User talk:Alex Topfer

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hello[edit]

Hello Alex,

  • > if I'll stay a member after the unit ends: hopefully you do :-) What can we do that you stay ?
  • >I could probably just use my blog, but that would risk boring the few people who read it even more.: Do you know that Wikiversity also has blogs ?
  • >congratulations, you can read: I assume that is just a friendly welcome msg and it might not be always clear that everybody has the same skills. So better to be safe than sorry - in any case at Wikiversity it is always best to assume good faith. In wikis communication has always losing info which in real life is always present (e.g. mimic, gesture) - it is easy to misunderstand things. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 09:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I think your right, the welcome message was just meant to be friendly. I guess I was just a bit grumpy with university people always assuming that I'm technologically illiterate. Alex Topfer 00:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't have any more info. It was just an assumption. Btw: if you feel more comfortable, you can change the section at your user page and also remove my comment above, ok ? We are a wiki. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 05:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I know I can delete all this from the main page, but as it still hangs around in the history I can't see any point. Why try to bury what I've said? Anyway, it's actually an example of something that came up in the lecture. So I'll leave it there and try to get marks for an embarrassing mistake. Alex Topfer 13:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I am sure your hope for the grade will fulfill. :-) ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 15:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Alex, Just so you know, there's absolutely no problem from my point of view. This is a new experiment for "social psychology" (the unit) and my expectation for it is very open/broad. So, there can be no mistakes, really, by anyone. Only responses, ideas, conversations, etc. What's more, you're clearly applying understandings of social psychology to real situations. You're authentically engaging and from my point of view, that's the main purpose of this so-called "e-portfolio". From my point of view to make an observation or comment is far better (by and large) than to withold it. :) Sincerely, -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Geekness/Technical capacity[edit]

You have me wondering about the "spectrum" of geekness/technical capacity with respect to the "computer/internet". It seems that perhaps a new cultural shift which has introduced a new social dimension - in a very primitive way, ranging between those "comfortable and connected and able to pursue interests" online and those who are "uncomfortable, unfamiliar, lacking in confidence, and unable to pursue interests" online. It is also seems related to and interconnected with "class", but this is an interesting relationship because it also allows transcendence of class in many respects. Just wanted to share that. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Technological ability could be considered almost a social class, but instead of transcending class I would suggest that it exists on a different spectrum. You can imagine a class system whereby the technologically adept were in charge, ruling over those who had no idea (unlike now where technologically ignorant Labour politicians pass internet regulations that will never work). So it could be a class system, but not one related to money or birth. Alex Topfer 15:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Constructionism thoughts[edit]

You may find it helpful to narrow the focus to social constructionism (as opposed to constructionism per se). On e-reserve there is a gentle introduction: Burr, V. (1995). Introduction: What is social constructionism? In An introduction to social constructionism (pp. 1-16). London: Routledge (and I think this book is in the library). Plus see if you can track down w:Kenneth Gergen's 'social psychology as history' - if you do, can let me know, and I'll get it added to e-reserve. There are, it seems, as many critics as there are proponents of constructionism, so you shouldn't have too many problems finding critiques, so the essay could do well to present a balanced critique. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Social psychology as history. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah, I just noticed that you actually requested the constructivism topic... and I'm replying about social constructionism, just to make things extra confusing Smiley.svg. If you want to, I think it might be more rewarding to tackle social constructionism. The constructivism question probably shouldn't be up there come to think about it... - at least in that its not a particularly notable social psychology topic, it's pursued more in the field of educational psychology. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

E-portfolio Feedback for Alex Topfer[edit]

Hi Alex Topfer,

Thanks for participating in the social psychology unit. I have read your e-portfolio and have provided some feedback below. The marks will put be posted on WebCT 24 or 25 November. I will email the discussion list when they are available. Feel free to let me know if you have any comments, concerns, questions. I also welcome your feedback here.

Regularity/Continuity[edit]

Irregular - there were three major postings and some related talk/reflection. (F-level)

Depth/Insightfulness[edit]

Interesting insights were offered and connections made to social psychology in each of the major posts. However, this was "patchy" in that it only demonstrated depth of reflection around a few aspects of the social psychology content considered during the unit. (P-level).

Overall/General/Other[edit]

No comment

Contributions/Statistics[edit]

Sincerely, James Neill - talk - email

P.S. If you are dissatisfied with the marking and feedback, please see the marking dispute process.