Learning Outcomes

Today, I'm going to reflect on the course learning outcomes, and see if I met them.

1. History

I think I learned a good deal about history from 1500-2000.  In the first posts of this blog, I wrote a great deal about each historical period.  I sometimes got more specific, talking about Marxism, Modernism, and the Gutenberg press (though that post was lost in cyberspace) in later posts.

2. Core Concepts

I also applied history to our digital civilization.  In my early historical posts, I related each period to something contemporary, such as the 17th-Century power struggle and SOPA and PIPA.  I compared Occupy Wall Street to the French and American Revolutions.  As we wrote the eBook, I talked about JFK's fireside chats and compared them to Obama's google+ hangouts.

3. Digital Literacy

I had to do a lot of consuming and research because I didn't know much about many of the digital concepts we covered.  I think I could have done a little better about filtering my sources, though.  Sometimes I just used Wikipedia, but I think as time went on I learned to research through professor's blogs and found new websites that were helpful in our eBook.  As far as creating, google+ and blogging were totally new to me, and I felt like I was taking a huge leap ahead in my digital literacy in that aspect alone.  But, I think I could have done a better job at communicating and connecting with other students in the class.  I often was just in my own little world and forgot that I needed to try discussing with my peers.  I did attempt to write to Senator Orrin Hatch and do a little social proof.  He didn't write back, but I've never tried anything like that before, so that was good.

4. Self-Directed Learning

I definitely learned a lot while researching on my own.  One of my favorite self-directed learning experiences was when I used a Redbox for the first time.  I did something hands-on and it got me thinking about disruptive innovation, and it was a new experience.  

5. Collaboration

The eBook was one of the best group projects I've ever worked on.  Our government group was small, but we all learned a ton as we shared our thoughts and ideas and then added them to our chapter.  Each week, we talked about what we'd done, what needed to be done still, and made assignments.  Also, our history presentation worked well because all of us were passionate about what we were talking about (the 19th Century).  We went a little long because we all loved each of our sections.

The Results / How Digitally Civilized Am I Now?

I’m the kind of person that likes going back to the beginning.  I think it’s easiest to see how you’ve grown from an experience by looking at who you were at the start and who you are now.  I know you’re probably thinking, “Wait, you already did a reflective post on what you’ve learned!”  You’re right, I did.  But this isn’t a post about what I learned.  When this all started, you may remember, this blog was an experiment.  Having never done much in the way of creating or consuming online, I was testing the waters.  Are there that many benefits to contributing to the internet?  Or is it just disconnecting us from the real world?  So this post isn’t about what I’ve learned; it’s looking at the results of my experiment.

One of the reasons I called this blog an experiment was because I was a little paranoid about putting my name out there online.  Years of computer-classes focused on internet safety convinced me every tap on your keyboard led the pedophiles closer and closer to your house.  I’m happy to report that I am not as afraid of creating online, and I have learned that there is a balance between openness and control.  You have a right to keep your information safe.  You don’t have to put your entire life on the internet to create something.  But, if you don’t add your voice online, it will never be heard. 

Many of these posts, you may have noticed, are about the e-book chapter my group was writing about Open Government.  Again and again I encouraged readers to find out about how they can change legislation by looking at blogs and forums and government social media sites, and interact with others interested in making a difference, including government officials.  Our civilization is moving towards the web; that’s where things happen these days.  That’s where grassroots movements start.  If we don’t contribute, we won’t make a difference.  So keep yourself safe online, but don’t avoid creating something great because of fear.

Which brings me to the next question of my experiment: what are the benefits of contributing online?  Already we’ve seen it can cause changes in government.  That also applies to the sciences, arts, business, etc.  We have the world at our fingertips, and we can learn anything we want if we know how to look for it, and then we can transform the world with calls to action. And if nothing else, blogging lets me get my ideas out.  I enjoy creating, and the internet lets me do that in a fast, easy way.  

By the way, I liked blogging so much that I started another one where I teach Spanish once a week.  I haven’t done a lot with it in the last little while (I got busy), but if you’re interested I’ll hopefully start working on it again.  Here’s the link:

 http://weeklyspanish.blogspot.com/

So, blogging has allowed me to create and even help others.  I started the Spanish blog because a friend of mine wanted to learn but I lived too far away to teach her in person.  I hope that she and other people can actually take something from my blog and learn a language.  Cool idea?  You know it.

Finally, since everything seems to be moving online, and we truly have a digital civilization, what happens to our physical world?  Are we becoming disconnected from each other in our electrically connected society?  I think it depends on how you use the technology.  I’ve said it before, but I’m saying it again: technology is amoral.  You can do great things with it or bad things.  So, some people might be so into their Facebook account that they forget to talk to their friends in person, while others will use Facebook to organize events to get together with friends, or to stay in contact with someone who is too far away to see talk to otherwise. 

I used to think technology was an expensive waste of time.  And there are some things online that I think I can do without for now.  Pintrest, for example, is obviously helpful to some, but I’m not sure I would actually use it for good reasons; I think I would just use it to procrastinate homework.  But, I also see how technology is part of our culture, and if you aren’t participating, you aren’t really a part of it.  Don’t think of the digital world and the real world as separate things, because the digital world makes up the real world.  Culture is reflected in and created by the technology we use.

This has been a successful experiment, in my opinion.  And I'd say I'm a little more digitally civilized now.  But I have a ways to go.

What Have I Learned?

In response to Brandon Robison's post about what he has learned from this class, I thought I should do the same.

1. I have learned that I know nothing about digital civilization.  I still hear words in class that I'm like, "What's that?" and someone explains it to me like it's been a part of their life forever, and I think, "Where do you people hear about this stuff?"  So, I've obviously got more to learn.

2. I have learned about self-directed learning.  I, like Brandon, have had a love-hate relationship with it.  It's become apparent to me that I am very dependent on my professors to hand me information.  The hardest part of this class was knowing where to start each day.  I felt I didn't know enough about the subject to even search for blog topics.  How do you find out about open government if you don't even know it exists?  So, I disliked self-directed learning because I didn't know how to learn on my own.  On the other hand, I liked it because I realized I didn't know how to learn on my own.  I don't want to be forever dependent on someone else's knowledge to increase my own.  I want to be a self-directed learner.  I'm still trying to find out how to do that; it seems to take more time than just listening to a lecture.  Maybe that's why I can't bring myself to hate it: if something makes me stretch, that means I wasn't growing before.  And lack of growth means lack of life.

This is what I need to do.

3. I am more aware of how technology affects me in every aspect of my life.  I used to see it as something that took up money and time, but now I see it is something that influences the culture around me, influences my future work and family life, and even influences science, government, and education.  It is amoral, which means its effect on my life and on those around me depends on how I use it.

4. I have learned that I can make a difference in the world.  Our huge class project seemed so impossible when I first heard it proposed.  A book?  We're going to write a book?  This is going to go down in flames, guys.  I suppose we have yet to have a nice, finished copy, but I've been proven wrong: we can do something amazing, and it can influence other people.  It makes me want to get more involved online, write a blog or e-book or something that challenges others to act.  The internet has given us something empowering and I feel excited about creating.

5. I have found patterns in historical examples that apply today.  We live in a digital civilization, but we've really just inherited what already existed.  We have many of the same attitudes that our predecessors had towards openness and control and finding the balance between the two.  On the other hand, I've also found that we live in a time that is unprecedented.  Never before have we been able to connect in the way we can now, and our influence over others has increased exponentially.  We must, however, learn from the past in order to use this influence for good and avoid the failures of history.

Overall, I'm excited about living in this time-period and the potential we have to make a difference with the tools available to us today.

Napoleon's Balancing Act

Never before has there been such a potential for two-way participation in government.  Of all government systems that have come before, no matter how democratic or free, none have had the benefits that internet access brings.  Communicating with representatives and other leaders has never been easier or faster; information can be spread throughout the country to inform citizens virtually everywhere.  It's unprecedented, really.  So, it's difficult to look to the past for good examples of open government, because there is no comparison to the current situation.  However, it is essential to understand past national leaders and how they ran their countries in order to evaluate success and failures in government.


Napoleon Bonaparte's system of government was paradoxical in many ways.  After the French Revolution, the people demanded a greater level of equality than what they had experienced under a monarch.  Napoleon, on the other hand, wanted to be an absolute ruler.  Therefore, he had to do a balancing act: while granting many liberties that the nation had fought for in 1789--such as freedom of religion, protection of private property, careers open to talent, and abolition of serfdom--he also created a centralized government that had control over education, strictly censored art and literature, prevented trade unions, and oppressed conquered nations.  He spread positive propaganda about himself, and had spies throughout the country that made sure any criticism of the government was stopped.  Napoleon had to keep up good appearances, so although he was a dictator, he built roads and did away with feudalism.  In this way, the emperor of France prevented anarchy and revolution.


There are still laws in France and throughout Europe that incorporate Napoleon's civil code.  The freedoms already discussed made France better than it had ever been before, and they made Napoleon's empire famous.  That is where he succeeded.  His ambition, however, became his downfall when he tried to conquer Russia. 


Napoleon's government had many good points, such as equality and unity, but his desire for absolute power prevented the nation from becoming truly open.  When people's ideas and opinions are censored by the government, information is unreliable.


http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/lecture15a.html

Output/input

This is my section for the government chapter so far.  To see sources, go to the annotated bibliography,

If indeed the American government is of the people, by the people, and for the people, public involvement in government must be ensured.   All US citizens need both to be well-informed and to participate.  In order to do this, US citizens must be able to easily and accurately learn about and comment on government procedures.  Government officials need to be able to share information and ask for input from the public, while the public shares ideas, comments, or complaints with the government.  The system of the United States government was formed with the idea that all men are created equal.  This means that all men and women should have a say in how the nation is run, both locally and at the Federal level.
           This is open government.  It means citizens have the right to have access to the governmental process, including documents and proceedings.  Furthermore, it means the citizens should be able to comment and participate in government processes with ease.  The Obama administration has been trying to increase openness with the public.  The White House’s official website is whitehouse.gov/open, and it has a blog on open government, and also a link where citizens can create and sign petitions.  There's also challenge.gov, which calls itself "the central platform for crowd sourcing US government challenges, contests, competitions and open innovation prizes."  Basically, government agencies can ask for submissions/solutions to challenges/problems and the public can give their ideas.  Unfortunately, very few people actually use the site.

This is a general problem.  Although government officials are taking steps towards openness, the public is not participating.  So, if the American system is a government of the people, by the people, for the people, it must provide a way get the word out and help everyone in the nation get in on the online conversation.

There are several examples throughout history of leaders who tried to increase awareness about Federal procedures.  First are Franklin D. Roosevelt’s fireside chats.  These actually started when Roosevelt was governor of New York, and he often used them to ask for help to get his proposed measures passed.  The public then wrote letters to the state legislature in support of these measures.  As President, he gave regular addresses over the radio to reassure the public during the Great Depression and WWII, thereby increasing the federal output of information and reaching a wide audience.  Since then there has been a regular address by the President.  President Obama has moved from a weekly radio broadcast to an audio and video form available online on YouTube and whitehouse.gov.

Although these weekly reports do not reach the entire nation, President Obama's hangouts on Google+ and YouTube videos interface with modern culture.  FDR used the radio, which was popular in his day, and Obama has switched to a medium that more people use.

Other examples come from our nation’s birth.  Thomas Paine’s Common Sense pamphlet argued for American independence from Britain by challenging the monarchical system.  He wrote in simple language that the common man could understand.  Later, The Federalist Papers, written by John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton, promoted the ratification of the Constitution.  They were printed in three newspapers in New York, and Hamilton encouraged their publication in newspapers outside of the state as well.  Again, we see that when leaders use a popular medium, and write in a way that can be easily understood, it has a greater influence on the public.  Also, government output should encourage the public to act in some way.  Open government is not simply about learning the issues, but having citizens make a change.

           On the other side, an example of increased public participation is the civil rights movement.  African Americans wanted to have their voting rights restored--after the 15th Amendment was passed, laws in the South still prevented many African Americans from voting--and to have a more equal society.  Through non-violent protests they added their voices to the conversation.  Also, Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech was televised and had a huge effect on the nation.  Civilians don't always have to share their ideas through technological advancements, however.  The Montgomery bus boycotts sent a message to the government just as much as the televised march on Washington.  When the public are unable to give their voice (such as when there is discrimination or limited suffrage), they will find a way to be heard.
           So, it seems that the government must use a medium that the public uses.  That means it can't limit itself to only Google+ or Facebook.  However, that doesn’t necessarily mean creating a new product to be used universally.  Francesca Barrietos and Elizabeth Foughty write, “Government doesn’t need to invent new Web 2.0 tools or be the next Google—it just needs to use already proven tools” (Barrietos, 35).  The public already have many online resources available, but they may not know about them.  Rather than have the government try to come up with some new interface (which always run the risk of bugs in the system), they can use proven, popular tools already in place.  However, they will need to increase awareness about these sites and how to use them in order for them to be effective.

Conversely, the public must have an easy, simple way to share ideas with the government or they will have to resort to more drastic means.

           Another problem is that people simply aren’t sure how to share their ideas.  They want to add their voice to the conversation, and even to make a difference, but they don’t know how.  There are several online government forums and social networking sites that can help with this, including govloop.com, govcollab.wikispaces.com, collaborationproject.org, govsocmed.pbwiki.com, and others.   There are many blogs that give opinions on current legislative policies and movements, and also ideas on how to get involved.
           For example, one blogger on govloop.com has proposed an idea for how to decrease corporate influence during elections and in legislative measures in a post titled “Nationwide Grassroots Project Will Amend U.S. Constitution to End Corporate Power in Elections.”  In this case, this blog is not necessarily communicating directly with government representatives, but telling the public to send messages to Congress members to order a convention.  The author has a purpose and a proposed means of achieving that purpose.  She tells her audience simply what they can do to create a change by interacting with government officials.
           That's an excellent example of how to increase open government participation.  Have a goal and a way to achieve that goal.  Teach simply and give clear direction.  Really, that's a good way to increase participation in any area.

However, as helpful as these social networking sites are, if no one knows about them or where to find them, the site may as well not exist.  In order to really increase participation and collaboration in government, we must educate people on how to do it.  If the public is going to participate online (which, as mentioned, means both consuming government output, and then commenting on that output and connecting with government officials), the public must be informed about how to participate.

           There are several ways to achieve this.  Perhaps there could be advertising on billboards, magazines or newspapers in order to get those who are not participating online to go online.  Or, maybe classes might be offered in public schools and in community programs to help those who don't know how to use internet resources to become familiar and comfortable with using them.
           Many high schools already require classes such as US Government and Citizenship for graduation.  One learns about the Constitution, basic Federal procedures, the voting process, political parties, and so on in these classes.  It would be very simple to include a brief section about websites and other ways to stay connected with the government in a class like that.  It's already mandatory, so every graduating student will have passed through it, and if there was just the smallest part dedicated to teaching about where citizens can find out about government procedures, what resources they have available to learn about how to get involved, and ways they can contact representatives, it would influence an entire generation of citizens.  Furthermore, a class like that could be offered at the college level, or at community centers.
           Although we are not “engaged in a great civil war,” the words of Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address are still true.  We must “highly resolve that… that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."  In order to do so, we must increase open government participation.  This means using a digital communications medium that is easy for citizens to use and access, and educating the public on how they may better participate in the online conversation.

Open Government: An Annotated Bibliography.

Open Government: An Annotated Bibliography.

I did most of my research through simply typing key words into the Google+ search bar and BYU's Harold B. Lee Library search bar.  One or two sources were found by looking at the sources I already had (Kim Hart, for instance, was found on Tim O'Reilly's Google+ feed).  Our group asserts that through two-way participation in government (that is, the government shares information with the public, and the public comments on and critiques that information, and even collaborates with leaders to improve government), democracy can be improved.  The below sources give some examples of how the government has been influenced by the online public, how to improve and build open government participation, and what may happen in the future, all of which are relevant to our section.

Further Reading

Kim Hart.  "Pols Fear 'SOPA backlash.'"  Politico.  2012.  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73802.html  This article comments on how technical industries were able to stop legislation (specifically, killing the SOPA/PIPA initiatives).  Grassroots and business movements can have a powerful influence on government, especially when done in mass, which is more possible now than ever before.  [Found this article on Tim O'Reilly's Google+ feed.]

Joanne Caddy, Christian Vergez, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.  Open government : fostering dialogue with civil society.  OECD Publishing.  2003.  http://books.google.com/books?id=CH8DehH5lmcC&hl=en  This book discusses open government in general in several countries.  One of the chapters includes a really good panel discussion about why citizens should participate in open government, and how to build open government.  One of the arguments is increasing awareness about the issues, which requires the government to share credible information.  [Found this book on the BYU Harold B. Lee Library website by typing Open Government into the search bar]

Francesca Barrientos, Elizabeth Foughty.  "Web 2.0 in Government."  Interactions. 16.5.  Oct. 2009.  http://delivery.acm.org/  This article explains some of the risks involved in open government (such as security problems), but also suggests ways on how to resolve these through collaboration between Web 2.0 leaders and policy makers.  One of our sections is on how open government will affect the future, and security risks are one of the things we will have to face.  Also, the authors suggest that government officials use communication tools that are already available instead of inventing new ones.  This goes right along with our argument that government officials must use technology that everyone is already familiar with.  [Found this article on the BYU Harold B. Lee Library website by typing Open Government into the search bar].


Thought Leaders

Tim O'Reilly - (http://radar.oreilly.com/gov2/) Founder and CEO of O'Reilly Media.  Computer book publisher, conference producer, internet activist.  O'Reilly has several links in his Google+ feed and the above website about open government. [I found O'Reilly by typing Open Government into my Google+ search bar.]

Alexander Howard - (radar.oreilly.com/alexh) Government 2.0 Washington, D.C. Correspondent for O'Reilly Media.  Also writes for Huffington Post.  Very involved in writing about open government, on his blog and for O'Reilly Media. [I found Howard by typing Open Government into my Google+ search bar.]

John Moore - (govinthelab.com)  Founder and CEO of Government in the Lab.  Moore is devoted to open government and the above online magazine includes writers from around the world who provide information about politics and government.  Lots of great articles on the above site about open government.  [I found Moore by typing Open Government into my Google+ search bar.] 

US Government and Citizenship Class

This week I'm mostly searching for more current open government sites and more examples of historical events that increased government participation.

It kind of reminds me of the
Subway trademark.

I found this blog post on gov.loop.com.  Whether or not I agree with the author's opinions is irrelevant.  What's important is that this woman has proposed an idea for how to decrease corporate influence during elections, and in legislative measures in general.  nationwide-grassroots-project-will-amend-us-constitution  In this case, this blog is not necessarily communicating directly with government representatives, but telling us to send messages to our Congress members to order a convention.  The author has a purpose and a proposed means of achieving that purpose.  She tells her audience simply what they can do to create a change by interacting with government officials.

That's an excellent example of how to increase open government participation.  Have a goal and a way to achieve that goal.  Teach simply and give clear direction.  Really, that's a good way to increase participation in any area.


I am more and more convinced that in order to really increase participation and collaboration in government, we must educate people on how to do it.  I found govloop.com itself after someone showed me this online slideshow http://www.slideshare.net/.  Without someone else helping me, I wouldn't know where to start.  If the public is going to participate online (which, as I've mentioned, means both consuming government output, and then commenting on that output and connecting with government officials), the public must be informed about how to participate.

When I was in high school, I took a mandatory class called US Government and Citizenship.  I learned about the Constitution, basic Federal procedures, the voting process, political parties, etc.  And, hey, I took that class online!  How easy would it be to include a brief section about websites and other ways to stay connected with the government in a class like that?  It's already mandatory, so every graduating student will have passed through it, and if there was just the smallest part dedicated to teaching about where citizens can find out about government procedures, what resources they have available to learn about how to get involved, and ways they can contact representatives, it would influence an entire generation of citizens.  Furthermore, a class like that could be offered at the college level, or at community centers.

So far, education sounds like the best route.  The slideshow linked above explains that we move from education to observation to broadcasting to participating to building relationships to collaborating.  The first step is to educate.