Category Archives: Symposiums

Symposium 6

Posted on by
Reply

Interesting discussion today on the potential of hypertext, as set out by Ted Nelson many decades ago… and how its capacity to represent a dynamic communication network isn’t quite being realised on the Web, despite the myriad advancements in technical invention over the years.

Conceptualisation and thus realisation of the technology (vis-à-vis that enduring form vs. content debate) seems like one very plausible reason.  Or to put it more simply, people are still stuck in the paradigm of linearity from print as the default communicative technology (…at least up until the 21st century).

Indeed, using text alone (via print) to express the full intricacies of a network and dynamic (or reciprocal) streams of communication between ‘nodes’ in the network doesn’t quite do it justice, I think … The network is a 3-dimensional beast which 2-D schematics go some of the way to helping visualise… but only some of the way.

Week 4 Symposium – Discussing literacy

Posted on by
Reply

Today’s forum discussed print and network literacies.  Often I’m left reflecting on the similarities between things rather than searching for clear-cut distinctions, particularly so concerning the commonality between technologies.  Literacy – be it print or network – gives us the means to connect in inherently social ways (ideas, narratives, discussion, etc.)  Of course social connection may be the product or byproduct of any given literacy; for example, mechanical (auto) literacy allows us to understand and engage in the workings of our car and not get duped by a dishonest mechanic, but this in itself is inherently social.

I’m also left contemplating on form versus content in various guises, which was certainly something which resonated in last week’s reading, where the ability to apprehend form and learn from it (e.g. how we learn) was explained as double-loop learning by Chris Argyris & Donald Schön.

Form influences content and content can lead to new form (e.g. imagining up a new piece of technology – which can be put into effect), so clearly the relationship is dynamic.  Specifically, I was considering how the form of digital technology (i.e. the internet) and network literacy has influenced our perception of print.

For example, internet and the ease of self-publishing online has seen the precipitous rise of citizen journalism – which brings with it the good, the bad, the bigoted, the uninformed, the weird, etc, etc, etc.  With that, we have come to realise the need to scrutinize the veracity and validity of the information we receive online, which was a focal point in today’s symposium.  Concurrently, we’ve seen the rise of alternative media and political websites and blogs (e.g. Huffington Post, Counter Punch, Dissident Voice, amongst many others) which draw us to the potential bias of corporate mainstream media.

As a result, I believe (I don’t have the empirical evidence to back it up right now… but watch this space!) that the public are generally more aware of the potential fallibility of mainstream newspaper reporting (even those considered more esteemed – the New York Times, and the recent flack the BBC has encountered over its coverage of the recent conflict in Gaza…)

Whenever a new technology is introduced, it seems to bring with it equal parts awe, excitement and suspicion, until it becomes part of normal, everyday life and culture.  For centuries, print was the dominant (only) literary form and print – the newspaper – was arguably deified as a source of veritable truth and expert opinion.  Certainly I think it’s still highly valid and highly respected by many, yet with a competitive or at least alternative news form on the scene – the internet – print has lost some of its prestige and mantle as the veritable mecca for quality news distribution and commentary… something about the decentralisation of things in our (sorry to use the word…) postmodern era?

References:

Chris Argyris: Theories of Action, Double-Loop Learning and Organizational Learning.” http://infed.org/mobi/chris-argyris-theories-of-action-double-loop-learning-and-organizational-learning/. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 July 2013.

Week 1 Symposium

Posted on by
Reply

I thought Adrian touched on some salient points about the division between know what and know how.  Reflecting on my high-school experience, the emphasis was heavily on acquiring a lot of know what and only sometimes was light shed on the process in which we think or learn – and these tended to be the more enjoyable and memorable experiences – at least for me.  I remember excelling in Biology, which was all about know what and rote learning various names, species, standard and static definitions, and so on.  Your success was directly attributable to how much stuff you could cram in in the lead up to an exam.  After studying Biomedical Science at University for a year or so, I grew tired of more of the same; while the knowledge became increasingly specialised, the process was very monodisciplinary and gave very little room to move for a would-be creative mind.

While I use the example of biology, I think this applies to much of the way in which high-school education functions – where knowledge is hierarchial and there is very little way to personalise the way in which you learn as an individual.  I think this is why a lot of students coming straight from high school can find the adjustment to University a difficult one – the sudden freedom, and the imprimatur (particularly in a course like Media) to cultivate your own method for learning (while adhering to certain ‘best practices’).  Certainly this was the case for me.

Perhaps this is the way it must be – learning and unlearning and relearning, acquiring a certain requisite amount of knowledge (through high school) and then taking a step back and learning to become more critical(discerning?) of the knowledge ingested and how it is digested.