Two 'Other' Articles About Social Objects

I thought I’d really hit PAY DIRT with this one entitled: The Consensual Definition of Social Objects. I mean, someone got consensus on that? Then I want to know what it is! (and let Smith and Searle in on it too).Ms Garretson must have been DECADES before her time!Haha.

I found an interesting article by Donald Norman entitled Sociable Design. He is the author of “The Design of Everyday Things,” “Emotional Design,” and “The Design of Future Things.” He lives at www.jnd.org.

While not about social objects in the theoretical or abstract so much, it’s definitely informative about concrete ‘social objects’ and their design. The last sentence of this quote intrigued me:

“Design of both machines and services should be thought of as a social activity,one where there is much concern paid to the social nature of the interaction. All products have a social component. This is especially true of communication products, whether websites, personal digests (blog), audio and video postings mean to be shared, or mail digests, mailing lists, and text messaging on cellphones. Social networks are by definition social. But where the social impact is obvious, designers are forewarned. The interesting cases happen where the social side is not so obvious.”

Read More......

Educational Social Objects (Edsobs?)

If, as Martin Weller posits, a social object is "something (real or virtual) that facilitates conversation", then educational content, assessments, and/or assignments can be social objects. The strength of the educational content as a social object would be directly related to how well or how much conversation is facilitated by it.

It seems to me that there are two ways that something might facilitate conversation: by enabling the process of conversation, or by stimulating a conversational response.

The compatibility of an LMS and (educational content as) social objects might logically be measured by how well an LMS enables the process of conversation, as well as how strongly the educational content it contains stimulates a conversational response.

Food could be considered a social object in that it enables the process of conversation by drawing people together. It also naturally stimulates conversational responses about it’s attributes (flavors, quality, preparation, effects, etc) and people’s preferences and experiences with it.

Food could serve metaphorically for education in that its quality and availability does not guarantee consumption – though it is often correlated with it. Certain types of food are preferred over others based on such things as personal preference and interest, as well as cultural and biological factors. Food can nourish as well as poison. It is possible to consume much food, and still be malnourished dependent on the food’s nutritional value, as well as the current nutritional needs of an individual. Nutritional needs are in part determined by conditions in which an individual lives, and the performance requirements and expectations placed upon them. Unmet nutritional needs, due to inaccessibility or inferiority of food, especially early in life, can have pernicious and lasting effects.

For me the best example of a social object both metaphorically and literally will always be an individual human being. An individual enables the process of conversation, as well as stimulates conversational responses. Individuals draw people together, especially and dramatically as they enter and leave the human existence. Individuals create, destroy, share, give, receive, judge, and value (or not), all other social objects. They are the “nodes” of any social network. The implication of this ‘metaphor’ for education is something that educators (formal and informal, aware and unaware) would all do well to remember: though there may be a “body” of educational content, it is only through the individual that it will ever have context, meaning, or worth.

Read More......