— Helen Murphy (@lemurph) March 14, 2017
— Jeremy Knox (@j_k_knox) March 10, 2017
The video shared by Chenée exemplifies Gillespie’s Patterns of Inclusion,
Patterns of inclusion: the choices behind what makes it into an index in the first place, what is excluded, and how data is made algorithm ready
Gillespie, T. (2012). The Relevance of Algorithms. in Media Technologies, ed. Tarleton Gillespie, Pablo Boczkowski, and Kirsten Foot. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
— Matthew Sleeman (@Digeded) March 8, 2017
Creating new words for this community of practice and suggesting a requirement for new language to plot and perform our changing digital and educational landscape.
— Eric Stoller (@EricStoller) March 8, 2017
I read this Jisc news item and it made me angry. It looks like a classic piece of technological determinism – applying Learning Analytics to education to ‘improve’ retention and reduce administrative costs. Why not, if, as Jisc asserts, there’s ‘trouble’ with humans,
how good do we actually think people are?
And makes spurious comparisons,
How difficult is it to intervene with a student identified as at risk by a learning analytics processor? Is it harder than driving a car, which computers already do better than us?
At the moment I take issue with just about every sentence, but I want time to think and read about it. The article is certainly part of the discursive effort creating the conditions for Learning Analytics to become a reality.
— Chenée Psaros (@Cheneehey) February 25, 2017
This organisation, founded by Martha Lane Fox, speaks of the need to shape technology to our needs rather than stand aside and be moulded by a few global corporations. An understanding of our relationship with technology is crucial for us and for future communities. We too readily submit to the exclusion caused by our black-boxed systems and are lured by the promise and shine of social media which may do nothing but feed upon us in a symbiotic spiral of captialism unless we mobilise critical change.
The community states,
Our citizens are engaging digitally with politicians who don’t understand the channels they’re using. Our end users are diverse, but our designers and developers are not.
We explore how digital technology is changing society, build proofs of concept to show it could be better for all, and partner with other organisations to provoke and deliver mainstream change.
I like the way the community has made an ethnographical inquiry into Libraries to see what they are doing at the very start of their project. It is an effort to understand what is actually going on that so many projects fail to do at the start and is echoed in Doteveryone’s claim that our politicians “don’t understand the channels they’re using”.