Proof of Learning, Week Four

This week has largely been one of research and writing. My project explored the ways that technology interacts with the environment, and whether or not it could be said that technology “loves biology.” This question was prompted by Kevin Kelly's lecture on the history of technology, where Kelly himself expressed that it does – provided we allow it.

My initial inclination is to agree with his provision. Clearly, technology is not an autonomous construct; it is a tool, to be utilized by humans. To what ends it is used depends on its wielder, not on an inherent property of the thing. The route I decided to go with this question, then, was to examine how technology is being used, past and present, and how that relates to biology. 

Past usage of technology, up until the present, has largely been one of destruction towards anything other than humans, and in cases of war, humans as well. Kelly himself cites the extinction of around 250 magafauna species at the hands of technology wielding early humans. Human development has also been a major force in tearing down existing ecosystems and pushing other animals out of their homes. Climate change, deforestation, and ocean acidification has lead to a great loss of biodiversity, and with it comes an imbalance in natural terrestrial cycles. The utilization of technology was largely geared towards the development of humanity without much regard towards the environment. 

Currently, more energy has been put into utilizing technology for both conservation and correcting past negatives of technology's usage. Fuel efficient and biofuel vehicles are set to lower the ecological footprint of humanity and restore balance to natural nutrient cycles. More effort has gone into utilizing plant and microbes in specialized locations, to combat emissions and waste. All of these efforts, and more, represent an inclination to set technology on the track of loving and preserving biology. I do wonder, though, if technology could have achieved its current, partial utilization for the good of the environment without first bringing about a good deal of destruction to it.

Proof of Learning, Week Three

The most interesting readings for this week focused on how we learn given certain mediums and environments. More specifically, they explored student perceptions of learning according to appraisal of their 'social presence' – the degree to which a person is perceived as real – and via asynchronous online interactions.

“Predicting Learning From Asynchronous Online Discussions” explored perceptions of learning via asynchronous interactions when they were supplementing face-to-face meetings. Asynchronous discussion and interaction is essentially a type of interaction where responses and conversation do not happen in real-time. (Just like the IDS 121 discussion board!) My initial perception was that asynchronous online interactions would largely be a boon to learning, and the results of the study seem to corroborate it. Wu and Hiltz report that, “Fifty-seven percent of the students thought online discussion increased their learning quality” and “over 78% of students thought online discussion was a great chance to share opinions among peers and instructor.” (Wu & Hiltz) We can see that a good majority of students perceived their online experiences as a positive forcing towards their learning, and an even greater majority found the online interactions a valuable means to communicate with other members of the class. It is also reported that the asynchronous nature of the communication “promotes higher levels of critical and cognitive thinking.”

Clearly, asynchronous online discussion reaps benefits for a large number of people, but are there downsides to the medium as well? Jeffrey cites a few potential issues. (“ASYNCHRONOUS ONLINE DISCUSSIONS” 6/1, 1:53 p.m.) One of the biggest hazards is that “the internet can fail a user at any time and it is uncertain that your assignments and homework arrive where they need to arrive.” This can certainly create a lot of stress if the technology is not operating as it needs to, and is a potential offsetting factor in regard to one of the most important benefits of the medium: freedom of time and place. Jeffrey also cites that, in the case of purely online classes, “the instructor does not get to see if someone is struggling in the class,” which I think is a great point. Without a personal component, the class ultimately resolves to favoring monotonous, rote memory answers. Part of learning is making mistakes and learning from them, something that an instructor from a purely online class (without some personal medium of communication) will not be able to appreciate and assist with.

Another thought that Jeffrey's post prompted was the role of lecture in a class. Classes that operate solely online will not have one, obviously; are online classes losing some value without them? I think that they do. Namely, I think that a good lecture can provide a great deal of synergy with the reading. Good lectures won't simply go over what you should have read, but it will expand on it in a way that uses the instructors expertise to increase ones comprehension of the subject. Michael H. also weighed in, noting that lectures can provide structure and direction to learning. This plays back to the role of the personal component of a class as well, and that presence of structure can greatly increase an individuals appreciation for the material.

“Examining Social Presence in Online Courses in Relation to Students' Perceived Learning and Satisfaction" focused on how our perception of feeling 'real' in online mediated interactions (social presence) influences our learning and satisfaction. The study validated and found strong, positive correlations for several hypotheses linking perceived social presence with perceived learning satisfaction. (Richardson & Swan) This seems rather intuitive to me, and a number of people on the discussion board echoed these sentiments. Emily N. notes that, “Students have to feel that they are included and learning something from the discussion and interactions with the students.” (“Social presence:” 6/2, 12:58 p.m.) She also highlighted the disincentive of posting when others in the class appear to not care about their responses and interactions. I think this is an important consideration in addition to personal resolve and effort. Students that really work and want to learn will probably end up doing it regardless of the atmosphere, but others that are more towards the middle may become bogged down in the prevailing group sentiments. The social environment can become a feedback mechanism, where otherwise good students may end up not trying as hard due to how the rest of the group responds.

Going meta: I am still making the effort to include our discussion board conversations here in my Proof of Learning reports. I think I have given a lot more space to exploring the way in which our discussion posts direct our understanding of the material, and less to the articles in and of themselves. I was also without internet for a few days this week – Jeffrey's predictions coming true – so I decided to spend more time reading and responding to other peoples' posts (rather than make my own) on the discussion board. Overall, the experience was rewarding to see a greater diversity of perspective, but I did miss writing up my own interpretations to start topics.

References

Richardson, Jennifer C. & Swan, Karen. (2003). Examining Social Presence in Online Courses in Relation to Students' Perceived Learning and Satisfaction." JALN Vol. 7 Issue 1 pp. 68-88. (download from google docs: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B0vrL-DffM_dOThlMzk0ZWItZjdmYi00ODY1LWFjZGItMjFlZDdhOTE4Mzky&hl=en_US&authkey=CMeBu9oO )

Wu, Dezhi, & Hiltz, Starr Roxanne. (2004). "Predicting Learning from Asynchronous Online Discussions." JALN, Volume 8: Issue 2. pp. 139-52. https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B0vrL-DffM_dZWJkMzg0MGItMjNmOS00ZGM5LWI3NTItYWI2N2Q0NGJmMDIz&hl=en_US&authkey=CM75uZMC

Annotated Bibliography

Annotated Bibliography

IDS 121.19

Topic Description:

The focus of my project will be the influence and effects of technology and its use by humans on the environment. Technology is largely responsible for the rise and perceived dominance of humans in today's world, but how has human use of technology impacted the environment? Technology is ubiquitous in our culture and society; we use it to communicate, entertain, travel, improve working conditions, and convert energy. It can both save and destroy lives, human and not human alike.

It is clear that technology has profound power, but what are its costs and benefits relative to biology? In what ways does the use of technology 'hurt' the environment, and in what ways does its use assist it? Over the course of human existence and prevalence of technology, has it been largely a positive or negative force? And in what ways do humans – as animals and members of the environment – benefit or suffer from our usage of technology?

This study will focus on analyzing the various ways, past and present, technology has and is impacting the environment. It will evaluate the effects of technology on biodiversity, ecological systems, climate, and environmental resources. It will also examine how these effects turn around and impact humans, as well as how humans have and stand to benefit from technology. These questions will be answered through review of scientific literature, information from classes, lectures, and commentator opinions.

The Production Media/Genre:

Information compiled for this project will be presented as a Research Paper.

Bibliography:

1. Digital Source. (Lecture) Kelly, Kevin. "Kevin Kelly Tells Technology's Epic Story | Video on TED.com." TED: Ideas worth Spreading. TED, Feb. 2010. Web. 15 May 2011. <http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/kevin_kelly_tells_technology_s_epic_story.html>. “In this wide-ranging, thought-provoking talk from TEDxAmsterdam, Kevin Kelly muses on what technology means in our lives -- from its impact at the personal level to its place in the cosmos.”
2. Print Source. (Journal Article) Kitagawa, Masayasu and Yamamoto, Ryoichi. “Science on Sustainability 2006 Summary Report.” Research on the Scientific Basis for Sustainability. 31 Oct. 2005. Study examines the impacts of human society on several aspects of the world environment, and possible solutions.
3. Print Source. (Journal Article) Falt et al. “Technology and the Environment” United Nations Environment Program. 31 Oct. 2005. Examines technologies role in shaping the environment, and explores ways in which that technology can support and improve the environment.
4. Digital Source. (Website) Hardawar, Devindra. "Why I Believe Technology Will Save the Environment and Environmentalism." Devindra.org. 15 Oct. 2007. Web. 30 May 2011. <http://www.devindra.org/tech/2007/10/15/why-i-believe-technology-will-save-the-environment-and-environmentalism/>. Discusses methods of improving the environment through the usage of technology.
5. Digital Source. (Website) Cantoria, Ciel. "The Impact of Technology on Environment: From Stone Age Technology to Green Technology." Brighthub.com. 14 Oct. 2010. Web. 30 May 2011. <http://www.brighthub.com/environment/science-environmental/articles/61319.aspx>. The influence of technology on the environment through the ages.
6. Digital Source. (Lecture) Rockstrom, Johan. "Let the Environment Guide our Development | Video on TED.com." TED: Ideas worth Spreading. TED, Jul. 2010. Web. 30 May 2011. <http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/johan_rockstrom_let_the_environment_guide_our_development.html>. “Human growth has strained the Earth's resources, but as Johan Rockstrom reminds us, our advances also give us the science to recognize this and change behavior. His research has found nine "planetary boundaries" that can guide us in protecting our planet's many overlapping ecosystems.”

Proof of Learning, Week Two

Easily the most prevalent theme in this weeks readings were online dating. Though, it does not quite do the diversity of this weeks readings justice to simply categorize it under 'online dating': for, assuredly, there was an enlightening, new, and specific topic to be covered in each article. Often times the topics dealt with identity and how we both present ourselves, and perceive others, over a virtual medium. 

One of the first readings was an account of scamming through online dating sites. In these scenarios, a victim is deceived into believing that their interactions with the deviant are in earnest, and that these interactions are forming either a friendship or romantic relationship. Once the victim is ensnared, the scammer will attempt to obtain either direct financial support or information such as credit card numbers, bank codes, or a social security number. Before the victim is aware that he or she is being conned, the thief has usually stolen a great sum of money and assets. One way that the scammer is able to operate with such efficiency is that he or she exploits the natural human desire to be loved and feel appreciated for who they are. (Cuthill, Jon.) The ability of the Internet to mask the other individual contributes to this deceit; such a medium allows the perpetrator to meld their writing styles, sympathies, and intentions to match their victim and make them feel comfortable. Ones initial reaction is that the Internet can be a dangerous place: and that is certainly true. However, as Joel points out, the same desire for intimacy that is exploited online can also be exploited offline. (Online Dating, 5/24 9:09 AM) He points out scams, that have taken place through letters, telephones, and even face-to-face. It is very true that individuals may be taken advantage of in any given situation, and through any medium. The best way to keep safe then seems to be a healthy dose of skepticism for any foreign interactions.

"Down the Rabbit Hole: The Role of Place in the Initiation and Development of Online Relationships” gives us our first real taste of analysis regrading relationship-building online, but outside of dating sites. The article distinguishes online forums that are not dating sites – discussion boards, gaming sites, chat rooms, and newsgroups – as Virtual Communities. (Baker, A. J.) Unlike dating sites, the intention of a VC is not necessarily to develop relationships, but to discuss ideas and partake in some common interest. (Such as a game, reading, cooking, sports, etc.) However, the article also makes note that, often times, relationships do develop in these scenarios, despite the lack of intention; romantic partners and even marriages have been forged within these VCs. (Baker, A. J.) I then posed the question of how much utility these VCs could have in forming personal relationships relative to dating sites. Jeffrey provided some ideas in response to my question, proposing that users of VCs are becoming friends first, and romantic partners second. (Down the Rabbit Hole, 4/26 10:17 AM) In this scenario, Jeffrey hypothesizes that “there can be a higher chance of forming a longer lasing relationship if you know more about the person over a sustained amount of time,” in contrast to a dating sites modus operandi is to stick to people together as fast as possible. To me, this makes sense. VCs appear as a middle-ground between dating sites and offline functions: interactions takes place online, but the setting is more casual and geared towards participating in some shared interest or activity. This seems like a more “natural” means of establishing a relationship, because one grows more familiar with their peers by actively learning about their character, personality, and other interests. Here, friendship is spontaneous, not expressly sought after.

In addition to the readings, I have taken steps to improve my writing in several forums. Regarding discussion posts, I have tried to reduce the number of my responses that are contained within my own topics. I noticed that the majority of my posts usually came from responding to people that responded to me, and I gave comparatively little input to other people. In an effort to more directly engage other posters I have tried to split my posts more evenly, usually by responding to an individuals first post on the topic, where I try to develop questions and expand on what they have said.

The SparkLix, note-taking genre has also been considered, though not as well as I would have liked. I am usually not a big electronic note taker, at least in so far as expanding beyond merely taking down information in the source. For example, in the first few readings of the class, my notes were usually just individual facts, statements, and statistics from the article or video. For the second week of readings, I have tried to impart more of my thought process and own ideas that spring forth into the notes; I also made mention of discussion posts on the topic that may have brought to light new ideas or a different perspectives.

In the Proof of Learning genre, I have tried to (as can be seen here) give more weight to our discussion posts, by including references and input from my classmates, and expanding on how their contributions have influenced the totality of the topic in my mind.

References

Baker, A. J. (2008). Down the rabbit hole: The role of place in the initiation and development of online relationships. In A. Barak (Ed.), Psychological aspects of cyberspace: Theory, research, applications (pp. 163-184). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Cuthill, Jon. "BBC News - Victims of Web Dating Scams Lose Thousands of Pounds." BBC - Homepage. BBC, 13 Feb. 2011. Web. 29 May 2011. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12442415>. 

Discussion Posts. Cited in text.

Proof of Learning, Week One

The most salient ideas that seemed to stem from the readings this week were the pervasiveness of technology, the impacts technology has on our social climate, and how the Internet influences our identities and how we present ourselves. The power and ubiquity of technology today is astounding, and to think that a man-made item, the computer chip, possesses the greatest energy-to-density ratio in the known Universe is impressive. In another light, the dependence our very species exhibits in regards to technology is also quite striking. Beyond the raw prowess of technology, we can examine how it shapes not only our social landscape, but the way we, as individuals, use tools like the Internet to mold our own observed identities. 

Technology can be defined as “anything useful invented by a human mind.” (Kelly) Technology isn't, then, simply electronics and advanced tools, but everything ranging from law and hammers to reading and writing. Even language is a kind of technology. In our first discussion topic, Sarah mentions the ability of technology to “vastly expand what humans are able to do,” and this proposition trends deeper than it would initially seem. Kelly mentions that grandparents are the “transmitters of cultural evolution and information,” and the same principle may be extended to technology. Until humans were able to survive long enough for grandparents to flourish – probably brought about by technological innovations – information was not easily disseminated between generations. With such a short life span, one could only learn so much in a lifetime, and what little was learned was difficult to effectively pass on to the new generation: they had the technology, but not necessarily the information and exposition required to continue its development. Grandparents provided both an easy medium to expand the pool of knowledge and transmute it between generations. 

What, then, is humanities greatest technological achievement? I believe it to be reading and writing, for much the same reasons as grandparents. Reading and writing provide an easy path to disseminate information across generations, and an easy way to accumulate that information and knowledge. The process of writing and documenting technology and information provides not only a (sometimes literal) blueprint for constructing the old but it saves time for building upon existing convention. Reading and writing effectively provides a short-cut for each successive generation to understand and utilize existing technology, so that they don't have to relearn, by experience, all manner of existing technology; Technology, then, is a kind of infrastructure that evolves and expedites both the process of learning existing technology and the knowledge required to expand upon it. It doesn't simply provide the raw tool, it provides to information and history required to wield it effectively.

The power of technology, while highly valuable, is not without its costs. The harnessing of fire is a manner of technology, and its utilization by humans has lead to dramatic changes in the ecology of grasses and entire continents. (Kelly) Other technology utilized by humans has allowed us to influence the planet on a global scale, such as driving to extinction up to “250 magafuana animals in North America” when our genus migrated there. 

Kelly asserts that “technology loves biology,” but I find this hard to believe. Technology is ultimately a tool to be used by humans, and I do not believe it to inherently opposes or supports biology. However, I think that looking at the history of humanity's utilization of technology weaves a completely different tale, even to the present day. Technology is ubiquitous in humanity, and the niche we have carved for ourselves with that technology has been at extreme cost to Earth's ecological system, both past and present. Ignoring more complex issues like climate change, humanity is clearly implicated in the astounding acceleration of mass extinction events and our current trend of living beyond Earth's ecological capacity (RSBS), both direct – hunting – and indirect – toxic emissions, altering ecosystems. Overconsumption and overpopulation are two significant factors, but our ever-expanding society is certainly the result of our expanding retinue of technology. 

Technology is of great importance to our species, and without it we would not be in the dominant position that we are now. However, it is certainly not without its costs to the world around us. We as a species do not exist in a vacuum, and we must learn to live in balance with the rest of the planet: the future of humanity depends on biodiversity and the global environment as much as they depend on us. It was a difficult, messy road to attain our current standing in the world, and I think that it is time to turn our technological usage around to give back to the world we took so much from.

References

Kelly, Kevin. "Kevin Kelly Tells Technology's Epic Story | Video on TED.com." TED: Ideas worth Spreading. TED, Feb. 2010. Web. 15 May 2011. <http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/kevin_kelly_tells_technology_s_epic_story.html>.

RSBS. "RSBS » 5 Are We Living Beyond Earth's Capacity"" RSBS　SOS2006. RSBS, Jan. 2006. Web. 20 May 2011. <http://www.sos2006.jp/english/rsbs_summary_e/5-are-we-living-beyond-earths- capacity.html>.

Initiation

Summer 2011 kicks off with IDS 121.19