Addressing the topic depicted in Peter Steiner’s 1993
cartoon, Hubert L. Dreyfus discusses the obscurity of people and the disintegration
of knowledge in Anonymity versus
Commitment: The Dangers of Education on the Internet. A more recent article
by Dreyfus on this same topic can be found on his UC Berkeley page. Both of these articles discuss the leveling of information
based around the writings of Kierkegaard.
To briefly summarize, the massive amount of information on
the internet contributes to “desituated information…producing an anonymous,
detached spectator” (579). This spectator is referred to by Kierkegaard as the Public “a phantom, its spirit, a
monstrous abstraction, and all-embracing something which is nothing, a mirage”
(579). This Public freely absorbs anonymous information available on the
internet in the “aesthetic sphere of existence” producing “a self that has no
defining content or continuity but is open to all possibilities and to
constantly being drawn into new games” (580). This obscurity of information and individuals in a risk-free
aesthetic sphere contradicts what Kierkegaard calls the ethical sphere in which “one has a stable identity and one is
committed to involved action” (580).The internet provides the ability to post, comment, forward, and disseminate information with a lack of commitment and identity promoting the concept that individuals get to decide what is interesting, what is true, and what knowledge is worth learning. However, for Kierkegaard, “one can only turn information into relevant meaningful knowledge….if one has a strong identity based on serious, long-lasting commitment" (582). Dreyfus points out, that “such a commitment is risky…..[t]here is no way to have a meaningful life and to develop particular skills and the skill of being a good human being without taking risks.”
The use of MOO and Skype for online classes certainly doesn’t embody the extremes of anonymity described by Dreyfus and Kierkegaard, but they do offer an alternative to personal interaction. One fellow student joked about not being “presentable” for an interactive Skype session, while another talked of the interruptions from family members. I am also “guilty” of attending online class dressed much more casually than I would dress for attendance in person and have also had side conversations with family members during class time. So these methods of technology have changed the classroom, but change is inevitable and technology is becoming more engrained in the educational process. As we experience this techno-evolution of education, we should remember to stay committed to who we are and take ownership and responsibility for how we use the technology available to us.
Well, first let me say how much I enjoyed the video you posted. It was highly relevant and highly entertaining and describes quite well the 'dangers' of anonymity. I agree that the MOO and Skype for online writing courses doesn't embody the extremes of anonymity that might be present on social media sites. There may not be an advantage, for example, for a cat to pretend to be a mouse. But there is a freedom that comes from not having to 'physically' prepare for class. Last week, I 'attended' class while sitting out on my deck in shorts and a tank top (it was an absolutely glorious day here in California). I don't know why, but I probably would have felt that was too casual if we were going to be on Skype. Additionally, there is something appealing about using our classmates 'written word' to discover things about them. It's kind of like a 'live blog'.
ReplyDeleteCary, that video made my day. I can't help but long for the Skype environment of last semester. I felt that we knew each other much better and were able to express volumes more information per class session. While MOO is certainly more interactive than an asynchronous class environment - the lack visual and audio components really lessens the learning experience in my humble opinion.
ReplyDeleteI talked more about authenticity and authority in my spiel about anonymity, but the commitment trade-off is super interesting too. I like your final thought of taking our responsibilities and commitments seriously in our own education, despite the ways technology or other situations may change. I think Dr. Rice's teaching attitude enforces that-- he's very flexible and open, leaving it up to us to figure out what we really want to get out of this class, to find ways to make it meaningful in our own professional spheres. it's hard, but that's what makes it so worth it.
ReplyDeleteThere are certainly dangers of anonymity, but there are many benefits as well once trust is there.
ReplyDeleteThere's a concept called media-naturalness theory which suggests that the more "natural" a communication situation (such as it approximates face to face), the less likely there is to have ambiguity in the situation. Following that theory, Skype (with audio or even video) approximates f2f better than MOO (text only). Still, for some, the semi-anonymous nature of MOO over Skype, as you've indicated, can be useful to getting something out of a class. In fact, sometimes "known anonymity" (that is, the same anonymity every week), maximizes voice (Elbow) but understanding of the discourse community (Bartholmae) and responsibility. It is planned flexibility. Thinking about ways to give room to students to dedicate time needed (and the amount of time is different for every student) to build ideas, etc., before sharing them, is important. For me, text does that better than audio and video, where you're more immediately transparent or on the spot. For me, with online classes, I believe the cognitive development or "aha moments" are more developed with text, with grad students taking rhetoric courses, ultimately..
I hear what you're saying Dr. R. - that the anonymity might benefit some students in some cases. I've never been accused of being an introvert in the classroom...or in the business world, now that I think about it...so it's hard for me to imagine anonymity being helpful to INCREASE communication. I'm like, "If you've got something to say, well Say It!" I don't think I'm quite like Spitzer's idea of a powerful personality (see Heather's Blog post this week), but I've always been one to ask questions, even if they do sometimes fall into the "Dumb Questions" category - that's just me!
ReplyDelete