Meme on Social Networks
I like the use of memes in edublogging, as it provides a framework for re-working and revisiting ideas, and exchanging views with others. A single mem can provide a framework for discourse, offering bracketing into posts participants in the dialogue can refer to and build on further while further developing their ideas.
1. Whose voices are clearly heard, and whose are suppressed?
Sometimes learners choose not to express their views, and others are reluctant to do so. Also, some learners may feel compelled to mimic others, to impress others, and adopt (wittingly or not) a role of some kind. Others might have something to say, but not in the vocabulary or tone of the most active participants. Some might not have time, others may have low confidence, still others, lack the patience to “talk the talk” of the dominant group.
2. Who are the participants? How did they get to be there?
When learners are forced to be there, playing the role of a student can mean various things, with differing roles assigned to the participants. What personae do learners choose?
3. Who is the audience: intended, accidental, or otherwise?
If there is an intended audience, taking another look at how one’s posts could be interpreted in a variety of other contexts could change how we post, what is said, and the words and phrases used.
4. How interconnected is this network to others?
Participants are becoming more and more aware of how their ideas are being received, but knowing what connections this network has to others might alter the participation, the willingness to share certain details.
5. What values does this social network have in practice?
Does the technology preclude certain values from being realized, and encourage the flourishing of other values?
Offering flexibilty in the use of various tools presupposes a set of beliefs and values about learners, arguably different values from that a closed learning system. Tagging options identifies certain things in specific ways, encouraging others to use the same tags, possibly discouraging the use of other tags.
netizenship • July 8, 2009
I posted about these questions — earlier today on your site and in a different location on Me2U — but now, I thought I would add a different perspective as I had a different sense of how I might approach them.
In blogging — perhaps there is more chance to have your voice heard — than say a newpaper — editted by someone else.
2. Who are the participants? How did they get to be there?
With bloggers — they vary — invited, linked to, same interest area. They could get there by picking up links in other people’s blogs, and probably many are students who are in courses like CCK08 and AU 605.
3. Who is the audience: intended, accidental, or otherwise? If the audience is really varied — then I’m not sure this connects to an essential question — but it speaks more to “how do we know who will likely have an interest, criticize, or ignore our blog — if they find it.
4. How interconnected is this network to others? This connective likelihood seems important if one really wants people to find the blog.
5. What values does this social network have in practice?
I like this one — is the blog up front on a “purpose” and how the bloggers might intentify if this blog would be serviceable — or not. Some blogs clearly show their intention towards a cause, a group, or a purpose — while others indirectly suggest they are just causal meanderings — and that’s okay too.