Lifestream, Comment on MSCEDC MOOC Ethnography by Renee Furner

This is another really well-executed artefact, Helen. You really captured the discordance you experienced between the course subject matter or content and the mode of delivery. This was conveyed especially well through your use of sound. I also enjoyed your integration of theory – it was a very thoughtful piece.

On your question of whether there may be an ‘inherent dissonance between form and content when delivering some subjects via a MOOC’, I wonder which aspect(s) of the course delivery contributed most significantly to the sense of dissonance.   You highlighted the number of participants (the massiveness), a potential overload of tasks, disruptive notifications, and quantified participation/completion notices – did any of these stand out as being more significant to you than the others?

Also, were there any opportunities to give feedback on participant experience? (or, have you noticed any later in the course?) I watched a talk recently by Tressie McMillen Cottom [blogged about here] in which she noted that what we collect information about is selective: our tools are very good at analysing time spent on tasks, but not at figuring out what people have learned or experienced. It seems that collecting information about participants’ experience on your course in particular, due to its subject matter, would be key to improving future iterations.

I really enjoyed your artefact – thanks for sharing it.

from Comments for Helen’s EDC blog

Lifestream, Diigo: Digital materiality? How artifacts without matter, matter | Leonardi | First Monday

Leonardi (2010) provides clear and well-illustrated descriptions of materiality (i.e. relevant to ‘digital materiality’) using 3 different definitions of material:
(1) Material as related to physical substance
(2) Material as the practical instantiation of theory
(3) Material as ‘significant’

Through these ways, and particularly the latter two definitions, of viewing materiality, researchers can gain a way of framing and understanding the role of digital technologies-in-practice.
” These alternative, relational definitions move materiality ‘out of the artifact’ and into the space of interaction between people and artifacts. No matter whether those artifacts are physical or digital, their ‘materiality’ is determined, to a substantial degree, by when, how, and why they are used. These definitions imply that materiality is not a property of artifacts, but a product of the relationships between artifacts and the people who produce and consume them.”

from Diigo