Tweet Talk 3 – 2008 TLT Symposium.mp3

Saying “We need to be aware that there are Have-nots” is a finite statement that leaves no room for discussion. That is why I am suggesting a new statement that opens the conversation up in two areas: 1) How can we make it our responsibility to encourage the Haves to take advantage of their resources and opportunities and use them to benefit Haves and Have-nots a like, and 2) To change the conversation from the finite, “We need to be aware of Have-nots” to the open-ended “We can overcome the obstacles facing Have-nots by…” A classmate said both in class and in her blog that a lot of the conversations at the symposium “were mostly talking ABOUT people like me rather than WITH people like me.” She and I share a similar thought, in that we both want to include Have-nots. For me, this means future conversations should focus on including Have-nots among those who benefit from the uses of technology. For her, it means including Have-nots in the conversation itself. Again, let me reiterate the commonality that we both emphasize the inclusion of Have-nots.

Despite the shock value of paragraphs 1 & 2, hopefully you can see the merit of paragraph 3 of both the original post and my response to eal166, which states these very ideas. If nothing else, I invite her (and all other readers) to join me in contributing to a positive discussion where together we can explore how educators can overcome these obstacles and ensure that Have-nots become Haves in terms of growth and benefits.

Hopefully this new post, which omits the shock value, is worthy of a response from our community =)

TweetsTwitterWiki.mp3

I shaved Tweet Talk 1 down to 23 minutes, and I added some music tracks that I made up for the intro, transitions, and finale. I also converted it to mp3.

Listen to this new version and enjoy!

Tweet Talk 1 (edited).mp3

Here is the first podcast by my group, The Tweets. We begin by discussing Twitter before tackling some of the other, tougher issues and themes of this class. Podcasting seemed to be a very good way to document our group discussions, as all four of us could participate without having to stop to type or write notes for record-keeping. The next half hour was intellectually fruitful, as conversation was able to flow uninhibited. We really made some good progress towards making sense of community, identity, and design — our three themes in the CI 597C Disruptive Technology course!

It is safe to say that the Tweets will be podcasting all of our group discussions in the future. Below is a link to the unedited Tweet Talk 1. Keep an eye out for Tweet Talk 1.1, which will have music and other fun transitions =)

Tweet Talk 1, from “Gaining Control of My Thoughts”

With Carla, or even internet lurkers (hello out there to all of our fans; we do this for you, and thank you for your support!), there is some quantifiable and observable way for us to know that they are part of our community. Carla directly interacts with many of us, and the lurkers (hello again) directly interact with our content, even if in a passive way.

But what about this:

Every Thursday, after I leave Chambers, I spend the next hour telling my fiancee all about our class. She knows all about the technologies we discuss (and I have even hooked her on using some of them, like Google Reader), and all about the discussions we have. In fact, sometimes she even engages me by trying to form and articulate the difference between knowledge and learning, or community and identity — an extension of our discussions.

Despite this, she has never been to any of the class sites — Pligg, the class blog, your blogs, or my blog — and I have yet to bring up any of her points in class.

So is she a member of our community? Unlike Carla, who we can interact with in class, and lurkers (one more shout out to my homies in cyberspace) who leave a statistic that Cole can identify through Google Analytics, my fiancee leaves no trace (until this comment, anyway). If you think she is a member of our community, why do you think that?

Identity through Disruptive Technology
Personal identity
through disruptive technology is a contextualized version of yourself, crafted
by you. Multiple, flexible identities are possible, which may differ
from ‘real’ life. Demonstrating separate, multiple identities simultaneously is possible. Is a physical body necessary?

First we discussed the definition of “Disruptive Technology.” Is it about social upheaval and disrupting the status quo, or is it about interfering or interrupting order?

Community in Disruptive Technology
A community is a unified body of individuals, and when using disruptive technologies they are not bound by physical location or even time (Someone can view a blog on January 31, 2008, and read and respond to a post written at any point in the past. Someone can then read and respond to that post at any point in the future). The unifying bond can be location, identity, interest, or some other commonality, such as a purpose or goal, and should have some kind of interaction with other community members. The Rheingold piece

Design
Design can apply to many elements. Design is linked to purpose. Design is more accessible, and makes it easier to create a solution to a problem. The tools are available so that everyone can be a designer. Design is decentralized, and design is an equalizer.

Identity through Disruptive Technology
Personal identity through disruptive technology is a contextualized of yourself, crafted by you. Multiple, flexible identities are possible, which may differ from ‘real’ life.