Ganama, J.Z.

Computer Mediated Discourse: A Proposition

July 1st, 2019
It is important when discussing computer mediated discourse to be cognizant of the affordances of the technologies in question as well as the characteristics of the human participants.

Technological Affordance: Briefly, this can be described as what a medium or tool allows us to do. Different forms of technologies allows us perform tasks at varying degrees of ease, efficiency and effectiveness. In the context of discourse for instance, we have yet to completely replicate traditional forms of communication. However, in lieu of that, technology has availed us of video, audio and textual capabilities. These of course have their own limitations as human gestures, physical actions, and certain nuances are lost in translation. So what impact does this loss imply? For the lay man, it is negligible, for his communication needs may not require much more sophistication than to simply relay a message. But for researchers, this is noteworthy as it implies that what we are in fact analyzing is only partial information.

Human Factors: On the other hand, the effect on discourse due to human factors could be attributed to the participants themselves. We have to consider, their likes, preferences, comfort level with the technology being used to communicate and so on. Humans reveal and conceal information at their own discretion. In the absence of face-to-face interaction, they get to choose how they will portray themselves. One can argue that since computer mediated discourse is always to some degree documented, it raises concerns about privacy. This may make participants likely to share less.

Consider the following discourse scenario, an Adobe Connect class is going on in a distance delivered program. Some students are tuning in from their laptop while others are driving home from work and logged in from their cellphones. Still, some have their tablet in the background whilst multitasking. This scenario could play out a variety of ways; I outline two of those below which are by no means exhaustive:

I. The instructor decides to record the session. Some students are a bit concerned about being documented that they are conscious of their speech in both quality and brevity. They may decide to keep their participation strictly on the subject; no in class jokes or likewise. Some students that otherwise aren’t active in class might decide to be more participatory on this fine occasion.

II. The teacher asks a question.
- The person who responds via audio might a) have a lot to say and/or b) is tuning in from a cellphone, which isn’t ideal for long form typing.
- The person who responds via text might a) be typing from a computer or tablet, probably in a public space and/or (b)is lacking headphones, microphone or additional software
- The person who responds via video might (a) need to show something substantial, usually visual and (b) will need to share his/her screen.
In scenario I, the technological affordance here is chiefly the ease with which this discourse is documented and thus sways the human factors into adapting their discourse. In Scenario II, the human factors consider how best to communicate their discourse within the technological affordance of their respective devices; they may have or more less to say than their cellphones, tablets, computers allow. It can then be concluded that the nature of discourse is more often determined by the interplay of both technological affordances and human factors, rather than a singular case of either. I have made a preliminary attempt, via the figure below, to capture the role this plays in what we as researchers capture.
Critical Systems Theory (CST) in Learning

June 1st, 2019

CST is a multidisciplinary theory that has influence from systems theory and critical social theory, and is peddled as a pluralistic tool for conducting qualitative research in education. Due to this, it tows a line between knowledge as a tool to make sense of our world and knowledge as a tool to influence our world. This dichotomy is mirrored by my observations of educational systems in practice.

Education in itself is interesting, because though it is a part of social science, it is a moving dynamic facet of life. What we are studying is not necessarily a static period in history, but a moving, changing part. My role as a researcher now requires me to decide which of that I want to tap into. Do I want to study it as a hard system, like the sciences, in the sense of dissecting it into component parts? Or do I want to study it for purposes of social justice, reforms and likewise?

Why is this an important dilemma to address at all?One of the strengths of the CST is emancipatory learning, with its core emphasis on social justice. I think this dilemma when applied to systems thinking then is part moralistic, the onus that we owe something to the body of knowledge we are studying. Also, there is just this overwhelming consensus in western literature that the current system of education is broken down and in need of change. Though on further study, the change proposed by everyone looks different. Reigeluth (in Reinventing Schools) for instance proposes this change move away from the industrial age to the needs of the information age. There are people who differ.

CST also takes the “knowledge is power” mantra quite literally. It leans towards knowledge creation and dispensation as some sort of political tool; it can be used for subordination or oppression. In the study of educational systems, I guess also depending on the perspective one takes, there is some kind of observed power dynamic at play whether deliberate or not. If the system is viewed as a top to bottom heirachy, those at the top could be viewed to have much more power or control over the educational outcomes of the system than those at the bottom.
Identity, Learning & Technology

May 1st, 2019

We may not realize how much of our choices is tied to our identity until we are asked to identify ourselves. The answers we give depends on the audience we are addressing. We are likely to present ourselves differently in a social gathering as opposed to a formal/professional environment. There isn’t anything wrong with either, it’s just that the notion of identity is quite expansive.

That said, technology has added another level of mediation to it. For instance, consider an online environment which comes with its own nuances. if a person introduces himself or herself in a face to face conversation, I can fill in the rest of the gaps visually. Though the introduction is verbal, there are other giveaways like gestures, height, physical features, voice and so on that contextualize the identity. In an online or other technologically mediated setting however, much more is open to interpretation.

Our identities are sharpened by our upbringing, life experiences, culture, beliefs and so on. It is birthed by an intelligent mix of nature and nurture. For that reason it is a concept that will continue to evolve as we go through life. A strong sense of identity in learning develops organically as we allow ourselves the freedom to pursue and engage our intellectual curiosities in a manner that is non-threatening.

Computer Mediated Discourse: A Proposition

Critical Systems Theory (CST) in Learning

Identity, Learning & Technology