Work invades our personal time, private leaks into public, the intimate is trivially shared, and the concerns of the wider world seep into what ought to be a space for recuperation and recovery. Above all, horror finds us wherever we are.
Reading through your thoughts I was left wonder about the place of Twitter within it all. I understand that one needs a focus, but it sometimes feels arbitrary when reading through your work. I met you via a podcast, picked up resources via Diigo, read your blog and engaged on Twitter. When I think about this, I am left thinking that if you took Twitter out of the conversation – if such an extraction were possible – that not much would change. Is Twitter then the ‘original’ compound? It feels like the focus is connected learning or learning?
Not sure if that makes any sense? I am sure that I just don’t get it, but I thought I would share none the less.
He also documents his thinking:
One of @meteropologeny’s maps was imported into Inkscape and created as a base layer onto which other layers were added.
Tweets were dropped on top of the district blocks. Fitting them to the size and shape of the buildings was possible, but I felt they began to lose their inherent ‘tweetness,’ so left them as simple rectangles. This meant I needed to mask out the underlying buildings …
Which is where the idea for using the Twitter bird came from, although …
It was important as a flâneur not to lose the sense of cityscape, so the next stage brought that back and introduced the different districts or quartiers as ways to categorise the tweets.
As explained previously, these tweets were arranged into different quartiers …
… with the whole street plan reintroduced so one might imagine a walk around the city whilst encountering the kinds of activity seen when wandering the Twitter timeline.
The street names are formed from blog post titles, each street intersecting the quartiers which the contents of the post exemplify.
In the final stage, for simplicity, the tweets are wiped and replaced by illustrative snippets from the blog posts on adjacent streets.
I particularly like Ian’s take on interpretations associated with the various layers. I remember creating a similar thing with transparencies in a project when I was at university.
If you interviewed my last year, would I provide the same response as I do now?
My experience of Twitter has waned of late. I still share there. I still engage with people. However, I have moved my learning to my own space. I think that this is important.
As with all technology, Twitter is ever evolving. The most recent news has been the depreciation of their API that allows for the development of external applications. Each of these changes has a consequence.
The other concern I have is which teachers are turning to Twitter? Chris Wejr questions whether every teacher is able to share who they are online?. Maha Bali also captures this in regards to open education:
what kind of privileges do we have that give us the power to have a space there – things like the English language, having the capacity for a good bandwidth on in the internet to do something like virtually connecting, having TIME to spare and being financially comfortable, being naturally willing to expose yourself and make yourself vulnerable – you have to have a lot of privileged to be willing to make yourself vulnerable. Because some people are already vulnerable and marginal and they cannot take certain risks online.
In addition to whether they can share themselves online, the other consideration is whether they must?
I wonder then if the title should be why some teachers are turning to Twitter and what does this say about education? Personally, I wonder whether more teachers will turn to the open web and a better web? Here is to hoping.
I thought the one person to turn to in regards to the effectiveness of technology was Gary Stager. He certainly has some interesting things to say:
— Gary Stager, Ph.D. (@garystager) March 5, 2016
I am intrigued by your reference to Marzano in association with technology. Have you read his work on IWBs?
I have always had concerns with SAMR, my particular gripe is the lack of awareness to the wider context. I have really enjoyed following Ian Guest’s work assocaited with Twitter, in particular his reference to ‘non-human’ actors. This is why I think that there is hope with the Modern Learning Canvas to support teachers in developing a richer appreciation of practice. See for example the canvas I made assocaited with our learning model:
If we ask teachers to change their “roles, relationships and actions”, I think that we need a way of seeing and appreciating that. The canvas provides a great tool to identify transformation.
Lastly, in regards to wider research, I collected some links here if you need anything.
Syndicated on collect.readwriterespond.com
Bringing a sociomaterial sensibility built on actor-network theory to this study positions me in a particular way. This eschews the notion of a pre-existent reality ‘out-there’ waiting for the knowing subject to discover and explain it. Nor is reality constructed by the distant researcher through a set of discursive practices. Instead, reality is performative, brought into being as a result of the relationships which form and reform when actors, both human and nonhuman, intra-act. As a researcher of and with teachers using Twitter then, I am entangled with a heterogenous mix of educators, software platforms, digital devices, terms of service, time zones, screens, hashtags and notifications. What emerges from the study depends on the knowledge practices which are brought to bear, but these do not solely involve a researcher, research participants and standard qualitative methods, but also an eclectic mix of other nonhuman actors. Together their relational performances constitute ‘methods assemblage’ (Law, 2004), where different realities become enacted depending on the actors which participate. One implication might be that this should not be statement of my positionality, but of ours.