1/ I read Farrow (2015) Open education and critical pedagogy Continue reading “Open Education and Critical Pedagogy: A Brief Paper Summary”
Having taken some time off from my #5Papers summaries (though still reading in the background!), I was moved by Martin Oliver’s thoughtful work on Open Education, and related to my recent attendance at the 2016 Networked Learning Conference where open learning was one of my own take-away points, I wanted to share this in case others may not have seen this work.
1/ I read Martin Oliver (2015) From openness to permeability: Reframing open education in terms of positive liberty in the enactment of academic practices http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2015.1029940 #5Papers
2/ Oliver’s premise is that the concept of openness is under-developed within learning technology
Thankful for one of my colleagues (who I somehow was not following on Twitter, but that is now all settled!) Ian Guest for pointing this article out to me, as it is somewhat consistent with some of my Twitter extra credit work for my nursing and management students.
1/ I read Jones, Kelsey, Nelmes, Chinn, Chinn, & Proctor-Childs (2016)…
2/ …Introducing Twitter as an assessed component of the undergraduate nursing curriculum: case study doi: 10.1111/jan.12935 Continue reading “Introducing Twitter as an assessed component of the undergraduate nursing curriculum: case study – An Article Review”
While yesterday was a day to celebrate our current and past presidents, I was able to engage in a bit of reading. Thus, a new article review on a topic of great interest and importance to me — the differences between using social media and researching social media — along with many other issues related to the literature in this area.
1/ I read Lafferty & Manca (2015) Perspectives on social media in and as research: A synthetic review DOI: 10.3109/09540261.2015.1009419 #5Papers Continue reading “Perspectives on social media in and as research: A synthetic review – An Article Review”
1/ I read Hara & Sanfilippo (2016) Co-constructing controversy: Content analysis of collaborative knowledge negotiation in online communities http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1142595 #5Papers
After some time traveling for work, having done a lot of reading along the way, I am finally pausing enough to share some of what I learned via a #5Papers strategy:
1/ I read Barrett, Harmin, Maracle, Patterson, Thomson, Flowers, & Bors (2016)…
2/ …Shifting relations with the more-than-human: six threshold concepts for transformative sustainability learning
3/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2015.1121378 via #5Papers Continue reading “Shifting relations with the more-than-human: Six threshold concepts for transformative sustainability learning – An Article Summary”
Congratulations? For what? 3,000?
Granted, I am flattered that this many accounts would see some value in following me on Twitter, but like all numbers, it is only a number. Numbers have no meaning in themselves, not even existing until we call them into existence, giving them some meaning in the process. As soon as that purpose fades, so does the number. Do you remember losing your 6th tooth? How about your 8th first date? 10th homework assignment? 13th paycheck? How about 23rd birthday? Surely your 31st paycheck? 45th time at the supermarket? 51st time you went into a vehicle?
Shall I go on?
Numbers are numbers, not even existing until we make them and then assign them value, losing it as quickly as our interest. After all, 5% unemployment only matters depending on which side you are on. So to speak.
Twitter seems to find this valuable, though like most numbers, I am suspicious.
What does it mean? Is it good? Bad? Part of the club? A wannabe? Something to celebrate? Reflect upon? Lament it is too little? Too much? Does it make me happier? More money? A better retirement (ha!)? More original teeth? A fan club? Haters? I have little context for it, and thus am not sure how I am expected to make meaning out of it. They must find something useful there or I would not have received an automatic message about it.
Perhaps that is the key–how valuable is it really when it gets sent based on pre-existing coding?
Makes me wonder, why does somebody else have to make meaning for me? I am somewhat capable of making meaning on my own, and as such find value only in conversations, shared ideas, challenges, support, suggestions, and the like. Perhaps I am being negative, though while I am getting a blog post out of it, in an odd way it did evoke a reaction in me. Hmm, there you have it.
That could as easily happen with 300 as 3000, and is more likely closer to 30 with those who I engage with on a regular basis, those who celebrate ideas like #ds106 or #dLRN15 or #5Papers or even #moocmooc (with all its paradigm-bending pesky questions). Alas, numbers don’t matter for those of us who are not selling things or reliant on them to prove something to someone about something.
My ideas and constant inquiry has me interested, and if 3,000 adds to it, then wonderful! If it doesn’t, like Klout scores, I am not worse for the wear.
I am much more interested in making meaning than counting, as often the counted is meaningless until those of us who inquire more deeply come along. Long live our interest and passions, none of which are readily reducible to a number.
Goodness, did I just say that? Perhaps there is something about this 3,000 after all . . .