Subject: [IFETS-DISCUSSION:1321] RE: IFETS-DISCUSSION digest 195
From: Nelson, Dennis (Dennis.Nelson@ny.ngb.army.mil)
Date: Fri 09 Mar 2001 - 23:16:15 MET
From: "Nelson, Dennis" <Dennis.Nelson@ny.ngb.army.mil> Subject: [IFETS-DISCUSSION:1321] RE: IFETS-DISCUSSION digest 195 Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 11:16:15 +1300
Mr. Laurie has answered his own questions as indicated below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Distilling the language of cyberspace"
>>>>There's quite a bit of literature around on why on-line learning doesn't work. Or on
the frustrations of students (and instructors) with various aspects of the medium. (Hara
and Kling). But all we get is more tools, more content and inevitably more frustrations.
This is possibly a result of too close a focus. Nowhere does anyone step back and ask
the holistic question: What are all the elements of this medium as it is now, and how
can we use these to provide satisfaction in on-line communication for the universal
'will to story'?<<<<<
Isn't this true in most of life? Aren't too many people specialists in
something without connections to the whole? Imagine if engine parts were
able to migrate like humans from their intended niches to be specialists in
something without responsibility or accountbility to the whole? Would any
engine ever work again?
>>>>>Could it be that students get frustrated at their inability to find a structured
flow - a start, an end and a bit of excitement in between? How would this be achieved?
Not by changing the nature of the web or using obvious and self-contained story
adaptions such as role play and sims, but by learning how to interpret and engage in
the interface story. Not as in film, but as in the story of the 21st century - a
relative contextual construction of seemingly endless arbitrary conjunctions.
* Summary
Humans want to find a story in everything. It helps. So where's the story in the
totality of the cyber-experience? Let's find it, pin it down and teach it.<<<<
Given our first interchange, without a common story of life, how can any of
the parts have a total story? With a total story we can see the missing
parts, parts that need attention and parts that seem complete. We can than
apply our special gifts to the parts or to supporing others addressing the
parts. Our collective effort is then aligned and collaborative rather than
as specialists competing. Our public education teaches us parts, rejects
the concept of teach one whole story, and our lives become the search you
describe for the one-story. Instead of working to realize our part in the
beauty and enjoyment of the story, we are relegated to a lifelong search for
the story, our part, and thus meaning. Without meaning, we lack
affirmation. Without affirmation, we lack security. Without security we
live in fear. In fear, we hurt rather than love each other.
The totality of the cyber-experience is that we can much more quickly share
lessons learned and have fellowship and help each other: all parts of the
real story. The story is we are one engine to help every one of us
individually and collectively realize our potentials to love each other, and
all that implies. Translating that to the web, we communicate by any of the
modes suggested only that which helps each of us move forward in our
actualization and love. Anything else, we discard, ignore and discourage by
nonsupport. As the beauty of our story, picture, screen, narrative, etc.,
becomes more apparent, more will join in the painting of the tapestry.
Dennis
---------------------------------------------------------
List address to send message to everyone:
ifets-discussion@catfish.valdosta.edu
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
Forum website: http://ifets.ieee.org/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@massey.ac.nz
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.ieee.org/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Sat 10 Mar 2001 - 07:00:52 MET