What’s the future of Twitter?

Posted on by Brian Hughes

image

Twitter stock has recently suffered as a result of weak earnings (and related confidence), so I’ve been reflecting on the value I place in it versus Facebook.

Everyone’s surely different, but I figure one way for me to assess it is to evaluate the differences between the list of my Facebook friends and the accounts I follow on Twitter (I have to add my handle to my own list’s URL on Twitter, but of course with my “default” settings I can’t even share my Facebook list).

So what do I see? In my case, a rather subtle difference! Even before this comparison, I recognize that in my case I use these services in very similar ways—some close friends, some strangers—in short, a mixed social bag on both accounts. But by looking closely, the “game-ish” contours of Twitter start to emerge…

  • where word-smithing is more important… and fun (it’s such a chore on Facebook)
  • where I feel like I’m actively doling out social recognition by re-tweeting and favoriting (as opposed to the more personal Facebook “like”)
  • where I can easily search for new ideas (and break out of my filter bubble)
  • where I can blend my personal and professional interests (there just isn’t room for my professional self on Facebook
  • where my new ideas seems to matter more than my same old self

The indicators above seem like distinctly intellectual features that such a service could offer. In all other ways, Facebook and Twitter seem almost identical to me.

I recognize that this is a very particular case, and that there are many other ways to use these services. But, head-to-head, pound-for-pound, I also suspect that there is a deeper indication here that Twitter, even (or perhaps especially) when viewed as a redundant service, is of equal social value to Facebook in the emerging world.

Perhaps, even greater.

 

image credit: http://attending.io/events/free-lunchtime-intro-workshop-twitter-facebook-ads

Learning with Apple Live

Posted on by Brian Hughes

Apple’s live events keep evolving, and I would love to be able to use their “live broadcasting” toolkit—essentially turning their website into a media-rich live blog of the event. Here’s a screenshot of what today’s Apple Watch-focused event looked like:

Screen Shot 2015-03-09 at 2.17.49 PM

 

The key features of this mode of presentation are:

  • Live video of the main presentation—which is being produced somewhere (usually California) for a live audience.
  • Produced video elements are used during the presentation. Split-screens are sometimes used to juxtapose the speaker and other content (as above).
  • Pre-made, widget-like cards appear from top to bottom with short summaries (including images and video) of the presentation content. They have simple, built-in social sharing functionality.
  • When you scroll down to see older cards, the video is shrunk to a thumbnail and continues to play at the top of the page.

These elements combine for a simple, compelling online presentation. One can easily step away and come back, and skim the cards to see what was missed. It would be equally great if the presentation could be replayed from the point of any ‘card’… though I don’t think this is currently the case!

So, if I had this presentation toolkit, would I use it? Given the amount of pre-planning and multimedia in use, it would certainly take a significant up-front investment (e.g., time, money, preparation). However, to deliver a high-impact event to a web audience, it seems like a great place to start.

I especially like the live element—which underscores the event with the sense that, “this would be even more impressive in person, but I’m as close as I can get!”

Techitecture, The Emergence of

Posted on by Brian Hughes

My involvement in Teacher College’s Learning Theater project makes me appreciate how fast-evolving audio/video technologies (or better: display/capture/collaboration technologies) challenge traditional architecture.

Our project feels like “techitecture”—a combination of technology and architectural design and development. (And I’m curious that, having imagined this fanciful term, I have not found it used before in this way.)

The fit and function of technology elements in our space will go beyond traditional theater. Not only will the audience not be “fixed” (in seats, etc.), but it’s not even clear to us what events will eventually unfold in the space.

article-2700073-1FD8588400000578-158_634x462Designing the learning theater space seems more akin to designing the holodeck. It will essentially appear as an empty grid until users imagine ways to activate it.

In undertaking this type of project, it’s clear that architects need to be brave, and AV consultants need to be braver still… We are essentially designing a digital space with bulky materials from the past, and just enough matter to support the needs of humans.

And coffee.

Gymnasiums as “Learning Theaters”?

Posted on by Brian Hughes

If you had a high school gymnasium, how would you turn it into a technology-friendly space for teaching, learning, and research?

As part of the Gottesman Libraries team, I’m currently involved in developing the concept of a “learning theater” — both programmatically and architecturally. Pulling this concept out of primordial soup of imagination (if such a space already exists as we imagine it, we do not know of it), our team embarked on a very broad inquiry:

  • What could a learning theater be?
  • What could it be within a library (in our case, it is)?
  • What is it within the context of Teachers College (with its legacy of innovation)?

We’ve already come a long way. Last winter, library staff hosted a series of design events with the TC community (summary videos can be viewed on Vialogues). This fall we’ve been working with a design team from Shepley Bulfinch to develop the concept and arrive at a schematic design. Our goal:

Renovate the 10,000 sq. ft. fourth floor of Russell Hall as a space for ambitious learning and research activities.

One aspect of our design progress that I’m very excited about is the ability for other educational institutions to use what we’re learning (and inevitably going to learn later on, after we move into our facility).

Don’t all schools need innovative teaching and learning spaces? These will be spaces that must accommodate richer and richer densities of learning tools – physical, digital, and any/every combination thereof. Being able to conduct research about teaching and learning in these spaces, therefore, seems to be increasingly important as well.

Retrofitting libraries and high school gymnasiums as new learning spaces could be only the beginning…

What’s Not to Like about Innovation?

Posted on by Brian Hughes

Like creativity, innovation is a diffuse concept that requires a significant amount of rehabilitation to be used in an effective, precise way. The two concepts are indeed often intertwined. But I would want to argue that “innovation” is analogous to corporate personhood—and deserving of the same liberal ire.

OK, let me unpack this a bit. First, it appears as if organizations more often (are said to) seek innovation whereas individuals seek creativity. To wit: “innovation will lead us to the next big product.” Creativity seems to align better with masterpieces and experiments.

Innovation is “new;” creativity is “original.”

Both these statements drive me a bit bonkers (insofar as they are often unsubstantiated) , but can of course be meaningful and profound. But are these perhaps two sides of the same coin? Or should they be understood entirely differently?

Shouldn’t they be viewed analogously to persons and corporate persons —one aspirational, and the other antagonistic to the aspiration?

Yet at every turn both concepts will resist definition. Is innovation about technological change? Well, not exactly. Is creativity about imagination? Well, again, not exactly. An essay would have to focus on a broad-yet-common conceptualization of each term, and locate historical uses that exemplified their similarities and contrasts.

Could pitting them against each other be instrumental in expressing value for humanity over technology-fo-technologies-sake? Maybe!

It seems worth trying.

The Three R’s of Team-building

Posted on by Brian Hughes

I just want to throw out an admittedly gimmicky way of thinking about a big part of the work we do as EdLab managers: we spend a considerable amount of energy on recrutiing, retooling, and retaining. I’d like to call this “the three R’s of team-building.”

As part of the academic library at Teachers College, EdLab has a unique set of people, projects, and goals. Because our work is “in between” worlds – academia, libraries, technology, and media – our priorities are often in a state of flux.

By design, many of our staff appointments are short term (one semester or one year, for example). This allows us to work with different cohorts of students and professionals. It also means we are continually putting energy into building, shaping, and sustaining our teams.

Reflecting on this work causes me to consider a few questions:

  • What strategies are effective and efficient in each of the three areas? There is of course a lot of literature on this, so: What works well for us specifically? What are some new approaches we should consider? Can better communication make our work more effective or efficient?
  • What is the “cost” of investing in the 3 R’s? What specific outcomes do we seek? What are the indicators we look for to see if we need to change our approaches?

Will Educators Own the Future?

Posted on by Brian Hughes

Likely not.

I just finished reading Jaron Lanier’s ‘Who Owns the Future?‘—about a year after the rest of the world, it turns out—and I’m not optimistic.

It was an excellent read, especially due to Lanier’s broad experience with technologies and his interest in economics. He offers educators a lot to think about, such as:

Will teaching be a middle class job (at least) in the future?

Will humans even be paid to teach?

How will education be limited by software? And how will that software hide the contribution of humans?

These are some questions at the core of his ruminating, and the thesis of the book (that the world is generally headed in the wrong direction with respect to how networks are designed and used) opened up these questions in new ways for me.

I am afraid I am quite sympathetic to his worries. Unfortunately his bleak vision of the future isn’t well-balanced by his ideas for how to mitigate the present dangers of technology and create a better world for humans.

In general, I’d like to think I’m working on a solution just by working in the education sector. But Lanier gives me pause, and a lot to think about.