Twitter’s clouds are an interesting branding choice for a service that asks us to squeeze our thoughts into tiny 140-character installments. Clouds, like tweets, are so much more than they appear to be. They are open to interpretation. We see things in clouds, in their shapes, in their movements, that have nothing at all to do with their physical embodiment as water drops. I’ve never seen a cloud that didn’t look like something else:

Hamlet: Do you see yonder cloud, that’s almost in shape of a camel?
Polonius: By th’ mass, and ’tis like a camel, indeed.
Hamlet: Methinks, it is like a weasel.
Polonius: It is backed like a weasel.
Hamlet: Or like a whale.
Polonius: Very like a whale.

Now, some of us may see more than others, but we are all relentless meaning makers. The world around us is not a given, as they say, but rather it is constructed. In Twitter that construction relies on 140-character building blocks. Tweets, like clouds, are suggestions, intimations, that drift by, and sometimes they project the deeper concerns of the follower who reads them. I’ve never seen a tweet that didn’t look like something else. For example:

Observe the signs: the lone tweet, the extended time lapsed since posting, no followup, the default avatar. The tone is confident and crotchety, methinks. It suggests that, against their better judgment, the author fell victim to the peak of inflated expectations, then, at mid-tweet, with better judgment restored, fell into the trough of disillusionment. The ballistic progression through the stages of the hype cycle hints at long-time expertise, long enough for evolved cynicism, brief enough to have sustained hope. Could this be an abandoned eduTwitter account? If tweets are like clouds, this one says there is rain is in the forecast. Stay out of the rain it warns. If you are serious about technology-supported learning environments (and I am! Iam!), then Twitter is all wet.

Of course, I grant you, some of us may see more in these tweets than others.

TheMime’s twitter style is more detached, but equally jaded. The author tweets a single ellipse, and only an ellipse, every couple of days. They have been doing this since November, and have attracted over 5,000 followers.* The tone is whimsical, the delivery reliable. You may hope for more, they suggest, and you will get more … of the same. More of the same? Oh yes, I know this pattern. It is the one that seems to emerge whenever educators start to use digital technologies in their practice. The pattern looks something like this:

Most digital technologies are originally developed for or adapted by researchers or commercial interests. But it is fair to say that teachers and trainers are among the most enthusiastic and innovative adopters. We all want to embrace the promise to enhance the experiences of our students or improve learning outcomes. Many of us share our experiences. The online literature about the use of digital technologies in education is bursting with enthusiastic accounts of what was done, why it was done, how it worked, what impact it had on students, and what challenges it posed for teachers. In fact, this generosity formed my expectations about Twitter long before I set up an account. But read more closely, and you will see that much of the discussion is not about anything new or transformational; rather it is about the recurrent, persistent issues in education. There are notable exceptions, but most of these experiments with digital technologies feel as if they are just that—simple experiments with technology. These are our ellipses. Some important aspects remain mostly unchanged: the underlying design of the curriculum, the purposes and means of assessing, and the imbalance of power between teacher/trainer/facilitator and student/trainee/learner. There are reasons, of course, why we do not capitalize on the potential of digital technologies to change the relationship between students and learning. Still, I can’t help but feel somewhat disheartened that potentially transformational technologies are often used in somewhat predictable ways.

If tweets are clouds, is the long term forecast is overcast and unchanged? I turned to the twittersphere for fellowship and forecast. Is there anything new under the sun?, I tweeted. Apparently yes, says Dave Ferguson:

What appeals to me about digital technologies is that they throw into contrast any differences of opinion we may hold about their use. Variations in the pattern become immediately evident. For example, I don’t think I’ve ever been inclined to compare technologies and clouds before Twitter. Doing so reveals my underlying constructivist assumptions about education and I how go about achieving them. Tweets are like clouds. In 140 characters or less, I can see established paradigms and am free to interpret alternative views. That’s a lot of transformational power packed into an edutweet, and that’s where I see sun peaking behind the clouds.

* And more now that TheMime has been featured on Boing Boing. If you still have doubts that tweets are ideal fodder for meaning making, check out the comments.

140 Characters Or Less originally appeared on Portable Learner on March 12th, 2009

Rorschach inkblots exploit this tendency, and our interpretations of these images supposedly project some deeper concern. I took these snaps last week during an early morning canoe paddle through still waters of Lac Taylor.

Do you see what I see? Or do you see something else entirely?

Rorschach Wilderness Blots originally appeared on Portable Learner on June 28th, 2006