DFPQ1

In 2009, Gardner Campbell used his eloquent style to write a riveting article on digital presence in higher education.

Who better to reflect on his ideas and suggestions than a university student in our current age of technology?  For this reason, several of my classmates will be sharing their reflections in blog posts today, and I am merely one of the numbers.  However, this is my blog and my opinion reigns supreme in my domain (this opinion being one open to suggestions and rarely reluctant to change).

I will address a small portion of the article in this blog, a single sentence in the first paragraph, but a statement that left an impact.

“Sometimes, however, progress means looping back to earlier ideas whose vitality and importance were unrecognized or underexplored at the time, and bringing those ideas back into play in a new context.”

I find this idea to be particularly true due to the structure and environment of the topic at hand.  Using cyberspace and its all suggestive definition as a tool with which people can graduate to the next level is a bit contradictory to the previous statement.  This idea of taking steps and levels to progress is the primary deterrent in growth.  Outlets of communication on the digital front have endless possibilities for expanse, particularly when accessible the students of higher education.  These students are at a time when life is spinning, spinning and growing, and jerking and jolting.  Students can accept change particularly well because of this, therefore, if a revolution in the delivery of information takes place in higher education, it will be a method accepted and enhanced by an audience unaware of what they are doing.

Expanding the possibilities and speed in connecting a message can offer growth, not guarantee it.  This is due to the idea people cannot grow, but they are merely tapping into mankind’s latent potential.  The capacity of human does not grow through steps or levels, progress is not linear, though, we may perceive it be.  The internet and the traditional modes of sharing it uses were spread by those that see progress as something linear, often looking for step (iPad2… 3?).  Building on top of oneself will eventually lead to toppling over, but surveying the area and exploring constructs started and abandoned in time past holds different possibilities.

I could continue on the route of perceiving time for a while, but it’s more along the lines of ‘nobody wants to hear your trip, man’.  So, I will close by encouraging students to accept input from every direction, and with that, you will see expanse, not necessarily “growth.”

Advertisements

One thought on “DFPQ1

  1. It seems to me you are pointing out and building upon one of the more powerful ideas in the essay. I think you are correct in pointing out that this recursive type of methodology for analyzing or discussing progress calls into question the accepted wisdom or status quo.

    I’m not sure exactly how to read your idea at the end of the first paragraph. Are you saying that can accept change more readily because they are themselves going through change, or is it because they are naive or unaware of what’s come before? Or even a third possibility, is it because they’ve been in some way radicalized to question and challenge the prevailing wisdom?

    It would have been fine to continue on with your route for a while longer. It seemed you were on a roll. Speaking of time, you might be interested in the recent discussions about Scott McCloud’s Time Frames taking place in Prof. Gardner’s course: From Memex to YouTube: Cognition, Learning and the Internet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s