Presentations week 4

Dan started us off this week, talking about the correlation between video games and virtual communities. He pointed out the notable correlation between learning principles of video and the rapid growth of virtual communities, and he plans to argue that learning principles are enhanced online and this may account for the increased number of users on say Xbox live. He is doing this by pulling together principles from James Paul Gee and statistics of online gaming. I think you have a lot of great information, and I like how you are pointing out the correlation between the two, not stating that learning principles ARE the reason for growth of virtual communities within gaming.

Lee talked about how YouTube has revolutionized political activism and has contributed to the perpetuation of hate. It is a way for citizens to participate and promote political awareness, but YouTube can also diminish the voice of activism. I think you provided a lot of information, and it would be beneficial to narrow it down. What is one thing that YouTube is doing for the culture, and why is that is important? I think a less generalized, more specific argument would be something to think about.

Mike argued that crimes are worse in the virtual than they are in the real, through the amount of avenues crimes can happen and the larger number of crimes accessibly through cyberspace. At the end you stated that we need to invest more time and money to protect ourselves against cybercrimes because they are growing exponentially and have the potential to be more dangerous than real life crimes. I think it would be interesting for you to look at why cybercrimes are increasing..

Angel argued that in order to bridge the digital divide, students need to be active in their learning, which can be accomplished by applying the concepts of video games. Gamers are active problem solvers and learn through trial and error. By combining principles from James Gee and different examples of active learning, I think you will have a great paper.

Derek talked about how the cell phone can help gap the digital divide. Phones are cutting out the middle man and use of mobile devices is increasing. Great info, great topic.

Kristin had the great idea to start project HOPE. This program would educate students on how to safely use the internet and share information. I think this is an awesome idea and has the potential to greatly reduce the amount of cyberbullying cases. Great work!

Brent argued that online activities change us. Very true. We are doing things online that we would not dare do in our physical spaces. You brought up a lot of great examples to back up your thesis. I think your thesis is very true, but is it too broad? What if you focused on one particular way in which we change because of technology or mobile devices? We are more willing to put ourselves out there? Unconventional behaviors are now a norm? I dunno… just an idea.

Cynthia showed us how cyberspace gives underrepresented groups more choices about representation that are not available through traditional media. I know you ran out of time, but it looks like you have a lot of great examples to back up your argument. I think you have good information and a great topic. I’m assuming you will also be using Nakamura to back you up as well??

Neil showed how smart phones are helping narrow the access portion of the digital divide. And this is a good thing! You have great info and a way to disprove the opposition. Nothing else to add.

Josh ended by talking about how internet activism is now necessary for physical activism in the real world. It can communicate info to a larger audience, and mobile devices are just as useful as computer in doing so. We see the evidence of your statement in the Obama campaign and in relief efforts such as those of Hurricane Katrina and the Earthquake in Haiti. I think, as was brought up in class, it is important to somehow tie in text messaging. Other than that, great work.

Presentations: Week 3!

Tuesday:

First off, Mark talked about online enabled environmental activism. His presentation showed a lot about how communication is changing. Cyberspace and online communities are vital for future communications and awareness. I find this very true, and since we are always connected to our cell phones, using iPhone apps for awareness is where we are going. I think this type of communication is useful because we no longer watch the news or call each other on the phone. Instead we use our phones to text or surf the web. I think you are headed in the right direction. I would follow Julie’s advice and focus on the information flow and the things you can do with the machine, not the history.

Sarah argued that people present themselves differently in cyberspace, namely on Facebook, than they do in meatspace. I like that you included the opposition (virtual spaces as an extension of real life) and explained that this is not true. Also, having personal stories really helped prove your point. It shows firsthand how your argument is valid. I think as long as you make sure to state your thesis clearly and stay focused on it with support and examples, you will be just fine. I think with so much time and so much discussion you were getting a little flustered, but not to worry. You have valid evidence supporting your thesis.

Cassie brought up the idea of using social networking sites in the classroom. The first site was WoogiWorld, a site created for educating kids on internet behavior and knowledge of the 21^st century. It includes events, challenges, and activities, which get the students actively involved in learning. The other site was A Really Different world, which was a class blog created by a teacher. Both of these sites I feel would be beneficial to learning, and create a more engaging learning environment. Also, being able to learn computer skills at a young age is vital. I like that you included a bad site, Facebook, and why sites like this one wouldn’t work. I guess the only thing I am left wondering is if there are any downsides to using social networking sites in the classroom. ?? I think this is a great idea to incorporate into education systems.

Thursday::

Dena started us off by talking about how ubiquitous computing and the popularity of social media sites lack government tools to prevent cyber culture bullying/stalking and other issues. Overall, in social network sites you’re on your own. She talked about different cases that have been brought to court, but ultimately, as of now, there are no laws in place enforcing ‘mis behaviors in cyberspace’. Great presentation. You are definitely headed in the right direction. Start writing!

Brittany talked about mobile location based advertising and how the rise of social networking sites has led people to change the way they think about privacy and publicized interaction. It is revolutionizing the way people interact with the places they live and they are more open to GPS enabled software. I think you included a lot of information. Maybe a little too much? (not that it’s not good to know for background info) I think narrowing things down a little bit would help. If I were you I would make sure to answer the question of why mobile advertising works? And also you may look at including the negative side to your argument and disprove it.

Mark presented on WOW. ‘The Cost of Access’. I feel like I learned a lot from your presentation. I have never played WOW before, but it was not over my head or anything. Nice work. I found it interesting that people were going to 3^rd party websites to figure out how to play the game, and the different ways in which the games were changing and affecting the way players work together was also interesting. Good work.

Chris finished off the day by explaining that even if we solve the problem of the digital divide in the physical world, it will just continue on to cyberspace. There will be divides between individuals, communities, and different forms of technology. This is a great topic and you have a lot of great support and ideas.

Round 2

So, today we underwent the second round of presentations, and I think it went quite well.

Katie started us off talking about how low income schools need a solution to bridge the digital divide, and she presented the project which she titled “Bridge the Divide”. This plan will be life changing for the teachers and administration as well as the students and their families. The first step would be to make a chart documenting the computer usage in schools to get a starting point. Then, would be to implement phase one: bridging the knowledge divide. I think this is a good place to start. Here, the plan would be for teachers to gain knowledge about technology. After the teachers were all on the same page, it would be time to begin phase two: bridging the access divide. This would get technology in the classroom. Katie’s idea of having an open lab night for students and teachers is a great idea. Also, I think it would be important to explain to families why having the technology and knowing how to use it is beneficial or important to them. What are they missing out on if they don’t have it??

Up next was Beau who argued that technology feeds off the gaming community. He explained that gaming is not a past time, but culture has been altered due to the evolution of gaming seen in faster internet, more engaging technologies, and learning via cyberspace. Gamers are no longer just the guys in their basements. They are a part of our culture. As Beau said, we are all gamers. All of our technologies enable us to be immersed in gaming whether we consider ourselves gamers or not.

James also discussed gaming, and wanted to show how people misunderstand games as being a bad thing because they haven’t been involved with them personally. We learn so many things from gaming. His argument was a little hard for me to grasp, but I think Julie was getting to argue that because people misunderstand gaming, it is holding us back from moving forward and to be sure and include the representational competence. There is a strong symbolism with gaming and it’s what makes people care about what’s going on in their fictional worlds just as much as their real lives.

Hans put on quite a show when talking about how social networks are bridging the chasm. What we got down to was how because of social networks, Facebook, Myspace, etc., there are more creators and commentators and less people who solely ingest. I think you should focus on how/why this is happening, which you have explained with various social networking sites.

Spencer wrapped up the day arguing that the amount of simulation training that is being used in the military is depriving soldiers of physical training. Although it is not replacing physical training completely, the percentage of simulation training is increasing. It is bad for many reasons. As Spencer stated, you don’t feel the pain, adrenaline rushes, the emotion, the stress, the physical senses, and many more things. I think he is on the right track with the information he has. As long as he makes clear that there is still physical training that goes along with this, this will be a great paper. He could also think about where this is going. Is the percentage of simulation training going to keep increasing?

Great job presenters!

Proposals

Lorena’s proposal was about the censorship in China: A Communication in Crisis. She talked about the Golden Shield, or the firewall, which blocks a multitude of online content from users. I was astonished to learn all the types of things they block, including social media sites, political content, activists, social issues, and more. It is very apparent that it needs to change, as Lorena is trying to point out. At the end of her presentation, Lorena posed the question, How does the internet censorship affect our culture? I agree with what we touched on in class. With the censorship in China, they are sort of left out of global issues. They have no input as well as no output of information. Overall, it was a good presentation and I think you’re on the right track Lorena!

Sheila went next and discussed how traditional gender roles are reinforced on social networks. She first talked about Facebook and Myspace. With these sites, it is obvious to tell who is male and who is female by their profile picture. She then brought up Club Penguin, which is a site with no gender identification associated with it. I found it very interesting how people are still trying to identify who is male and female through their conversation. “all males say i” This site really shows off how social site reinforce the gender roles we associate with in real life. I am with Julie in that this was the most interesting part of the presentation, and her idea of focusing on that is a great one! Great job Sheila!

Maurice had a cool idea about how cell phones are changing how agriculture is done is rural America. There is agriculture all over the country but not necessarily internet. With cell phones it keeps you connected and gives you an advantage over those farmers without them. You can check the weather and know exactly when it’s right to plant your crops, or what have you. Cell phones also act as the middle man. No one is having to go back and forth to the farmers, telling them information. This is a great way cell phones are closing the gap of the digital divide. Those in rural areas are still able to stay connected.

Corrinda discussed educating through gaming. She was asking if children learn through gaming and if they do, what do they learn and what do they miss out on. I think children do learn through gaming and she is on the right track. If I were her, I would make sure I included the answer to the questions above. What children are learning AND what they are missing out on.

Kathy wrapped it up with talking about the old school way of doing politics and Obama’s method. Obama used the internet to his advantage and won over the youth vote as well as many others. He transformed politics with the internet like Kennedy did with TV. She included a lot of great information, but the one thing I found missing was her argument. I wasn’t quite sure what she was arguing. What she could look at is how this is shifting culture or the so what?

Great proposals everyone!

EXTRA! EXTRA! Read All About It!.. (my extra credit blog)

In this article, the authors, Holcomb, Bakelaaar, and Zizzamia, are arguing that when the world changed after 9/11, the internet changed as well through more users, more technology (ways of accessing the internet), and more issues revolving around security and privacy, and because of this change we are more prepared for any future crisis. After the attacks of 9/11, we saw many positive as well as some negative uses of the internet. Many people were looking to the internet for information about the attacks as well as the victims. The internet offered more answers, than say TV, by giving more depth of information, more personal stories and more perspectives. There were also registries set up for survivors/victims of the attack. The amount of users on the internet was skyrocketing for means of communication with friends and family in New York. The internet also allowed people to donate to disaster relief efforts and the Red Cross.

The internet also acted as a double edge sword and allowed users to set up fake donation sites, where people thought they were donating to a good cause but really the money went to the user of the page, who was trying to capitalize on the country’s devastation. Another negative side to the internet was the miscommunication of the victim/survivor lists. With so many various lists, they did not all match up, so people were unsure of whether or not their friends and family were okay or not. If they did not see a certain name on one victim list, it caused them to panic. This was all due from the large amount of internet users brought about after the attacks.

We saw this same kind of thing happen with the earthquake in Haiti. Shortly after the earthquake, nearly everyone knew all about it, and we saw new technologies being used to spread the word and help the cause. Instead of donation websites being set up, you could text to donate. Relief efforts were changing their strategies due to the shift in technology in the last 9 years. According to the Mobile Giving Foundation, in the first ten days after the earthquake, “Americans used their cell phones to send text messages pledging more than $30 million for Haitian relief efforts” (Choney). This was a success because the relief efforts targeted the market based on how the culture is now using technology. We can log onto YouTube and watch videos about the area as well as read blogs, news stories, or firsthand stories from people who have gone overseas to help the people of Haiti.

Technology keeps us in the know of current events, sometimes faster than our local or national news, and the efficiency of technology has brought about quick and effortless way to help out a cause when the need arises.

Choney, Suzanne. “Mobile Giving to Help Haiti Exceeds $30 Million”. MSNBC. 21 January 2010. Web. 1 April 2010. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34850532/ns/technology_and_science-wireless/

YouTube = FREE Advertising!!

Internet use in political campaigns is becoming part of our mainstream culture due mostly to the most recent presidential election.

In the presidential election of 2008, Obama beat out his competition, and his use of internet campaigning may be the cause. Obama’s campaign used YouTube to post videos about his platforms. People preferred this method of campaigning and actually watched the videos instead of watching quick ads or long presidential debates which interrupt your regularly scheduled show. (I hate that). YouTube was effective for various reasons. For one, users could watch the videos whenever they had the time, and they did. They could also watch the videos as many times as they wanted to really get a grasp of the Obama’s platform. They could leave comments about the video or see what other people were saying about it.

After winning the presidential election of 2008, many news stories brought up the fact that Obama changed politics. He set a new standard as to how reach out to the country, gaining supporters of all ages. Some news stories, including the New York Times, even go as far to say that, “Were it not for the Internet, Barack Obama would not be president. Were it not for the Internet, Barack Obama would not have been the nominee” (Miller). The internet was definitely a factor in the election. Obama grasped how the culture was using technologies, such as the internet, and he formatted his campaign around that, and it was success. The Obama campaign was relatable for the younger generation especially. The ones who always use the technology were being targeted by the Obama campaign, and the votes reflected this. Some people might think that the president doesn’t need a Facebook or Twitter account, but for others it makes the president appear as a real person. It may appear to take away his professionalism, but it makes him more approachable and authentic.

By using the Internet, Obama was also able to reach out and communicate with a large amount of people, and it worked out to his advantage.

Miller, Claire Cain. “How Obama’s Internet Campaign Changed Politics”. The New York Times Company. 7 November 2008. Web. 1 April 2010.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/how-obamas-internet-campaign-changed-politics/

Proposal Round 2

Argument: Computers are changing our sense of human identity.

There are two sides to this; one side being the way that scientists are trying to make humans more like computers, and the other side being how humans are trying to make computers more like themselves. To start, I will want to look at how we are so connected with the internet and our virtual communities and identities. We carry the internet in our pockets or our backpacks and are constantly checking to see the latest tweets and Facebook updates. I will use Adriana de Souza e Silva’s article while discussing this part of the paper.

I want to show how we are humanizing our computers and how this is changing our idea of ‘human’. We want our computers to be our companion or our pet. We tend to form these relationships with our machines for various reasons including to lessen the fear we have of technology. We do this by naming our computers and giving it characteristics. As humans we have a need for intimacy and relationships and for those that do not have a physical relationship which they can depend on, computers fill that void. For this portion of the paper I will draw from Deborah Lupton’s article: The embodied computer/user, as well as Sherry Turkle’s article, How Computers Change the Way We Think.

I will finally want to look at how science is trying to change the identity of what a human is. We see scientists toying with the idea of mutation as well as things such as robots and technology being implanted into humans. Technolgy is used in biology and medicine. We also see humans becoming more technological in the sense that we spend a majority of our time in cyberspace. If we engage in a relationship on the sims and have a ‘biological child’, is that a real person? We see technology constantly being infused into our lives, giving the younger generation a different kind of identity than say an older generation. They are more involved with their technology and it is in turn changing how the rest of the world perceives them. This portion of the paper will draw from Turkle’s book, Life on the Screen and Timothy Lenoir and Casey Alt’s article, Flow Process Fold.

De Souza e Silva, Adriana. From Cyber to Hybrid.: mobile technologies as interfaces of hybrid spaces. The Cybercultures Read, 2^nd Ed. David Bell and Barbara Kennedy. New York: Routledge, 2002. Print.

Adriana de Souza e Silva’s article talks a lot about hybrid spaces and how we are constantly connected to the internet. Because we have the internet in our phones, our computers, or what have you we can constantly keep connected.

Lupton, Deborah. The Embodied Computer/User. The Cybercultures Read, 2^nd Ed. David Bell and Barbara Kennedy. New York: Routledge, 2002. Print.

Throughout this article, Lupton discusses how we put emotion into our machines, and we often spend more time with our computers than we do with other people.

Turkle, Sherry. How Computers Change the Way we Think. http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~comp300/documents/HowComputersChangeThinking.pdf

Throughout this article, Turkle talks about what computers are doing for and to us. Computers are changing how we see ourselves, acting as a mirror, reflecting our identity back at us.

Turkle, Sherry. Life on the Screen.

This book, subtitled, Identity in the age of the internet, is simply about that. Turkle discusses how we interact with the internet and how our online relationships are effecting us.