Daniel’s post applying Foucault’s discursive formation to Google Analytics was enlightening on several levels. Firstly, I wasn’t really aware of how Google Analytics work, so I now have a better understanding of how it works. Also, reading the way in which Daniel applied the theory to Google Analytic helped me gain a deeper understanding of Foucault’s theory. I used Foucault in my own case study, but reading Daniels analysis revealed some of the ways in which I could more effectively apply the theory. For instance, I could have focused on describing how the network of La Leche League is constantly in flux, and I could have explained that my map of the network was by no means an attempt to capture the constant state of the network. I did pose a few questions to Daniel seeking clarification on concepts he described. For example, it seemed to me that there is a possibility that the object of the discursive formation might change once the user of Google Analytics begins to examine the data. Perhaps the object is still the page, or is it the data? Another question I had was whether the archived data actually is not part of the flow. It seems to me that once the user begins to examine the data, the data might become part of the flow. One of the most fascinating things that Daniel discussed is the difference between the networked archive and the archived network. I found this a fascinating contrast. It seems, from what I understand, that the networked archive can be an active part of the network, while the archived network may not be, unless the archived network is networked.
I really enjoyed reading Amy’s discussion of MOOCs and the application of computer network theory to MOOCs in part because I have recently been attempting to make my in-person class more student-centered, and I read Friere’s discussion of the banking concept. I wasn’t that familiar with MOOCs, so this discussion was very enlightening in that regard. Amy discussed the flow of information in the course in terms of buses, and I found this very helpful for envisioning the way in which Friere’s analysis of traditional education (the banking theory) is similar to a “serial” bus, and the more student-centered approach is like a parallel bus. I did have a few questions for Amy, particularly about the issue of agency. I would like to have seen more discussion of the relationship between students and how information flows between students as nodes. Also, I was curious about how the flow back of information from student might impact the entirety of the network.