Gutenberg press, and other devices

Since I "started this" I think I should be the first to post.

"Whether or not you believe there is a difference in the way this generation processes information and how so.

Answer: Yes, there is a difference. What is required is the "how", however. I will explain at the same time as describing  the role of the sender. "Is it the duty of the sender to adapt to their audience's needs by adjusting their form of communication, or is it the recievers duty to adapt to the communication method chosen by the sender.

In this case I will suggest that it is caveat emptor intertwined with caveat venditor. I have provided two pieces of work that I have drawn on from in the past and I have come to believe that the both the vendor of information, the venditor of information, and the consumer, the emptor of information are at different times one and the same. The consumer of the information has to rely on others who have produced it (meta-data) in order to build a uniquely new position. To quote Doc Searls and David Wineberger from their book, The Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of Business As Usual: "Markets are conversations." As a result in the market of the web, opinions are formed by conversations, and it is the conversation that contains the knowledge, not those who participate in the dialog. I will explain this in a bit, however, to answer the question quickly, it is not as simple as being a binary sender's responsibility or the consumer's responsibility, subsequently it is both.  Let me explain:

The students of today have access to more raw data that is produced by the process of credentialing, as well as the average, non-accredited, shoot-from-the-hip-anything-anytime data producer. I believe that the technology of the day plays a vital roll in giving access to, and the ability to create the data that, according to Dr. David Winberger, the author of "Everything is Miscellaneous" makes up the web since "...everything is meta-data" on the Internet.

The impact of the technology of the day on the social structure and the way students access data, and as a result, value "conversation" from their peers and those who they decide should be considered an "authority" and to be listened to has changed in the last ten year.  The impact of technology has precipitated the transformation in the way the younger generation values information, and by extension, the producers of it.

In the discussion in class I indicated that I had observed that our students, those students that we in Menomonie teach, no longer are as willing to accept what we say as teachers (and adults) is coming from a person of authority; a "trusted" source. In this case I was pointing to my observations about the kids I have personally observed. However, this notion did not pop out of the sky through a celestial osmosis of understanding.

Dr. David Winberger, author of "Everything is Miscellaneous"  (please watch the film I captured of his online presentation from his blog) states that:  "The knowledge is in the conversation,  It is not in Harold's  head, its not in your head, its not in any head, its in us talking together and that's what we can do now. So we find this out on the web, we always knew this, so what the web is revealing to us about knowledge is what we have always known about knowledge, but our thinking about it has disputed.

Initially the conversation was started by Winberger. (11:28 into the film). His focus is on the university intellectuals, however, I am interested in the K-12 educator, but his point is well taken when he states:

"We had this idea that there were these authorities who have PHD's... well you know, that never worked, doesn't work now, instead what we have, as we always have, nuances of authority where authority becomes meta-data.  Authority is: '...here's meta-data that tells me I should believe you, to one degree or another.' And we all get to create the meta-data which is a huge problem, of course, because a lot of us aren't qualified to judge what should be believed, but we do anyway. Because, just as we continue to talk, even though we are not qualified to."

In deed, this is true. Many people have relied on the traditional structures of authority (K-12 education and the teachers that work there) to vet information, the web is changing this model. I make no value judgement on the idea of "is this good or is that bad?" I don't care about that at this time. What I am interested in is better understanding what it is that I am observing. And I am observing a change in the way students interact with information, meta-data if you will.

But Winberger takes it a step further: "So we have this issue because everybody now can use meta-data to point at stuff and say: '...believe this, don't believe this, this is sort of right, you got the first part of this right, liked the first part of the chapter, I hated chapter four...' what ever, we all get to do that. The authority of knowledge gets split off from the thing itself and becomes meta-data pointing at it, meta-data we can all create. This does not fit well into the model of credentialing institutions but it is already there."

My contention has been, regardless of what the impact of having access to "everything" online that links to "everything" else and turning everything into meta-data, the challenge is for us as K-12 educators to learn how to take this new, easily accessed juggernaut of digital information and  CONTEXTUALIZE it.  Once again, I do not pull this out of the air, even though I have tried to "K-12-it" and adapt it. Again, this was taken from Winberger: "We still need to do the thing we've done in the real world, which is to to take big pieces of information, reduce them to into small physical objects, and arrange the small physical objects so we can go back to the big pieces." That is value of an adult, the ability to contextualize this huge sum of data and contextualize it and put it into small physical objects of understanding.

The question is asked of us to indicate the difference and to use data to support it. I have a graph that I used to demonstrate the need to use social networking sites as a model of how we need to adapt the way we teach kids. I also used the "Frontline documentary "Growing Up Online."

In Growing Up Online the narrator points out, if not completely obvious: "This is the first generation to come of age, immersed in a virtual world, outside the reach of their parents." However, C.J. Pascoe, PHD of the Digital Youth Project, UC Berkeley puts it better when she claims (05:30 into the film): "It's just this huge shift, in which the Internet and the digital-world was something that belonged to adults, and now it's something that really is the province of teenagers. So there is this proliferation of pictures and videos and them living their lives in essence online " Danah Boyd of Harvard Berkman Center for Internet and Society further states that:  " This is a generation that sees online not as a separate place you go but just a continuation of their existence. It's self-realization, it's learning about  life."

 C. J. Pascoe, PHD of the Digital Youth Project, UC Berkeley goes on to explain (18:15into the film): "In a way, the social networking sites are this digital representation of what we think of as adolescents. So what teens are doing is going around and trying on these different identities.  I'm a goth, or I'm a punk, I'm a surfer or I'm a this, or that. And the internet's allowed them to display that identity in a very dramatic and very succinct way."

(The following information is taken from this image, dapted from the original to represent the current status at SDMA)

Therefore, when you combine the two points of view, along with the data collected in the BusinessWeek: “Web Strategies That Cater To Customers” you learn that 34% of young teens ages 12-17 are "Creators: publish Web pages, write blogs, upload videos to sites like YouTube." So at some point these kids have to adhere to caveat venditor because they will be judged by their peers with comments and ratings, both tools built into Web 2.0 blogging tools.

What is also interesting is that these same kids who are the producers of meta-data become "critics" of their peers. While nowhere near a majority, 24% of Young Teen are "Critics: comment on blogs and post ratings and reviews." This is considered by Winberger to be the meta-data that these kids base an opinion on in order to determine if the person is worthy of "authority" figured. What matters in the digital real is the strength of the argument, so in fact, caveat venditor, let the vendor beware. The big part of this should be clear.

In addition, what separates, like no other, is the growth of social networking sites in the life of young students. As was so well addressed in the Frontline documentary, 51% of Young Teens ages 12-17 are "Joiners: use social networking sties" such as FaceBook and MySpace. These tools are designed to funnel people to the online presence of the student and the way they produce their identity and information will determine if they get linked. A piece of information that is not linked on the web is a literal dead end. This simple fact means that the message has to be atractive to the consumer, and viseversa.

However, this is about the "production" of data, meta-data. Of Young Teens ages 12-17, 49% are: "Spectators: read blogs, watch peer-generated videos, and listen to podcasts." That is compared to 26% of the "Older Boomers" ages 51-61. That indicates a measurable difference in attitudes toward data. It was this data that I brought to the dialog in class and which was the basis for my "question", if it was a question at all, more an interesting observation. Therefore, the reader has to understand if the information that they use to form an opinion is worthy of being considered worthy, or in other words, an authority that can be trusted. The kids of today do this seemingly as a second nature. Therefore, a social caveat emptor.

To close this start to the dialog, it is important to remember that young people have (according to the data that I provided from Business Week) have their own communities that are not credentialed, but do police the quality of the data produced, either by themself or by other young people. The true meaning of peer review.

If you watch the video from Winberger, you will understand that being accepted as an authority is the determinator of value. Therefore, because of peer review and the commenting on data that is produced, there is a natural adaptation of information and a crafting of the message and the building of self, as was pointed out by the Frontline video. So I contended that the responsibility is one and the same. The first is to participate in a conversation that inspires the student to want to "...get it out there" and then start a conversation. The back and forth is where the value is and where authority is formed. To quote myself, "the beautiful thing about the web is you get to show people what you know and don't know, at the same time."

When you follow the struggles of the young people who are heavy consumers of data as well as producers you would be hard pressed to argue that a the Older Boomers, ages 51-61 approached the consumption, and production of data in the 20th century the way the young people of the 21st century do. The data shows that a full 61% are "Inactives: are online but don't yet participate in any form of social media."  Therefore, I am inclined to conclude that the impact of readily-available, and nearly-free access to unlimited, data-rich content, made possible by the internet and technology is in fact changing the way our students consume data as well as requires students to adapt to the peer feedback and learn how to craft the identity that will bring them closer to what is considered worthy of being an athority. So to answer the second question, the built-in peer review that is made possible by the web 2.0 tools requires both sides to "adapt." Equally.