Blogs do affect local politics in a profound way, and what is particularly interesting is that people who are politically active online are generally influential to their community in a variety of ways. In fact, a study conducted by the Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet showed that 69% of “Online Political Citizens,” or people who are politically active in online forums and discussions are “Influencers.” Influencers are described as opinion leaders and trendsetters among their respective friends and communities. The study also determined that of Online Political Citizens, only 44% of them were involved in politics in traditional ways (like attending rallies, donating money, etc.). Based on a number of qualifying indicators, a RoperASW study showed that Influencers have strong ties to their communities, offer their opinions to the public, and are in positions of local authority. This can explain the influential powers that these citizens have over their local politics (Political Influentials Online in the 2004 Presidential Campaign).
Because those that are politically active online involve themselves in community affairs, it makes sense that they would affect local politics as well. Therefore, people who blog are very likely to have an effect on the politics of their local communities. As Roll Call, a Washington D.C. political newspaper says, “[local political] blogs specialize in state or local political coverage, and while these smaller, non-national political blogs may not have the resources — financial or otherwise — of the well-known titans of the blogosphere, many are starting to gain a following, not to mention the respect of state and local media outlets and politicians” (Blogging Locally, 2005). Not only do such blogs affect the opinions of local citizens, but some of the more well-known and respected blogs may actually be influencing local politicians as well.
A blog local to Buffalo, The Buffalo Pundit (http://buffalopundit.wnymedia.net/blogs/) was created by a local lawyer, Alan Bedenko. He started blogging about politics in September of 2003 at a different location and under a different name (WNY for Wesley Clark, http://wny4clark.blogspot.com/). After Clark left the campaign, he started blogging about local affairs and launched the Buffalo Pundit soon after. The Pundit’s Technorati ranking is 107,824.
This blog is interactive in that there are many people commenting on it about postings, local issues as well as national politics. Bedenko covers a wide range of topics, but it is clear that people have civilized, informed discussions about how their feelings about these issues. Not only do readers seem to enjoy reading the blog posts, but it appears as if the readers are actually involved themselves. The discussions could possibly be the reason that many of the visitors read this blog at all. While the Pundit may not directly affect local politics, it may have an indirect influence in that it gets people debating topics that matter within the community. Perhaps some comments persuade readers by presenting a side that they hadn’t thought about before. Or perhaps people read the Pundit to become involved in local politics that they wouldn’t otherwise know about. There are many indirect affects that interactive blogs can have on a local community’s political activities.
Sources:
1. Bedenko, Alan. The Buffalo Pundit. Retrieved October 24, 2008, from http://buffalopundit.wnymedia.net/blogs/
2. Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet (2005). Political Influentials Online in the 2004 Presidential Campaign. Retrieved October 24, 2008, from, http://www.ipdi.org/UploadedFiles/political%20influentials.pdf
3. McArdle, John (2005, April). “Blogging Locally.” The Roll Call. Retrieved October 24, 2008 from, http://www.rollcall.com/issues/50_115/politics/9246-1.html
Friday, October 24, 2008
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Assignment 7: Online Learning
Last semester I took my first online course at UB; it was a public relations class, and the instructor was a professor who was on sabbatical. All of my “lectures” and exams were administered in Blackboard online, and a discussion forum existed where we would post assignments, and have the opportunity to comment on fellow classmates’ work. As a way to account for participation, the instructor noted how often students posted in the discussion forum. While this online format did support discussions, it was a very different communication pattern than a regular class might experience.
For example, our first assignment was to post a press release announcing our enrollment into the course, under the “Discussion Board.” This activity was designed to be an introduction to one another, where we could read about our classmates and ‘get to know each other,’ so to speak. In an online format, getting to know classmates is done very mechanically; students seek out information about other students and then leave comments for them via the discussion board. Responses are delayed and permanently recorded. In an offline class, human interactions are very different; people speak to the group usually as a whole, whereas online communicators generally have to be more direct to make up for a lack of non-verbal cues present in live conversations, like eye contact, for example. Also, it is much easier for the instructor to calculate participation grades as students’ online interactions are recorded permanently; the instructor can count at the end of the semester exactly how many times students commented in the discussion forum. Research shows that student learning in internet-mediated courses is related to the quantity and quality of postings in online discussions, and also the value that the instructor places on this type of interaction (Jiang & Ting, 2000). For this reason, I think that online discussion forums are critical for developing a sense of community in distance learning.
According to John Reid, Coordinator of Distance Education Technology at Kennesaw State University, “virtual education” can be defined as, “the study of credit and non credit courses from world-wide remote sites that are neither bound by time or physical location.” Reid says, “A big part of computer-mediated education is making the student more responsible for self-learning. Instructors in the online environment facilitate, leaving the student to find their own way. Some students like the idea of having an instructor meeting and leading class discussion with them at a regular time. In the virtual classroom students and instructors come and go at all hours. Some learners are sure to discover that this form of communication is difficult for them. How well they do at learning on their own will have a significant bearing on performance.”
I agree with Reid in that a student’s success in an online course depends on how much responsibility they take for their own learning. I remember it being difficult to remember to check the UB Learns Web site to be sure I caught any posted updates. In a traditional course, students would theoretically meet multiple times per week to receive any updates about the course—this lack of regular meetings makes it easier to disconnect from the class, and as a result miss assignments.
The ability to hear a lecture and ask the professor questions was something I missed when taking my online class. Another factor that affects students’ performance in distance learning is their learning style. Distance learning is great for some students because they don’t need to be sitting in class to grasp the material. I found that by just reading the notes posted online by the instructor, I was not able to comprehend the materials as well as I do when I hear the lecture, and see examples. I was also uncomfortable not knowing anyone in the class that I could ask questions about the homework to; I realized after taking this course how much I rely on my fellow students for clarifications and feedback. I think it’s important to have interactions with classmates about material as it seems to be an important part of learning.
Sources:
1. Swan, Karen. 2004. Relationships between Interactions and Learning in Online Environments. Kent State University: The Sloan Consortium.
2. Reid, J. E. What Every Student Should Know About Online Learning. Retrieved October 9, 2008, from University of Illinois, Illinois Online Network Web site: http://www.ion.illinois.edu/Resources/tutorials/overview/reid.html
For example, our first assignment was to post a press release announcing our enrollment into the course, under the “Discussion Board.” This activity was designed to be an introduction to one another, where we could read about our classmates and ‘get to know each other,’ so to speak. In an online format, getting to know classmates is done very mechanically; students seek out information about other students and then leave comments for them via the discussion board. Responses are delayed and permanently recorded. In an offline class, human interactions are very different; people speak to the group usually as a whole, whereas online communicators generally have to be more direct to make up for a lack of non-verbal cues present in live conversations, like eye contact, for example. Also, it is much easier for the instructor to calculate participation grades as students’ online interactions are recorded permanently; the instructor can count at the end of the semester exactly how many times students commented in the discussion forum. Research shows that student learning in internet-mediated courses is related to the quantity and quality of postings in online discussions, and also the value that the instructor places on this type of interaction (Jiang & Ting, 2000). For this reason, I think that online discussion forums are critical for developing a sense of community in distance learning.
According to John Reid, Coordinator of Distance Education Technology at Kennesaw State University, “virtual education” can be defined as, “the study of credit and non credit courses from world-wide remote sites that are neither bound by time or physical location.” Reid says, “A big part of computer-mediated education is making the student more responsible for self-learning. Instructors in the online environment facilitate, leaving the student to find their own way. Some students like the idea of having an instructor meeting and leading class discussion with them at a regular time. In the virtual classroom students and instructors come and go at all hours. Some learners are sure to discover that this form of communication is difficult for them. How well they do at learning on their own will have a significant bearing on performance.”
I agree with Reid in that a student’s success in an online course depends on how much responsibility they take for their own learning. I remember it being difficult to remember to check the UB Learns Web site to be sure I caught any posted updates. In a traditional course, students would theoretically meet multiple times per week to receive any updates about the course—this lack of regular meetings makes it easier to disconnect from the class, and as a result miss assignments.
The ability to hear a lecture and ask the professor questions was something I missed when taking my online class. Another factor that affects students’ performance in distance learning is their learning style. Distance learning is great for some students because they don’t need to be sitting in class to grasp the material. I found that by just reading the notes posted online by the instructor, I was not able to comprehend the materials as well as I do when I hear the lecture, and see examples. I was also uncomfortable not knowing anyone in the class that I could ask questions about the homework to; I realized after taking this course how much I rely on my fellow students for clarifications and feedback. I think it’s important to have interactions with classmates about material as it seems to be an important part of learning.
Sources:
1. Swan, Karen. 2004. Relationships between Interactions and Learning in Online Environments. Kent State University: The Sloan Consortium.
2. Reid, J. E. What Every Student Should Know About Online Learning. Retrieved October 9, 2008, from University of Illinois, Illinois Online Network Web site: http://www.ion.illinois.edu/Resources/tutorials/overview/reid.html
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Blog 6: Identity and AIM
When I was in elementary school and first started exploring the internet I mainly used AOL Instant Messenger. My parents were weary of me communicating with potential strangers via this new technology, but understood that I was interested in talking to my friends online, so allowed me to do so with somewhat close monitoring. They imposed regulations on my screen name choice after hearing that my cousin had chosen a rather provocative name for a 12 year-old: “bikinibabe02”. The rules were that I could not use any part of my name in my screen name, nor was I allowed to use any suggestive language, like that of my cousin’s. After many shot-down requests, I finally settled on “beachball66,” which didn’t give strangers or 10 year-old boys for that matter any images, but still had the word, “beach” in it.
Being that this was my first experience with online identities, I totally ate it up. Kids were judged by the cleverness of their screen names and their online personas formed based on their interactions. Another rule by which I had to abide in order to talk online was the amount of time I spent doing so. I had one hour per day to chat online, which at the time seemed like minutes compared to some of my friends who would never sign off. Those who spent more time online developed a better sense of one another’s online identities. Eventually, the distinctions between people’s online and in-person identities began to corrode. People’s online reputations developed based on a number of different factors: their popularity in school, the name they chose to represent themselves by, the types of interactions they had, and with whom they interacted.
The day that a new online popularity measure was developed became a nightmare for any popularity-conscious pre-teenage girl. AIM Fight measured people’s online popularity by calculating how many different people’s buddy lists an individual was on. In addition, your score would depend on the people’s buddy lists you were on, for three degrees. So, your popularity would be greatly affected by being on the buddy list of a person who was on many other people’s buddy lists, but not affected much by being on an un-popular person’s buddy list. For a better explanation, see http://aimfight.com/whatisaimfight.php. With AIM Fight, my online reputation was no longer only known to me; anyone who knew my screen name could see my popularity score. Obviously, as a competitive pre-teen I became obsessed with checking my ranking against my friends’. Our reputations had been degraded from being formed based on character judgment to being formed by a silly computer-generated popularity-ranking technology.
After the trauma caused by AIM Fight had eventually dissipated, incidents occurred where my friends were getting a hold of each other’s AIM passwords. As many mischievous, curiosity seeking teenagers might do, kids were getting together at one house and posing as another person. All sorts of likely inaccurate information was exchanged, and we used this as a means to finding out all of the latest classroom juice: who was crushing on who, and so forth. The potential reputation damage this behavior could have and probably at times did cause, was extreme. What is astounding is that despite the fact that kids were assuming others’ identities to gossip, we still trusted one another’s online personas. I know that personally, I was more guarded about who I spoke to and what about after I was made aware these activities, but the fact that we all still trusted these identities is unbelievable to me now. We were young, but we had no way of knowing for sure whether or not people were being truthful. I imagine that this is the reason many people trust strangers: they want them to be who they say they are, and there is no way of knowing for sure.
Source:
AIM Fight. (1998). [Graphic representation of three degrees of AIM Fight]. Retrieved from http://aimfight.com/whatisaimfight.php
Being that this was my first experience with online identities, I totally ate it up. Kids were judged by the cleverness of their screen names and their online personas formed based on their interactions. Another rule by which I had to abide in order to talk online was the amount of time I spent doing so. I had one hour per day to chat online, which at the time seemed like minutes compared to some of my friends who would never sign off. Those who spent more time online developed a better sense of one another’s online identities. Eventually, the distinctions between people’s online and in-person identities began to corrode. People’s online reputations developed based on a number of different factors: their popularity in school, the name they chose to represent themselves by, the types of interactions they had, and with whom they interacted.
The day that a new online popularity measure was developed became a nightmare for any popularity-conscious pre-teenage girl. AIM Fight measured people’s online popularity by calculating how many different people’s buddy lists an individual was on. In addition, your score would depend on the people’s buddy lists you were on, for three degrees. So, your popularity would be greatly affected by being on the buddy list of a person who was on many other people’s buddy lists, but not affected much by being on an un-popular person’s buddy list. For a better explanation, see http://aimfight.com/whatisaimfight.php. With AIM Fight, my online reputation was no longer only known to me; anyone who knew my screen name could see my popularity score. Obviously, as a competitive pre-teen I became obsessed with checking my ranking against my friends’. Our reputations had been degraded from being formed based on character judgment to being formed by a silly computer-generated popularity-ranking technology.
After the trauma caused by AIM Fight had eventually dissipated, incidents occurred where my friends were getting a hold of each other’s AIM passwords. As many mischievous, curiosity seeking teenagers might do, kids were getting together at one house and posing as another person. All sorts of likely inaccurate information was exchanged, and we used this as a means to finding out all of the latest classroom juice: who was crushing on who, and so forth. The potential reputation damage this behavior could have and probably at times did cause, was extreme. What is astounding is that despite the fact that kids were assuming others’ identities to gossip, we still trusted one another’s online personas. I know that personally, I was more guarded about who I spoke to and what about after I was made aware these activities, but the fact that we all still trusted these identities is unbelievable to me now. We were young, but we had no way of knowing for sure whether or not people were being truthful. I imagine that this is the reason many people trust strangers: they want them to be who they say they are, and there is no way of knowing for sure.Source:
AIM Fight. (1998). [Graphic representation of three degrees of AIM Fight]. Retrieved from http://aimfight.com/whatisaimfight.php
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)