Posts Tagged ‘tweet’
Consider this question:
Here are some of my answers:
Because things have always been done that way.
Because we know no other way.
Because we think we know better.
Because you have to sit for tests that we put in your life that do not have much to do with your life.
These are very weak answers.
The tweeted question is a Googleable one and others have tried answering it in other ways. There are mathematical answers and classical logic answers.
But all those answers miss the point of the question. The point is critical perspective-taking.
Is it possible to offer technical support in 140 characters? It might be.
Recently I had to find solutions to two technical issues.
I upgraded by iPad mini to iOS 8 (and left my iPhone on iOS 7 to keep it jailbroken). The upgrade prevented me from connecting to my VPN service.
I tried restarting the device and making sure that the input fields were correct. Here is what worked.
I had also activated two factor authentication (2FA) on my Google account a while ago. I did not realize that it would prevent the YouTube app in my Apple TV from working. After a quick search, I discovered a simple solution.
Offering these technical tips without hashtagging them almost seemed pointless. Twitter dashboard tells me my tweets get 30,000 views per day, but that does not mean I am offering anyone anything of value. So why did I do it?
I only realized why after the fact. I was responding to someone who claimed that 140 characters prevented effective communication.
The essence of solutions to problems can be shown in text, images, links, audio, or videos in tweets. Brevity is not opposed to clarity.
The brevity of tweets might lead to loss of context and rationale. But you can post multiple tweets and be succinct about it. You might also rely on long form like this blog to get the best of both worlds.
It is about finding a way with whatever cards you are dealt with.
I reviewed the tweets that I had collected as “favourites” over the last few years and found this:
Damned if you do or damned if you don’t? Which are you guilty of?
I expected that STonline would lead with a headline like Video games linked to aggressive behaviour in kids says Singapore study.
But I found it interesting that when tweeted it read:
An editor might argue that there is only so much space for a headline. But the tweet was so much more informative.
The non-paywall and longer article is at Reuters and it is titled Violent video games may be tied to aggressive thoughts.
STonline cites the findings as aggressive behaviour while Reuters choose aggressive thoughts. STonline leaves much of the critique of the study out while Reuters leaves more of it intact.
So why the difference? If you do not read widely or critically, what conclusions are you likely to draw?
Twitter turned eight this week.
I wondered out loud then and I have since answered my questions.
Twitter was an answer to a question I did not have (why use it?). I did not use it for several months because I did not have a purpose for it. I know that to this day Twitter (and many educational technology) workshops are run without answering that purposeful question.
I have since found out how to use Twitter to connect loosely with like-minded others, be a member of an online community, access the latest information, share nuggets, and teach informally.
I have moved from wondering to wandering. Twitter has allowed me to explore new ground and to teach and learn in ways I would not have considered before.