Multilitteratus Incognitus

The other day I was reading an article on Hybrid Pedagogy titled  Plagiarism is Dead; Long Live the Retweet: Unpacking an Identity Crisis in Digital Content.  I was an interesting article, which had me nodding in agreement in some areas, and induced an eyebrow raising expressions of curiosity in other parts.  I thought I would pull out some quotes, as I've done in other readings, and react to them, and in some cases respond.  It's an interesting article, and it's food for thought.  I would say that it also pairs well with the Times Higher Education article that Peer Review is not as old you think. One of the first things that jumped out to me what the following. It should be noted that any emphasis in these quotes is my own: It is long since time for academic publishers and tenure and promotion boards to re-examine our “business as usual” in the light of ubiquitous knowledge sources and publication tools. Given a multiplicity of wikipedias, what const...

Some nice artwork, no doubt by @merryspaniel :-) Time just seems to fly by this semester.  I don't know if it's because I am busy, or if (as the old saying goes) time flies when you're having fun! This past week we skipped the usual introductions and check-ins in 806, affectionately known by some as the therapy portion to the live session.  I actually didn't mind it considering that this is the 3rd session and I've started to recognize some familiar names in the chatbox of Adobe Connect.  Some introductions and check-ins are fine, however sometimes they span 45 minutes and it makes the presentation portion seem longer.  I think the balance point is this:  If you have one presentation then you do check-ins, if you have multiple you skip them. This past week we had two presentations.  One by Mary McNabb (not sure which cohort), and one by Joanne Buckland (also not sure which cohort).  In addition we had a research interlude presented by cohort ...

Alright, being now back from my mini vacation, and back into the regular rhythm of work, reading, and very soon classes, I've caught up with a lot of my saved Pocket articles.  The one thing I saw is, still, the very schizo nature of MOOC reporting and commentary. This reminds me a bit of the headlines, back in the day on Engadget and other tech sites, about studies on cell phones causing/not causing cancer. In the MOOC context this is about whether or not MOOCs (in their many forms?) are/aren't good, revolutionary, the best-thing-since-sliced-bread, etc. Sometimes I feel like the Charlie Brooker of the field of education when I write these, but hey, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Right before the holiday break, one of my colleagues sent me an article from Technology Review which he thought I should publicly respond to (being the crazy MOOCie that I am).  The article is What are MOOCs good for ? and I may have read this a while back, but probably didn't real...