#Change11 Social Media Literacies and Multiple Intelligences

This week’s session by Howard Rheingold relates to the fundamental social media literacy.

Howard concluded that “one important step that people can take is to become more adept at five essential literacies for a world of mobile, social, and always-on media: attention, crap detection, participation, collaboration, and network know-how.”

Would the following categorization help?

Personal literacy: Attention, crap detection

Social literacty: Participation, collaboration

Socio-technological literacy: Network know-how

Relating to crap detection, Howard says:

“Although the Web undermines authority, the usefulness of authority as another clue to credibility hasn’t entirely disappeared. I would add credibility points if a source is a verified professor at a known institution of higher learning, an authentic M.D. or Ph.D., but I wouldn’t subtract points from uncredentialed people whose expertise seems authentic. Nor would I stop at simply verifying that the claim to be a professor is valid.” Great advice.

I have reflected on the basic questions here:

There are 6 important questions raised:

1. Where is it coming from?

2. What are the implications of thinking like that? What are the social, political, economical and environmental implications?

3. How could this be thought otherwise?

4. Who decides?  Who decides what’s true, normal, mainstream?

5. In whose name is this statement made?

6. For whose benefit?

I am mulling over the discussion on the evolving definition of experthere.

In reflection this could be referred to:

Question 4: Who decides?  Who is the authority in the subject domain?

Question 5: In whose name is this statement made?  This is particularly the case in referring to the authorities in research.  What are the credentials of those experts?  Are they theorists, practitioners or both?

Question 6: For whose benefit?  Who would benefit most from the decision made? How about the power?

Do you see experts as the main source of critical literacies?  Who are the experts?  How about leaders as experts?

How would these literacies be developed in social networks and formal education? Would that be learning by doing, thinking and reflection?  I think it would also relate to critical thinking, sensemaking and way-finding, whilst navigating and constructing networks under Connectivism.

What about the intelligence one has in order to develop those literacies in online education and learning environment?

I have been thinking about multiple intelligences (MI) for the last two decades.  Here Howard Gardner provides an interesting presentation on MI.  As Howard mentioned, MI is a way of thinking.

My main take away from Howard’s MI presentation is that MI has its soil on certain cultural roots, where democracy and individualization of education and learning is encouraged and supported.  However, there might be some constraints when such way of thinking is introduced into a culture where centralization of power is involved.  Under such centralized education system, MI might have potential to flourish, provided individualized learning is allowed.  The use of Personal Learning Environment (PLE) might better align with this MI way of thinking, where the learner would decide which of those capacities he or she has would be of interests for development.

10 thoughts on “#Change11 Social Media Literacies and Multiple Intelligences

  1. A literate person determines who they are and by which illusions they choose to live. Experts and fools are just as certain. What makes something “wrong”?

    Scott

  2. Pingback: #Change11 Social Media Literacies and Multiple Intelligences | E-Learning-Inclusivo (Mashup) | Scoop.it

  3. Pingback: #Change11 Social Media Literacies and Multiple Intelligences « juandon. Innovación y conocimiento

  4. Good posting. I find your point regarding the full expression of multiple intelligences very interesting. Specifically I like the notion that development of one’s MI is dependent on the level of tolerance for intellectual diversity existing in the community. If a culture does not recognize multiple intelligences then it will not foster them nor assess for them.

    I must challenge Scott on his statement about experts and fools though. Experts are far more likely than the ill-informed to evaluate their understanding of “truth”. By definition an expert is a person who has a deeper insight of the universals by which the knowledge of his/her domain is constructed. Unsubstantiated refutation or blind acceptance of these universals makes something “wrong”. By the same token, challenging the strength of evidence used to establish these universals should be considered a large component of literacy.

  5. Hi Jenny,
    Everything should be questioned, regardless of the source. Or maybe I should change “questioned” to listened-to-critically. I no longer accept anything without reservation–everything around me is in progress never to reach completion, or drifting towards something entirely unexpected.

    I no longer find it necessary to be right, except where being right prevents harm to others. Every day I see people harmed by so called “experts” who shame themselves by their self-regard and absence of empathy. By definition these people are in violation of responsibilities to others and deserve no respect.

  6. Pingback: #Change11 Social Media Literacies and Multiple Intelligences ... | Personal Learning Environment in EFL | Scoop.it

  7. I like your final point. It is just spot on. I would like the webbased educationssystems in Denmark to change from LMS (Learning Management systems) to PLE (Personal Learning Invironment).

  8. Scott, thank you for your beautifully written and thoughtful reply….. For me it brings to mind a famous statement by Rumsfeld which goes something like this, (my summary) there are knowns; entities that make up reality and truth, known unknowns; understanding that there is missing knowledge of, or about, entities making up reality and truth, and unknown unknowns; an ignorance of the existence of entities critical to full understanding of reality and truth.

    Your sensitive reply has caused me to reconsider my previous held understanding of expertise. I now believe that an important characteristic distinguishing true experts from novice learners lies in acceptance of the ramifications of Rumsfeld’s final statement; taking action while being prepared to accept responsibility for the existence of unknown unknowns.

    You state “I no longer find it necessary to be right, except where being right prevents harm to others.” It’s a beautiful way to say there is no honor in winning every debate if it means disregarding the impact this win will have on others. In the connected world of complexity and emergence, (the unknown unknowns) there is no such thing as an isolated win because everything is connected in ways we certainly will never know.

    Perhaps the highest degree of expertise is fueled by a humble respect for knowledge and a hunger to reveal truth in the least destructive way as it constantly evolves. Thanks for the conversation.

  9. Hello Jenny,
    Thanks for your comments. Jaap noted that critical thinking, the real stuff that gets people excited, comes at a cost. Poke at power and you get burned. Saying that “I take responsibility” coming from the mouth of Donald Rumsfeld is a stunning example of the crap we’ve been discussing. Words made meaningless by misuse seem to have no consequence but language twisted to advantage soils all of us. The harm falls on all but speaker of such phony self-protecting poo.

    Scott

  10. Pingback: #Change11 #CCK12 Emotional Intelligence and Leadership | Learner Weblog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s