March 2008 Archives
Okay, I'm sure that little riff on Twitter has probably been used a million times, but one of the main takeaways I got from the TLT Symposium was not from the content itself (though the content was really powerful) but was the use of Twitter during the day. I got on board with Twitter probably about a month ago and found it to be an interesting way of connecting with my classmates outside of class hours. As a writer, I find the activity of capturing my current activities in 140 characters or less to be a good brain exercise. It is easier than e-mail to write and read. Those of us in 597 who are in the Twitter group have shared not only interesting insights about class, but also provided glimpses into our personal lives as well. Some have shared news of family deaths and illnesses, some have shared funny stories of pets or children, some have asked technical questions, some share what they had for dinner. It varies, but the key is that it's all in 140 characters or less. Having many of us "tweeting" during TLT was a grand experiment for me, in that it allowed me to be a fly on the wall on breakout sessions where I wasn't physically able to be, and allowed me to share my insights and comments with my classmates without having to be physically with them, or even lean over to whisper. Or, on a less serious use, how else would I have been able to share during Lessig's keynote that I thought Sousa's "Infernal Machines" term would be a great name for a band? How else would Becky and I have been able to have our wiki "stud2stud" exchange? Which begs the question, is "virtual notepassing" an unintended consequence of Twitter?
Several of us began wondering, via Twitter, during the sessions, whether all of this Twittering is distracting to, or impacting the presenters. I do think it impacts, but is it just that presenters need to adjust their expectations and know and assume that their audience members are doing this? Or should they demand complete attention? One of us noted that there were many laptops open during a session, but few were Twittering; they were doing other things online. My 597 group led the wiki discussion in class on 3/20 and it was my first experience facilitating a session where so many eyes of were on laptops, with fingers flying on keyboard. It was a bit distracting to me, but I assumed that was what the class was doing, and I was proven correct when I read the Twitter "transcript" that took place during our presentation. On the other hand, I teach Comm 471 (public relations media & methods) to undergrads and purposely schedule this to be held in a traditional classroom instead of a computer lab where most of the other 471 courses are held-- mainly because I don't want people straying into checking email, etc., during class. Am I an old fogey for wanting to do this, and am I hindering their abilities to build community with one another in the same way our 597 class has done as a result? Does the answer change depending on who is being taught? Is it okay for "adults" like us to Twitter during class because we're generally just commenting on the content and building community, whereas younger students, like HS and undergrads, would likely be doing other things? Is that generalization fair to them? Also, with students' developing capacity to be able to be surreptitiously texting underneath a desk with eyes generally still up front, what then? Should that bother me as an instructor? The "instructor me" from pre-597 would have said absolutely. The "instructor me" for post-597, I'm not so sure.
Several of us began wondering, via Twitter, during the sessions, whether all of this Twittering is distracting to, or impacting the presenters. I do think it impacts, but is it just that presenters need to adjust their expectations and know and assume that their audience members are doing this? Or should they demand complete attention? One of us noted that there were many laptops open during a session, but few were Twittering; they were doing other things online. My 597 group led the wiki discussion in class on 3/20 and it was my first experience facilitating a session where so many eyes of were on laptops, with fingers flying on keyboard. It was a bit distracting to me, but I assumed that was what the class was doing, and I was proven correct when I read the Twitter "transcript" that took place during our presentation. On the other hand, I teach Comm 471 (public relations media & methods) to undergrads and purposely schedule this to be held in a traditional classroom instead of a computer lab where most of the other 471 courses are held-- mainly because I don't want people straying into checking email, etc., during class. Am I an old fogey for wanting to do this, and am I hindering their abilities to build community with one another in the same way our 597 class has done as a result? Does the answer change depending on who is being taught? Is it okay for "adults" like us to Twitter during class because we're generally just commenting on the content and building community, whereas younger students, like HS and undergrads, would likely be doing other things? Is that generalization fair to them? Also, with students' developing capacity to be able to be surreptitiously texting underneath a desk with eyes generally still up front, what then? Should that bother me as an instructor? The "instructor me" from pre-597 would have said absolutely. The "instructor me" for post-597, I'm not so sure.
Wenger's discussion on identity talks about how we're all the sum of our parts-- we have many different identities, depending on where we are, who we're with, what we've experienced, etc. What if there's a big part of your identity that you're not even aware of? Does it still contribute? Who gets to decide one's identity?
My sister works in retail, but she is also a Realtor. If someone asks her what she does, she says she's a Realtor. If someone sees her working at the mall, they have assigned her an identity of mall worker, whether she wants it or not. I may think that I am an accomplished professional and that I produce good work in my job; I may even have the evaluations to prove it. As a result, I have "accomplished professional" as part of my identity. However, if I am a jerk to work with, or if my work is substandard and my boss is just conflict-averse and passes me along with "good" evaluations, and everyone at work knows this except me, is "accomplished professional" still part of my identity even if my co-workers would vehemently disagree?
We talked in another post about ratemyprofessors.com. There are probably many professors at Penn State who receive decent SRTEs and feel they have earned the identity of a great professor. Some of that group may not even be aware of ratemprofessors.com. If they are trashed in that environment, but they aren't aware of it, is "great professor" still part of their identity? I realize this brings up a bit of a "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" head-hurter, but since this is Wenger we're talking about, it seemed appropriate to bring up.
My sister works in retail, but she is also a Realtor. If someone asks her what she does, she says she's a Realtor. If someone sees her working at the mall, they have assigned her an identity of mall worker, whether she wants it or not. I may think that I am an accomplished professional and that I produce good work in my job; I may even have the evaluations to prove it. As a result, I have "accomplished professional" as part of my identity. However, if I am a jerk to work with, or if my work is substandard and my boss is just conflict-averse and passes me along with "good" evaluations, and everyone at work knows this except me, is "accomplished professional" still part of my identity even if my co-workers would vehemently disagree?
We talked in another post about ratemyprofessors.com. There are probably many professors at Penn State who receive decent SRTEs and feel they have earned the identity of a great professor. Some of that group may not even be aware of ratemprofessors.com. If they are trashed in that environment, but they aren't aware of it, is "great professor" still part of their identity? I realize this brings up a bit of a "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" head-hurter, but since this is Wenger we're talking about, it seemed appropriate to bring up.
