Task 3
An online group that i looked into was the Hollyoaks forum page:
http://www.hollyoaksforum.com
This site gives the idea of an online community of whom all share the same common interest that it of course the soap Hollyoaks. There are a lot of different groups to this forum and many different discussion baords.
It appears as though the people in these groups know each other through this group as they comment to each other quite informally and in a friendly manner.
In my opinion, this is community in practice, it is simply online rather than being face to face, Wenger's theory concentrated heavily on the face to face concept of communities in practice. I think there is a big difference between having an online community to being part of one that occurs in a face to face enviroment. You have to use your imagination a lot more considering you do not get to see who you are talking to. Also, you cannot see facial expressions or any other forms of emotion, people are simply just using words to put across their views.
However, I do believe that these online forums are still representing an online community and it would be invalid to assume that because they are online and people do not fully know each other, that it is not classed as a community in practice.
Everyone on the Hollyoaks site hold a common interest, and one that they all have knowledge and views about. There are different forums on the site, that lead off to talk about things other than Hollyoaks.
For example, in one discussion board where the subject is, 'general chat'- there are a few topics in that forum, one that I picked up on had nothing to do with Hollyoaks, but was in fact about the recent Earthquake. This justs shows how these people are although literally anonymous, still feel comfortable discussing everyday topics with each other. Therefore I believe it is arguably an online community of Practice.
What do others think? Is a site such as this classed as an online community?
Friday, 29 February 2008
Week 6-Wenger and Jean Lave (task 2)
Task 2
What Wenger means by 'organizational units' is that being part of an organization whereby there is a person who holds a higher status with everyone else. This is identified within the workplace, at school and in the home.
When it comes to comparing this to a community of practice I belive there are various differences. The main one being that there is not really someone who holds dominance. In realtion to something such as going to a dance school, it is evident that there is in fact someone who holds more power than others. That is the teacher, however, depeding on your age, that view changes.
I went to my dance school from the age of 6 through to 16, and I can say from experience that my views and relationship with my teacher changed. From a younger age, it was obvious that because she was older, she held the high status. However, when i got to the age of around 15, my teacher became more of a friend to me and someone i respected more than just as my teacher.
I think that these factors can affect how you see as people who hold power and status. Within an organizational unit, there is evidently someone who holds the power and is there to specifically keep people in their place and doing their job. In a community in practice however, it is difficult to put someone above someone else.
As Wenger said in the reading, there is evidence that there are people who will be better than you at something, however, he does not mention that these people hold more domianace and power. In a community of practice, you are able to have the freedom to do what you wish to a certain extent. In an organizational unit, i believe there are more serious rules and regulations you have no choice but to follow.
What does everyone else think??
What Wenger means by 'organizational units' is that being part of an organization whereby there is a person who holds a higher status with everyone else. This is identified within the workplace, at school and in the home.
When it comes to comparing this to a community of practice I belive there are various differences. The main one being that there is not really someone who holds dominance. In realtion to something such as going to a dance school, it is evident that there is in fact someone who holds more power than others. That is the teacher, however, depeding on your age, that view changes.
I went to my dance school from the age of 6 through to 16, and I can say from experience that my views and relationship with my teacher changed. From a younger age, it was obvious that because she was older, she held the high status. However, when i got to the age of around 15, my teacher became more of a friend to me and someone i respected more than just as my teacher.
I think that these factors can affect how you see as people who hold power and status. Within an organizational unit, there is evidently someone who holds the power and is there to specifically keep people in their place and doing their job. In a community in practice however, it is difficult to put someone above someone else.
As Wenger said in the reading, there is evidence that there are people who will be better than you at something, however, he does not mention that these people hold more domianace and power. In a community of practice, you are able to have the freedom to do what you wish to a certain extent. In an organizational unit, i believe there are more serious rules and regulations you have no choice but to follow.
What does everyone else think??
Week 6-Wenger and Jean Lave (task 1)
TASK 1
A community of practice that i was once a part of was a dancing/drama school. It was something that I went to every week, twice a week and something that I didnt really take too seriously.
I think this is a good example of a community of practice, as it is something that was a part of my everyday life and something that was of interest to me. I was surrounded by people with similar interests, which is what Wenger is saying when it says that you are around people who are fimiliar with this experience.
It was also said in Wenger's reading that there will be people who know more or less than you. People who all have different knowledge about certain things. Which is completley true when discussing a dancing school. There will always be people better or worse than you and its something you socially expect when attending a practice.
You are all expecting to be socially bounded, another of Wenger's views. Without knowing it, you all have a relationship with each other, even beyond having the same passion for dance.
You are all in that room for the same reason and there to do something together.
Wenger also discusses team work, when he discusses the idea of communities being found within businesses. Obviously, being a part of a dance school is a little different from being involved in a community of business. However when it comes to putting on shows or taking part in dance exams, you are expected to work as a team to fulfill the best potential possible.
Wenger also examines the idea of membership being based on participation, rather than official status. Being a part of a dance school was being a part of a community and participating was the main expectancy.
A community of practice that i was once a part of was a dancing/drama school. It was something that I went to every week, twice a week and something that I didnt really take too seriously.
I think this is a good example of a community of practice, as it is something that was a part of my everyday life and something that was of interest to me. I was surrounded by people with similar interests, which is what Wenger is saying when it says that you are around people who are fimiliar with this experience.
It was also said in Wenger's reading that there will be people who know more or less than you. People who all have different knowledge about certain things. Which is completley true when discussing a dancing school. There will always be people better or worse than you and its something you socially expect when attending a practice.
You are all expecting to be socially bounded, another of Wenger's views. Without knowing it, you all have a relationship with each other, even beyond having the same passion for dance.
You are all in that room for the same reason and there to do something together.
Wenger also discusses team work, when he discusses the idea of communities being found within businesses. Obviously, being a part of a dance school is a little different from being involved in a community of business. However when it comes to putting on shows or taking part in dance exams, you are expected to work as a team to fulfill the best potential possible.
Wenger also examines the idea of membership being based on participation, rather than official status. Being a part of a dance school was being a part of a community and participating was the main expectancy.
Wednesday, 27 February 2008
Website analysis- part 3
Appeal
Its difficult to say who the disney channels site appeals to the most, there is such a variety of things to do on it, that it appeals to quite a braod range of children. There are games such as the 'finding Nemo game' and 'the disney princess game'. These obviously appeal to children who are already holding a strong interest in disney characters, movies and programmes. Prior knowledge is essential here, many children would choose to play on games that appeal to them the most. There is a good range of games that suit both males and females. This shows that the creators have really thought about their audience.
For me as kid, I would stay up late (8pm!) playing on the Disney site and i can safely say from experience that I would rather play on the disney princess game than the boys car games.
That is what is so good about this website, it has an appeal that ranges a great variety of people of different ages.
Culture
I think that within todays society, it is important to make kids find being interactive online fun. Within the postmodern world, young children are growing up a lot faster than what they used to, with them experimenting with make up and worrying about their appearance a lot more. The site and others similar to the Disney one are all trying to keep kids young and remember that they are all young once in their lives, so make the most of it! I think the site reminds kids that they are allowed to be young and do things that young children do.
The channel itself have started bringing programmes such as 'That's So Raven' and 'Hannah Montana' onto it. These are different from the cartoons that you expect to see on the channel, such as 'The Mickey Mouse club' and 'Recess'. The idea of innocence has almost been lost after the new programmes have come in. With the idea that girls want to look and be like characters, means that they are idolising characters older, and therefore, wanting to grow up faster.
Does anyone else agree? That the characters are making children want to grow up faster. 'Thats so Raven' is portrayed as a young teenager and is always seen doing her make up and kissing boys. Am i just being an older person and critically analysing the postmodern world? or should young girls especially, be acting their age a little more and enojoy being young?
What you all think??
Its difficult to say who the disney channels site appeals to the most, there is such a variety of things to do on it, that it appeals to quite a braod range of children. There are games such as the 'finding Nemo game' and 'the disney princess game'. These obviously appeal to children who are already holding a strong interest in disney characters, movies and programmes. Prior knowledge is essential here, many children would choose to play on games that appeal to them the most. There is a good range of games that suit both males and females. This shows that the creators have really thought about their audience.
For me as kid, I would stay up late (8pm!) playing on the Disney site and i can safely say from experience that I would rather play on the disney princess game than the boys car games.
That is what is so good about this website, it has an appeal that ranges a great variety of people of different ages.
Culture
I think that within todays society, it is important to make kids find being interactive online fun. Within the postmodern world, young children are growing up a lot faster than what they used to, with them experimenting with make up and worrying about their appearance a lot more. The site and others similar to the Disney one are all trying to keep kids young and remember that they are all young once in their lives, so make the most of it! I think the site reminds kids that they are allowed to be young and do things that young children do.
The channel itself have started bringing programmes such as 'That's So Raven' and 'Hannah Montana' onto it. These are different from the cartoons that you expect to see on the channel, such as 'The Mickey Mouse club' and 'Recess'. The idea of innocence has almost been lost after the new programmes have come in. With the idea that girls want to look and be like characters, means that they are idolising characters older, and therefore, wanting to grow up faster.
Does anyone else agree? That the characters are making children want to grow up faster. 'Thats so Raven' is portrayed as a young teenager and is always seen doing her make up and kissing boys. Am i just being an older person and critically analysing the postmodern world? or should young girls especially, be acting their age a little more and enojoy being young?
What you all think??
website analysis- part 2
Critique
I think on the whole that this website is really good. But the only 2 things i do not like, is that there may be too much for younger children to take in. There is a lot of stuff on the site and a younger child may find it all a little confusing. However, the whole of the Disney Channel has thisd type of caotic-ness about it. It is very upbeat and exciting and I think that the website reflects that.
The only other criticism that I think are worth mentionning is that the font in some places is quite small. This may effect the way a child is able to navigate around the site. If the font was a little bigger, I think children would be able to read it a little clearer.
What does everyone else think? is the lettering a little too small? Or do you think that it doesnt matter so much about the lettering, because the pictures explain it all?
comments please guys!!
I think on the whole that this website is really good. But the only 2 things i do not like, is that there may be too much for younger children to take in. There is a lot of stuff on the site and a younger child may find it all a little confusing. However, the whole of the Disney Channel has thisd type of caotic-ness about it. It is very upbeat and exciting and I think that the website reflects that.
The only other criticism that I think are worth mentionning is that the font in some places is quite small. This may effect the way a child is able to navigate around the site. If the font was a little bigger, I think children would be able to read it a little clearer.
What does everyone else think? is the lettering a little too small? Or do you think that it doesnt matter so much about the lettering, because the pictures explain it all?
comments please guys!!
website analysis- week6
www.disneychannel.co.uk
The webiste that I believe is one that deserves to be analysed isThe Disney channels homepage. It's something that has changed over the years, but one i remember playing on when I was younger.
The webiste and its audience
The webiste is most definatley aimed at an audience between the ages of 7-14. There are programmes on the channel that are not just cartoons, but ones that contain real children, which the younger teens would be interested in. The site has many positive things about it, which make it a fun and exaciting thing for kinds to look at, The bright colours are automatically jumping out at you and the first thing you see is the amount of blue. This is because the colour of the disney channel is blue. It could be argued, however that this could be something that is associated with boys. However, as a younger child, it would be argueable if this would really make a difference. The disney channels main colour has always been blue, so children can see straight away that they are on the Disney site.
The site itself
There is a lot going on in the site, from moving images, to pictures and different boxes containing different things for kids to do and watch. This has both positive and negative outcomes. The positives being that there is a lot for kids to do and kids enjoy a fun-filled site, there is a lot more choice. However, because of the caotic filled page, a child might find the site a little too 'in your face' and demanding and that may then lead to boredom. I believe however, that the more there is on the page, the more interested they would be.
What does everyone else think? Are children scared by a page full of stuff? or do they prefer it? Maybe it depends on what the page is full of??
Associations with children
There is a navigation toolbar at the top of the website, with words that light up when you click on them! (wow!) all this is something you would associate with disney and children. I think it is important to include little quirks such as glitter and flashing lights, it makes it more magical for the children. The associations with Disney, means that children would have certain expectancies, they would expect the site to be filled with images and flashy things!
Of course, there is the Disney logo in the top right hand corner, its almost like a symbol for chilren to identify with. They see that mouse symbol and automatically know they are in the right place. This little symbol means that children can understand that this is the Disney channel, without it even saying 'The disney channel'. Children, I would imagine are better at identifying logos, than they are reading words! Im sure we all were when we were younger? If you all saw the disney logo im assuming you would all know what it stood for and meant? please say yes- otherwise, you need to watch a disney film!!!
The webiste that I believe is one that deserves to be analysed isThe Disney channels homepage. It's something that has changed over the years, but one i remember playing on when I was younger.
The webiste and its audience
The webiste is most definatley aimed at an audience between the ages of 7-14. There are programmes on the channel that are not just cartoons, but ones that contain real children, which the younger teens would be interested in. The site has many positive things about it, which make it a fun and exaciting thing for kinds to look at, The bright colours are automatically jumping out at you and the first thing you see is the amount of blue. This is because the colour of the disney channel is blue. It could be argued, however that this could be something that is associated with boys. However, as a younger child, it would be argueable if this would really make a difference. The disney channels main colour has always been blue, so children can see straight away that they are on the Disney site.
The site itself
There is a lot going on in the site, from moving images, to pictures and different boxes containing different things for kids to do and watch. This has both positive and negative outcomes. The positives being that there is a lot for kids to do and kids enjoy a fun-filled site, there is a lot more choice. However, because of the caotic filled page, a child might find the site a little too 'in your face' and demanding and that may then lead to boredom. I believe however, that the more there is on the page, the more interested they would be.
What does everyone else think? Are children scared by a page full of stuff? or do they prefer it? Maybe it depends on what the page is full of??
Associations with children
There is a navigation toolbar at the top of the website, with words that light up when you click on them! (wow!) all this is something you would associate with disney and children. I think it is important to include little quirks such as glitter and flashing lights, it makes it more magical for the children. The associations with Disney, means that children would have certain expectancies, they would expect the site to be filled with images and flashy things!
Of course, there is the Disney logo in the top right hand corner, its almost like a symbol for chilren to identify with. They see that mouse symbol and automatically know they are in the right place. This little symbol means that children can understand that this is the Disney channel, without it even saying 'The disney channel'. Children, I would imagine are better at identifying logos, than they are reading words! Im sure we all were when we were younger? If you all saw the disney logo im assuming you would all know what it stood for and meant? please say yes- otherwise, you need to watch a disney film!!!
Monday, 18 February 2008
week4- task 2
Music Sharing Online
Within the last few years, music sharing online has become so massive that it has changed the way music is consumed and distributed.
You can now download a music file in seconds, without even going down to HMV and buying it over the counter.
Does anyone else think that we are all so bone idle now that we cant even do that? or is it just society progressing with new media enhancements? Its difficult, becuase on one hand, we wont have CD's anymore, so therefore that would affect the sales of CD players etc. On the other hand, as technology is progressing, we should be up to date and follow it as it changes.
Artists such as Kate Nash and bands such as The artic monkeys, have made it big through social networking sites such as MySpace. This just shows the rapid change of society and technology. You are able to share music sites with friends so easily now days that artists can become famous almost overnight.
This contrasts so easily with artists back in the day, where they would have to promote and advertise themselves.
Within the last few years, music sharing online has become so massive that it has changed the way music is consumed and distributed.
You can now download a music file in seconds, without even going down to HMV and buying it over the counter.
Does anyone else think that we are all so bone idle now that we cant even do that? or is it just society progressing with new media enhancements? Its difficult, becuase on one hand, we wont have CD's anymore, so therefore that would affect the sales of CD players etc. On the other hand, as technology is progressing, we should be up to date and follow it as it changes.
Artists such as Kate Nash and bands such as The artic monkeys, have made it big through social networking sites such as MySpace. This just shows the rapid change of society and technology. You are able to share music sites with friends so easily now days that artists can become famous almost overnight.
This contrasts so easily with artists back in the day, where they would have to promote and advertise themselves.
week 4- task one
User generated content means the expansion of social networking sites and its technological enhancements.
In my opinion, facebook is the only way that people are able to communicate free of charge, with people they do not see everyday. I know that since ive left school, i have only stayed in contact with my friends because of facebook. Without social networking sites, i think it would be very difficult for me to stay in contact with friends and i would get in trouble for that!!
Its also a good way to look at other peoples pictures etc. Its a routine now too, i look at my facebook a lot! and without it, i would be a little lost if im honest.
What does everyone else think? Is anyone else obsessed? Do you think that as a society, we are all obsessed with new media technologies. There are always new additions online now, especially on facebook. I always get requests to upload the newest file to add to my profile!! its really annoying actually!!
In my opinion, facebook is the only way that people are able to communicate free of charge, with people they do not see everyday. I know that since ive left school, i have only stayed in contact with my friends because of facebook. Without social networking sites, i think it would be very difficult for me to stay in contact with friends and i would get in trouble for that!!
Its also a good way to look at other peoples pictures etc. Its a routine now too, i look at my facebook a lot! and without it, i would be a little lost if im honest.
What does everyone else think? Is anyone else obsessed? Do you think that as a society, we are all obsessed with new media technologies. There are always new additions online now, especially on facebook. I always get requests to upload the newest file to add to my profile!! its really annoying actually!!
Monday, 11 February 2008
Task2- week3. 'Public Message Boards'
'The Sun' newspaper discussion board.
Topic- Entertainment- 'Amy Winehouse'.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/discussions/posts/list/AMY_WHINEHOUSE-23786.page
In this forum, people were all discussing Amy Winehouse and her problems at the moment.
The first thing i noticed was that everyone was using smiley faces. Is this because they were actually smiling while writing it- or because they wanted to put across the idea that they felt this was a funny topic? Im not so sure. I no that people write LOL (laugh out loud) a lot in online conversations. But i very rarely am laughing out loud!
The names people were using were ones like 'Lucy78', 'Casmatch' and 'Corless'. The only one we know anything about is Luct78. Its unlikely that she is 78 years old & know anything about Amy Winehouse, but maybe its her birth year? You can guess some things about her. But then again, how do you know that she is actually called Lucy? Maybe its a man called Bob from Newcastle pretending. You just don't know!!!
From that, i believe that in discussion/message boards, you do not have an identity and you are able to write exactly what you want without feeling any real problem with doing so.
The language used in these were similar to that of a conversation really, with the occasional 'u' instead of 'you'. But then thats what you expect when having a conversation about Amy Winehouse, its something quite modern and informal, so using informal language is expected.
I think online discussion boards are similar to using IM's like MSN, what does everyone else think?
Topic- Entertainment- 'Amy Winehouse'.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/discussions/posts/list/AMY_WHINEHOUSE-23786.page
In this forum, people were all discussing Amy Winehouse and her problems at the moment.
The first thing i noticed was that everyone was using smiley faces. Is this because they were actually smiling while writing it- or because they wanted to put across the idea that they felt this was a funny topic? Im not so sure. I no that people write LOL (laugh out loud) a lot in online conversations. But i very rarely am laughing out loud!
The names people were using were ones like 'Lucy78', 'Casmatch' and 'Corless'. The only one we know anything about is Luct78. Its unlikely that she is 78 years old & know anything about Amy Winehouse, but maybe its her birth year? You can guess some things about her. But then again, how do you know that she is actually called Lucy? Maybe its a man called Bob from Newcastle pretending. You just don't know!!!
From that, i believe that in discussion/message boards, you do not have an identity and you are able to write exactly what you want without feeling any real problem with doing so.
The language used in these were similar to that of a conversation really, with the occasional 'u' instead of 'you'. But then thats what you expect when having a conversation about Amy Winehouse, its something quite modern and informal, so using informal language is expected.
I think online discussion boards are similar to using IM's like MSN, what does everyone else think?
Task1- week3. 'Identity within social networking sites'
Having an identity online is something which is so different to having one in person. People are able to use their imaginations to guess what sort of person you are. Im not sure whether this is right.
There has been a lot in the media recently about Facebook and privacy etc. I found an interesting site online that underlined the privacy issues within Facebook and its really good, so check it out. http://www.danah.org/papers/FacebookAndPrivacy.html (hope it works)
In relation to not putting your full name on your account, not only on facebook, but other sites too. Im not too sure about it, I think there is not really any real need to put both names, because me saying ellie, rather than ellie keene, doesnt really make much difference. The only thing it would do, would be to confuse your friends online as to which ellie you were. Does anyone think there are major problems with doing this?
I think there are a few risks with not saying who you really are online. You have this instant trust with people online and without knowing it, you are actually trusting this person is who they say they are......then again, why shouldnt we trust them?
Personally nothing has ever happened to me on social networking sites such as Facebook, that puts me in any danger. The only thing i have done recentlyis taken off my birthday and mobile number because apparently people can hack into your bank accounts or something like that.
Going back to the idea of trust. It is funny that we trust people so easily online, if someone were to be lying about their age or name face to face, it would be easier to see if they were lying. Online, we just have option to believe them!
With regards to discussing online groups. I think that it is really easy to put up this barrier and pretend you are something you are not. Like in a discussion board, it is easy online to pretend you know what others are talking about and you can easily change your identity to fit into specific groups.
What does everyone else think? Are we silly to believe everything online? Or as a society, do we simply just believe it because we have no choice but to?
There has been a lot in the media recently about Facebook and privacy etc. I found an interesting site online that underlined the privacy issues within Facebook and its really good, so check it out. http://www.danah.org/papers/FacebookAndPrivacy.html (hope it works)
In relation to not putting your full name on your account, not only on facebook, but other sites too. Im not too sure about it, I think there is not really any real need to put both names, because me saying ellie, rather than ellie keene, doesnt really make much difference. The only thing it would do, would be to confuse your friends online as to which ellie you were. Does anyone think there are major problems with doing this?
I think there are a few risks with not saying who you really are online. You have this instant trust with people online and without knowing it, you are actually trusting this person is who they say they are......then again, why shouldnt we trust them?
Personally nothing has ever happened to me on social networking sites such as Facebook, that puts me in any danger. The only thing i have done recentlyis taken off my birthday and mobile number because apparently people can hack into your bank accounts or something like that.
Going back to the idea of trust. It is funny that we trust people so easily online, if someone were to be lying about their age or name face to face, it would be easier to see if they were lying. Online, we just have option to believe them!
With regards to discussing online groups. I think that it is really easy to put up this barrier and pretend you are something you are not. Like in a discussion board, it is easy online to pretend you know what others are talking about and you can easily change your identity to fit into specific groups.
What does everyone else think? Are we silly to believe everything online? Or as a society, do we simply just believe it because we have no choice but to?
Monday, 4 February 2008
Task 2- week2. 'Blogging'
Blogging is a good form of communication, it allows us as users to be able to clearly see others work and allows us time to look through it in our own time and to comment on our views in relation to various topics. I think it allows us a lot more thinking time, which make our comments better.
Similar to any other genres?
I would argue that using blogs to communicate is very similar to other forms of communication such as using msn or other instant messaging sites. This is because people are able to communicate with others by using language that we are all comfortable with using. We are able to feel as though we are having an informal conversation with others about issues that we are interested in.
The only downside and difference to blogging, is that it doesnt always have an instant reply like msn does. Meaning you would have to check your blog regularly to be able to see what else is going on. It means that you need to get into a routine of checking your blog just like how often you check your facebook!
What do others think about blogging? do you think that it is easier once you get in the routine of checking it?
Language
If you think about it, in a seminar, you do not speak in a formal manner. So it would be silly to suddenly start typing formal words when doing your blog. I think using an informal everyday language makes blooging feel less educational and more like having a normal conversation with other people.
If we were forced into using academic language, I think it would make us all find blogging difficult. We would be trying too hard to please others, rather than actually thinking about what we were writing. What does everyone else think? Do you think using a more relaxed, informal language makes it easier for us to communicate on here, or do you think we may become bone idle if we feel as though its an informal thing?
Similar to any other genres?
I would argue that using blogs to communicate is very similar to other forms of communication such as using msn or other instant messaging sites. This is because people are able to communicate with others by using language that we are all comfortable with using. We are able to feel as though we are having an informal conversation with others about issues that we are interested in.
The only downside and difference to blogging, is that it doesnt always have an instant reply like msn does. Meaning you would have to check your blog regularly to be able to see what else is going on. It means that you need to get into a routine of checking your blog just like how often you check your facebook!
What do others think about blogging? do you think that it is easier once you get in the routine of checking it?
Language
If you think about it, in a seminar, you do not speak in a formal manner. So it would be silly to suddenly start typing formal words when doing your blog. I think using an informal everyday language makes blooging feel less educational and more like having a normal conversation with other people.
If we were forced into using academic language, I think it would make us all find blogging difficult. We would be trying too hard to please others, rather than actually thinking about what we were writing. What does everyone else think? Do you think using a more relaxed, informal language makes it easier for us to communicate on here, or do you think we may become bone idle if we feel as though its an informal thing?
Friday, 1 February 2008
task1-week2, 'Time, Authority and Identity'
Obviously typing out certain things takes up a lot more time than saying them. Hpwever, when you type things you are concentrating on this and this only. When you are in a seminar, you can be easily distracted by others around you and that could affect the point you wish to put across.
Although it is time consuming, when you get into the routine of doing your blog, it becomes easier. Having an online blogging system instead of a seminar, allows you to think a lot more about what you are writing and allows you to put everything you need down without anyone saying anything or interupting you.
Authority & Identity
Because it is your blog you are the person in charge of what you say. Others are invited to contribute, however, you are the one who is free to say exactly what you wish.
However, becuase you are aware that a tutor is looking over what you are writing, its inevitable that what you are trying to say needs to be easily decoded by him/her. You are trying to write down what you know they would like to hear. This is similar to a seminar where you are trying to answer in the best way possible.
What do others think? Is it something you are in full control of, or do you think you are influenced by what you think is expected of you?
Although it is time consuming, when you get into the routine of doing your blog, it becomes easier. Having an online blogging system instead of a seminar, allows you to think a lot more about what you are writing and allows you to put everything you need down without anyone saying anything or interupting you.
Authority & Identity
Because it is your blog you are the person in charge of what you say. Others are invited to contribute, however, you are the one who is free to say exactly what you wish.
However, becuase you are aware that a tutor is looking over what you are writing, its inevitable that what you are trying to say needs to be easily decoded by him/her. You are trying to write down what you know they would like to hear. This is similar to a seminar where you are trying to answer in the best way possible.
What do others think? Is it something you are in full control of, or do you think you are influenced by what you think is expected of you?
Task one- week2, 'Expression & 'interaction'
It is not as easy to express yourself when writing down issues i do not belive. I think that being able to communicate in person face-to-face is a better way to communicate ideas as you are able to see facial expressions of others. For example, when in a seminar, you are able to see when people are agreeing or disagreeing or do not understand, therefore things such as facial expressions and being able to see each other is an important factor which is missing when doing an online seminar.
Taking turns is also a way in which we are bought up to be able to understand each other. The whole point of a conversation is to take it in turns within a conversation. Allowing other people to have their say is an important factor in a conversation. Without this you would just have one person talking and the other one listening.
Asking questions is a good way to make it obvious that taking turns is the normal thing to do within a conversation. This then allows others to answer and to bring up their issues.
If you have not been socialised into doing this basic language expectancy then you would find doing this forum difficult as you would not ask questions to each other, allowing them their time for their say.
Does anyone else agree? i think that it is a good practice for us to do things such as tasks online, but sometimes find it difficult to put across my points.
Taking turns is also a way in which we are bought up to be able to understand each other. The whole point of a conversation is to take it in turns within a conversation. Allowing other people to have their say is an important factor in a conversation. Without this you would just have one person talking and the other one listening.
Asking questions is a good way to make it obvious that taking turns is the normal thing to do within a conversation. This then allows others to answer and to bring up their issues.
If you have not been socialised into doing this basic language expectancy then you would find doing this forum difficult as you would not ask questions to each other, allowing them their time for their say.
Does anyone else agree? i think that it is a good practice for us to do things such as tasks online, but sometimes find it difficult to put across my points.
Task one- week2, 'Navigation'
I found navigating around this forum difficult at first. I suppose it is because it was something I wasn't used to. Also, because i associate going online and having conversations with friends as something that I relate back to my leisurely activity.
I believe that it is something that takes a lot of getting used to, and online seminars is a way in which we can communicate to each other without feeling uncomfortable or having enough time to do so. Livingstone's point in lecture 2 is valid and I believe we would talk about more online than what we would do in a seminar.
However, I would also argue that it is in fact not easier. We do not have the time to actually communicate with tutors, which could effect our way of thinking. Also, it may be easy to become lazy when doing an online seminar, atleast in seminars you are forced into speaking by tutors!
I think to do an online seminar, you need to have the type of media experience to do it properly. Issues such as typing and being able to navigate around the forum becomes a major issue and without having prior knowledge, you may become confused.
I believe that it is something that takes a lot of getting used to, and online seminars is a way in which we can communicate to each other without feeling uncomfortable or having enough time to do so. Livingstone's point in lecture 2 is valid and I believe we would talk about more online than what we would do in a seminar.
However, I would also argue that it is in fact not easier. We do not have the time to actually communicate with tutors, which could effect our way of thinking. Also, it may be easy to become lazy when doing an online seminar, atleast in seminars you are forced into speaking by tutors!
I think to do an online seminar, you need to have the type of media experience to do it properly. Issues such as typing and being able to navigate around the forum becomes a major issue and without having prior knowledge, you may become confused.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)