Twitter, what does it all mean?
This week I’ve come to understand that I have not done the homework that I need to be conversant in this course. I assumed incorrectly that words meant what I thought they meant. I’m sure I knew better, but as Bon Stewart would say I resisted. Taking the readings as mirrors or windows that refracted my goals and knowledge was not the means to open the door to a new conception. So I am looking to inform myself about the basis of this platform of computing and the means through which it can be effective to do what the users (not abusers) seek to do. And to do this I need to review and understand the words. A few (but there are many more) that are relevant:
Turns out, I haven’t been clear about any of these (and many more) terms. The language of discussion became even more importance as the text is boiled down to tweets because nothing can be explained for itself, there is only character set length to refer to another discussant, or statement, or generally understood point. Each term must carry a greater semantic load.
So with Bon Stewart, “Twitter for Teachers: an experiment in openness” the level of ambiguous reference was for me (for reasons above) tantamount to lack of communication, unintelligible, or lack of understanding. I read every word, but like Noam Chomsky’s example (In Syntactic Structures) and “Green Ideas Sleep Furiously” was grammatically correct, but semantically meaningless. Back to the dictionary, back to reading the instructions. Furthermore I’m wondering if students who may be highly effective users of Twitter, blogging and other forms of social media (As I feel myself to be a competent user of English), might also be unable to become learners in an open forum where the topic is not already an attribute of their experience?
And for me, I find that much of the blogging I’m reading speaks of the benefits and virtues of student-centered learning, but I never read the first post explaining what the words mean.