So Many Nodes, Not Enough Reciprocity (Yet)
July 3, 2008 by Marielle
The mushrooming activity generated by the Read/Write Web is truly astonishing, and its implications for education and society are breathtaking. The eagerness that vast numbers of people have demonstrated for connected authorship is inspiring. The potential some imagined years ago when the internet opened up to the general public is now being realized at a scale that exceeds all but the furthest-reaching visions from those ancient days (a mere 15 years back). And yet, the phenomenon is far from established. Rather, it is in rapid, dynamic evolution, like the English language in the days of Shakespeare, yet more so.
One of the ways I hope to see the ubernetwork that is the internet evolve is for its depth to begin to catch up with its breadth. With the viral spread of online networks, we must take care not to dilute them so much (by rapidly migrating to new ones) that they lose their power, which derives from the quantity and quality of their membership. With the proliferation of blogs, we must take care not to get lost in a plethora of solipsistic silos, speaking without listening, reinventing rather than building upon each other’s ideas and deepening the collective dialogue.
Whether these tendencies are an indicator of the novelty of the Web 2.0 phenomenon, an extension of dominant American cultural values emphasizing independence and entrepreneurship, or the result of some other socio-cosmic force, I do not consider them to be an inevitable end. I believe that if we choose to be reflective about the ways in which we interact online, we can optimize the enormous learning possibilities that such connected authorship affords. We can become even smarter and more knowledgeable than we are, both individually and collectively.
In particular, I find myself wishing for more reciprocal dialogue. For example, I was pleased to receive a number of quick, thoughtful responses to my initial post in a discussion forum I initiated about Teaching Writing with Web 2.0 within Classroom 2.0, an online network for educators interested in Web 2.0 created using the Ning platform. However, conversation seems to have withered with my responses to those responses, full of open questions posed in an effort to probe deeper into the topics at hand, make additional connections, and learn more by thinking together with my cyber-colleagues. Similarly, most of the comments I have made on other people’s blogs or posts I have made to other discussion forums remain unanswered, despite my efforts to engage others in dialogue.
One can only speculate about the reasons for this…people are busy and easily distracted or overwhelmed…the design of popular tools does not inherently foster two-way communication…social norms and time constraints favor more cursory discourse. And yet, it is my hope that once they are experienced more broadly, the benefits of such interactive communication will ultimately prove strong enough for cyberculture to break through those barriers and realize its potential to promote sustained, enduring, thought-provoking conversation as well as individually authored, interconnected literary nodes.
Just as we are innately driven toward both adventure and safety, people are driven both to speak and to listen. Real dialogue involves multiple cycles of speaking and listening in the spirit of inquiry. Such dialogue, in the tradition of Socrates, Plato, and their cohorts, is preciously uncommon in contemporary society. It is my hope that just as we have seen authorship and publication rise to new levels with Web 2.0, so shall we see true dialogue also rise.
Naturally, I would welcome any dialogue on the subject!
Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)
[...] ironically, my previous post, entitled So Many Nodes, Not Enough Reciprocity (Yet), speaks to some of these challenges, while also demonstrating some of the benefits. For instance, [...]
Hello Marielle,
This article is very interesting, especially as I am also looking for means of engaging rich conversations, reactions for readers and … find it really hard.
Read with interest your view on Classroom 2.0 (”One can only speculate about the reasons for this…people are busy and easily distracted or overwhelmed…the design of popular tools does not inherently foster two-way communication…social norms and time constraints favor more cursory discourse”) but have found another reason as well : I am under the impression that generally speaking, people are more interested in “receiving” that conscious of the need of “giving” to make these social places alive.
It is logic to use them when you have a question and one feel very happy to receive an asnwer but I feel that maybe people should feel a little more obliged to participate into these discussions. Out of the 10.000 + members of Classroom 2.0, how many go there with the idea that maybe they could “give” something ??? I’d be very curious to know.
Do not think I am being pessimistic, not at all … I’m always trying to figure out ways to improve users reactions and discussing it might help figure out some possible solutions …
Thanx for starting the discussion …
PE
Thanks so much for your thoughtful comment, Pierre-Etienne. You raise an interesting issue, which I think points to the relative novelty of these communication media and the time it inevitably takes us to develop and master new forms of rhetoric that suit the particular affordances of those media and potentially inform our understanding of communication dynamics and learning processes writ large. I suspect that we will collectively get better at all of this, especially if we continue to reflect on it and communicate about it. As it turns out, the Classroom 2.0 discussion I mentioned has been thriving since then. Several people have been fully engaged in sustained dialogue, while others prefer to lurk or pop in and out, any of which is fine in such an open-ended forum. At this stage, I’m actually feeling that the discussion has evolved into an example of genuinely productive online discourse. It’s interesting to contemplate how human nature and culture shape our use of these media, and also how our experience with these media might transform our nature and culture. Such a dynamic domain, this is!
Pierre-Etienne (sorry for the missing accent marks), you express curiosity with regard to the motives of tens of thousands of Classroom 2.0 Ning members. That’s something I wondered about, too, when I first came across that Ning last spring (northern hemisphere time).
What the proportions of educators joining to get and to give are is an interesting question, one that might be evident from analysis of introductory posts, and inaugural posts on new threads. There apparently are hosts and minders around to give help upon request.
Marielle, here you characterize discussion that you started in Classroom 2.0 about Teaching Writing as “genuinely productive online discourse,” “sustained” and “thriving ” (So Many Nodes…, comment 3, 13 Aug 2008 at 4:20 pm), and remark about how humans shape their media, while in a comment on Blogging to Learn you describe the Teaching Writing discussion as flourishing (comment 2, 07 Aug 2008 at 6:25 pm).
May I take that to mean you are getting what you expect or want from Classroom 2.0 Ning discussion in terms of responses to your responses intended “to probe deeper into the topics at hand” (So Many Nodes…, inaugural post, July 3, 2008), topics that you put forward on the Ning? If so, would you care to share with us a metaphor for your Ning discussion endeavors?
So much to read. So much to think about. So much technology to master. So little time.