In Granieri’s article, it mentioned that algorithmic culture can facilitate us with new information of similar interests and preferences. With the existing preference to provide more information in which it is believed that the reader will love to read, this is stated to be personalization. However, it also creates a possibility that this undermines other areas of interests due to the limited boundaries set by the existing search preferences.
When I think critically about algorithmic culture, I immediately have the “fake peppa pig” BBC trending video in mind, together with the real experience which my daughter has encountered. An aged 4 girl having very limited spelling / search capability, she can only type “peppa” or even “pig” and finally she managed to find out the fake series in YouTube. I was surprised to see that “Toys and Funny Kids”, appearing to be a child friendly channel, has accumulated over 5 billion views.
The third blog stated about some popular educational technology support with the rise of algorithm. Majority of the tools are new to me such as some adaptive learning systems and process intelligence tools. However, there is still room to validate if they are good to apply in digital education in real cases.
As mentioned in Knox’s article, it reminds us to be critical enough on algorithmic culture. Are the sources objective enough? Do we also look into the accuracy of the algorithmic result?
Knox, J. 2015. Algorithmic Cultures. Excerpt from Critical Education and Digital Cultures. In Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory. M. A. Peters (ed.). DOI 10.1007/978-981-287-532-7_124-1
This week I continue some inputs on online communities and I focus more on how people can be facilitated with the online community communications. In Nielson’s article, it mentioned that 90% of online users are lurkers. Another interesting point is about his observation about the power of online communities. It states to
– Build personal relationshipsand networks of trust.
– Bring together peoplewith common interests or profiles.
– Engagethese specific groups of people.
Thus, in order to bring people together virtually who never met before, and majority being Lurkers, they are attracted together with common interests and they can gradually build personal networks among themselves and they become more engaged with each other. As mentioned by xxx, Lurkers have the potential “to become a newbie, a neo or neophate”.
My input on Starbucks online community can be an example. Starbucks is encouraging customers to give voices and contribute to their online community. It is “less commercial” to encourage customers to interact among themselves “Because we believe marvelous things happen when you put great coffee and great people together.” This is an excellent example to demonstrate the 3 aspects about the power of online communities.
In addition to better engagement for online community members, Vala Afshar mentioned that 67% of companies collect ideas for new products or features directly from customers. In digital education, to what extent can people create new ideas via online learning community? This would be interesting to explore!
In this week’s summary my focus is on online community. One of the very interesting findings I have is about learning the piano online. I am very surprised to know that there are over 40,000 subscriptions for the YouTuber LessonsOnTheWeb! The Youtuber delivered the class in YouTube as well as LiveStream. It is somehow similar to MOOCs to offer free online piano learning to people in the world and it encourages learners to exchange ideas.
Online community can effectively share information and create value to the group. In the case “Online community to deter crime”, the shop owner created the community originally to share and update some digital knowledge, and ultimately intended to promote their shop. It then served the purpose to share crime information to their followers and successfully identified the thief with the help from other community members. This inspires me that communities of practice is supposed to focus on a defined subject to share and discuss. When common interest arises, this can be extended to other topics.
Another input this week is about generating revenue from online communities. In the video, Patrick O’Keefe suggested methods of monetization ranging from direct advertising and affiliate links to classifieds, product sales and premium memberships. In learning communities, this could also be promoting readings or conferences on certain topics for the target group. I believe there can be more monetization possibilities especially with popularity of digital education.
There is a Place for Learning Piano Online: Community Discussion
This week my blog inputs are more focused on AI technologies in which I find this topic very interesting. Humans are spending huge effort and investment for advanced technology. It now comes to the stage that there is low, or even no, difference between how a computer / robot performs and what humans do.
Kismet, the robot created by M.I.T. is no longer new to me after looking into the cyberculture topic for some weeks. Kismet is a robot who interacts with humans through her body posture and facial expressions. The aim of this project is to explore social interactions between humans and robots and also between the humans themselves.
Another example is AlphaGo which has been created with extensive training with human and computer play on chess games. One of the most well known news is the winning over world champion in 2016 and also recently in January 2017.
AI is providing many advancement to our life, interacting with robots who can interact, behave and socialize like humans. However, sometimes people prefer “natural” rather than “artificial”. The example of plastic surgery teaser is a perfect demonstration. The joke implies that people actually prefer natural and inborn beauty rather than that obtained by plastic surgery. The posthumanism results in an embarrassing situation for the model who only starred in the advertisement for a plastic surgery clinic.
Brennan, Siofra (2015) Model who was ridiculed online after starring in a plastic surgery advert that was turned into a ‘cruel’ meme is SUING after claiming it ruined her life http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3312405/Model-s-life-ruined-image-turned-internet-meme.html
Dreifus, C. 2000. A CONVERSATION WITH: ANNE FOERST; Do Androids Dream? M.I.T. Working on It
I am greatly inspired by James’s feedback about my blog inputs and also the TogetherTube tutorial session attended. This week I am more focused on the relationship between human and technology, and how transhumanism can change our future.
Interestingly, the 3 youtube videos I have included this week all touched on emotional building for robots. In Bioengineering a Perfect Human, it mentioned that people may use the advanced technology to make their body more “plastic and bionic to delay the adverse effects of ageing bodies” (Millier, V. 2011). However, technology cannot (or can hardly) change someone’s emotions.
In Beyond Human: The Age of Androids, it is interesting to point out that robots are created by human, based on human and to understand human. This is obviously an example of cybernetics, “the study of regulatory systems and self governing mechanisms” (Hayles, 1999.)
In the video Beyond Human: Emotional Robots, it introduced the “trend” of building robots now to focus on emotion expressions and interactions with human. This is not only about receiving or executing work orders which are rather one way, but also exchanging feelings, emotions and ideas between humans and technology. This makes me thinking about “Gumdrop” (one of the movies in TogetherTube tutorial class), who lives and interacts like humans. She dreamed to be an actor and her voice and tone are like a real feminine person.
In Rosevear’s paper, it stated that legacy LMSs can no longer meet the needs of the modern learner. I can share a real life case which happened recently in my work. We have been using Skillport to provide elearning on leadership and management training to our staff. Unfortunately, in recent staff survey, we are told that the learning is not effective to them since the design and delivery of this “traditional” elearning is rather boring to the learners, and they look for something more interactive and dynamic in nature. This is exactly what we refer to “learning experience platforms” in the tweet.
In considering McGraw-Hill Education’s third annual Workforce Readiness Survey in Conlan’s paper, I have doubt about 52 percent of students believing that their use of technology during college classes and study sessions will help them secure a job.
would it be only the technology in the class that helps? What about the society at large including the importance of social media and online communications? I would also question about the survey result, e.g. about background of students, what technology has it been applied in the class to have made the remarkable difference for the employer, and what kind of job nature do they prefer to.
Another interesting point is about digital communication and digital etiquette mentioned in Corbitt’s tweet. In digital education nowadays, we greatly rely on e-channels for communication. How to use the tools effectively and with respect is a key area to take note.