5 Matching Annotations
  1. May 2024
  2. Jan 2021
  3. Dec 2020
    1. We are unapologetic tinkerers who neither invent the wheel, nor are satisfied with the wheels already at our disposal. The best scholarship and the best pedagogy take the best of what already exists and make it better, at least better for the task at hand. We need to embrace this identity as hackers, acknowledge our indebtedness to those who have gone before us, forsake the illusion that we are creating (can create, should create) something wholly original, but also refuse to take for granted the things that have been passed down to us.

      I think that this might be where I'm missing something. The article is about the relationship between open-source software development and scholarship, but now we're talking about "hacking" as the equivalent of a software developer. And I'm not sure that I agree with this.

      I don't think that software-developers think of themselves as hackers. For me, there's an underlying subversive nature in the hacker category, which need not be present in a software developer. There's a conflation between software developer and hacker, which misses some of the nuance that's necessary.

  4. Nov 2017
    1. The idea that we can collaboratively build a platform that will frame the discourse and promote sharing is a promising aftereffect of the current MOOC backlash.

      Since the term “disruptive” has come to be associated with Clay Christensen’s model, there might be something closer to a reappropriation model like Hippies appropriating VW Beetles, Roadsworth painting pedestrian crossings into zippers, or circuit benders making musical instruments out of old toys. Somewhere, someone may subvert a MOOC into something useful. In fact, Arshad Ahmad once described a successful MOOC which had lost its instructors. Learners started owning their learning activities.

  5. Jan 2016