Our friend 'Alice'

With the progression of technology comes the question of technology in education. Education has always been about reading books and learning to write, but with the increase of digital cultures should we look to be changing this somewhat 'old fashioned' way of learning. In my opinion, reading and writing will always be the foundations of an education and technology shouldn't be brought in until later in a childs education. But thats not to say we should ignore it completley, as it could be extremley effective.
In this weeks lecture we looked specifically into Digital literature and the idea that the National Cirriculum could begin to involve online ways of learning. In particular we were advised to look at a website called 'Inanimate Alice.' http://www.inanimatealice.com/ This link to the website will tell you all you need to know about the project. Inanimate Alice has been "created as a reading-from-the-screen experience." It tells the story of a young girl, and as a reader you follow the girl as she grows up and go through the story with her, watching the video, reading the words, listening to the sounds and looking at the pictures.
The argument is, should this be included in the National Cirriculum? For me, there is alot of benefits to this project. It uses a range of multimedia which could be beneficial to some learners who get bored with simply reading words on a page. It also allows the reader to go at a pace which suits them best, stopping and starting as they wish. Therefore to some extent it could be quite a useful and a new way of teaching and keeping children interacted. At the same time it is fairly simple, and so i think that aiming for teenagers might be slightly too old as it isnt very taxing, and some brighter students could grow out of it very quickly.
Therefore it does clearly have benefits and drawbacks, and I think whether you think it is a good idea or a bad idea will all depend on the person and the type of learner you are. People who are very against multimedia and computing will not agree that it should be included in the National Cirriculum, yet those whoe enjoy aesthetics, collaborations and multimedia might think the opposite.
Whether you think Inanimate Alice is good or bad there is no denying that projects like this are being produced because of how rapidly technologies are developing. And clearly there is a gap in education for things like this website to develop, as alot of children these days do focus on computing and social websites. I think maybe it is time to accept that a new wave of teaching and education could be on its way as a consequence of new technologies.

Digitally Cultural

My blog has been purely based around Digital Culture and commentary on the ideas and technologies presented during the course of this unit. Whilst doing this it has made me realise just how important it is to think about the internet, just how much we do use it and what it is used for. Not only that but it seems important to remember where it came from, how it was made and how it has been so widely accepted in our society.
The importance of this has only hit me now, previously I was that person who used the internet an uncountable amount of times a day without actually even realising. Constantly quickly glancing at my facebook or twitter, sending a quick message or making a phonecall. Because in effect our mobile phones are actually computers in todays society.
By doing this blog it has made me appreciate the internet and computers in a new light, and has encouraged me to think about them and where they come from.
And in my opinion the way technology is growing, were not nearly finished yet.

Why's Wiki so wrong?

Don't use Wikipedia. A phrase used commonly throughout my education, but why? Wikipedia has become something of a bogey word in terms of education, it was always drilled into us how unreliable a source it is and how we shouldn't use it as a reference. To me nothing is ever going to be a hundred percent accurate or reliable, take newspapers. Half of what we read everyday is not actually true, yet the majority of us will still go out daily and buy a newspaper. So what's different with us using wikipedia?
In my opinion Wikipedia isn't actually a site I would use for information, purely because of how easy it is for anybody to add information to a page. When I realise this, I ask myself why I don't add any information myself if it's that easy? Then I decided to ask some others if they had ever added or edited any wikipedia pages... the answer was no. Obviously there is no technical issue here, as we all have the technical ability to do it if we wanted. My thought, for myself anyway, is that I have been brought up to think of Wikipedia as a site not to be trusted. Therfore why would I want to add any valuable information to it, only for it not to be taken seriously.
During my research into wikipedia I actually looked at the website in depth, something i've never actually done. Doing this, I realised i've never actually read a whole wikipedia page. Usually I look specifially for a piece of information, name or date and thats as far as it goes.
But Wikipedia actually offers you a great deal more than that. It is so easy to look back to when it was created, every change that has been made to the page with a date and name, so maybe we should give it slightly more credit than we do.

What is Open Access?

When learning about Digital culture,the progression of media and the internet it seems important to consider open access and its advantages alongside its drawbacks. Open access means taking advantage of the global reach and internet publishing to make peer-reviewed scholarly materials freely available. From a university students point of view I might be slightly biased in favour of open access, why should we pay when it can be openly accessed on the web?
http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/01/we-need-more-than-releasing-articles-to-make-open-access-work/
During my research I came across this blog written by, Dan Cohen which seems to highlight both advantages and disadvantges of open access from varying points of view. He brings up the point that "an open access system can never work on the demand side." Which is true, as long as people can access books and knowledge for free there will be no need to go and out and purchase.
This topic is one that interested me more than I would have thought, if it works and it is easier then why isn't everybody doing it? It seems only some people agree whilst the others are still strongly against.
Open Access brings greater visibility and impact, in todays' society it is far easier for someone to quickly look online for an article or book than it is for them to go a library or book store. Open Access will also help to progress research, it will help to enable better managment and assesment of research. Not only that but it also provides long term document availabilty, if it is put on the internet surley we will always be able to access it?
However some reservations about open access have been brought up, there are certainly reservations amongst some about the quality control and the authenticity. If things are put up on the web, does this mean it is easier for people to change it making the work less reliable? But, for me, the main reservations, particularly for the authors and publishers is the financial issue. With open access the demand decreases, decreasing any profits that could have been made.
In my opinion, after actually looking at the advantages and disadvantages, a part of it must be that our society simply doesn't like change and they are not willing to accept Open Access. But I think open access has to be the future, it will make work available to the world wide web, which will make it fair. Open Access will mean everybody all around the world will have the same access to the same information. I think people should be embracing the idea not turning it down.

Cyberspace is a dangerous game...

It is without argument that the internet brings a huge amount of benefits, but it is easy to forget how dangerous it can be as well. The impact of Cyberstalking is massive and alot of people dont take the time or think it is necessary to protect themselves properly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMZzyRi1YaM
This video shows just how dangerous cyberspace can be, and shows that everytime we post even a little information about ourselves we are putting ourselves at risk.
During a recent lecture we were lucky enough to be spoke to about recent research that has been taken about cyberstalking. Cyberstalking is generally considered to be harassment that originates online, it isn't a new problem, it is an old problem through new media.
There are many different types of attack, some considered less sevre than others, they can range from posting fake profiles, direct threats, identity theft and even contsructing websites targetting the victim. During the lecture we were told some astonshing facts about cyberstalking and the effects it can have. 54% of victims met their attacker offline, 58% of people experienced three or more modes of cyberstalking and that 68% of all victims were female.
Along with the facts it seems we get myths as well. The greatest myth that is associated with cyberstalking is that it doesn't really do any damage. Back this up with the fact that 72% of women murdered by their attacker were stalked by them in the 12 months before the murder, I think we should re-evaluate that myth. Clearly cyberstalking can do far more damage than we might think.
The lecture itself taught me alot about just how extreme cyberstalking can get, and that in reality it happens to far more people than we might think. It is true that this new digital culture we are being brought up in has alot of benefits, but it is clearly important to remember the negatives of it. The internet and cyberspace can be a very dangerous place and we shouldn't be naive enough to think that just because we are behind a computer screen we can't be harmed.

Our Internet Identity.

For many the internet allows you to create a whole new identity, to present yourself as something totally different to what you are actually like. This can become a dangerous tool.

Identity is rooted in many things, its rooted in our families, our communties, our gender, class, political ideas, beliefs and even rooted in out commen interests, but cyberspace can help us to change this and allow us to maintain a completley false identity. Do we change our identity according to the website we use? For example my age group grew up using sites like 'Bebo' and 'Myspace' and then eventually we grew out of those and moved onto the likes of 'Facebook' and 'Twitter,' or at least that was the case for myself.

In my research for this particular blog I looked into my "Self-presentation", how I have presented myself to others through the use of social media. With the tools on facebook I have been able to annalyse my usage on the site. It was obvious my usage on the website has decreased alot, or so i might think. Although I no longer regularly post photos and status' I am still using Facebook to browse just as much. Now Facebook is easily available on my phone, I can click on the app a hundred times a day to look without even realising. It is also clear that as I have grown up I have started to 'unlike' things I once was interested in, possibly to save the embarrassment of my former self. Therfore as the years go past I constantly adapt my Facebook to present myself how I would want people to view me.
Social sites such as Facebook and Twitter are an outlet for personal expression and therefore your idnetity is determined by your Twitter and Facebook pages, but that isnt your real identity? It is simply a form of self-presentation, in effect your telling people how to view you and what to think of you.