan (1996) have noted, studying how relationships form and are maintained on the Internet brings into focus the implicit assumptions and biases of our traditional (face-to-face) relationship and communication research literatures (see Cathcart & Gumpert 1983)-most especially the assumptions that face-to-face interactions, physical proximity, and nonverbal communication are necessary and essential to the processes of relating to each other effectively. By providing an alternative interaction setting in which interactions and relationships play by somewhat different rules, and have somewhat different outcomes, the Internet sheds light on those aspects of face-to-face interaction that we may have missed all along. Tyler (2002), for example, reacting to the research findings on Internet interaction, wonders whether it is the presence of physical features that makes face-to-face interaction what it is, or is it instead the immediacy of responses (compared to e-mail)? That's a question we never knew to ask before.
-
Spears et al. (2002) contrasted the engineering model with the "social science" perspective on the Internet, which assumes instead that personal goals and needs are the sole determinant of its effects. [In the domain of communications research, Blumler & Katz's (1974) "uses and gratifications" theory is an influential version of this approach.] According to this viewpoint, the particular purposes of the individuals within the communication setting determine the outcome of the interaction, regardless of the particular features of the communication channel in which the interaction takes place.The third and most recent approach has been to focus on the interaction between features of the Internet communication setting and the particular goals and needs of the communicators, as well as the social context of the interaction setting (see Bargh 2002, McKenna & Bargh 2000, Spears et al. 2002). According to this perspective, the special qualities of Internet social interaction do have an impact on the interaction and its outcomes, but this effect can be quite different depending on the social context. With these three guiding models in mind, we turn to a review of the relevant research.