Reimagine Learning for a Digital Nation: Competition Reopens

Our big news is that, later today, we will not only begin accepting revisions and resubmissions of original applications submitted to  our "Reimagining Learning" 3rd Annual Digital Media and Learning Competition, we will also be accepting NEW applications.  Here's the url for the site and you can find the application form, the rules, and the timeline once you get there:


It was part of the design of the Competition from the beginning that applications would appear on line, that applicants would have the opportunity to solicit feedback, and then all applicants would be required to resubmit their proposals--either without a single change or revised as much as you want or even with new collaborators and partners.   That process begins today, too. It has been so exciting to witness exciting participation by many hundreds of people in the Public Commenting.  


Additionally, because we've heard from so many people who missed the deadline but who felt inspired by the Competition, we're reopening the competition and accepting new applications too.   Of course, this means the new applicants won't be able to profit from the energetic public commenting period that the original applicants did but, you cannot complain (really, you cannot!), when you've just been given a chance to compete.   Go for it!


NB:  Originally this post took a side-turn and included a response to the PBS documentary "Digital Nation."  That was confusing people so I've now spun that out into its own post:




I basically hated it too

I agree with just about everything you write above, and want to add one more point to the list of Annoying Things the Frontline Special Did: It was 88 minutes of alarmism, ending with Doug Rushkoff insisting that people are still using technologies to express themselves, "so I guess that means you can still count me among the believers." As if belief in the transformative potential of new technologies is not only irrational but also in direct opposition to an overwhelming body of evidence that suggests Technology is Scary and Bad. But the truth is much more complex than this special paints it as.

It would be bad enough if the special was 90 minutes of pure alarmism. But Rushkoff's last talking point--his belief, despite the accumulating evidence, that technology is awesome!--makes it even harder for us to have authentic dialogue around the affordances and challenges of working with new technologies. 

Cathy Davidson


What would we have done without Jim and Katie and Henry?   it would have seemed as if all the facts and data were scary but here was this guy blithely saying it was all fine.   So annoying and just wrong.


generation curation 'generation curation'  has some insights that might unite some of this discourse between literacies and curation