1. Compare and Contrast each documentary. What was similar
or different from the first one Digital Nation filmed in 2010 to Generation
Like filmed in 2014?
From Digital Nation filmed in 2010 to Generation Like 2014, one thing that is extremely evident is how the web
has not lost its lure and has become more powerful than ever. Douglas Rushkoff, takes a candid look at the
evolving and complicated relationship between teen, social media, pop culture,
and big brands in the video Generation
Like. Similar to the documentary Digital Nation, we see that children,
teenager, and young adults and adults alike rely on technology to connect to
one another.
 |
| Generation Like |
2. Your thoughts on multitasking. Do you agree? Can you multitask? Do you disagree with the video on the topic of multitasking? What do you think our students think about multitasking today?
Based
on the FRONTLINE video, DigitalNation—Distracted by Everything, I believe that multi-tasking has
become an action and word synonymous with our culture, our society, and our 21st
century world. We have grown very accustomed to our attention being diverted
and stretched in all different directions as a “21st century multitasker.”
However, as most of us pride ourselves
on having the ability and skills to multitask while comprehending and solving
complex problems with thoughtful attention to detail, and follow-through, I do
not believe we are asserting our minds with the same effectiveness as evident
in concentrated activity. I base my opinion upon careful consideration of the
interviews and testimonials of students interviewed at MIT. These students are
among the worlds smallest and most wired in the world. They constantly multitask with their tech
mood. Yes, I would say that we are able
to complete multiple tasks, shifting our mind in and out of various subjects, content,
people and places; however, it does seem to come at a cost. The work that students are producing is not
cohesive. This is substantiated with the
studies done at Stanford University with MRIs of the brain. Professor Clifford Nass explains that in
general our brains can’t do two things at once.
The research choses subject that are very high “chronic multitaskers”
(chosen because they are doing 5 or more things at once.) Nass conducted studies to test how quickly
students can switch between tasks without losing their focus. What they found is that despite the students
confidence in their skills and ability, the multitaskers yielded troubling
results. They are, in fact, terrible at
multitasking. The experiment showed
that students switching between tasks are not as successful, as they think and
proclaim. It turns out according to Nass, “They are terrible at every aspect of
multitasking. The get distracted
easily. Their memory is very
disorganized. Their analytic reasoning
is compromised. The concern is that we
are creating people that do not think well and clearly.”
Furthermore, MIT students
confirm that distractions diminish the returns in their work. This is exemplified when we examine student’s
writing. Their writing can be described as bursts of paragraphs, but no cohesive content tying them all together. One students at MIT, laughs this off as being completely the truth. Their intelligence is not even a consideration. However, the constant distractions and multitasking has its drawback as evident in their writing and the flow between paragraphs.
I thought that the Digital_Nation documentary gave an
insightful perspective regarding multitasking, as FRONTLINE producer Rachael
Dretzin and correspondent, Douglas Rushkoff, investigate the world of
technology and its implications of being connected at all times. They interviewed Massachusetts Institute of
Technology students, some of the “most technological savvy in the world,” and some
professors on the subject of multitasking.
It appears that students feel very competent in their ability to perform
well while weaving in and out of lectures. Most time they can be found dividing
their attention between their studies while juggling Facebook, goggles, texts,
emails, IMs, plans for the future, comments of the moment, the list goes on and
on, and on… However, according to
Associate professor at MIT, David Jones, he explains, “There are two sorts of
things you can you can test student upon.
You can test how well they’re paying attention in lecture. You can test how well they’re absorbing
information on readings you assign. I gave
midterm and the mean score was 75%." In his opinion, Prof. David Jones, does not
think that they doing either of these things well. He goes on to support his reasoning by
explaining that, “It’s not that the student are dumb. It’s not that they are not trying. They
are trying in a way that is not as effective because they are distracted by
everything else.” |
| Sherry Turkle, Director, MIT |
--Prof. Sherry Turkle, Dir., MIT Initiative on Technology and Self
3. Is there an addiction happening in society today with technology or is it just a new way of living? Should we be concerned?
ad·dict·ed
əˈdiktid/
adjective
physically and mentally dependent on a
particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects.
"she became addicted to alcohol
and diet pills"
synonyms: dependent on;
·
enthusiastically devoted to a particular thing or activity.
"he's addicted to computers"
synonyms: devoted to, obsesses with, fixated
on, dedicated to, fanatical about, passionate about, enamored of, a slave to…
This is indeed a very
complex question. I was initially going
to respond to this question by saying that I believe it is completely
subjective. Our society is made up of
individuals, so it seems extreme to make a blanket statement that would suggest
that collectively we are all “addicted.”
However, after looking up the definition and reflecting it on the
interviews seen in our research, I thought it was wise to recant my first
response; truth be told it just doesn’t seem as truthful as I would have liked
to believe. I would have to say that that
there is, without a doubt, “an addiction happening in society” that has become
a new way of living. It may be subtle
for some, and more extreme for others; however, make no mistake, technology has
become that which we are dependent on.
The outliers are the one’s who have not participated in this craze in
technology. They would surprisingly not
be considered the norm in our society though.
In retrospect, I
personally would consider myself to be a pretty grounded person. For the most part, I see technology simply as
a resource. I suppose I am old fashioned in the way that I
value face to face time, refuse to give up my paperback books, and through my
study of message construction have come to understand that there is so much to
be left to interpretation, or should I say “misinterpretation” when it comes to
texting. HOWEVER, and that’s a huge
“HOWEVER,” I can admit that I do not do well without my technology. Regardless of the consciousness in this shift
that has brought us into a world of dependency, I think that you may be able to
relate to my story? I can distinctly
remember last semester our home wireless Internet router broke down. My husband sent it out to be replaced and we
would get our new one in four days. “Wait!!!
Hold on. “You mean that we are
not going to have our Internet for FOUR DAYS!!!!! What!!
That is ridiculous!!!!” I protested.
Four days of not being able to
access the Internet through my home computer seemed like an eternity in my
world of having it happen in a New York second!
It was the longest four days of my life--papers, research, deadlines ALL
reliant upon something so darn trivial?
Honestly, the transition may have been subtle, but we do live in a
digital age and like it or not I’m in it.
How many of us could really deny that we would be, at best, not as a
society “enthusiastically devoted to”
our smartphones, iPod, and/or Facebook, so on and so forth? I mean unless you are living under a rock, I
think that we all can relate to that feeling of loyalty towards our tech of
choice. On a more extreme level let’s
think about those that are influenced beyond the point of normal
consumption and functioning in regards to technology. A quick glance at Facebook becomes an endless
web of links, videos, likes and dislikes. The World of Warcraft doesn’t end
until ten hours later and a sleepless night. Anxiety and panic sweeps over us as we realize we have
forgotten our smartphone and are not connected.
These are all behaviors that one could be characterize as an “addiction.” As we have documented and established in our
past blogs—technology stimulates us and is associated with pleasure. This pleasure seeking behavior isn’t
necessarily in itself a problem.
However, when it becomes excessive and leads to health issues such
anxiety, withdrawal, low self esteem (i.e. exemplified with teenagers linking
their self worth with “likes”), eye strain, and attention deficits, I think
that it is time to rethink our usage of technology and its negative
implications.
I can’t help but think of
Asia’s digital revolution as an extreme case of a society addicted to tech. South Korea’s digital culture embraced high-speed
Internet access to gaming and created a craze like no other. It has, in the
most extreme cases, been linked to death after kids played in gaming marathons
without food or water for over 50 hours.
Korea is notorious for its 24/7 gaming cafes that offer nonstop accessibility
to video games. While these gaming cafés
recovered South Korea from economic crisis they have also taken a toll on young
teenagers that have succumbed to its digital culture. It is not surprising that South Korea was one
of the first countries to confront the fallout of the digital revolution. It was heartbreaking to hear a mother talk
about her son and his addiction to playing video games. Her young son went from being at the top of
his class, to being at the bottom. She
sadly states, “His inability to communicate with his own mother makes me so
sad. This is an addiction. Only an
addict could act this way.” In an effort
to help young kids that are casualties of the digital revolution, they have
opened up a free program to help children that have an addiction to technology. However, it is not determined whether these
programs actually are a success.
I think that we should be
concerned. Children in South Korea are taught how to use computers responsibly as
early on as the second grade. Children are
taught etiquette, manners and ethics, then the technology. This seems like a positive approach to a
digital concern. By educating students early on we can empower them in a digital age.
4. Do video games serve a purpose in education or are they
a waste of time?
Schools should be wary of
embracing too much technology, cautions Todd Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer is a journalist and the author of The Flickering Mind. However, James Paul Gee, leading proponent of developing educational games for children argues that
it depends upon the learning that is built around that activity. It depends on the context in which these
games are used. If that person is making
connection and connecting it with new skills then it can be positive. It really depends on what you do with
it. James Paul Gee goes on to elaborate
on the kids that are doing positive things with technology. However, he does explain that the kids that
are benefiting from technology are those that do different virtual activities
along with say soccer, or theater. The
children do not become obsessed with it.
They want to try new things and connect their skills with something
new. Good mentoring does seem to be
key. Parents should be aware of the
games their children are playing and the quality of their gaming. In the middle class families the media that
was giving was supplemented with mentoring that was guiding the children to picking
something that was a little above their reading level. The results suggested that the middle class children learned new skills
in complaisance with the poor children who did not have guidance.
Research and studies have
shown that textbooks are the least effective ways to teach according to Gee. If you offer a child a game or a textbook the
children will take the game. We need
teachers to use games to teach with innovation and creativity. We should give them new experiences through
games. For instance, facts and physics
are about solving problems. Even with
people with As in physics does not say that that person can actually use their
knowledge to solve complex problems. However,
games do not just give you a manual but they marry words with experiences goals
problems and solutions.
5. How did what you watched in the two videos support your
feelings about technology or how did it change your views?
I found this documentary
profound and very relevant to the times that we are living in. These videos confirmed my feelings about
technology. First off, I completely
related to the introduction of the video Digital_Nation where Rachael Dretzin
shares her thoughts as a segue into the documentary. She shares her realization that everyone is
in the same house, but in different worlds.
“It snuck up on us.” This caught
my attention and made me want to explore the world of technology more. What are its’ implications? What does study and research reveal? These videos supported my initial feeling in
regards to technology. I believe it is a powerful resource. It has the power to build, transport, and
connect at incrediable speeds unlike anything our world has ever witnessed. On the flip side, it has the power to
distract, dumb down, and destroy.
I believe that technology
is not good or bad. It depends upon the
context in which it is used. I think
that as educator we have a responsibility to incorporate it into the
classroom in fun, creative, innovative ways. Also, I think that one of my peers made a great point in her blog when she explained that technology should be mindful and have direction. This is a very important component to technology that adds meaning to our lesson and concepts.
6. Are kids and adults today ruining their digital
footprints by sharing too much information online without realizing that it may
be detrimental to their future? Should they care? Are they focused on too
much of what others think?I think that kids should definitely be educated on what "digital footprints" means and how it will impact them and their future. I think there is something to be said for a little mystery. It is my opinion that a little "mystic" adds to one's appeal. However, that is just my opinion. While I would not expect younger generations to adopt my point of view, I would like them to consider all the implications of sharing too much online. I think that it is very empowering to hold all the facts and then make an informed educated decision. From the interviews on Generation Like, it is very evident to me that they care what others think of them. They spend hours creating an online identity and then searching for that approval from others. I don't think that this is unordinary for teenagers. However, my concern with this new digital age is the exploitation that goes on with this random information. I think that a child's/teenager's identity should be protected not exploited. I think that teenager and young adults today are incredibly savvy. I give them credit for their creativity, freedom of expression, and innovation. As such, it would behoove them to take control of what they put out there. I am a firm believer that sometimes less is more.
7. What do you feel are the dangers of technology use?
Are there any?
I think that there are more
profound affects or dangers on younger children with developing brains. According to the
latest Kaiser Family Foundation data, 8-to 18 year olds are spending more than
50 hours a week with digital media. That’s
more than a full work week. Dr. Gary Small is the director of UCLA’s Memory and
Aging Research Center. He claims that, “young
people who’s brains are not fully developed may have difficulty in
memorization. A young brain goes through a
process called 'pruning.' Within this early
developmental stage (children through adolescents) 60% of the synaptic
connection between the brain cells are being pruned away. So what a young person chooses to expose
their brain to will have profound effects for the rest of their life."
Overall Final Reflection:
Please add anything else you feel would explain your views about
the videos and how they relate to educational technology or your personal
lives.
What was your favorite part of either video? Why?
Most interesting?
I thought that it was very interesting to see the "man behind the curtain" in the video Generation Like. It was fascinating to see the actual process in the huge corporate commercial push. The Audience creates demographic data, and knows how to turn "likes" into currency.
I thought it was ingenious the strategy used by The Audience. This publishing network really knows how to build and leverage a social network. First, they help their client build a fan base. This was shown through their client Liam. Liam has a genuine talent, but he needs to merge his fan bases together in order to become a success. He does this throughout he help of The Audience. He features other "talents" in his videos to attract a larger fan base. Moreover, I was even more intrigued with the information depicted with Ian Somerhalder and The Audience. Oliver's company, The Audience, follows Ian Somerhalder's "like." Likes are then dissected, analyzed, and monetized. Those valued interactions means prized endorsements. The concept is pretty straightforward and transparent. Basically, you are your own media company. Brilliant marketing concept!!!
I thought it was ingenious the strategy used by The Audience. This publishing network really knows how to build and leverage a social network. First, they help their client build a fan base. This was shown through their client Liam. Liam has a genuine talent, but he needs to merge his fan bases together in order to become a success. He does this throughout he help of The Audience. He features other "talents" in his videos to attract a larger fan base. Moreover, I was even more intrigued with the information depicted with Ian Somerhalder and The Audience. Oliver's company, The Audience, follows Ian Somerhalder's "like." Likes are then dissected, analyzed, and monetized. Those valued interactions means prized endorsements. The concept is pretty straightforward and transparent. Basically, you are your own media company. Brilliant marketing concept!!!
