Jeana C. Rogers from information Resources discussed Podcasting with our class last week. She showed up the great things about podcasting, and lead good discussion on the use of podcasting in our daily lives. It seemed, though, that our class responded in a different way that they do to other new social media. Many of the students in our class seemed to think that podcasting was not the best way to access data. In some ways, the podcast seems like the iPad of the media world; it's there, it has some useful tools, but they are usually tools that can be accessed from a better source. Podcasting isn't unnecessary, it just limiting.
so why podcast? what's the point? it's a new form of media. it allows us to have access to material without the time constraint of a radio show. It keeps up with you; by subscribing, podcasting will update itself and let you find the most recent episodes. It can have such a broad audience because information for anyone can be found on the sights, and it can even be watched by vodcast, or video show online.
One "con" dealt with the use of podcasts in classrooms. Many of us thought that if teachers used podcasting for classes, then students would be more inclined to skip. On the contrary, Jeana said that research has shown otherwise. Many students used it to review their classes, instead of skip. This was intriguing, and it shows that this type of media can be used for the better. I will be interested to see where it ends up in classrooms in the future.
podcasting terms: RSS Feed- really simple syndication subscribing: searches for the newest/updated clips
Here were links that Jeana gave us for podcasting: podcastmachine.com : free program to create podcasts
Podcastalley.com
librivox.com
talkshoe.com: allows anyone with a cell phone to call in as part of the podcast.
Audacity: recording program available on every computer at Butler. requires built in mic; free download.
Today was my first day on Second Life. After several minutes trying to navigate my way through a destination, i finally made it to a fairy popular island and was surrounded by tons of avatars. As each one appeared in front of me, slowly loading from bare figures to elaborate and detailed avatars, i tried to interact with different people. My "gestures" did nothing it seemed. I figured out how to chat publicly so I started asking questions and letting people know it was my first time on second life. People seemed busy answering everyones questions, but I did get several responses such as "welcome to SL!" Everything seemed so busy. Then one person in particular, Eiffel Skytower, sent me a private message. We started chatting and I found out he had been using second life for about two years and he spent about 2 hours a day on it. He talked a lot about what SW213 discussed: the type of life people lead on SL as opposed to their real life. It was really interesting hearing straight from a user that people can be whoever they want. He said everyone on here can be skinny, attractive, and young. When in reality, (he claimed) mostly 40 year olds used Second Life. Eiffel Skytower told me that he was married in SL and when asked about how it connected with his real life, he told me that he did not mix the two. He said people get married and divorced online all the time, but mainly people married when they felt connected with someone they spent a lot of virtual time with. My interaction with Eiffel Skytower really stuck with me. I was even impressed at how willing a complete stranger was to spend timetalking with me. Before leaving he told me his partner Dee was very helpful with SL as well. Skytower was not too personal or overbearing, just willing to engage in friendly conversation. He seemed to have a great virtual personality...but I am dying to know what he is really like in person. Is he someone I would approach? is he someone I would spend time talking to? What is his real life like?
Now i am starting to understand this virtual world...it is driven by curiosity, and curiosity drives learning. When people are curious they explore and it leads them to further engagement, and more time, playing in Second Life.
Julianne Miranda discussed Second Life with our class last week. The discussion was thought-provoking as we touched on identity and narrative. Is the way that people present themselves on Second Life the same as in the real world? If we tell stories about who we are in order to discover who we are, are the stories that we tell in the virtual world really us? are they a continuation of our awareness of existence? Are they who we want to be?
In short, this can get very philosophical very quickly. “virtual community originates in and must return to the physical one” Miranda's points on the virtual and physical world is that they "inform each other." Even though these two lives may be very private, they somehow connect to who a person is (or pretends to be) in each life. The avatar that is created is perhaps the ideal self that someone wishes to portray. If this is the case and limitations are non-existent in the virtual world, what is keeping someone from being their ideal self in the real world?
Miranda's presentation even went on to describe the virtual merchandise that people find to be stimulating. The ability to purchase products online for online avatars may not appeal to people, well, like me. But if someone is making a living off of these products, it is obviously appealing to a good portion of users of SecondLife. I have to admit, it was intriguing to be on SecondLife; I could see where the addiction comes in. In fact, when I was younger I used SIMS on a regular basis. The idea of creating my own world was stimulating, and incorporating real interaction with other users of avatar makes it all the more interesting. I have to limit my criticism of SecondLife because being on for half an hour made me realize what people are getting themselves into. Generally, I think humans crave interaction, and when that interaction is done by meeting interesting people (or avatars) all over the world, people are going to continue to tune in.
Digital Nation is a more in-depth look at the wide world of the web. I was intrigued by the number of lives across the world that this technology touches. Some people do see it as a downgrade to our daily life. But for many it's changed their lives, brought them out of their shells, or gotten them "out of the kitchen" for people like Bubbe. Some still see the effect on children as something preventing kids from developing to their fullest. As one person put it "these kids are doing themselves a disservice....by multi-tasking." Many of these students think their multi-tasking is successful. But tests proved otherwise, that students were slower, even though these students think they're brilliant at it. They get distracted, their memory is messy. they think people can't think clearly because basic psychology says it's impossible. On social media sites, it's interesting that as you watch, other links pop up that leads us to other information...isn't this the exact type of problem we are encountering? we can't watch a show without wanting it to lead us somewhere else. Nothing is keeping us entertained long enough. In South Korea, they consider this over-use of technology as a psychiatric disorder. This, to me, is ridiculous and an excuse for people who can't control their use of the internet. Do we consider over-eaters as having a psychiatric disorder? smokers? extreme shoppers? Yes, many things do have addicting effects, but to tell someone that it is a psychiatric disorder- that makes it ok to spend more time online? As far as education goes, one parent put it this way: "if he's going to be using it the rest of his life, he may as well use it in a school setting." It's true that we should integrate technology into education and schools. But allowing students to spend every class minute online is unnecessary. We will eliminate the role of teacher if this is the case. If students are not engaged then we need to find ways to socially interact in a live way with some use of technology, but not 100%. As on principle in Chatham New Jersey put it: "no one would ever have an argument that we should take away the oxygen" (in reference to oxygen as technology) When they incorporated technology their test scores improved. This is a great achievement, but in what way are these test scores being raised? are these students still experiencing "life" in a real way? IBM saved more than $1 million dollars by not flying to meetings and by using SecondLife as a business tool. I don't agree with the IBM employee that said this is "much more human in a way," but I do think the fact that the business world is able to accomplish their job from home is incredible. One place where jobs are controversial over the virtual vs. reality comes down to the military. I was surprised to learn that we are capable of fighting real war in a somewhat virtual world. I am thankful that our troops can remain at home safely, but the effects and damage that are done to other cultures could be horrendous. It could cause excess and unnecessary damage and risk too many lives. I also have a hard time taking sides with the gaming systems used by the military. It is understandable to want to stir interest for recruitment, and I was surprised to hear most of the boys say they understood the harsher reality of war; however, it still seems risky to put so many boys in line for something as serious as war, yet introduce it with something as intriguing and addicting as video games. Overall this video made me realize the strong changes technology has brought to every kind of person all over the world. These changes are not always welcomed, but for most people they are used for a greater good. The more that technology is capable of, the less time we seem to need doing "work" or processes that our world has been evolved around for so many years. We may be moving on to a technology age, much out-dating the industrial age.
