CCK11 & PLENK2010 Future of real time and Learning

I found this Future of Real Time interesting.

Social media is another tool that is being used to monitor the well-being of communities. Online buzz around certain subjects can serve as an indicator of group sentiment, providing insights that are relevant offline and pointing to actions that can be taken to remedy problems as they arise.

Simple solutions are developing that allow people to connect rapidly across mobile networks. Government and aid-organizations are putting this newfound ability to use by creating temporary networked communities to handle situations on both a large and small scale. While others are putting this technology to use to instantly map geography, layer in information from other data streams and create context and narrative where none previously existed.

The proliferation of low-cost sensors has created also network of intelligent infrastructure that can allow for the monitoring of changing conditions and statuses in both natural and urban environments.

Slide here:

This report provides a lot of recent advancement in the use of technology in real time and an useful summary on social media.

Good food for thoughts.

Advertisement

#CCK11 Discourse and the networks

#CCK11 Interesting phenomena: networkers have now set up their own platforms for discourse, interacting & changing in different spaces (blogs/tweets/media)

Credit: From Tony Hirst post on CCK

Connection, Exploration, Participation, Interaction, Communication, Sharing, Curation, Aggregation, Criticism, Debates, Appreciation, Synthesis,  Evaluation, Discourse and LEARNING.

What else is happening within the networks? Is the power and control decentralized as shared by Ken?  Does it follow a power law?  May be power is more under the control of the individual person – with more autonomy and power re-distributed.

Power issues and conflicts do arise in both groups and networks.  However, in networks, the diversity of opinions do allow many conflicts to be surfaced, debated or resolved through multiple channels, or not even resolved, if found not deemed to be that important (the power law doesn’t apply that easily).  In other words, it leaves choice for the learners.  If learners don’t find one network to be particular helpful, they could consider other network sources.  Similarly, if they perceive overly unwarranted power over them in networks, they could resort to other networks or media.  So the power issue may be degenerated into a smoothing of views.  This is not that easy to resolve in the case of groups, unless one is to quit from the group.  But is the web hierarchy free too?

I particularly like Rita’s discussion of power here:

Of course we have found other ways to filter our information; knowledgeable others we trust can provide us with relevant and interesting information . Bouchard (2010) and Boyd (2010) still see problems with these as well and question the possibility of hierarchy-free peer to peer connections on the Web:

However, the notion of  ‘supernode’ predictably emerges when some contributors are recognized by a  number of others as having particular relevance to, or knowledge of a problem. There seems to be a natural tendency within the ‘perfectly’ democratic network to organize itself, over time, in a hierarchical system composed of leaders and followers.

(Bouchard, 2010, p. 3)

What is your role in the network?