There is so much in that little question Jeffrey. I am teased back in to responding, again 🙂
Ive been reading Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2010). Actor-network theory in education. New York, NY: Routledge.
And am mulling over how mobilizing particular definitions also leads to exclusions. She names this purifying… and obsessions with particular measurable outcomes, and i’m led to wonder whose outcomes get deemed more and less important, and whose idea of how much a change needs to have occurred for learning to be measured as having occurred.
The measures are so often of acquisition rather than of doing, participation, engagement.
And they tend to be measured as individual outcomes.
But a network could be something else, and distributed learning might be measure otherwise.
And rather than a focus on humans or human to human points of contact, might we also consider the other actors that shape and are shaped, not as a tool but as influential actors in their own right?
And so relationships of teaching and learning become my focus, the assemblage that is involved, and how it helps or hinders, and this then becomes a very po-mo consideration for there will be no one measure. What i learn, set out to learn and act on will be different to yours…Learning does not happen in a single metaphysical frame, what i experience will differ, our realities differ…and so there will be multiple ways of enacting this mooc.