OK, last post about Twitter–at least for this semester–and a sunday school lesson for those of you who think that your wiki/blog/whatever is not working so well and you might fail the class.
Twitter didn't work so well in this class, so I guess I get a failing grade. First of all, most of you did not participate. We never got a critical mass. I could have forced the issue, but I'm truly trying to break the command-and-control, hierarchical structures of my classrooms. If the technology doesn't work for you, then I don't want to force it. On the other hand, many of you are not reading your text either. Should I force that? If I don't force some things, then many of you won't do anything. There's a delicate balance here, and I'm not sure which way to lean, but I'm sure you'll help me figure it out.
Second, Twitter failed because we didn't use it so well. Most of what we posted–me included–was hardly worth reading. "I'm going to sleep" is interesting only to your mother, and she wasn't on Twitter with us, so I didn't set a good example. Our twittering never reached a level of sophistication that would sustain anyone's interest.
Third, Twitter failed because not enough of us have access to the technology often enough. I am on the Net from 6 to 10 hours a day, and I keep TwitterPost live in the corner of my Desktop, updating every 5 minutes. Most of you don't have that constant connection, therefore the live Tweets are usually old by the time you get them, or they've flowed by and you missed them altogether.
Guy Kawasaki has posted to his blog a fine assessment of why Twitter is working for him, and I note that he has overcome the above issues: he has thousands of people following his Tweets, he mostly tweets interesting things that reflect a lively, engaged mind, and he's almost always on. He's the ideal tweeter.
So if I want to try Twitter again next semester, what do I do differently? Or do I just drop it?