Relationship Building and Determining Worth

Happy Halloween!

Like the Introduction, Chapter One of Spreadable Media contains many opportunities for discussion in the world of online and blended learning. The title, "Where Web 2.0 Went Wrong," shows the focus on a tension existing and intensifying between commercial media and fan culture. Fans desire to remix and appropriate media, often not for profit, but some commercial media believe this infringes on their creation and seek to shut things down. Here are places I want to explore more:


Moral Economy
The book discusses the idea of a moral economy, a term from E.P. Thompson from 1971. A moral economy illustrates a "perceived moral and social value" of transactions whether those interactions are explicitly stated or not (52). A shift in the structure of the interactions can result in "diminishing the level of trust among participating parties" (52). To me, what does this mean? We're back to SCARF. The book does not mention SCARF, but it should right here. This is all about SCARF.

Online and blended learning dramatically shifts the structure of education. The learning changes, and so do the interactions. Trust diminishes, especially when teachers do not work to build relationships with students and take the time for community building. Trust in others in the class can also diminish without those community building opportunities, since students rarely "see" the other students can be alone. Other trust diminishes, too. Trust in the integrity of the work exists between traditional models and blended / online models. Time and communication can rebuild the network of trust, but ignoring this will not make it go away.

Other aspects of the moral economy also need discussion. What is the perceived expectation of how an online class works, or how one should participate in an online / blended class? What if the structure and delivery of the class does not meet those perceived expectations? How do we discuss these things in a way to move into the authentic work? One way is to take the time to build norms together. I've collected some resources on norm buildingat this livebinder site (code: communicate2learn). Sites like Tricider can also get the discussion started. For example, I'd love feedback on this one: 





Community building and dealing with SCARF absolutely takes time away from content, but I believe the benefits outweigh this. 

Engagement and Branding
The previous post discussed what spreads versus what sticks. Chapter One delves into this more with this idea about motivation behind spreadable content, "Users generating online content are often interested in expanding their own audience and reputation. They may measure their success by how many followers they attract on Twitter, just as television executives value the number of eyeballs their programs attract" (60). The chapter continues, "When audience members spread this content from one community to another, they do so because they have a stake in the circulation of these messages. They are embracing material meaningful to them because it has currency within their social networks and because it facilitates conversations they want to have with their friends and families" (60). This means that students will spread not only what is meaningful to them, but also what they feel helps identify them to the world and to the people they care about. Authenticity. They need to have a stake in the work. For example, my son, a sophomore, thinks about how he wants to be perceived often. He devotes a lot of time and energy putting up videos of him doing Parlour or freerunning because he is a part of that community and wants to spark conversation and receive feedback. Here's an example of one: 

Engagement for him, like for all his peers, depends on providing something to him that he can make meaning from, have a stake in, and care about. The chapter argues that being engaged also "recognizes that these communities are pursuing their own interests, connected to and informed by those decisions made by others within their social networks" (60).  For him, the videos are a way to "give back" and contribute to the community in some way, including tutorials he has made for difficult flips and such (they are longer so I didn't post them here). His videos reflect someone engaged in a community, someone who can "feel an obligation to 'give back' to their 'community' and/or in the hope that their actions will direct greater attention and interest to the media they love" (62). He communicates his love for the mindset of Parkour and for the community with each video he makes, each comment he posts. Every entry strengthens his ties to Parkour and the community.  How can we find ways to tap into the areas of life where students already feel they have a stake in something? How can we also be attentive to the fact that they are trying to create an identity for themselves that may not include our subject?  How can we design learning experiences that would allow the students to "give back" to their communities? Choice. In skill-based learning objectives, such as in ELA and other subject areas, providing choice can be easy and an instant way to engage students in creating learning objects that mean something to them - makes them want to spread and transfer what they learn beyond the boundaries of the school. That means I'm back at UDL: 

  Sometimes the learning objectives just don't match their passions as directly as we would like. I think one way stems from the discussion of an academic identity. We communicate via academic emails, and then maybe we should create academic accounts. I've had students tell me that they didn't want to tweet because the classroom tweets would show on their feed to their followers, and that wasn't the image they were crafting. I get that. For those instances, then, an academic account would serve their purposes. If my son doesn't want the people who follow his channel for Parkour to see him creating a video of a catapult in Physics, an academic account would ensure that would not happen. Their identity / brand remains intact and they can participate more freely. A class account for some things would work equally well.   
The Notion of Reciprocity and Exchange (Value vs. Worth)
The chapter ends with a discussion of commodity view versus an exchange / gifting view. This is a topic I've done a lot of research about. I've looked at two different series with a gifting mindset in two different anthologies: 

The Body in Tolkien's Legendarium

 and

Hunger Games and Philosophy

 In this regard, the gifting mindset works "as an analogy for the informal and socially based exchanges which characterize some aspects of the digital ethos" from Howard Rheingold's The Virtual Community (65). 

One complaint about online/flipped/blended experiences is the belief that the burden on teaching falls on the student. To me, this complaint hits on many areas of Chapter One. The expectations of being "taught" do not seem to be met, which diminishes trust. A non-personalized click-through experience does not engage, which means the student may make no meaningful relationships. The reciprocity cannot be there if the students perceive they are doing all the participating in the course. The facilitator has to dig in, build the relationships, provide the feedback and teach. Otherwise, there is no balance. We step in when we design for choice, provide meaningful, timely feedback, and protect students from adverse consequences.

 To me, the facilitator's role parallels the role of the marketer in the fan/commercial relationship described in Chapter One, where the authors say that Gould claims the marketer (here the designer/facilitator), "build relationships through listening and interacting, deepening relationships with audience members when it's contextually relevant" and intentionally trying to "pay attention to the audience's agency" (80).

In Chapter One, the idea of a "gift" in digital environments "depend on altruistic motivations; they circulate through acts of generosity and reciprocity, and their exchange is governed by social norms rather than contractual relations. The circulation of gifts is socially rather than economically motivated and is not simply symbolic of the social relations between participants; it helps to constitute them" (67). Using Lewis Hyde's distinction between value, a commodity, and worth, a gift, the question then becomes one of worth. 

We are right back to meaningful experiences. Worth comes from a sense of personal meaning and relevance. Something worth creating should be something worth spreading and sharing, be it through an e-portfolio or a video.