My Focus: Participation

             As I looked over my meager number of blog posts, I realized what I am most passionate about in regards to our digital literacy; that people actually use it. In my blog post We Are Being Spoken to and Don't Even Know It, I talk about the shift in our society to this "I don't care" attitude. That post focuses mainly on politics, listening to the information and outreach our government is giving us, but I would love to be able to broaden that idea.
             We have so much, and yet we take it all for granted. We have the means to do amazing things, but so few of us actually take advantage of those opportunities. I talked in that post about being able to respond to and communicate with the President, but it doesn't have to be that grand of a scale. We have the tools to communicate with people across the globe that share our interests and beliefs. We have the opportunity to learn from people that are so much more educated than we are now, but are still able to share with them our thoughts and ideas. The concept of open education is one that I think is revolutionary; the idea that we should learn because we want to learn is something that is both amazing and completely contradictory to the way our society runs, but it shouldn't be.
             I have this completely unrealistic vision in my mind of people everywhere avidly learning for the sake of learning, for the sake of conversation and self edification. I think that though that vision is very unrealistic, sources of open education and the proliferation of knowledge for the sake of knowledge is something that we can and should strive for because it is now so possible to do.
             I would love to understand more about they why people resist educating themselves and participating actively in the global society. I know it sounds like an obvious answer, but it must be more than the obvious. My mom always says that she gets too much reality from life, why would she seek out more on-line? People are tired, people are bored, people would rather take the easy way and play a game or stalk a friend on Facebook rather than take the time to learn something. It's just too hard. But why is it hard? I know that I do this myself, I choose something that will turn my brain to much for a few hours instead of stimulating it, but, again, why?
             My thesis for this class is still rolling around in my head, but I want it to have something to do with the positive functions of technology for the educating and enlightening of people, and the stimulating of those people to work for the betterment of their society. Technology can incite change, it has and does daily; I want to see that change grow. I want to be able to talk about TED with all of my friends. I want to be able to discuss issues and feel educated about what I am saying. I want to understand and reverse the causes of inaction that we see daily. Not quite 160 characters, but it's getting there.
             I have gained from this class realization of the broadness and relevance of the technology and innovations that come through the internet, and I want to be able to share that realization with others.

Your Personal World: How much they already know

One of my assigned readings is this book, The Filter Bubble,  by Eli Pariser. Pariser a board member and former executive at MoveOne.org, and a leader in internet politics, explains in great detail through his book how much information we give up when we go on the internet. He talks about the privacy we don't have and about what corporations like Google and Facebook can do with the information we give them by simply logging on.

In this blog post, I want to focus on what exactly that information is. What do they know about us? How do they figure it all out? What are our rights as users? I know that I want to know exactly what I am allowing to be shared about me when I get on the internet.

According to Pariser, just location can now tell corporations a wealth of knowledge about us. He gave the example that he travels frequently from New York City to San Francisco. Not only can this tell whoever is watching what local sites or places to advertise, but can probably predict fairly accurately his political standing and occupation. Another means of using location would be to use the information of those around you. By using the information provided by your neighbors, your age, race, and economic class can be predicted with frightening accuracy.

Google uses this information and much more in a system called PageRank, a set of algorithms created by a team at Stanford, in order to determine which of the millions of search results will be the most pertinent to us personally. It takes into account, for example, the fact that I am an avid follower of fashion and make-up recourses such as Vogue and Marie Claire, so when I type in Mac in my search bar, the cosmetics company pops up first as opposed to the Apple company.

Turns out, we as users don't have much say in how our information is used. Google's Privacy Policy, though easy to understand and fairly transparent to the untrained eye, really gives no option to the user. In exchange for their product, they expect full use of any information the user can give all in the name of "improving the experience"for the user. The user was never asked if they wanted the experience improved. Or to what extent they would be willing to go to have it changed.

The goal of Google is to create a search engine that can practically predict the question before it is asked. According to Google founder, Larry Page, "We want to create the ultimate search engine that can understand anything...Some people could call that artificial intelligence." The arguments for and against the super-searcher are extensive and not the point of this post, but I want to pose the question, do you want a search engine that can answer anything? Do you think that a search engine that can answer hypothetical questions is worth the chaos they would inevitable create? Do we have a say at all?

Sarah Martin

What's the Point of the Class Project? Here's One.

What I want to know is why we are doing this project. As far as I understand, it is mainly for our own edification. Sure, it would be cool if it were something that was interesting and interactive for other people, but all we can really hope for is for our work to be re-examined and maybe used by another classroom of learners just like us. Don't get me wrong, thats cool, but quite frankly, it sounds a little bit dry.

I propose we put our weight behind an actual cause. Or maybe multiple causes. We could learn about social literacy and digital possibilities through actually using them. The historical ties are all over the place. Our founding fathers didn't just write a book about what they learned, they decided to create a nation out of their knowledge. They were activists, not just conversationalists.

The fun project could be a great start. By creating a social change here on campus, we are not only using our skills of digital literacy, we could then compile that knowledge and then write a book about it, after we have actually done something with all of our hypothesizing. The Girl Effect is a movement that I have recently become very interested in, and I would love the opportunity to do more with it. But theres also the Action Against Hunger movement, the Global Fund, which leads the fight against AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria in third world countries, Educate America, and so many more wonderful causes that could use our help.

I believe that we will best learn how to more fully function in our digital society and how to integrate the skills of digital literacy and active participation by choosing to act for a specific cause, something that we feel passionately about and that we want to be a part of. We will learn to participate not just because we have to, but because we have the skills to do so. I don't want to just write an e-book. I want to make a difference. What about you?

Fun Theory Me!

I did it, I jumped on the bandwagon, and I am pleasantly surprised at what I found. For a while, I wasn't really behind the whole Fun Theory thing. It sounded to me like a very commercial venture by Volkswagen, but then I really looked into it. Its amazing! I love that this movement has captured so many people's imaginations and that it really is making changes, one small thing at a time.

I think I was so resistant at first because I held the mindset that we shouldn't need to be entertained to do something good, we should just do it. "Should" being the downfall of that statement. I have faith in the human condition, I believe that we are good intrinsically, but the fun theory brought to my mind the thought that inaction isn't necessarily bad, just lazy. People leave their trash out of thoughtlessness, not spite; they take the escalator because it's just easier, not because they want to disregard their bodies.

I love that there are people out there working to make a difference through human action as opposed to human sensibilities. I think that there are a lot of people trying to make a difference by education and reform, but what it comes down to is action. If we can't help people make better actions, then what's the point? Fun is one great way that we can help each other do the right thing, whether that be recycling, taking the stairs or using a trash can.

I would love to see what we could do with the fun theory in our class. Making it a part of our final project is something that I think could be extremely rewarding and very impactfull in the long run. Yes making a book could be cool, but inciting a change right here on our campus could make a big difference.

Does Equality Dumb us Down?

I am not a huge fan of standardized testing. For me, they were just tedious and a large waste of time. This being an honors class, I think it's safe to say that most of you will agree with me. I remember finishing a good 45 minutes before the time was up and not being allowed to doodle or read a book or anything and it wasn't until high school that I appreciated the nap time. I couldn't understand why I was taking the same tests as other kids when I was in AP classes. My cousin attends OCSA, The Orange County School of the Arts. He is a drummer looking to go professional and is taking very different classes than most other teens, regardless of level or advancement. Why should he have to take those tests too?

The argument  for standardization is that testing enables a wide view of the abilities of school children all across the country, and specifically, what areas need help. It is also supposed to increase the readiness of individuals to perform well on SAT and ACT tests. With standardization, America can reach a core set of educational goals that meet the needs of the most students possible.

I don't understand how this is the most desirable option. With this method of education, yes you scrape some of the lower kids off the ground, but you also lose a huge amount of flexibility and sacrifice a large amount of success at the top. Children are not numbers, they are people with very different personalities and aptitudes. There must be a way for education to be conducted where students are challenged on a  regular basis regardless of their supposed slot in the grading scale.

Germany has an interesting way of doing just that. I played water polo for a year with a foreign exchange student from Germany and was always eager to talk with her about education. She told me that in Germany, there were three levels or tiers of schooling after one graduated from the 7th grade. At that point, students were distributed between three high schools, each with a different purpose. The lowest prepared students to join the work force after graduation. It taught various trade occupations as well as the general education system requirements. The highest tier was made up of all college-bound students who received the very highest test scores and were particularly motivated. The second tier was a mix of the two, most college-bound with very reasonable and attainable goals and aspirations. It was challenging to switch schools once a person was attending tier, but it was possible through testing and an interview process. Students were given the opportunity to choose the education that they though would be best for them and their future.

This system is very different from our system, and honestly, I don't think one exactly like it would work in America, but it is one example of how another country is combatting standardization.

We Are Being Spoken To and We Don't Even Know It

          On March 12, 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt gave the first of 31 Fireside Chats. For the first time, America was able to sit down and listen as their president used the most progressive means of technology for their time to reassure them and to educate them about what was going on in the White House and across the nation. Over the radio, the president was able to reach over 90% of Americans. He was sure to make the information easy to understand, but answered complicated and staggering questions like the state of the Depression and the Banking Crisis. For the first time, Americans were unified in their media usage and in the message they were receiving.
          These Fireside Chats were amazing to the people. They loved the idea that they could be near the President even though he was so far away. They appreciated the effort taken to reach out and help them to understand. People were glued to their radio sets whenever the President would host a Chat. Nobody missed the broadcasts.
           Since president Roosevelt, each and every president has continued this tradition of addressing the people. Ronald Reagan introduced the Weekly Radio Address which was held every Saturday night until George W. Bush who replaced these radio talks with weekly podcasts. Our current President, Barak Obama, has taken these chats even further, making them weekly videos available one the White House website. On January 30, 2012, Barak Obama participated in a Google Hangout. This hangout was attended by Mr. Obama, the mediator Steve Grove, a Google employee, and five average citizens who had posted questions to the president and were selected to talk about the answers to those questions.
           We live in a country where our presiding body feels the need to communicate with us. Every week we get videos, articles, blog posts, all information from our government that we are lucky enough to receive. Did you even know these things existed? I didn't. I was under the false impression that the only opportunity we have to hear from our president was special occasions, press releases and the State of the Union. I had no idea that the White House had a website, or that Congress had a blog. Clearly though, these things are logical reactions to society now. The President should be talking to the people weekly. Congress should have a blog. Why, then, didn't I, an educated, middle class American, have any idea about the resources my government was offering me?
          We have talked a lot about education in the past week in our class, and I think that this right here is a huge flaw in our educational system. We are taught through social experiences and through the information we are given that the President and our leaders are separate, that they are uninvolved in our lives. It is now socially acceptable to disregard the President as someone not worth listening to. We are uninterested in what he has to say because we feel so disconnected from him and from our legislative bodies. I think that our government classes and political science classes should help us know how to care. Yes, I learned roughly how the various bodies work, but I still didn't know why it mattered. It is amazing to me to look back at these people in the 30s who had so much faith in the President. They wanted to listen, they wanted to believe that their leaders could make everything okay. They were willing to give the President and the rest of government the support needed to make things happen.
          In our various classes, we need to be studying how people actively participate in government. We need to be writing letters to the president. We need to be hearing from local and state elected officials. We need to watch the weekly Presidential addresses. We need to be taught how to have a voice in government, not just that we the people have the power. How can we exercise that power if we don't know how? We have the opportunity now to be more vocal than ever. We can create response videos, blog posts, and e-mails that actually get read. We have so much more of an opportunity to participate than people did in the 30s, but care so much less to do so. I know that at the very least, I will be watching the presidential addresses from now on. Will you?