Fire next time: or revisioning higher education in the context of digital social creativity

From WikiLit
Revision as of 20:27, January 30, 2014 by Fnielsen (Talk | contribs) (Text replace - "|collected_datatype=" to "|data_source=")

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Publication (help)
Fire next time: or revisioning higher education in the context of digital social creativity
Authors: Reijo Kupiainen, Juha Suoranta, Tere Vaden [edit item]
Citation: E-Learning and Digital Media 4 (2): 128-137. 2007.
Publication type: Journal article
Peer-reviewed: Yes
Database(s):
DOI: 10.2304/elea.2007.4.2.128.
Google Scholar cites: Citations
Link(s): Paper link
Added by Wikilit team: Added on initial load
Search
Article: Google Scholar BASE PubMed
Other scholarly wikis: AcaWiki Brede Wiki WikiPapers
Web search: Bing Google Yahoo!Google PDF
Other:
Services
Format: BibTeX
Fire next time: or revisioning higher education in the context of digital social creativity is a publication by Reijo Kupiainen, Juha Suoranta, Tere Vaden.


[edit] Abstract

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.

[edit] Research questions

"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 details

Topics: Student contribution [edit item]
Domains: Education [edit item]
Theory type: Analysis [edit item]
Wikipedia coverage: Case [edit item]
Theories: "Undetermined" [edit item]
Research design: Case study [edit item]
Data source: N/A [edit item]
Collected data time dimension: N/A [edit item]
Unit of analysis: N/A [edit item]
Wikipedia data extraction: N/A [edit item]
Wikipedia page type: N/A [edit item]
Wikipedia language: Not specified [edit item]

[edit] Conclusion

"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."

[edit] Comments


Further notes[edit]

Facts about "Fire next time: or revisioning higher education in the context of digital social creativity"RDF feed
AbstractThis article presents an idea of digital sThis 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. in terms of various uses of social media.
Added by wikilit teamAdded on initial load +
Collected data time dimensionN/A +
ConclusionWe have maintained that social media of vaWe 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.
me for discussion, reflection, and debate.
Data sourceN/A +
Doi10.2304/elea.2007.4.2.128 +
Google scholar urlhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?ie=UTF-8&q=%22Fire%2Bnext%2Btime%3A%2Bor%2Brevisioning%2Bhigher%2Beducation%2Bin%2Bthe%2Bcontext%2Bof%2Bdigital%2Bsocial%2Bcreativity%22 +
Has authorReijo Kupiainen +, Juha Suoranta + and Tere Vaden +
Has domainEducation +
Has topicStudent contribution +
Issue2 +
Pages128-137 +
Peer reviewedYes +
Publication typeJournal article +
Published inE-Learning and Digital Media +
Research designCase study +
Research questionsWe want to defend the following argument: 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’
like to call ‘digital social creativities’
Revid10,775 +
TheoriesUndetermined
Theory typeAnalysis +
TitleFire next time: or revisioning higher education in the context of digital social creativity
Unit of analysisN/A +
Urlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2304/elea.2007.4.2.128 +
Volume4 +
Wikipedia coverageCase +
Wikipedia data extractionN/A +
Wikipedia languageNot specified +
Wikipedia page typeN/A +
Year2007 +