JISC has shared a story about a sticky campus (link). This set me off thinking about the resources we use to develop our practice.
The post notes:
A sticky campus is a digitally-enabled space where students want to spend time, even when they don’t have a formal teaching session to go to. It’s a learning environment designed to give students everything they need for collaborative and solitary study, and to promote active learning. It supports inclusivity and enables rich learning experiences.
There is an emphasis here on active learning. My hope has always been that we promote inclusivity through the sharing of open educational resources.
Two student partners talk in the JISC post about their experiences of a sticky campus. This includes a rethinking of the spaces within which we learn.
Back in 2005, Stephen Acker and Michael Miller (link) noted:
These informal spaces are the pathways, gathering spots, and points of dispersal among our formal learning spaces. Their job is to make the campus “sticky,” to support chance encounters of value and social exchange.
I sense that the growth in social media has enabled more of these chance encounters in our ongoing learning. They have opened up opportunities for a commons of learning.
Our friend, Donal, has had a posthumous book published. His author’s name is Daniel.
Donal died in January this year after an arduous and serene dealing with terminal cancer.
Donal’s book is titled Dancing to My Death. It chronicles the last months of his life. We saw Donal as he was about to start on his book.
We have seen reviews of the book in Australia and we have ordered a copy of Dancing. We have all Donal’s books with us. All of them were gifts from him.
The publication of the book has brought home the devastation we have felt after Donal’s death. My wife, Sue, knew Donal for over forty years. We miss him profoundly but we hope to follow his guidelines about dancing … “And when you get the chance to sit it out or dance, I hope you dance. I hope you dance.“
Katrin Etzrodt and Sven Engesser (2019) have been looking at ubiquitous tools, connected things and intelligent agents (link).
Their paper seeks to disentangle the terminology used in discussions of ubiquity. They suggest theoretically disentangling terminology “results in four distinct analytical dimensions (connectivity, invisibility, awareness, and agency) that facilitate and address social implications”.
I enjoyed their discussion of these four concepts and thought they spoke to the discussions we are having about connections in a digital age.
Karen and Sven visualise their disentanglement in Figure 1 in their paper:
They note that in this Figure these dimensions are assigned “to two super-dimensions — connectivity and invisibility deal with aspects of integration, while awareness and agency are concerned with intelligence issues”. They propose that integration “focuses on natural interaction between humans and computers, which is accomplished through invisible technological components and wireless connection”.