Well said!

Yes indeed. Next thought project: spotlighting pre-computing approaches (expanding "tools" to include practices, policies, etc.) that paved the way for amplifying bad paradigms when the computer arrived.

Third mention of core elements.

Perhaps the connections are not between "disintegration and integration" so much as they are between "localized and distributed," two ways of approaching meaning-making. I need to think about this some more. Using the word "distributed" may help us understand what we don't understand--i.e., networks of participatory cultures, the power of learner-centered linking and aggregation, etc.

I understand the reasoning here, but "learning outcomes" are also powerfully disintegrative, and can inspire students to work toward very granular, even transactional behaviors that frustrate any aspirations toward whole-person learning.

Actually, "the demands of employers and late-stage capitalism" would be more accurate. Interesting to track the use of the word "workforce" over time. OED says word as one word appears in early 1960's; first use of phrase noted in 1910. Labour force appears in mid 19th century. "Work folk" appears in early 15th century.

Do they? "The web" is not the same as "the computer," or even "the Internet." I wish John Naughton were cited here. We need fresh voices in this conversation, not the usual higher ed voices.

Very striking, and a bit dismaying, that Wikipedia does not appear yet in any of this discussion.

Key point. Such "data exhaust" models are on the intellectual level of ankle bracelets--and are dangerous in the compliance models they reinforce. They also lead to a kind of "gig economy" model of learning.

Yes. See also Clive Thompson, "Smarter Than You Think": http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/books/review/smarter-than-you-think-by-clive-thompson.html

A richer intellectual heritage underlies these ideas.

Yes.

Need some more nuance here. Universities were formed for many reasons, including the idea of scholarship (a fundamental idea that's missing in this discussion so far).

John Seely Brown says the interactions among network effects are "hyperexponential." The word "multiplicative" is better than "additive," but doesn't do justice to the dizzying scope.

Earlier discussion of the Web seems to have vanished here.

Note sure how this is "open and integrative." Also, I'm wary of the examples all coming from the AACU working group members.

Key summary here. I fear the word "tools" misleads us, as always.

How is this social? I'm not sure what "open" means in this context.

Note redefinition of scale. Key move. Note also that these sidebars tend to break Hypothes.is.

Precisely so, though this is evidently the goal for many institutions.

That terrible word again. Language matters.

Yes.

Very interesting. Coherence within a network, and connections across networks. Like a living organism. How does this vision collide with branding?

Another thought: this vision is very much like the one driving Open Learning '17.

A statement definitely worth unpacking!

Indeed yes. One more layer: how can we learn from the participatory cultures outside of school that already do these things? How can we "leverage the synergies" students already experience and can teach us about?

We keep making this mistake because we do not have a robust conversation around what we mean by "high-level educational opportunities," and we don't fully understand the technologies. The latter is the "McLuhan mistake" that Scott McCloud describes in this TED Talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/scott_mccloud_on_comics

Indeed, and by principles of emergence every bit as much as principles of planning.

Beautiful evocation of the core purposes of a liberal education.

Alas, this is precisely what many institutions fear.

Stirring defense of higher education as a form, and empowering agent, of civic engagement.

More language slippage, but it's hardly the authors' fault. Students participate in courses of study. We call that "take a course" as a kind of shorthand. And it's one small step from that shorthand to the idea that students take courses the way people take pills. Alas, we've set up most of our registration/enrollment systems in ways that reinforce that idea. I suppose the question then becomes "what are useful points of intervention?" Without changing the "take a course" paradigm, we can't get at real rebundling. But changing the "take a course" paradigm means some fundamental re-engineering and re-imagining of core higher ed practices and processes.

Deeply important moment in the argument. I do wish that "online learning" could have a more expansive definition, especially in light of the book's idea of a "digital ecosystem." With all the buzz and all the fuzz around terms like "online and modular learning," it's hard to keep the conceptual frameworks in view. For me, online learning includes richly participatory communities of learning--if these online affordances are used well, and not along paradigms of "content delivery."

So many things to wince at here. First, it is true that colleges have gone too far in the direction of "lifestyle providers." These marketing moves have been driven by many factors, including declining public support, and of course greed and prestige competition. That said, could we please not put "a degree" in the category of things students are buying? Students do not pay for a degree. Again, with more volume: STUDENTS DO NOT PAY FOR A DEGREE.

Which uncovers the fascinating paradox: education is developmental in that it reveals to learners needs that they didn't know they had, goals they didn't know the aspired to, a world that is much bigger than they had imagined. The "a la carte" model assumes a learner already awakened to these things.

Those pernicious, toxic nouns.

I'm intrigued by this definition of "open," which may be a new "shade of open" to add to Jeffrey Pomerantz's list. In this case, "open" appears to mean "open-ended," that is, not definitive or conclusive, but originary, initiating.

The holy trinity, to be sure, with dispositions (the Spirit?) most often neglected or omitted, to our great detriment. Lately I've been thinking that these are elements that can be distinguished but not divided, and that their networked relationships and interdependencies are the core of what must first be rebundled.

A shrewd rhetorical move, but it comes close to destroying the argument. You cannot hold the pieces together when the "pieces" are defined in ways that are inherently disintegrative. If you accept the "time, function and content" argument, you're already doomed to attempts to polish that which cannot be polished. Indeed, to "assume the increased unbundling of time, function, and content" is to make efforts at "rebundling" either quixotic or, potentially, toxic.

I am also interested in change at the level of education's "various component parts," as the sad truth is often that those parts not only resist rebundling, but thrive in the context of unbundling, even disintegration.

Yes, absolutely. And we must also drop dismissive judgments of participatory culture and excuses like "I don't have time." Of all the populations in higher ed, tenured faculty still have the most agency to enact change.

Right!

I worry about the language here. We do not "produce graduates." To use this language is to slip right back into the institution-centered industrialized models of "productivity" that get us into damaging places.

Why the change from "digital ecosystem" to "learning ecosystem"?

I'm interested to know why these disintegrative elements are not rejected. These disintegrative elements, and the massive, expensive infrastructure they require, tend to eat up the integrative vision. All too often, they destroy any opportunity for putting resources (including time) into developing integrative, connected learning. This is a difficult tightrope to walk: there's no net, and plenty of hungry disintegrators below, ready for their meal.

Excellent list, though "critical thinking" is pretty shopworn. To the list I'd add "problem finding" and "a sense of wonder." See https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-visiting/education-necessity-mind-blowing-experiences for a non-negotiable part of deeper learning, a factor of fundamental importance for liberal learning in particular.

Glad to see "dispositions" enter here, as this is a very important word. At the same time, "college success" is a worrisome phrase, as colleges will typically define such success in terms of what they imagine they can manage and "deliver" instead of in terms of what they say their mission is. No one wants to have to rip up all the floorboards. I get that. At the same time, if there's rot in the subfloor, you can caulk all you want up top: the rot will continue.

Yes. What we mean by a "quality liberal education" cannot be defined merely as what happens in current educational models and practices, of course--a caveat that we should always have in mind.

Again, an entirely laudable goal--but every discussion of Signature Work I've been in devolves into a discussion of Signature Assignments. I think the digital ecosystem gives us an unprecedented opportunity to make students partners in creating/designing Signature Assignments. To paraphrase Chris Dede, our students need to become problem-finders, not just problem-solvers. To put it yet another way, why not make the task of addressing unscripted problems partake of less scripting, itself?

Agree completely. Well stated!

Adaptive software. Predictive analytics. E-portfolios. I am disheartened that these are cited as developments to "improve student learning and agency." The only one that might quality is "e-portfolios," and that space is becoming largely co-opted by the assessment machine geared to institutional outcomes.

Agreed. I am uncertain about how intentional small, elite colleges are about these modes of education, however. Part of this fragmentation has to do with faculty themselves.

But this network is itself a site of rebundling, with the bundling happening at the point of the student, not the institution.

Or in other words, align practices with the highest aspirations of mission.

Alas, this definition is far too limiting. The digital ecosystem includes not just learning technologies but participatory culture (two things that ought to be nearly synonymous, but are not). Again, a limiting factor is the way academic professionals do, or do not, understand or take part in participatory cultures. I have used the term "computer romance" as well as "romantic computing" to try to get at this mode of thoughtful, adventurous, playful participation.

The premise of the book. As we shall see, the devil is in the details (and in underlying assumptions about learning & school). I would also argue that liberal education can be revived by the vision behind early paradigms of computer-mediated communication (not CAI). This is a case I have been trying to make since 2004. It's hard to do, since it involves examining those underlying assumptions & management strategies.

A stirring title, and an interesting potential tension between divergence and convergence.

(Is this mike on? Testing one two three....)

Yes, and this is why I strive to stay at the poetical level. I don't always hit that mark, but I know enough to know that operational decisions or processes are always political decisions, and that political decisions are very seldom limited by technology. Culture eats strategy for breakfast. Poetry helps culture shift itself.

Totally neglected then, and what progress have we made with all our talk since then? So many rich ideas mangled and strangled by the relentless crush of the "grammar of school." It is to weep.

More richly suggestive language than any fifteen ed-tech missives combined. Poetry + Computers FTW.

One of Papert's most beautiful ideas--and that's saying something. This Poetry Principle needs study, elaboration, celebration, contemplation. It must be elicited, teased even, from the words in this essay. As is most just!

Self-expression as a pathway to empathy & judgment.

The Web greatly expands both the sphere and the need for this skill. Very interesting case study regarding Wikipedia and entry on Iran and Israel: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/05/AR2008080502169_pf.html

Interesting. What does "follow" mean? How do we conceptualize "the flow"? Consumer (not participatory) platforms want the curated feed to follow us, the better to deliver the ads to our eyes.

A hearty and essential word. My students focus on opinion and subjectivity as if all things are up for grabs, though they do not wish my grading to be that way! The idea of judgment is crucial if we are to make progress on "digital literacy."

The desired outcome of distributed cognition. Concept leads to outcome, but both are conceptual (we cannot even recognize the outcome of the means without these concepts).

I heart this word, Heart heart heart it. What is the story of our species, if not the story of inventing tools for thought? Our global lightspeed telecommunications network has vastly expanded the distribution and the potential for tool using and tool making. We will be the victims of our own ingenuity unless we get smarter about distributed cognition. A very Engelbartian moment in Jenkins' paper.

We need a new word for rapid environmental scan & focus-shifting. "Multitasking" has been too roundly debunked (though I suspect we'll get better at it).

Such dynamic model-making is at the heart of Nelson's "Thinkertoys" as well as the media Kay and Goldberg imagine in "Personal Dynamic Media."

Theatre, broadly understood, is radically empowered by the Web, for good and for ill. Indeed, the Web empowers a kind of "cinema of the self," and not just on YouTube, either.

Illich notes " for some children such games are a special form of liberating education, since they heighten their awareness of the fact that formal systems are built on changeable axioms and that conceptual operations have a gamelike nature," an interesting corollary to the idea of play as experimentation. See http://www.gardnercampbell.net/blog1/?p=435

Thoughtful definition of education. Recalls Bruner and Dewey in its emphasis on participation in all phases of life. Economic life is necessary, but not sufficient, especially in a democracy.

Crucial skill here, with three elements. The first two are typically all that are envisioned in discusssions of web or digital literacy. I'd argue that the third is just as important, and tragically neglected. The neglect may stem from persistent unacknowledged assumptions about learning--the kind of "banking concept of education" that Freire criticized.

A new word may be needed here, as "appropriation" now suggests a kind of cultural imperialism, or worse.

Still true, and a great loss in every direction. Even worse,higher education seems to have doubled down on the lockstep, limited pathway, drill-oriented approach to "graduating more students" and "producing more degrees." Even the title of @henryjenkins blog, "Confessions of an Aca-Fan," ruefully testifies to a great gap between the joys and challenges of participatory culture and the "critical gatekeeper" ethos of much higher education. Questions about personally meaningful accomplishment, expertise, intrinsic motivation, and the joy of learning are often put to one side.

Succinct definition. Interesting to think about how many of these factors obtain in formal educational settings.

Thoughtful definition of education. Recalls Bruner and Dewey in its emphasis on participation in all phases of life. Economic life is necessary, but not sufficient, especially in a democracy.

Crucial skill here, with three elements. The first two are typically all that are envisioned in discusssions of web or digital literacy. I'd argue that the third is just as important, and tragically neglected. The neglect may stem from persistent unacknowledged assumptions about learning--the kind of "banking concept of education" that Freire criticized.

A new word may be needed here, as "appropriation" now suggests a kind of cultural imperialism, or worse.

Still true, and a great loss in every direction. Even worse,higher education seems to have doubled down on the lockstep, limited pathway, drill-oriented approach to "graduating more students" and "producing more degrees." Even the title of @henryjenkins blog, "Confessions of an Aca-Fan," ruefully testifies to a great gap between the joys and challenges of participatory culture and the "critical gatekeeper" ethos of much higher education. Questions about personally meaningful accomplishment, expertise, intrinsic motivation, and the joy of learning are often put to one side.

Succinct definition. Interesting to think about how many of these factors obtain in formal educational settings.

Very useful analogy.

These words have a strange ring after the Aaron Swartz tragedy, one in which MIT played a part of course. It would be interesting to watch "The Internet's Own Boy" and discuss OA in that context.

Yes, but the planets are turning malign for the institutional strategies in which scholars work, especially at large public institutions that are struggling for money.

A nice formulation.

Stands in stark contradiction to "higher ed is a business." Bravo.

Again, a limited conclusion. What of teaching? And what of the unstated but enacted distinctions between "research" (almost always meaning STEM work) and "scholarship" (a term more appropriate to much humanities work)?

A crucial point in a crucial paragraph, especially as the idea that "higher ed is a business" moves to strangle faculty and their work.

Important point. Copyright need not be a barrier, so long as the individual author, with the presumed motivation of sharing, can license uses. Creative Commons is, after all, not copyleft, but reformed copyright.

I agree that this is the ideal situation, and I would go further and say we should strive toward this ideal because it is so conspicuously philanthropic and, as such, might remind our governments of the public good to which we seek to contribute. Against that, however, is the reality that scholars do not publish without payment, as their publications count as a kind of currency within their institutions, not only because of intellectual or institutional prestige, though that too, but because of the weight these publications acquire, in our current scholarly ecosystem, with regard to tenure and promotion.

An interesting moment, as it points to emerging hybridities in scholarly communication: the article or monograph that is a fixed point in the discourse that can have a unique identifier, can be cited over time reliably, etc., and the blog or wiki, in which it can be difficult (sometimes impossible) to identify a single point made at a single time in a way that stands for the "state of thought" represented by a thinker. I am not advocating for one form over or instead of the other, but I am struck by the way in which Suber seems continually alive to the varied questions that can emerge from the occasion of his writing here.

I'm curious about the authors' opinions regarding why this might be the case. Science is never value free, but scientific methodologies are usually thought not to be in themselves inherently ideological or political, rather a method of inquiry. I'm aware that such claims are controversial, but I do see the risk of overplaying advocacy in ways that can be used by those in power to deny the validity of the research. Are there progressive uses of a methodology that does not in itself aim at advocacy? I'd say there must be, but I understand that's a difficult stance in the times we currently face.

This idea needs much more clarification, I think. Are neutrality and objectivity impossible, or merely assumed in cases where they are not in fact present? If neutrality and objectivity are impossible, we are presented with several dilemmas regarding ethical advocacy. Note that I am not claiming perfect or absolute neutrality or objectivity are possible. I am arguing that if it is impossible to step outside one's prejudices at all, to work toward fairness and disinterestedness (in the older sense of "not for personal gain"), we risk having all ethical arguments collapsing around us, including our own.

I do understand these are long-standing philosophical questions and that many will not agree with me.

What is this ideology, exactly? From what do we distinguish it? Is incremental progress desirable, but something we are wrong to believe has happened? Is incremental progress impossible, or always an illusion? Is genuine progress attained only by radical, revolutionary ideologies of progress? Again, a need to counter complacency and indifference appears to be met with highly charged and reductive language, and I am concerned about this.

Agreed, but I also observe that Trump's rhetoric consistently aims to "shatter the illusion of incremental progress." Witness the infamous "carnage" rhetoric of his inaugural speech. If we deny that we have made any progress as a nation, we risk playing directly into Trump's (and Bannon's) ideology. Again, a less sweeping generalization, while not quite so stirring as a manifesto, may be more helpful for the long strategies and slogs of political activism.

I hope this conclusion is true, as the remedy proposed is straightforward and, in the hands of a gifted writer, has a reasonable chance of success. Given the complexity of contemporary higher education in the US, however, particularly with regard to business models that are sometimes at odds with statements of mission, I wonder.

A pun here, as "real" means not only "his real biological face," but also "royal," as "real" also meant "royal." The "stampèd" face is the one on English coins, of course.

My goal. Pretty much precisely.

Good distinctions here. Cf. also what happens when one begins to master the heptapod language in "Story of Your Life." It's Whorf-Sapir, but a "soft" Whorf-Sapir. So I'd say, anyhow. Relevant too that Engelbart discusses Whorf-Sapir.

"Write well" is complex, like "personality" (although OCEAN, haha, oops). I think especially of Karla's lament so beautifully expressed in Oceanic Mind. https://rampages.us/karlaimpala/2015/12/04/oceanic-mind/. Perhaps "strong" and "precise" are not mutually compatible here--the pairing may be misleading.

Nielsen must know Bret Victor's work.

Key moment. There's a complex relationship between expertise and heuristics, almost a chicken-and-egg problem. But this idea of hidden representations maps well onto what Nielsen has noted in "Reinventing Discovery" about the transformational moment he experienced when he first heard a scientist speak informally. And informal maps onto "narrating work" openly. And of course, INSIGHT.

Don't miss the poet John Hollander's great "close look" at this poem: https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/text/close-look-robert-frost

Representation is creation, and understandings are imagined: this is the reciprocal work of poetry, and "the very powerful and deep poetic ambiguities" (a la Empson?) - and connects with what Hollander was saying earlier about mythologizing. In short, wow.

Hollander appears to mean something quite specific, but also comprehensive, by this word. The reciprocal mythologizing that poetry occasions for language lends even more fascination. The conclusion of the talk brings things full circle, or perhaps full spiral.

These two sentences changed my life. Every time I read "a way of life in an integrated domain" I get chills up and down my spine, even twelve years after I first read those words. A way of life indeed. What discipline that phrase implies; what aspirations that phrase empowers!

I've been thinking about this metaphor, and about comments on blogs vs. blogs linking to blogs. In some ways this is another part of the Wikipedia vs. Federated Wiki question. I say "vs." because the alternatives do become binary at some point in the conversation. But back to the owning vs. sharecropping: in terms of web presence, maybe; in terms of discourse and rhetoric and the ways call and response differ, maybe not. I'll keep thinking. And I'm grateful for the heads-up that Hypothes.is is at last up and running!