|Fire next time: or revisioning higher education in the context of digital social creativity|
|Authors:||Reijo Kupiainen, Juha Suoranta, Tere Vaden|
|Citation:||E-Learning and Digital Media 4 (2): 128-137. 2007.|
|Publication type:||Journal article|
|Google Scholar cites:||Citations|
|Added by Wikilit team:||Added on initial load|
|Article:||Google Scholar BASE PubMed|
|Other scholarly wikis:||AcaWiki Brede Wiki WikiPapers|
|Web search:||Bing Google Yahoo! — Google PDF|
This article presents an idea of digital social creativity" as part of social media and examines an approach emphasising openness and experimentation and collaborative learning in the world of information and communication technologies. Wikipedia and similar digital tools provide both challenges to and possibilities for building learning sites in higher education and other forms of education and socialisation that recognise various forms of information and knowledge creation. The dialogical nature of knowledge and the emphasis on social interaction create a tremendous opportunity for education but at the same time form new hegemonic battlegrounds in terms of various uses of social media.
"We want to defend the following argument: in higher education it is possible to save and renew higher learning’s critical and revolutionary function by applying various digital information and communication technologies and using them wisely to create abilities or literacies that we would like to call ‘digital social creativities’"
|Research design:||Case study|
|Collected data time dimension:||N/A|
|Unit of analysis:||N/A|
|Wikipedia data extraction:||N/A|
|Wikipedia page type:||N/A|
|Wikipedia language:||Not specified|
"We have maintained that social media of various kinds is a two-edged sword. On one hand, it allows speeding up of time and stealing the breathing room of authentic thinking. On the other hand, it can open up spaces allowing new forms of togetherness and collective creativity. When Lyotard (1984, p. 53) claims that ‘the age of the Professor’ is ending he means that academic professionals and other experts (in their often exclusive ivory towers) are no longer ‘more competent than memory bank networks in transmitting established knowledge, no more competent than interdisciplinary teams in imagining new moves or new games’. However, he seems not to acknowledge the possibility that ‘memory bank networks’ can also be ‘live’ products of human cooperation as is the case today in various cooperations between students, teachers and citizens in their search for the good and just society, and pursuit of new ideas, information, innovations, social justice, peace, knowledge, love and wisdom. The university system is regarded as our best resource and potential not only for intellectual vitality and creativity but also more straightforwardly for the national economic competitiveness in the global markets. Yet those potential resources are increasingly marginalised by cultures of assessment and regulation (Evans, 2004). The crucial hegemonic struggle concerns the language implicit in the use of the new information and communication technologies. Whose language is it? Technocrats’, students’ or teachers’? What kind of language is it? Pre-set or alive? Are there many languages, many vocabularies? Who has the power to define the leading vocabulary? There is a threat that the very same forces that are managerialising and thus ruining the critical potential of the universities will set the standards for the language proper. Thus an initial resistance would be urgent; it could start as ‘a refusal of a language now inflicted upon university staff’ (Evans, 2004, p. 74). In this refusal ‘out would go consumers, missions statements, aims and objectives and all the widely loathed, and derided, vocabulary of the contemporary university. In could come students and reading lists’ (Evans, 2004, p. 74). To the ‘in-list’ we would include the use of social media in its various forms, and enough time for discussion, reflection, and debate."