The following video is a condensed version with highlights of the interviews with two Computer Science students and two university professors.
Update: to make our video more accessible we have uploaded Closed Captioning for the condensed video.
We ask you to view the embedded YouTube video and provide comments about the subject, our research process, and the video contents. This project is a public collaboration between our group members, our social networks, our interviewees and the social networks of our interviewees.
The full unedited versions of the four interviews are available below from Blip.tv.
Jeff Cliff - Computer Science Student
Luke Burkholder - Computer Science Student
Dr Marc Spooner - University Professor
Dr Alec Couros - University Professor
Anyone can leave a comment. You can do so anonymously or using one of your online accounts. We will anonymise your feedback in our final presentation. Click the comments link below to see the form.
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License.
Your video and the full versions are very interesting and relevant.
ReplyDeleteI have tried to post this comment a few times without success. For 200232298's discussion, see
ReplyDelete200232298's discussion link
Streamfeed
Thoughtful (re)performance of the 4 interviewees' ideas in your mash up.
ReplyDeleteaddendum to March 21, 2:16 comment:
ReplyDeleteWhen we take the stories of others and retell/rework/mashup them they are not the same, they are new stories. Here we can see the transformative power of (re)performance. As social science researchers it is important to be cognizant of the notion that the stories we (re)perform"do not simply describe the world as it is, but also enact it" (LAW & URRY, 2004, p.391). The performance provokes us to "think about the worlds [we] want to help to make" (p.391).
Has anyone discussed the implications of the carbon footprint associated with the "Risks" . . ."Rewards" and "Future" of Web .02 at the University? An out of sight-out of mind problem . . .
ReplyDeleteI actually listened to all of the interviews wholly.
ReplyDeleteI thought you did an excellent job with the interviews and steered around the professors especially who had answered more than one question at a time. I found both profs to be very interesting in their outlook on the subject and from different standpoints. You did well in your choice. The students viewpoints are obviously quite different than the profs since the profs are more in tune with a teaching mode and the students a learning environment or social networking.
The subject matter was really interesting. Some things I had not thought about before. The subject was also very timely considering our rapid advance into different types of communication. The content was all inclusive and turned out covering all you had wanted to - more for some and less for others. The process was personal and more interesting than reading a report. Were there no females to interview? I am wondering if some comments would have been different - some things females tend to view differently or give a different spin. Looks like there was some thought put into your effort and a good bit of work.
We did try to get a female professor to sit for an interview but received no response to our request. We respect that many of the individuals we approached are very busy.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed looking at the mashup (a new vocabulary word for me). Here are my comments:
ReplyDeleteSUBJECT: Social media networking is a worthy subject for research and reflection. My kids (ages 31 and 27) are both right into all of it, especially my son. Facebook means he's still in touch with friends in all the places he has ever lived. Facebook and blogging both give him a chance to construct (for their consumption) the life he wants them to see him living.
I thought that I would never get involved with Web 2 technologies, but when my son-in-law began posting videos of my only grandchild on YouTube, I was right there. My grandson lives a 10-hour-drive away from me, but I see him every evening on Skype and YouTube. These technologies are social in the best sense.
Still, I don't think we should blindly accept new technologies without critical reflection, and that's why I applaud the subject of your research.
CONTENT: Here I'm responding to things your interviewees had to say. I do understand the risk of constant scrutiny for a university professor, and the risk of permanence that Marc spoke of. I don't agree that this is a new way to disseminate research findings. There isn't any element of peer review here, so it would be hard to take new findings seriously if they were presented only in a blog, for example.
It occurs to me that as an older faculty member I have always established and maintained my "personal learning networks" through attendance at conferences and (since 1993) through email. We live at a time when the environment can't sustain all the air travel that conferences require, so they do have to stop. Web 2 technologies probably are the answer as to how we keep academics in touch with each other.
But we do have to make sure that everyone around the world has equal access. My Nigerian colleague last semester at in Massachusetts did not have access to the technology she needed to participate fully in that scholarly community.
PROCESS : I believe in interviews! I enjoyed seeing these as YouTube videos. I also like the research design here: Invite comments on the interviews from a wide audience! This is a good way to provoke discussion and encourage critical thinking while using technology.
Closed captioning is a great idea!
ReplyDeleteThe video editing was excellent -- including the displaying of the sentences at the bottom of the screen.
ReplyDeleteMarc Spooner has a good point about the displaying tot he public and if you self censor yourself. Also, that what you record is permanent. Marc talked about googling information and how universities may be going the way of the dodo bird -- but it seems that getting that formal piece of paper is turning even more important. So, just because someone can gain access to information doesn't mean that it will help them get a job. I feel that it may help more people who choose to go the enterprerneurship route -- as you essentially have access to any information you seek.
Jeff Cliff -- good point about maintaining social relationships (communicating with all people) -- but I wouldn't agree with the trust or better friendship component.
Alec - said he communicates with all these people -- but I wonder if he is selling "religion" -- as it would be good to see how you evaluate this, in terms of quantitative.
I have watched the mashup video and the individual interview. I have found the discussion interesting but found the lack different views a bit disappointing.
ReplyDeleteRisk:
The technology becoming a barrier in the learning process to those that do not have the technology or less tech savvy individual. For example, a international ESL student may find it more difficult to take online English course if they do not have a computer or lack the computer skills to begin with. The student now must learn another skill in order learn the skill they desire.
Is web 2.0 a threat to Post Secondary education and Academic Freedom? Within the framework of university, faculties and students have the right to scrutinize and explore different views and theories without reprisal. Will an individual be discriminated due to an unpopular view posted on the web in the pursuit of higher learning?
How does an individual protect intellectual property or copyright?
Reward:
I agree with interview view on the rewards. I believe that web 2.0 tools can enhance the learning and collaboration tool.
Future:
I do believe that a student will benefit from this technology. No longer will a student will be limited to going to a local university. A student, living in southern Saskatchewan, will be limited to attending the University of Regina. This student can now attend Harvard or any other universities that offer online courses.
When the photocopier was invented, an observer expressed, “This device gave everyone the ability to be his or her own publisher.” As time progressed, this view did not hold true. Photocopiers did not destroy censorship nor did it give everyone the creative abilities to produce material worth publishing. The future of web 2.0 lays in the history of how humanity uses technology of the past because past behaviour is a good predictor of future behaviour.
I don’t hold a wonderful view of web 2.0. I have concern for the future that we will lose the abilities to determine what is the truth and what is fiction? I believe that the web will used as a tool to valid our beliefs.
- This was timely; I was listening to the radio this am. and someone was promoting someone else's tweet about Tiger Woods (lame, but there you have it), and last week's tweet was already erroneous and out of date. Got me to thinking... when I used to blog, I thought more deeply about "publishing" what I blogged than almost any other writing I did/do, knowing that I was editor, author and copy editor (although now that I edit a journal, I think more deeply about my job as editor than I did as editor of my own blog). With Twitter, people just blurt. So where is the thinking? (I know they do a bit more than blurt in some cases, but still, are we thinking or just saying???)
ReplyDelete- Marc's part of the mash up about "scrutiny" and learners learning on-camera. I think it impedes learning when we are talking about risky stuff (his ex. was racism); when learning requires building trust among a community of learners, we need to think about the parameters of trust. If we have low-demands criteria (limited vulnerability) then go ahead and tweet/blog/post and do it widely and to a broad public just to see what will float back. BUT, if we are trying to work in a high risk context, then who do we want listening in and what are the ethical implications of same?
- mash up about us becoming more critical -- ah, if only.
- the fact that I'm answering; the upside is, you got me to think about what you're doing when normally I wouldn't even have known you were taking the course. But guess what? If it hadn't been you, if I didn't really care about your success or your prof. dev. as one of my colleagues, then I probably wouldn't have taken the time to answer. So, there's probably something in there about new social medias being symbiotic or interdependent (or just plan dependent) with/upon more traditional social networks like professionalism and human interaction and caring.
My comments related to the notion that I was overly concerned with social media networking in university education and research with respect to the lack of "touch" social media networking in university education and research has . . . I am not at all convinced that the term "social" is an accurate term here . . . taking the interests, intentions, or needs of other people into account is, for me, lost in the "translation" of electronic social media networking. We are being “duped” as a culture/living entity to think that social media networking is working to bring real people together with other real people. It is a true “Marshall McLuhan” in my books. If we were grounded in pedagogy, which embraced experiential, place-based, interdisciplinary, multi-sensory and spirtuality . . . social media networking limitations would be most obvious. One only has to walk down our university halls and understand what I refer to. Faculty, Staff, Students are not "touched" in the same way when social networking is of the electronic kind . . . I often think that most people who may disagree with my take on things may have availed themselves of "group think." . . . they are addicted . . . Gareth Morgan (1985) might have called social media networking a product of the “psychic prison” we find most post-secondary institutions in these days!!
ReplyDeleteThe other element that tends to be overlooked by “social media barons” is the carbon foot print created by social media networking alone . . . you only have to check out Chris Jordan's work to get a feel for what I am referring to. There is too much commentary out there these days with respect to the disenfranchisement of the human condition and the environment. We are captive in a conspiracy that suggests that we can not survive with out this networking . . . well just think of the energy expended and the true limited understanding of the implications of where the energy was resourced from.
Turn off the TVs, computers, cell phones and all the other “gadgets and watch a society violently shake with delirium tremens!
This is just a small glimpse . . . social networking is actually dance . . . people have been doing that for thousands of years . . .
I like the fact that you didn't allow bias of your group to be reflected in the presentation. The interviews are journalistic in style.
ReplyDeleteBy providing full, unedited versions of the interviews you have provided a layer of transparency to the viewer about the process you used to interview and your research methodology.
1) I liked Jeff Cliff's comment - if we use these social networking sites and they, for whatever reason, are unavailable or become obsolete, then we have to be prepared for those contingencies.
ReplyDelete2) I also appreciated Dr. Spooner's comments in regards to the "permanence" of the material. In some ways it's a good thing (e.g., for profs, your best lectures are recorded for all to see, students and profs can go back and re-experience the class). On the other hand, one "bad day" or inadvertent "unfortunate" remark may be memorialized for quite some time for unknown audiences.
3) I also agree with another of Dr. Spooner's comments - the idea that universities will have to adapt and embrace the use of these social networking sites in educational contexts. As he said, the knowledge is out there and we aren't necessarily the gatekeepers anymore. I would maintain, however, that we may be able to do a better job of filtering and organizing complex information (unless people seek out information from well-established and specialized online networks of people).
4) My final comment is somewhat cliche, but I'll state it anyway. I see these social networking technologies creeping in to every facet of life. I watch CNN (I should be watching CBC or the BBC!), and I actually witness news anchors saying things like, "I just received a tweet/facebook comment from 'SEXYBOOTS69' who says: 'Obama rules. Health care for all'' and I think to myself, 'Who the hell cares what SEXYBOOTS69 has to say, and why is this newsworthy?" In other words: There is a time and a place for these technologies. Unless one incorporates the use of these social networking technologies in a thoughtful and purposeful manner, they're just so much fluff.
One more concern: I also worry that text-based social networking tools that encourage short, truncated comments that are full of abbreviations may contribute toward a poverty of thought, or, if you think that's too strong a position, I would say that truncated texts may be associated with a reduced ability to express one's thoughts fully in written form. I realize that others may argue that truncated texts are quick, efficient and cheap means of communicating with others, but as a professor, I would feel better knowing that people still have the ABILITY to communicate in a full and expressive manner in their written work.
Cool project.
I found this to be an interesting project, and thought that the "mash up" was well done. I would have liked to see an overall purpose for the project stated at the outset.
ReplyDeleteThe content of risks, rewards, education, research and future provided some breadth for respondents. Dr. Spooner's comments on the loss of control and permanence of information are important considerations, particularly as they relate to a question of ethics. Overall, I learned from the project and it has given me pause to consider increased, but judicious, use of social networks within my teaching.
I find the focus on Risks, Rewards, Education and Research very useful. I have always thought that "The TOOL is only as good as the TOOL using it!"
ReplyDeleteWith this comment I also would recognize that my use of technology is for learning and communicating with the "global village" in a much easier and instant manner. I find that this communication can esepcially assist in engaging and empowering youth in ACTIONS from their learning. As stated, we need to be better learners...but also through this learning I would predict tha the youth of today are going to be developing ACTIONS far ahead of policy and political agenda. The tools of today will be the revolution of tomorrow...although it may be a "quiet revolution"
I understand the comment from Anonymous of March 28, 2010 8:50 AM: "I would have liked to see an overall purpose for the project stated at the outset."
ReplyDeleteThe overall purpose of the project is to expose the members of our CS280 group to risks and rewards in the Information Society by asking the users of the related technologies about these very issues. By asking our interviewees to disseminate to their own social networks the existence of the interviews we are collaborating with our subjects and their contacts instead of just analysing them. In other words, we seek feedback from not only our own social networks but those of our interviewees.
To summarise, we are using Web 2.0 technologies to research, interview, produce, disseminate, collaborate, and to analyse feedback.
In fact, by responding to your point I have provided an example of an n-directional communication with not only you but the other readers and contributors.
The process of producing this type of research is research in of itself. We have all learned about refining techniques of production, dissemination and communication.
Thank you for your comments and your support!
I find web 2.0 to basically be a extension of the celebrity obsession that is or rather has consumed our culture. Using it as a tool (in education) is like using crack as a medicine, it is fundamentally corrupting and destructive. It can not be controlled and placed into a matrix to understand it. It is a viral metastasis that does not allow thoughtful contemplation or the construction of meaningful dialog.
ReplyDeleteI always thought earlier message board bullies or websites of self promotion were the e-equivalent of crazy people sitting on park benches yelling hate. As long as no one paid attention or engaged them it was the same as ignoring the crazy on the park bench. The problem it seems that we have all become e crazy people on park benches spewing crap into the world. Is anyone getting anything out of it and do they value the info?
The most important skill that needs to be taught as part of education is information consumerism. Peer view paper vs. blahblahcom does not have equal weight in my world; but where does open source sit in the mix? Does impact factor have a place? How is information rigorously vetted? By who? If the answer is by each individual we are entering another dark age. Too much crap without the ability to find any real foundation material to build a meaningful argument. This will or has lead to a self assured ignorance instead of the ignorance from fear and superstition (of the middle ages).
In the end I can be happy that for some of my work if I decided to share it or post it I would go to jail and be fired, same with my colleagues.
Yes I fully realize what I am doing in this email is what I am bitching about. I blame you since you asked me.
I need to check my acebook...someone might have posted something that I can comment on. LOL
I reviewed the interviews and thought the technology being discussed had some interesting possibilities! When Marc talked about information placed "out there" as being forever it certainly made me do a double take as I believe what may be stated in the context of a class at one time may not be "timeless"! If this is what may happen, the content of the class may be altered and what is stated may be more scrutinized or self censored! Of course whatever is "new" should be reviewed for all possibilities and then determine how you want to use it or not.
ReplyDeleteI appreciated the chance to review what others are doing and considering and how I may engage with the technology from my perspective!
* they really shouldn’t have introduced us. Although I love the plug, there was no need for it
ReplyDelete* Love the term “invisible college” in this context
* I would love to be able to edit my own video and take out the good stuff, maybe I will some day
Your video is excellent. You should have a look at this Guardian article from the UK I read a couple of years ago to compare what the author said to what your students and professors say about Web 2.0 at universities.
ReplyDelete"Web 2.0: boon or bane for universities?"
Your video is excellent and I viewed a bit of each of the unedited versions which clarified some of the responses because I heard the questions.
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to see a comparison of your video to the Guardian article "Web 2.0: boon or bane for universities?" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/may/12/link)
Good work, folks!
Wow, that's neat!
ReplyDeleteHey i just watched ur video and its very interesting and gets u thinking. One thing that ran threw my mind was that with everything said, it sounds like..... altho the internet doesnt allow people 2 be as personal or it may make u seem like ur a loner it seems like we r aiming 4 the same goal. Knowledge, so really does it mean we r moving foward and all comming together 2 better ourselves ?
ReplyDeleteps- good video by the way, very informative
Their final product, interviewee is telling us about how does web2.0 work in certain area and well-organized by good editing video.
ReplyDeletehowever personally I expected lecture-related web2.0 so it's like...cyber lecture but more improved than before. I really would say very nice video clip editing => neat and precise presentation
First of all, good job! Editing was very clean, and the video flowed well. Subtitles were a nice touch, however in places it seems that there was some missing text, maybe in one or two places. Otherwise, Everything was done very well, A nice touch was the moving text, it was much less boring that what i would have initially expected.
ReplyDeleteOne thing to note however, at 5:10, the video kind of jumps around a little bit, and is slightly awkward to see, the professor seems to repeat himself. Could have just missed a small clip on the storyboard.
As far as content goes, i found it hard to follow. As in, There was only simple one word titles between the different answers of the Interviewees, it would have been nice to see a more detailed description of exactly what the people being interviewed were being asked to talk about.
Overall, it was well done. A transcript of the video would have been nice to see, considering subtitles were already done up, but overall good job!
I think the sharpness of the video and clearness of the audio are perhaps the most technical aspect of this project and i'm giving you guys a thumbs up for a job well done.
ReplyDeleteInterviewing I.T oriented individuals to explain the risks and reward involved in using web2.0 related issues was a good one, however, i feel the videos where too long, not many people would have the patience to watch a 30x4 minutes of interview, shorter video would be better.
The shorter 9mins summary of all interviews was a pretty good one, it contained key aspects of all interviewed person, however, i feel a conclusion was missing. A written conclusion should be put at the end of all the videos.
Feedback consideration was also a good one, about 18 comments where already collected.
Wow... I think this is very well done! It is very to the point and, considering the format, concise. There topic is Risks, Reward, and Future of Web 2.0 in University Education and Research; They certainly covered Risks and Rewards for this... they touched a little less on the Future of Web 2.0 but still included it.
ReplyDeleteI really can't think of what more I can add... it was just really well done
Very nice work. The youtube video makes your group's prject very interesting. Also the video made very profesional. Even the voice is not very clear, but the title on the bottom of video made audience understandable.
ReplyDeleteAnalysis of inished work is very good. Outstanding video and blog works. The video separate in different topics, which clearly explaned risk, rewards, and future of web 2.0. But, maybe need more research material and conclution sentences.
Analysis of Technical Skills: The link video link on the wiki and the shortened video on the blog site did not work for me. I found the video on YouTube and watched it there. I think the video was put together and edited nicely.
ReplyDeleteAnalysis of Content/Concept: On the original videos a lot of the questions being asked were much too broad and very hard to answer. The final product was very good though. The video touched on a variety of good points that are very relevant to the class, and made me realize how much Web 2.0 technologies can help in an education setting.
Analysis of Ambition: Prior to seeing the produce I thought the group should have tried to get more people to interview. However watching the original videos I see how much work was actually put in to the 4 interviews that were done. The original videos are very long and have tons of information. I think this project was very ambitious.
Analysis of Finished Work: Overall I think the project turned out really good. This group paid attention to the earlier critiques and other then the technical difficulty with the link on the Blog page, the produce is really good.
Writing: The writing is easy to understand and I did not find any errors. I think putting subtitles on the videos was a good idea as I noticed some groups videos were a little hard to understand.
Advice: My biggest advice is to obviously get the shortened video working on your blog page. While I was reading the comments I did notice someone else comment about having a female opinion as it was all men being interviewed. I realize it is a little late to change that but it would have been interesting too see if there are any differences with a female perspective.
Your results on the blog were scarce in text, but involved a lot of video footage. The video was well done in regards to the questions were formal, clear, concise, and provided a caption text for the viewers. You have inputted alot of work in the videos in which you provided a long segment with each individual. Your group activated access to comments for each blog as suggested. You've kept your context relative to your topic and provided segments within the video for the viewer. The group put alot of effort into the videos and it has shown in your work. Good job!
Your research provides 4 subjects, 2 students and 2 professors. This is well balanced but it would of been nice to see more survey results. The survey also might of benefitted with results in which included people outside UofR. Adding a document of the surveys would've been another benefit for those who want to gather the information more easily. Other than that I'd suggest that you might want to include a introduction, conclusion, and a summary with your research.
I only watched the condensed video with subtitles. (I'll explain why.)
ReplyDeleteThe video is organized well into the different sub-categories. Some of the subtitles were off or incorrect, but that is a very minor problem.
Some of the feedback wasn't exactly related to education; specifically the portion about maintaining relationships via Facebook. The part about finding and sharing educational practices on Twitter was intriguing.
I know audio files are a pain in the butt to edit, therefore video editing is a very ambitious feat. (Especially with subtitles.)
The finished work is rather boring, which is why I only watched one video. The information gathered by the interviewees should have been offered in a separate format, like plain text. This allows someone to easily access this information. While watching a video that isn't exactly attention grabbing, I find myself drifting off and missing portions. Also, presenting a user with a condensed version is like saying "hey you don't have to watch the other ones."
I guess I had higher expectations for their video. I had indicated in my feedback that a video would prove to be the most entertaining format. Again, I would have liked to see this information offered in another format.
I felt that the project certainly discussed some very valuable ideas. It should become a real post-grad endeavour. Read my critique and comments in the following post:
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteRewards? I liked the idea of "collaboration" and the use of "Web 2.0" between those doing research and sharing techniques, discoveries and ideas (a la Alec). Definite rewards in my view. I only have to think of the many ideas I encounter day after day in my browsing. I like the use of email, but Skype, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube should be used very sparingly. Example: the release of emails out of context during the Copenhagen Conference last year really was hurtful, the viral spread of YouTube videos as objects of derision, etc.
ReplyDeleteRisks? I am very concerned with the "Risk" area - and feel that the rush to post oneself for all to see is something that people have not thought through carefully.
There seems to be a contradiction in attitudes here - so many people are really agitated about invasion of privacy and not wanting to be on "Some goddam data base" (EC phone calls) and yet they willingly leave themselves hanging out to dry on the web (or on Talk Radio).
Prof Spooner referred to "Permanence" - with regard to students speaking out in his classes - and I'd like to add that being in front of a camera or a microphone causes all sorts of unnatural behaviour- have seen it happen in my own classes. This is definitely a risk. Permanence of an unnatural or embarrassing or carelessly thought out statement can be truly damaging. Retraction is impossible. A discussion in a class should perhaps be in that class. I would hate to think that a Prof would film a class discussion and then later play that class discussion for some other group - to make a point - thus showing people who were involved in a "learning discussion" to have spoken about something before they thought it through - discussing with others is a way to learn and to refine one's own ideas and opinions.
My naturally suspicious nature leads me to think that Facebook, Linked-in, Twitter, etc. are just huge areas for data mining by some internet-savvy people.
The cases of cyber-bullying and hate-blogging bother me immensely - and these are risks which people are not really appreciating.
I remember the first "high-speed data line" that Sasktel hooked up between two high schools. One end was in my lab. It was amazing for a few days - and then it devolved into making faces and obscene gestures from both terminals - there wasn't much sharing - and the educational side of things was minimal. There was no time devoted to how it could/should be used - mostly because it was suddenly hooked up in the middle of a semester with no forethought or time to inject it into the semester's work. There was no consultation with the teachers at either end. The final result was that it was pulled. A risk that is encountered with most "new" innovations. The Web 2.0 stuff has just been thrown out there - no instructions come with it.
I am not sold on blogging. It takes an enormous amount of time to write an article. Lots of research and re-writes. Blogs tend to turn into rants - and I feel that many times, the blogger might wish to erase some of the things said or the way they've been said since the blogs are pretty spontaneous. Most I've seen don't use links to support or expand their statements. Twitter is even worse - useful for Twits who like to tweet. 144 characters? Goodness.
The Future? I am very sure there will be some really powerful things done with this technology and that there will be enhancements introduced that will make the current stuff look antiquated. My hope is that those who incorporate it in discussions, lectures, research and education are well versed in the risks and that they put as much thought into what they do with it as they have put into their research, papers, discussions and teachings before this incredible tool came along.
This may be late - or not what you wanted as feedback - but, in spite of the risk of permanence, I took the opportunity to collaborate and hope your group reaps huge rewards from your project.
Very interesting and topical video and research project. I think that the discussions around permanence and sort of always being "on" were illuminating. We do need to think through some of these issues deeply as we move forward with how to integrate them into the classrooms. I did also like, however, that the positive side was also covered. That is, that our virtual classroom can be much much bigger and richer than our real one.
ReplyDelete