Thanks, James – and, any others, either as visitors or exhibitors, what was it like as an event? I’d not anticipated some might be exhibitors: that, to my mind, widens the aperture quite a bit. Up until now, I’d only thought about people going to ‘consume’ the show, not to ‘produce’ it. The interface there is especially interesting.

from Comments for Matthew’s EDC blog http://ift.tt/2jLMEZv
via IFTTT

Thanks, James – I knew I’d got it from somewhere. It had stuck as an idea, which is – I guess – a big part of a ‘manifesto’. Great to be reminded of the source: especially since context matters!

from Comments for Matthew’s EDC blog http://ift.tt/2jOhVs0
via IFTTT

Without watching the timer on the video, I was also stopped by the point just after two minutes: ‘When used correctly, technology will allow for greater connections’.

Whilst recognising the commercial interest of the show, the video has a really instrumentalist feel: technology are ‘tools’ we can use to equip learners with skills. Like you then, I think there’s great value in the work of Bayne and other researchers who encourage us to critique the way that the digital is framed in relation to education, for instance problematising this idea of tech as tools for carrying out our educational aims.

I know that other members of the EDC class did attend Bett either as exhibitors or visitors: it would be fascinating to know whether their experience of the event was affected in any way by reading Bayne’s paper in advance?!

Anyway, a really interesting and critical reflection on the content – thanks Matthew.

from Comments for Matthew’s EDC blog http://ift.tt/2jJqA1B
via IFTTT

And more generally in response to the weekly summary and you’re blog over the last week, well done on trying to make the connection between content and course themes, whilst at the same time bringing in some of the ideas from the literature. I’m going to comment separately on some of your other entries, beginning with your reflections on the Bett show video which I’ve been thinking about.

from Comments for Matthew’s EDC blog http://ift.tt/2jJrMC9
via IFTTT

Hello Matthew (and Colin) – interesting conversation here.

Your comment Matthew about ‘practice that works well in this or that setting’ immediately reminded me of the Manifesto for Teaching Online from the Digital Education team which argues that:

‘There are many ways to get it right online. ‘Best practice’ neglects context.’

Just as you (and Colin) say, when we bring a critical eye to education and technology, we begin to unsettle some of the commonly put forward ideas, whether that’s to do with education necessarily aiding learning, or the notion of there being a single ‘best’ way of doing things that we strive for. As you suggest, things tend to be more complex and thus call for a more nuanced approach.

In case the Manifesto is of interest or new to you:
http://ift.tt/2bHFKiZ

Thanks for the interesting conversation.

from Comments for Matthew’s EDC blog http://ift.tt/2kKLTNJ
via IFTTT

cmiller, thank you for some really helpful input here. I’m tracking three things in particular out of what you’re saying.
First, the need for clarity as to what I’m meaning. I’m in complete agreement with that. It’s a challenge to express a bigger discourse idea in a short(ish!) blog entry, and I appreciate you engaging with what I provided. I’ll keep working on the clarity as I post further. I’m especially keen not simply to talk to a narrow population of ‘insiders’, so to speak.
Second, I’m helped by your prodding at stages of development within the technology/theology interface. I’ve not really explored this, but want to. By previous training, I appreciate a genealogical approach to issues, and it would help here. Regarding ‘christohumanism’, I coined the phrase in the moment, and hadn’t googled it. I’ve done that since, especially together with ‘posthumanism’ to sift the results a bit, and some helpful stuff looks like it’s out there.
Third, I agree that many churches and ministers are using technology, even as adept with it. I’m keen to probe whether they’re thinking theologically about it. Thus, for instance, in my settings we often now project the hymns and songs we sing on to a screen, rather than reading from printed books. I’m interested in whether there is any shift in us theologically, fed by such a practice, e.g. a move away from consciousness of the overall ‘flow’ of say a hymn towards the ‘eternal present’ of what is before us on the screen. And does that matter – does it east away at, say, a big-picture sense of things more generally, thinking of Haraway’s dismissal of ‘salvation history’ in her 2007 piece from our set reading (pp. 35, 54). The technologies we use shape our practices, our loves, our imaginings, and I’m keen to explore those dimensions through a theological lens.

from Comments for Matthew’s EDC blog http://ift.tt/2kizELG
via IFTTT

cmiller, thanks for the interaction. Two responses I would make, I think. First, I guess not all our digital engagements will be directly appropriate to education per se, but we’re trying to engage with digital cultures and so breadth of digital encounter is going to be important. But a tension – hopefully a generative one – between these two horizons. Second, I wonder whether ‘pockets of excellence’ might be better framed contextually: something like ‘practice that works well in this or that setting’. For myself, I find that easier to work with than a decontextualised sense of excellence. I wonder if that will help us frame our experiences more fruitfully too.

from Comments for Matthew’s EDC blog http://ift.tt/2jMvWH2
via IFTTT