Question 1: Do you believe that humans have a basic instinct to interact or work as a group, as Rheingold proposed in his discussion . . .
Rheingold’s (2005) web video is very fascinating and opens interesting doors to a new way of thinking. I followed his logic, and I do believe he is “on to” something here. However, I am a little bit confused.
Rheingold (2005) seems to be stating that man is now emerging toward working more collaboratively rather than the old way of survival of the fittest where one man wins. He mentioned that the collaborative spirit has been around even in the earlier days of the hunters. I agree that technology has enabled man to work more collectively as seen in such platforms as Google, Wikipedia, and Open Source software. But I am not convinced that it is because of man’s “basic instinct” to work as a group. I am not a sociologist and may be speaking blindly here, but I think that man’s basic instinct is still selfishness and self-survival.
I see Rheingold, Ted Talks, and all of us educational technology scholars as only a small part of our world. Put down the mouse and step away from the keyboard, and take a look at what is occurring outside our laptop world (beyond just us geeky technology types.) Countries are generally still led by one top person (President, Dictator, Queen, etc.) Catholics are led by one primary leader (the Pope). Companies still have one leader, a president or CEO. To me, a single leader does not symbolize collaborative action. We are still at war. Terrorists still exist. Leaders of large countries (e.g. Hugo Chavez) do not seem to fall in line with a collaborative spirit. Finally, I don’t think Roger Federer collaborated with Andy Roddick before this past weekend’s Wimbeldon finals. Granted, Rheingold did say we are only at the tip of the iceberg. I am uncertain if the iceberg can or ever will melt, if man is not really of a collaborative spirit but of a selfish nature.
I think that man (as in Rheingold’s description of the hunter) realizes the efficiency and effectiveness of collaborative action, but collaborates for selfish reasons not for the community good. Even Rheingold says that these collective actions are not done for altruistic reasons but for self interest. So I’m not quite sure if Rheingold is saying that man wants to work together to make a better world or if man’s self interest is realizing that collaborative efforts can serve him better and, oh by the way, technology has enabled those collaborative efforts. My opinion is the latter. So I don’t think man has a “basic instinct” to collaborate.
Question 2: How can technology facilitate collaboration among learners based on constructivist principles?
In just recent years, there have been a number of technology advancements in such things as bandwidth and video that have allowed for increased communication capabilities (webcasts, podcasts, etc.) Such things as wiki’s, twitter, and blogs have increased the opportunity to unite, construct, and collaborate.
A perfect example is Rheingold’s (2005) mention of the platform that posts problems in underdeveloped countries to be solved by design students around the world. With the ability to tap into multiple minds around the world, technology has enabled collaboration across time and space. The synchronous or asynchronous communication capabilities among any number of users provide an environment for discovery, discussion, and debate on real topics, topics that give and have meaning to the learner through engagement, participation, and socialization. All of that follows a collaborative constructivist approach
Rheingold, H. (2005). Howard Rheingold: Way-New Collaboration. Retrieved from
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Koh,
Like you, I feel that Rheingold is “on to something,” and has opened new doors to what may be an old topic. Past philosophers did not frame it with “cooperative arrangements,” but certainly pondered a society based upon mutual benefit for all members. Heck, even Gene Roddenberry, and other science fiction writers, envisioned a cooperative society focused on the improvement of all.
Also, I am not a sociologist or a psychologist, nor am I convinced our basic instinct is to collaborate. Perhaps I work collaboratively to improve my students, and by extension their communities and the world because of an altruistic instinct. Perhaps I work collaboratively because I need a job, and I selfishly want to feed my daughter, keep her clothed, and in school. Perhaps it is a little of both. Given a choice of what to believe – which I gratefully have – I choose to believe we are capable of realizing most of Rheingold’s vision. (More on that nasty qualifier later.) However, each individual must make these choices at each moment.
Also, thank you for pulling off the blinders for us. Often we get entrenched in our myopic views of the world and need a reminder to broaden our perspective. Of course, in a different perspective, Roddick and Federer are collaborating on their mutual improvement; whom else are they going to practice with to get better?
That said, I agree we are not yet there, but I believe we can get very close. (Here comes that qualifier bit.) Perhaps my inability to believe we will get all the way there betrays the part of our instinct hard-wired for individual survival. What I believe is, as educators we are a part of the re-visioning of, if not our basic instincts, at least our modus operandi.
Brad
Koh,
You make some really good points. I thing that Rheingold would agree with you that cooperation is self serving. He mentioned that companies like Amazon and EBay realized that "a certain amount of charity is in their best interest" (Rheingold, 2005).
I am not convinced that some collaboration is not instinct. In the broader context of organizations and politics, there may not be an instinct to work together; however, within families, churches, and even cults, there is a basic structure of collaboration. There can still be collaboration even under a leader. When I think of 9-11, Hurricane Katrina, and the tsunami, I think of people giving without thinking of their self interest. Most of the people involved bonded together and worked together to serve others without thinking of themselves.
I am not saying that all group work and collaboration is instinct, but there is a certain amount of instinct whether it is for survival or the common good of the people.
I am in agreement with both of you and Rheingold, it is a process. I think that society kind of dictates the amount of collaboration needed. During an agricultural age when there was little communication with the outside area, families and communities needed to work together. During the industrial revolution with advanced transportation and super Wal-marts, we did not have to rely on others and moved away from a "team" approach. I think that technology is moving us back into a social, connected atmosphere, but there is still a feeling of autonomy.
You are right that we live in a time where there is one president, one king, one queen, one person who is seen as the leader of nations. However, this one person, at least in democratic nations, is supposed to be the voice of the people. He/she has a group of people to collaborate with prior to making decisions and there are other bodies within the system that help to make decisions so in the end, it is not one soul person making decisions but many. I know it often doesn't work properly, but that is the idea behind it.
Brad -
Great minds think alike - I took immediately thought about Roddenberry but refrained from mentioning him because I try hard not to be anything geek like!
Shannon
You make such a great point about 9-11 and Katrina. I may have to chew on that a bit and re-evaluate.
Agapegen -
The key word is "supposed to be" the voice of the people. Lots of people today don't believe that the president or our congressmen really vote in our interest. Have you heard about the latest Boston Tea Party? Probably all rumor and gossip only. Oh I digress.
Anyway, I do didn't intend to mean that one person makes the decisions, but rather our systems are still set up with one person on top. I'm not so sure that Congress is set up for the purpose of collaboration but rather merely to make sure one person can't take over and rule. Prevention is not the same as proactive, in my viewpoint.
Post a Comment