<\/p>
Good Afternoon\nAll! <\/span><\/b><\/p>\n\n This week,\nI am working on mid-course blog feedback and should have this for everyone by the\nend of next week. This is formative feedback only, with no impact on your\ncourse assessment. It is intended to keep us connected and give you a sense of\nhow your current blogging efforts are landing from my perspective. I will email\nthese to you individually.<\/span><\/p>\n\n While\nworking on this task, I have noted some commonalities in the posts as well as\nperhaps a few missing ideas that I thought I might highlight for everyone here\nalong with questions that I hope will help spark additional posts and conversation\nin the blog comments. I considered adding these thoughts as comments within the\nblogs, but I know how challenging it is to keep track of everything while also\nworking on the debate activity, so decided to send this as a course\nannouncement instead.<\/span><\/p>\n\n A \u201cMeta\u201d\nQuestion to Consider<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n\n A funny\nthing about education programs is that we are always engaged in teaching and\nlearning about<\/i><\/b> teaching and learning. In that spirit\u2014and as something\nto consider as we prepare for the upcoming debate activity\u2014I pose the following\nmeta question(s):<\/span><\/p>\n\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>Why do you suppose that the MALAT\nprogram and LRNT 521 specifically, have been designed as they are? For example,\nwhat are the advantages and disadvantages of individual participant blogs? How\ndoes the fact that these blogs are open to the rest of the internet rather than\nwithing an LMS like Moodle impact how we interact and learn together? In what\nways does the course design encourage or otherwise impact our experience of learning\nin an online networked environment? How does the lived experience of this\ndesign align with what we have been reading from the literature?<\/span><\/p>\n\n Unit 2 \u2013\nActivity 2 | Map your use of technology as it pertains to the resident-visitor\ntypology<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n\n White and\nLeCornu (2011) replaced Prensky's \"digital native\/immigrant\" binary\nwith a continuum between two modes of practice: visitor mode treats the web as\na toolbox (log in, complete a task, log out, leave no trace), while resident\nmode treats it as a place where one lives, builds presence, and is recognized.\nThe same person might use both, depending on context, such as tool and purpose.\n<\/span>Contrast this with Cormier's\n(2018) \"alternative tension pair\" exercise where he asks us to invent\nor adopt a different tension that exposes what the visitor-resident map hides: consumption\nvs. contribution, performing vs. being, tracked vs. untrackable.<\/span><\/p>\n\n Further thoughts\nand questions to consider on this topic:<\/span><\/p>\n\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>The visitor-resident typology was\npublished in 2011, before TikTok, before context collapse became the default\ncondition of being online, and before generative AI became involved in much of\nwhat gets posted. Which features of contemporary digital life does the typology\nstill illuminate, and which might it now obscure? If you had to write a 2026\nsequel paper, what would the new tension pair be?<\/span><\/p>\n\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>White and LeCornu\u2019s (2011) framing\nassumes that \"leaving a trace\" is a choice. However, in our current\nreality, even visitor-mode activity generates persistent data in many cases, with\ntrue anonymity difficult to achieve. Has the visitor end of the continuum\neffectively disappeared for some purposes, and if so, what does the typology\nstill indicate?<\/span><\/p>\n\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\n Unit 2 \u2013\nActivity 3 | Begin Assignment 1: Create, Cultivate, and Reflect on your Digital\nPresence<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n\n Boyd's\n(2011) chapter is foundational to the DIDP activity that runs through our\ncourse. She argues that networked technologies have produced networked publics characterized\nby four affordances and three dynamics. The four affordances are persistence\n(content endures in time), replicability (it can be copied without quality\nloss), scalability (it can reach unintended audiences), and searchability (it\ncan be found by people you didn't anticipate). The three dynamics that follow\nare invisible audiences, context collapse (the flattening of distinct social\ncontexts into a single audience), and the blurring of public and private. None\nof these are discretionary as they are the conditions of online expression. Schryver\n(2013) offers some similar ideas in a practical rather than theoretical form built\naround questions of who we are when online and how that identity is similar and\ndifferent to our \u201creal\u201d offline identity.<\/span><\/p>\n\n