Week Review 8

Week Review 8

Some on the course adopted the structure of my blog for theirs. (A, B) My podcast inspired another podcast. Someone was so kind to privately remark on things I say.

There are more examples of people being kind to me and non-violently influenced. I feel understood and valued. This feels good. I am human. I want to be loved. I need to be loved. The fact that I am studying Digital Education does not and can not change this.

We are humans and as such built to love and be loved. Over at DEULOE I said: Mothers’ brains change for love (Hoekzema et al,2017). Adolescent brains change for love (Albert et al 2013). I am aware of „the ways that technology and human, social and material, are deeply entwined“ (Knox 2014). Yet „learning outcomes are expressed in terms of potential for action“ (Macleoad). And the choice of how to act is ours.

The question I keep asking myself is: What about digital culture is uniquely digital? Is the digital maybe simply a modern frame for the ancient painting we humans are? Does the digital maybe change the quality or the quantity of the things we do and are, but never change the things themselves? And should we, therefore, maybe consciously choose to adopt an „instrumental“ position (Hamilton, Friesen 2013)? Are „Post-Humanism“ and „Transhumanism“ (Bayne 2015) only theoretical concepts denying our human reality? Do we as digital scientists solely focus on the aspect which distinguishes our profession from others, the digital, by which we loose ourselves?

I love, I will, I must, I do study the frame, but never forget there would be no frame without the picture. (272 words)


Albert, Dustin, Chein, Jason & Steinberg, Laurence. 2013. The Teenage Brain. Current Directions in Psychological Science 22: 114-120. doi: 10.1177/0963721412471347.

Bayne, Sian. 2015. What’s the matter with ‘technology-enhanced learning’?. Learning, Media and Technology 40: 5-20. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2014.915851. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2014.915851

Hamilton, E. C., Friesen, N. & A.. 2013. Online Education: and Technology Studies Perspective. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology Volume pp 39: 1-21.

Hoekzema, E., Barba-Müller, E., Pozzobon, C., Picado, M., Lucco, F., García-García, D., Soliva, J. C., Tobeña, A., Desco, M., Crone, E. A., Ballesteros, A., Carmona, S. & Vilarroya, O.. 2017. Pregnancy leads to long-lasting changes in human brain structure. Nature Neuroscience 20: 287-296. doi: 10.1038/nn.4458.

Knox, Jeremy. 2014. Active Algorithms: Sociomaterial Spaces in the E-learning and Digital Cultures MOOC. Knox , J 2014 , ‘ Active Algorithms: Sociomaterial Spaces in the E-learning and Digital Cultures MOOC ‘ Campus Virtuales , vol 3 , no. 1 , pp. 42-55 .

Macleoad, Hamish. 2017. The Position Papers; the First Example. Edinburgh: https://www.moodle.is.ed.ac.uk/mod/page/view.php?id=37573

One thought on “Week Review 8

  1. Hello Dirk, thanks for this summary.

    First of all, I found your podcast captivating, not least as I’m currently observing an American History class where conversation inevitably turns to the current political climate. I’ve just mentioned your podcast and its ideas to one of the course tutors and her mixture was a combination of deep fascination mixed with deep concern! A number of the readings in week 8 and 9 talk about the political nature of the algorithm and I think your podcast lays this bare in a very explicit way. Something else that struck me about your podcast was the different ‘voice’ you used, perfectly capturing the serious – sinister even – way that we shape and are shaped by algorithms. Great work.

    ‘Some on the course adopted the structure of my blog for theirs. (A, B) My podcast inspired another podcast. Someone was so kind to privately remark on things I say.’

    By coincidence, I’ve just commented on Helen W’s weekly summary saying that it seems fitting that there should be room in at least some of our weekly summaries to recognise the connection with content on other blogs, for instance where the form of the lifestream content inspires the approaches of others. In the absence of a central discussion forum, it’s great to see how the content and form of one student’s blog can inform and inspire another’s, in the way you’ve described above. Your description here points to a form of synergy across the course, or to employ a reference from popular culture you might appreciate, what Brian Wilson described as a ‘shot in the arm’ in the way that Rubber Soul inspired Pet Sounds which in turn inspired Revolver, and so on.

    ‘We are humans and as such built to love and be loved. Over at DEULOE I said: Mothers’ brains change for love (Hoekzema et al,2017). Adolescent brains change for love (Albert et al 2013). I am aware of „the ways that technology and human, social and material, are deeply entwined“ (Knox 2014). Yet „learning outcomes are expressed in terms of potential for action“ (Macleoad). And the choice of how to act is ours.’

    I’m really glad to see this kind of synthesis across different courses. Unfortunately I don’t have access to the ULOE course so couldn’t follow the link, however I think I got the rough idea of what your were talking. All the same, thanks for including these links – they really help the exposition of your ideas.

    James

    P.S. As a final aside on the subject of your podcast and algorithmic culture more generally. I was so immersed in listening your podcast that I wasn’t following the ‘ticker’ at the bottom of the screen therefore after your concluding words it segued into static which I thought was the precursor to some form of explosion: the algorithmic gun followed by the algorithmic explosion. I looked up to realise it was the next recommended SoundCloud file, from NASA. Had I kept listening it would have been followed by ‘SPORT1.fm: Freiburgs wichtiger, verrückter Dreier – live auf’. The complexity of the algorithm.

Leave a Reply to jlamb Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *