“Content is a print concept. It requires replication in the form of the printing press. It requires authority/power in the form of a government/agency/publisher deciding what is ‘required’ to learn. It is a standardization engine for learning, both to allow for spreading of authorized messaging and to allow for ‘uninstructed teachers to teach almost as well as an experienced one.’” – Maybe I’m missing the point here, surely digital networks allow us all to be content creators so therefore the art of the curation of information (or content) is king? Content is information as information is content, information is all around us, the nature of information is now plastic. The art of curation (of content = ideas) delivers new understanding, digital ‘connectivism’ doubly so. The art of the curation of information and thought defines space and education. To understand/define content as ‘print’ is a 20C concept (industrial thinking) we now live in a post industrial age (and have done for quite a while) – digital is transformed by analogue representations so analogue (spaces) should be allowed to transform digital. To differentiate between the two is highly problematic.

Education has always been a process (no change there!) – the problem is defining what you mean by process (?). The notion of academic identity delivered through multiple digital artifacts and the curation of those artifacts (however complex) may be the key – educator as an engineer in information and aesthetics (read Katherine Hayles).