Information Literacy and Digital Natives: Bridging the Gap
Elizabeth Symonds, Univ. of Worcester
Sarah Kennedy, Univ. of Gloucestershire
A faculty member wanted to know about the “journey” the student took between when he gave the assignment and when they handed it in.
Focused their research on first year students, first semester.
“How do new students engage with the learning process outside the classroom?” Where do they prefer to work
who do they interect with
what technologies do they use
what do they think will be expected of them when they come into higher ed
what skills do they think they need to work on?
IDEA: compare their data to US data
How they did it: harge mandatory module; questionnaire once they received the assignment; focus groups; another questionnaie after the assignment to look at actual practices; more focus groups; faculty interview (compare faculty expectations with students’)
Findings on WHERE: home and “learning center”; they indicated that they wanted fewer distractions. Wanted more quiet. What we might think they want in more general activities might not be so in their learning spaces.
Findings on WHO: suspicious of group work. Again, assumption that because they like being social, it does not mean that they like learning in groups.
Findings on SKILLS that students bring with them:
They are good at some things but not at all. They recognize that they don’t have good researching skills.
Expectations before they did their assignments:
Student concerns on Essay Writing, Time Management, Referencing, Faculty Standards. Difference among the two student groups (Sport students v. Psychology students).
What skills do you think this assignment has asked you to use or develop?
Was this a multiple choice or did we ask students to think about it and describe it on their own?
Students were quite wary of Wikipedia. Knew how to use it appropriately.
They want their own computers.
Real concerns over time management: leaving it to the last minute. They ALL said they would start earlier on next time.
Recommendations:
Students do rely heavily on different types of university resources: digital and physical, quiet and group.
Heavy concerns over summative assessment in group work. All group members’ contributions should be assessed and held accountable.
Information services should include a range of support activities: time management, referencing, etc.
Who do you go to for support? Drawing on the LIM idea. And finding out where we can be offering additional support. They don’t know who else is available. They only think faculty.
A lot of questions here. A lot of assumptions challenged, particularly about group work. How they think about group work v. their actual experience. Faculty dealing with group work more effectively. Peer assessment.
Showing posts with label users. Show all posts
Showing posts with label users. Show all posts
30 March 2010
LILAC2010: Keynote with Karen Fisher
Lay Information Mediary Behavior and Social Information Literacy
Dr. Karen E. Fisher
iSchool at Univ. of Washington
People helping other people find information.
National Digital Literacy Corp as part of the US National Broadband Plan: neighbors helping neighbors get on line. Young people will be trained in digital literacy.
QUESTION: Trained? Or will it assume that they are digitally literate? Hmm.
Opportunity for all: how the American public benefits
The point: we know that librarians are doing a great job but we keep telling each other, not those that need to be told (policy makers, decision makers) both nationally and locally.
Methodology for her research: nationwide phone survey, web survey, case studies
Over 50, 000 people about public access computing in libraries
Interesting factoid/sound bite: There are more libraries than McDonalds in the US.
Key Findings:
2/3 use libraries.
2/3 use library staff
2/3 are lay information mediaries (people helping people use info)
32% use public access computers, 50% are ages 14-18.
Agencies are sending their people to libraries for help. People are taking it upon themselves to get help. But libraries are overstretched.
ASIST 2005: The Death of the User. Users as an inherently weak concept?
The user is not always the user. You might be giving users information but they aren’t necessarily using it. You don’t know if they will use the information in the way you anticipated. Direct and indirect outcomes. Let's think about this in academic terms as well: aren't we always surprised by the way students approach problems, construct answers?
USER is an archaic way of looking at behavior (Brenda Dervin).
A new perspective: Social constructivist nature of information: something that is holistic and contextual. Consistent with the need to expand definitions of other: need, giving, use.
Do we need new terms? Expand them? Re-envision them? Re-define them.
Recognize the complexity of the user.
Why do we help people find information?
Lay Information Mediary Behavior: people who seek information on behalf of others without being asked and may or may not follow up. NOT in a professional role. Ordinary people.
Of all demographics, all ages though typically women. Intentional and unintentional. Engage in LIM behavior is a form of caring and maintaining relationships. An expression of caring.
LIM: more likely to RELY SOLELY on PL access, lower income & poverished, women, languages other than English. How info savvy a person is has nothing to do with how educated they are.
80% use library computers DAILY or near daily.
Muses: instead of seeking for themselves, they farm the seeking out to a LIM. Difficult to know who they are.
When people come to the desk, are they the user? Not necessarily—they could be seeking information for someone other than the person in front of you. Concerns about what is lost in translation.
LIMs are info lit: curious empathetic, identify themselves as “go-to” people, recognize info needs, know how to find information.
Stories of ordinary people doing extraordinary things in public access computers in libraries.
The State of Information Literacy: despite that it is increasingly important, our paradigm is insufficient. It presupposes that it is about individual users seeking and using info on their own behalf. The general public has greater needs than we know.
SOCIAL information literacy: reflect people’s info seeking on behalf of other people. It is based on people being attuned to info situations of others. They know how to provide information at the right time, in the right way, in the right format AS WELL AS providing the right information!
Social Info Lit is a NEW BUSINESS MODEL for libraries.
Research to be done is extensive, deep, and across our discipline.
Social Information Literacy Interventions
Keynote challenge: how can we develop social information literacy and change the world? Step Up!
PONDER: Information Seeking is not always a solo voyage.
Is the relationship between LIMs and Muses co-dependent or exclusive? Are both behaviors occurring in the same person? Does it depend on areas of expertise? Or particular types of information? On life experiences? Opportunity for future research.
For every two people, three people benefit. In public libraries, people that love the library might not be the one in the library “using” it?
The total number of people being served=thinking about it in terms of student use. Are they searching only for themselves or for their friends, sharing information, sharing resources. What is the implications of LIMs in academic use?
Dr. Karen E. Fisher
iSchool at Univ. of Washington
People helping other people find information.
National Digital Literacy Corp as part of the US National Broadband Plan: neighbors helping neighbors get on line. Young people will be trained in digital literacy.
QUESTION: Trained? Or will it assume that they are digitally literate? Hmm.
Opportunity for all: how the American public benefits
The point: we know that librarians are doing a great job but we keep telling each other, not those that need to be told (policy makers, decision makers) both nationally and locally.
Methodology for her research: nationwide phone survey, web survey, case studies
Over 50, 000 people about public access computing in libraries
Interesting factoid/sound bite: There are more libraries than McDonalds in the US.
Key Findings:
2/3 use libraries.
2/3 use library staff
2/3 are lay information mediaries (people helping people use info)
32% use public access computers, 50% are ages 14-18.
Agencies are sending their people to libraries for help. People are taking it upon themselves to get help. But libraries are overstretched.
ASIST 2005: The Death of the User. Users as an inherently weak concept?
The user is not always the user. You might be giving users information but they aren’t necessarily using it. You don’t know if they will use the information in the way you anticipated. Direct and indirect outcomes. Let's think about this in academic terms as well: aren't we always surprised by the way students approach problems, construct answers?
USER is an archaic way of looking at behavior (Brenda Dervin).
A new perspective: Social constructivist nature of information: something that is holistic and contextual. Consistent with the need to expand definitions of other: need, giving, use.
Do we need new terms? Expand them? Re-envision them? Re-define them.
Recognize the complexity of the user.
Why do we help people find information?
Lay Information Mediary Behavior: people who seek information on behalf of others without being asked and may or may not follow up. NOT in a professional role. Ordinary people.
Of all demographics, all ages though typically women. Intentional and unintentional. Engage in LIM behavior is a form of caring and maintaining relationships. An expression of caring.
LIM: more likely to RELY SOLELY on PL access, lower income & poverished, women, languages other than English. How info savvy a person is has nothing to do with how educated they are.
80% use library computers DAILY or near daily.
Muses: instead of seeking for themselves, they farm the seeking out to a LIM. Difficult to know who they are.
When people come to the desk, are they the user? Not necessarily—they could be seeking information for someone other than the person in front of you. Concerns about what is lost in translation.
LIMs are info lit: curious empathetic, identify themselves as “go-to” people, recognize info needs, know how to find information.
Stories of ordinary people doing extraordinary things in public access computers in libraries.
The State of Information Literacy: despite that it is increasingly important, our paradigm is insufficient. It presupposes that it is about individual users seeking and using info on their own behalf. The general public has greater needs than we know.
SOCIAL information literacy: reflect people’s info seeking on behalf of other people. It is based on people being attuned to info situations of others. They know how to provide information at the right time, in the right way, in the right format AS WELL AS providing the right information!
Social Info Lit is a NEW BUSINESS MODEL for libraries.
Research to be done is extensive, deep, and across our discipline.
Social Information Literacy Interventions
Keynote challenge: how can we develop social information literacy and change the world? Step Up!
PONDER: Information Seeking is not always a solo voyage.
Is the relationship between LIMs and Muses co-dependent or exclusive? Are both behaviors occurring in the same person? Does it depend on areas of expertise? Or particular types of information? On life experiences? Opportunity for future research.
For every two people, three people benefit. In public libraries, people that love the library might not be the one in the library “using” it?
The total number of people being served=thinking about it in terms of student use. Are they searching only for themselves or for their friends, sharing information, sharing resources. What is the implications of LIMs in academic use?
29 March 2010
LILAC2010: Changing User Behavior on the web
This was an excellent talk and a lot of thoughts started running through my head. If anyone else is reading this, you will find that my thoughts are running through as well so please don't think Caroline Williams said everything here!
Changing User Behavior on the web—what does this mean for the development of online information literacy tools?
Caroline Willaims, Exec. Director of Intute and Deputy Director of Mimas
A focus on the national perspective.
MIMAS: National Data Center (one of two—Manchester and Edinburgh). Provides infrastructure for large data sets (census) but also library as well as assistance through helpdesk, training, etc. Web of Knowledge.
The Alternate Title: Shall we give up and leave it to Google?
Not a throw away question. Are we fighting a loosing battle?
What is research telling us right now about user behavior?
CIBER 2008, “The Google Generation”.
Even though more people have more access to technology, little time is spend evaluating information. There is not an improvement in how we use, evaluate, or select information.
Two camps of thinking:
Make it easy for students to find what they need
Teaching them skills to be able to find what they need themselves
Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World, March 2009
IL should be treated as a high priority—critical evaluation of information.
A new trend in Higher Ed that IL is getting this level of support, although it is focused on digital literacy.
Isn’t this only a greater call of transliteracy???
Digital Britain: digital literacy impacts equality through employability.
Andrew Whitworth and Information Obesity.
This isn’t new information but the emphasis it is getting from government and outside of the academic realm is new.
Q: What are libraries doing to connect to that energy? Or is government turning to Google or to other corporate services as the venue for education?
Mimas Market Research:
1. Project Fusion: the indispensability of Google and Google Scholar
2. Intute Web 2.0
3. ViM Project
4. Mobile Internet Detective
It is not just about information literacy but the complete way we categorize and share information. Catalogers are just as important to the success of information distribution and information seeking success as the skills that users apply in a variety of information environments.
Other resources were used but the emphasis remains on ease of use in terms of searching for resources but also for specific information in the material itself (searching within electronic resources—what Amazon has over libraries).
“Centrifugal model of information gathering—scholarly work and the shaping of digital access”, Carole Palmer 2005.
The habits of researchers: Once they start doing it a certain way, it is hard to change.
Confidence and satisfaction are inextricably linked. Their awareness that they could do it better and that opportunities to improve exist but students won’t seek out that help. Why? What is it that they are afraid of? Confidence and satisfaction are inextricably linked.
Intute Web 2.0:
Perceptions of librarians on undergraduate behaviour
Perceptions of web 2.0 in education: they have a place but they should be adopted because the technology exists. Social use is not the same as academic use. Not in the habit of rating and commenting and were even suspicious of those that did. Students WANT to separate the social and working dimensions of their lives.
Value for Money in Automative Metadata Generation:
Google: Students might use their institutions’ resources but Google remains pervasive and popular.
When it comes to Google, words don’t do it justice.
Undergrads are ignorant of how to undertake effective searches. Students like that iGoogle or Amazon “get to know you”. Aligns to the point about digital natives that they don’t care about privacy in the same way that we might.
Mobile Internet Detective: translating an online IL tutorial to something that can be used on a phone.
Library users will start to demand that everything happen on a phone: a behavior changer.
“Why walk to the library if it’s on the Internet” (not a comment about the resources but rather, about the value of the electronic library).
What about the value of the PERSON. We need to be focusing our attention on the human dimension to information rather than trying to compete with Google in searching.
Concerns over access, speed. Students might not be using their phones during university for information seeking BUT what about the emphasis on the lifelong component? Once they get out into the “real world” and are working with smart phones…
Pack to the question: shall we give up and leave it to Google?
Two sides to the coin:
On one side, digital and information literacies
On the other: interface and sharing information, improving access.
The actions that are being taken libraries to improve is not enough. How can we get Google to participate more fully? What is it that libraries can offer Google?
Taking the step to include Widgets and Feeds so people can put information where they want.
Balancing Child Protection with Web 2.0 tools. Students will bypass school internet protection by using their phones.
Stop saying Google is bad and help students use it better. THAT is where libraries need to put more focus.
Changing User Behavior on the web—what does this mean for the development of online information literacy tools?
Caroline Willaims, Exec. Director of Intute and Deputy Director of Mimas
A focus on the national perspective.
MIMAS: National Data Center (one of two—Manchester and Edinburgh). Provides infrastructure for large data sets (census) but also library as well as assistance through helpdesk, training, etc. Web of Knowledge.
The Alternate Title: Shall we give up and leave it to Google?
Not a throw away question. Are we fighting a loosing battle?
What is research telling us right now about user behavior?
CIBER 2008, “The Google Generation”.
Even though more people have more access to technology, little time is spend evaluating information. There is not an improvement in how we use, evaluate, or select information.
Two camps of thinking:
Make it easy for students to find what they need
Teaching them skills to be able to find what they need themselves
Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World, March 2009
IL should be treated as a high priority—critical evaluation of information.
A new trend in Higher Ed that IL is getting this level of support, although it is focused on digital literacy.
Isn’t this only a greater call of transliteracy???
Digital Britain: digital literacy impacts equality through employability.
Andrew Whitworth and Information Obesity.
This isn’t new information but the emphasis it is getting from government and outside of the academic realm is new.
Q: What are libraries doing to connect to that energy? Or is government turning to Google or to other corporate services as the venue for education?
Mimas Market Research:
1. Project Fusion: the indispensability of Google and Google Scholar
2. Intute Web 2.0
3. ViM Project
4. Mobile Internet Detective
It is not just about information literacy but the complete way we categorize and share information. Catalogers are just as important to the success of information distribution and information seeking success as the skills that users apply in a variety of information environments.
Other resources were used but the emphasis remains on ease of use in terms of searching for resources but also for specific information in the material itself (searching within electronic resources—what Amazon has over libraries).
“Centrifugal model of information gathering—scholarly work and the shaping of digital access”, Carole Palmer 2005.
The habits of researchers: Once they start doing it a certain way, it is hard to change.
Confidence and satisfaction are inextricably linked. Their awareness that they could do it better and that opportunities to improve exist but students won’t seek out that help. Why? What is it that they are afraid of? Confidence and satisfaction are inextricably linked.
Intute Web 2.0:
Perceptions of librarians on undergraduate behaviour
Perceptions of web 2.0 in education: they have a place but they should be adopted because the technology exists. Social use is not the same as academic use. Not in the habit of rating and commenting and were even suspicious of those that did. Students WANT to separate the social and working dimensions of their lives.
Value for Money in Automative Metadata Generation:
Google: Students might use their institutions’ resources but Google remains pervasive and popular.
When it comes to Google, words don’t do it justice.
Undergrads are ignorant of how to undertake effective searches. Students like that iGoogle or Amazon “get to know you”. Aligns to the point about digital natives that they don’t care about privacy in the same way that we might.
Mobile Internet Detective: translating an online IL tutorial to something that can be used on a phone.
Library users will start to demand that everything happen on a phone: a behavior changer.
“Why walk to the library if it’s on the Internet” (not a comment about the resources but rather, about the value of the electronic library).
What about the value of the PERSON. We need to be focusing our attention on the human dimension to information rather than trying to compete with Google in searching.
Concerns over access, speed. Students might not be using their phones during university for information seeking BUT what about the emphasis on the lifelong component? Once they get out into the “real world” and are working with smart phones…
Pack to the question: shall we give up and leave it to Google?
Two sides to the coin:
On one side, digital and information literacies
On the other: interface and sharing information, improving access.
The actions that are being taken libraries to improve is not enough. How can we get Google to participate more fully? What is it that libraries can offer Google?
Taking the step to include Widgets and Feeds so people can put information where they want.
Balancing Child Protection with Web 2.0 tools. Students will bypass school internet protection by using their phones.
Stop saying Google is bad and help students use it better. THAT is where libraries need to put more focus.
31 March 2009
LILAC09: Leslie Burger: “From Information Literacy to Digital Citizenship: Libraries and the New Democracy”
Leslie Burger, former ALA President and Director of Princeton
“From Information Literacy to Digital Citizenship: Libraries and the New Democracy”
Thinking from the perspective of a public librarian. Everyone here is academic.
“Libraries for all seasons and all reasons”: no matter what type of institution you are in feeds into the work we do in all of our institutions. In public libraries, doing much of the pre-literacy work: teaching them how to read, how to listen. The partnership between the school librarian and the public librarian; learning information literacy skills. Find themselves back in public libraries “trying to negotiate their way through the complex world we live in”.
How do we need to prepare our users to be digital citizens?
What is a digital citizen and why do I need to be one?
Do I need a separate passport to cross the web border?
Information in the currency of democracy—Jefferson
Learning on the job how to integrate digital resources into her work. How the world has changed: everyday, public libraries are teaching people how to be information literate but in a very different way—one person at a time. The teach-able moment. Isn’t this something we should be aiming towards everyday?
Information is power = example of the experimentation of prisoners being outlawed based on the information her class extracted in the 60s.
As she reads the 1989 ALA Statement: isn’t it interesting that it is always about how we can compete rather than what we want for ourselves? Hmm.
Top Trends:
• The web as ubiquitous throughout the world, not just in the developed world. It’s not always through computers. People get information in new ways.
• The web has changed the way we do business. Information is widely distributed and openly available.
• Information as a commodity. Not new to librarians: people that know how to find good information have a competitive advantage.
• People are communicating in a variety of ways. Tools that have the potential to change how we use information .
• Information consolidation. Too much available to ever use. Google is not altruistic. It is capitalistic. Sell back to us our own free information, example of Google Books. It might be free now, but it won’t be eventually.
• Library as a trusted resource
• Librarians on steroids—we are better than we were before. Skilled information navigators.
• More content than ever before. Playing on a more
• Librarians as the on ramp to the digital highway for those that don’t have access or can’t afford access. In the economic downturn, more people are turning to libraries. While the Gates foundation supplied significant funds to get many libraries new computers, those computers are now 6-7 years old. The problem when help comes from NGOs—what do you do when the grant is over?
• Information fuels our democracy.
o Taking issue with Melissa Highton’s point that the
o Book recommendation “Digital citenzship—Mossburger” people that are internet savvy participate to a lesser degree?
Concerns about the demise of the newspaper. What is happening to investigative journalism, can we really trust the bloggers???
Libraries were not an essential part of teaching to the test during NCLB. This puts into question about how ubiquitious information literacy is in our K-12 educations. A GAP!
Two issues:
Helping people navigate from the “old way” to the “new way”
How can we augment what is missing in our school libraries, both in terms of IL instruction as well as support their research needs (eg. school libraries closing at 3 pm: do they turn off the need for information for those school students? Of course not. So they turn to public libraries.) Asking faculty or teachers to come to the library to do the assignment at the public library, since that is where students are.
Give me the answer: sometimes they just want the answer and we have to wait for a teachable moment. Dual screens.
Consider each interaction an opportunity to change someone’s life!
Public libraries need to be looking at the K-12 IL standards.
Highlighting a number of public library sites: Spokane, San Fran, Central Illinois.
New Jersey state library: Helping Residents Through Tough Economic Times. COOL.
ALA’s E-Government resources.
Online Information literacy: the role of YouTube for the most basic to more advanced tools. IDEA for Andy for the next video: let’s get MORE advanced, not easier.
Information Literacy for the People:
Monitoring trends: what is going on? What is shifting? What do our services need to look like?
Market!!! We need to get out of the idea that they know to come to us. We need to TELL THEM to come to us.
Make information seeking fun: engage them in the moment.
Tie your information literacy moments to solving real life problems. Let’s be where we are needed and providing instruction in things that people are interested in or challenged by. We learn from eachother.
Reach out to those that need you the most; go for the unexpected. Be where people are and might not expect you to be.
LEAD THE WAY & Never give up.
We are in a values driven profession with the opportunity to change people’s lives.
“From Information Literacy to Digital Citizenship: Libraries and the New Democracy”
Thinking from the perspective of a public librarian. Everyone here is academic.
“Libraries for all seasons and all reasons”: no matter what type of institution you are in feeds into the work we do in all of our institutions. In public libraries, doing much of the pre-literacy work: teaching them how to read, how to listen. The partnership between the school librarian and the public librarian; learning information literacy skills. Find themselves back in public libraries “trying to negotiate their way through the complex world we live in”.
How do we need to prepare our users to be digital citizens?
What is a digital citizen and why do I need to be one?
Do I need a separate passport to cross the web border?
Information in the currency of democracy—Jefferson
Learning on the job how to integrate digital resources into her work. How the world has changed: everyday, public libraries are teaching people how to be information literate but in a very different way—one person at a time. The teach-able moment. Isn’t this something we should be aiming towards everyday?
Information is power = example of the experimentation of prisoners being outlawed based on the information her class extracted in the 60s.
As she reads the 1989 ALA Statement: isn’t it interesting that it is always about how we can compete rather than what we want for ourselves? Hmm.
Top Trends:
• The web as ubiquitous throughout the world, not just in the developed world. It’s not always through computers. People get information in new ways.
• The web has changed the way we do business. Information is widely distributed and openly available.
• Information as a commodity. Not new to librarians: people that know how to find good information have a competitive advantage.
• People are communicating in a variety of ways. Tools that have the potential to change how we use information .
• Information consolidation. Too much available to ever use. Google is not altruistic. It is capitalistic. Sell back to us our own free information, example of Google Books. It might be free now, but it won’t be eventually.
• Library as a trusted resource
• Librarians on steroids—we are better than we were before. Skilled information navigators.
• More content than ever before. Playing on a more
• Librarians as the on ramp to the digital highway for those that don’t have access or can’t afford access. In the economic downturn, more people are turning to libraries. While the Gates foundation supplied significant funds to get many libraries new computers, those computers are now 6-7 years old. The problem when help comes from NGOs—what do you do when the grant is over?
• Information fuels our democracy.
o Taking issue with Melissa Highton’s point that the
o Book recommendation “Digital citenzship—Mossburger” people that are internet savvy participate to a lesser degree?
Concerns about the demise of the newspaper. What is happening to investigative journalism, can we really trust the bloggers???
Libraries were not an essential part of teaching to the test during NCLB. This puts into question about how ubiquitious information literacy is in our K-12 educations. A GAP!
Two issues:
Helping people navigate from the “old way” to the “new way”
How can we augment what is missing in our school libraries, both in terms of IL instruction as well as support their research needs (eg. school libraries closing at 3 pm: do they turn off the need for information for those school students? Of course not. So they turn to public libraries.) Asking faculty or teachers to come to the library to do the assignment at the public library, since that is where students are.
Give me the answer: sometimes they just want the answer and we have to wait for a teachable moment. Dual screens.
Consider each interaction an opportunity to change someone’s life!
Public libraries need to be looking at the K-12 IL standards.
Highlighting a number of public library sites: Spokane, San Fran, Central Illinois.
New Jersey state library: Helping Residents Through Tough Economic Times. COOL.
ALA’s E-Government resources.
Online Information literacy: the role of YouTube for the most basic to more advanced tools. IDEA for Andy for the next video: let’s get MORE advanced, not easier.
Information Literacy for the People:
Monitoring trends: what is going on? What is shifting? What do our services need to look like?
Market!!! We need to get out of the idea that they know to come to us. We need to TELL THEM to come to us.
Make information seeking fun: engage them in the moment.
Tie your information literacy moments to solving real life problems. Let’s be where we are needed and providing instruction in things that people are interested in or challenged by. We learn from eachother.
Reach out to those that need you the most; go for the unexpected. Be where people are and might not expect you to be.
LEAD THE WAY & Never give up.
We are in a values driven profession with the opportunity to change people’s lives.
25 January 2008
What does our use of technology say about us?
My course in Society and Technology is talking about technological determinism this week and the conversation, as always, is varied and fascinating. It also seemed particularly appropriate this morning, when I read this article in the New York Times about a "game show" that essentially applies technology in two ways to dehumanize and subjugate what the article calls "seemingly nice people". By using polygraphs and the mass medium of television, people are broken down to tell the "truth" about the deepest, darket parts of their inner most lives.
The key question my students are facing this week is whether technology or the people propels the directon of our society. Here it is in a real sense: Is it the technology that's a problem or the people on the show? Or the people who made the show? Obviously, people who volunteer for shows like this know what they are getting into. But do they really? Could you really know through description what this show would entail? As the article points out, one woman is trying to get money to get her mother into a house. She has a good motive for subjecting herself to this kind of questioning. And yet, the couple described is ruined and for what?
However, as I think more about the article, it is not the contestents but the producers of the show that really are utilizing technology in a way that might harm society. I cannot help but think about the line "With great power comes great responsibility". I think there is a power in technology, in this case the television, for which we take responsibility. The power remains in the hands of the user, here seen in the producers but also in the hands of those with the remote control. The ever enlightening Jeff Rutenbeck said the other day that technology amplifies. That's an interesting characterization and I think this example proves his point. What does our use of technology say about us?
Some heavy questions perhaps for a blog post but certainly ones that I am carrying around with me. I look forward to seeing what my students have to say about it.
The key question my students are facing this week is whether technology or the people propels the directon of our society. Here it is in a real sense: Is it the technology that's a problem or the people on the show? Or the people who made the show? Obviously, people who volunteer for shows like this know what they are getting into. But do they really? Could you really know through description what this show would entail? As the article points out, one woman is trying to get money to get her mother into a house. She has a good motive for subjecting herself to this kind of questioning. And yet, the couple described is ruined and for what?
However, as I think more about the article, it is not the contestents but the producers of the show that really are utilizing technology in a way that might harm society. I cannot help but think about the line "With great power comes great responsibility". I think there is a power in technology, in this case the television, for which we take responsibility. The power remains in the hands of the user, here seen in the producers but also in the hands of those with the remote control. The ever enlightening Jeff Rutenbeck said the other day that technology amplifies. That's an interesting characterization and I think this example proves his point. What does our use of technology say about us?
Some heavy questions perhaps for a blog post but certainly ones that I am carrying around with me. I look forward to seeing what my students have to say about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)