This week at a party someone commented that all of the photos from the party would be posted online that night. One guest countered that I definitely don't want my photos on facebook stating "at 44 I don't think you should have a myspace or facebook page."
A debate then ensued regarding the age limits or rather the participation age limits of each social networking site. One guest a facebook Diva then instrcuted the guests on the ways to use Facebook to accomplish "adult networking" based on "knowledge of how the site works." She told the "anti-social networking Guest" all of the ins and outs of using facebook, cautioning against the use of other social networking sites, mainly myspace, which she countered was indeed for little kids an adult predators.
The discussion led me to think of the various online literacies and the communites of practice (Lave and Wenger) where participants gain the skills and receive the tools to become more integrated into the community. This integration within the community is based upon an interest in achieving full or some sort of participation within the community.
Online Literacy based on this obsveration seems grounded in the need or want to participate. If you don't see a need for participation then there is no need to acquire, practice, or do whatever needs to be done to become a participant within the "comunity of practice."
This makes me wander is there such a thing as online literacy or is it simply literacy within certain domains, e.g a facebook literacy or social networking literacy, mobile literacy, email literacy? Adopting Barton's approach to "literacy" would encompass literacy within the online domain without possibly limiting the view of literacy to the technology "online" which can change like "print."
Barton bounds his definition of literacy within "print" which presents some challenges when reviewing various text based literacies which can not be physically printed yet they can be preserved and later printed. Is the ability to Print enough for Barton's definition of literacy to extend to the domain of online?
The use of online literacy is something that I'm going to have to spend some time with and hopefully have more answers or questions following the reading for tonight and the subsequent lecture.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Who says you're too young to do that?
So in the fall of 2007 the NY Times wrote a story "For Toddlers, Toy of Choice Is Tech Device."
The article included the following:
"Wiring toys for a young audience is worrying some children’s advocates and pediatricians. The American Academy of Pediatrics advises against screen time for children ages 2 and younger, and it recommends no more than one to two hours a day of quality programming on televisions or computers for older children.
Donald L. Shifrin, a pediatrician based in Seattle and the spokesman for the academy, said tech toys cannot replace imaginative play, where children create rich narratives and interact with peers or parents.
“Are we creating media use as a default for play?” Dr. Shifrin asked. “When kids want to play, will they ask, ‘Where’s the screen?’ ”
Not so ironically last week Leap Frog Unveiled Baby Blackberry for Tots
"The Text & Learn was unveiled at the U.K. Toy Fair this week and isn't supposed to be announced in the U.S. until next week, but we do know it will be available this summer and will cost $25."
This brings more things to mind than I have time to mention here. In 2007 Pediatricians cautioned against "screen time" for children 2 and younger and two years later a device is launched for those 2 and under. Now I am not on either side of the debate as my interest lie in letting the data speak for itself, in terms of actually observing young people with the device(s).
It just seems ironic that there was all of this talk about the potential of harm to children 2 and over in using these devices and then they go and create one for children even younger. I have not found, hence my summer research, any data that actually observes "toddler" device use in a non-controlled setting. Pediatricians have definite opinions on both sides of the argument but many of those same pediatricians also sit on both sides of the vaccination divide/debate, so their opinions have some credibility issues.
This validates my research (well at least I hope it does) providing me even more motivation to craft and conduct a study which looks into many of the questions which arise out of the creation, marketing and ultimate use of these devices by anyone, let alone toddlers.
The article included the following:
"Wiring toys for a young audience is worrying some children’s advocates and pediatricians. The American Academy of Pediatrics advises against screen time for children ages 2 and younger, and it recommends no more than one to two hours a day of quality programming on televisions or computers for older children.
Donald L. Shifrin, a pediatrician based in Seattle and the spokesman for the academy, said tech toys cannot replace imaginative play, where children create rich narratives and interact with peers or parents.
“Are we creating media use as a default for play?” Dr. Shifrin asked. “When kids want to play, will they ask, ‘Where’s the screen?’ ”
Not so ironically last week Leap Frog Unveiled Baby Blackberry for Tots
"The Text & Learn was unveiled at the U.K. Toy Fair this week and isn't supposed to be announced in the U.S. until next week, but we do know it will be available this summer and will cost $25."
This brings more things to mind than I have time to mention here. In 2007 Pediatricians cautioned against "screen time" for children 2 and younger and two years later a device is launched for those 2 and under. Now I am not on either side of the debate as my interest lie in letting the data speak for itself, in terms of actually observing young people with the device(s).
It just seems ironic that there was all of this talk about the potential of harm to children 2 and over in using these devices and then they go and create one for children even younger. I have not found, hence my summer research, any data that actually observes "toddler" device use in a non-controlled setting. Pediatricians have definite opinions on both sides of the argument but many of those same pediatricians also sit on both sides of the vaccination divide/debate, so their opinions have some credibility issues.
This validates my research (well at least I hope it does) providing me even more motivation to craft and conduct a study which looks into many of the questions which arise out of the creation, marketing and ultimate use of these devices by anyone, let alone toddlers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)