So, the week started off with Stephen Downes auto-subscribing everyone to the Moodle forums which I had not participated in before. My reaction was a little surprising to me. I totally rebelled! Although I responded to Downes' post, I felt resentful that he made that decision for me to full up my mailbox and I reacted by tuning out this week. I did none of the reading and although I logged into the Wednesday session, I listened disinterestedly. I found reasons to miss this week's Friday wrap-up session as well.
Little Boxes Revisited
However, just because I haven't participated in the course itself, doesn't mean that I haven't thought about power and control this week. During the Wednesday session, the discussion turned to rubrics and since this is one thing I've been working on intensely these past weeks, it peaked my interest. I think it was Lisa Lane who indicated that she struggled with rubrics that didn't seem to pinpoint exactly what she wanted students to get out of the experience. Students seem to focus on whether they did more work than others in the group or whether they hit the number of words required, etc. It got me thinking about all the little boxes I was filling in as I created rubrics for our teacher education programs. How restrictive are these tools? Are they a help or a hindrance? Are they really getting at what we want out of the assignment or discussion and who is making the decisions about what is required? Doesn't a rubric create borders for an assignment that restrict a student's understanding of the material? Does a rubric which is supposed to give the student guidance on the requirements of the assignment give too much detail? Can it be so detailed that it restricts learning?
The most general rubric we have in the EDU/EDS program is the Assignment rubric which has 2 criteria, content and technical. The exemplary content box of the rubric states that the assignment: Gives very specific information. Addressed all of the assignment components. Clearly illustrates critical and reflective thinking. Well thought out response. The poor response: Is vague and does not address all assignment components. No evidence of having given the assignment real thought.
A more specific rubric is the Reflective Journal rubric which has 5 criteria: key ideas, application, philosophy, accuracy, and format. The criteria are much more defined in this rubric. For example, the exemplary key ideas criteria response displays: Key ideas specific to the subject are very, clearly stated, and well supported while the not acceptable response: does not identify key ideas OR entry is submitted late.
In comparing these two rubrics, although the Reflective Journal rubric provides more definitive criteria, I think the Assignment Rubric allows the student more flexibility for interpreting and creating meaning within the assignment. The Assignment rubric ended up more general because it was created to grade multiple assignments of varying descriptions and types of activities from evaluating lesson plans to developing reading centers. To develop separate project criteria and rubrics for each of these would not only be time-consuming, but would take away from the creativity of students.
One the other hand, the Reflective Journal rubric should probably be a little more defined. Many students today aren't used to journaling as may need more guidance as they reflect on what they have seen during their teaching experiences. However, we should be careful to monitor our preconceptions about this. It's a balancing act between providing students information about that for which they should be looking and shutting down pathways the student may want to explore.
As an instructor, I would probably spend some time in the beginning helping students evaluate the rubrics and perhaps making some changes to help reflect their expectations as well. I believe that spreading around some of the power in a classroom, whether physical or virtual is a good thing for students. It helps them take control of their own learning which is own ultimate goal in the connected classroom.
Returning Power to the Un-empowered
The second consideration of power and control this week came in the form of the book my daughter recommended, The End of America by Naomi Wolf. She outlines the 10 steps taken by fascist countries to shut down democracy and exert power over the people. I've gotten most of the way through the book and am appalled at the extent of the power that has been ripped from the American people. Although I knew there's been a huge power grab at the highest levels, the lose of control described by Wolf is scary. My only hope is that Mr. Obama has the guts to give it back to the Americans and put things right so that some despot can't come in and completely overwhelm us. Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely.
So returning to Mr. Downes' power grab this week, the point is taken that power and teaching have always gone hand in hand, but students do not benefit from being forced into little boxes whether they are rubric boxes or Moodle forums. Students should be empowered to explore, discover, create, and distribute their own learning.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
Week Seven: Instructional Design and Connectivism
Wow! A lot to consider this week. This was the week to which I had looked forward because it addressed instructional design and now I'm not sure how or where to begin. Perhaps it would be best to consider my view of instructional design prior to this week's materials and then move on to what changes I now need to make.
My Instructional Design (that's upper case "I", upper care "D") paradigm
I've always seen instructional design, that's capital I, capital D, as the construction of a a path to learning. Most of the tools we currently use at Pima tend to reinforce that concept: the LMS (Blackboard), the chunking of materials into modules, even the introductory materials we give to our SME's emphasize a fairly straight and narrow path to design and to learning. This is not to say that I have ever believed in a formula strategy. I don't believe there is one path that if every student follows it, learning will necessarily occur, but we do treat the process of learning as, well, a process.
One concept I've learned in my current position was developed by my esteemed colleague, Len Thurman. It is the concept of the three C's as we loving call it or Clarity, Consistency, and Community. All expectations, directions, rules, and materials must be clearly stated so that the student immediately understands what is expected. In other words, we try to keep a steady keel for students and not throw in some curve ball in the middle of the course by suddenly changing the way things are submitted or an expectation of the level of work (without warning). The course has consistency in navigation and in expectations. Student always know where to find this week's work and it has a predictable format. And finally, the student has a sense of being part of something larger than themselves, something in which they can contribute. Usually this takes the form of discussion questions, but is increasingly becoming group projects. We find that using the 3 C's helps our design process and has been very successful with many of our courses. Our post-baccalaureate teacher education program uses these concepts in all the courses and its graduates are 98% successful in passing the state requirements for teaching.
ID as a path to evaluating instruction
In many ways, instructional design is necessary to assure growing public and legislative interests in the outcomes of education. "How do we know they know" is heard so often in the halls of academia, especially among institutions, like ours, that is in the midst of the re-accreditation process. North Central accreditation depends on assessment of student outcomes. Schools depend on their accreditation because they are literally not worthy of attendance without it. Additionally, those who finance education want to know the bang they get for their buck. so there are outside pressures on institutions to "prove" that learning occurs. This pressure trickles down to the classroom where teachers look for ways to prove themselves and their strategies in a world that is not particularly ripe for "knowing." "How do we know they know?" We often don't, but we have to find some way to let others be assured that something went on in the minds of the people that attended this class!
And so Instructional Design comes to the rescue. Read this, view that, discuss this, turn in that, and then answer these questions and we will "know" what you know. Of course, it's not as simple as this, but when I look at courses not developed by instructional designers, I literally get sick. No discussion, no written assignments, just PowerPoints and multiple choice quizzes with lots of flashy, blinking graphics and clarifications all over the place. How does a student navigate THAT? It feels more about glitz than content.
OK, so I've got this very invested and comfortable view of Instructional Design with all its little ducks lined up in a row, when along comes Connectivism and Connected Knowledge. How do I assimilate all this new material into my workings or do I need to chuck out everything and start anew?
Learning
I'm back to the question of learning vs knowledge. Stephen Downes states that knowledge and learning consists of thousands of little pieces which we cannot possibly measure. There is no way to measure every single related bit of information a person possesses coming into the course and equally, we cannot measure and compare those pieces of information for each person at the conclusion of the course. So what do we look for? As instructors, we search for the underlying patterns that demonstrate knowledge. Using the dart throwing analogy that Downes suggested we ask, does the person consistently throw darts in the right direction or does the dart wander into the correct position by luck? A consistent pattern of throwing would indicate that the individual has some measure of underlying knowledge.
Knowledge grows with learning and learning means that the knowledge connections are new or deeper or stronger...more complex in some way. We look for the patterns of response to change or grow. We look for the student to become more confident about their knowledge and be better able to cope with new situations or at least cope with the same situations in new ways. This process has to come from within, but there are external circumstances can enhance or hasten the process. And which processes are those? Well, that's the $64,000 question, right? If we can't know the pre-existing knowledge held in a student's brain (but we can guess), matching tools and information to the student's need is almost impossible. Providing a wide range of tools allows the student to create their own personal learning environment. But arrrrggghhhh! How can we possibly do this for all students and somehow point them in the right direction?
instructional design (that's lower case "i", lower case "d")
At the beginning of the week, George Seimens proposed his view of id which includes 4 domains: Analysis & Validation, Ecology Design & Network Fostering, Adaptive Learning, and Review & Evaluation. Keeping in mind that throughout each domain are impacting factors such as context, readiness, resources, and time to name a few, the id process is the cyclical process of analysis, design, learning and review to which I am accustomed. However, one area that I began to see differently this week was what Seimens calls "ecology" of the course. I think what he means is the entire intertwined environment of the course taking into account the strengths and weaknesses of the students, the tools built into the course, the content and related materials, the desired outcomes, and the instructor's (and those others who hold stakes in the outcomes) expectations. Siemens maintains that by allowing greater flexibility in the outcomes we expect, we increase the chances of success.
As someone wrote in the chat in Friday's session, this looks less like building a house and more like planting a garden. Yes, more like preparing the soil, providing the nutrients and water that the seeds need and then hoping that the seed sprout and take root. Building an architecture for learning may make us feel more like we are constructing learning, however, that's not how learning is really accomplished. If knowledge is held within the connections and each person comes into the class with a different network of connections (neural, social, and conceptual), then learning occurs when we expand those networks and integrate nodes not previously established. As we design instruction, it is important to remember that we're not building a path or constructing a house as much as we are nurturing a garden. It is the designer and instructor's responsibility to weed out those tools and content that are misleading and irrelevant while nurturing the bits of learning actively taking place within the course.
My Instructional Design (that's upper case "I", upper care "D") paradigm
I've always seen instructional design, that's capital I, capital D, as the construction of a a path to learning. Most of the tools we currently use at Pima tend to reinforce that concept: the LMS (Blackboard), the chunking of materials into modules, even the introductory materials we give to our SME's emphasize a fairly straight and narrow path to design and to learning. This is not to say that I have ever believed in a formula strategy. I don't believe there is one path that if every student follows it, learning will necessarily occur, but we do treat the process of learning as, well, a process.
One concept I've learned in my current position was developed by my esteemed colleague, Len Thurman. It is the concept of the three C's as we loving call it or Clarity, Consistency, and Community. All expectations, directions, rules, and materials must be clearly stated so that the student immediately understands what is expected. In other words, we try to keep a steady keel for students and not throw in some curve ball in the middle of the course by suddenly changing the way things are submitted or an expectation of the level of work (without warning). The course has consistency in navigation and in expectations. Student always know where to find this week's work and it has a predictable format. And finally, the student has a sense of being part of something larger than themselves, something in which they can contribute. Usually this takes the form of discussion questions, but is increasingly becoming group projects. We find that using the 3 C's helps our design process and has been very successful with many of our courses. Our post-baccalaureate teacher education program uses these concepts in all the courses and its graduates are 98% successful in passing the state requirements for teaching.
ID as a path to evaluating instruction
In many ways, instructional design is necessary to assure growing public and legislative interests in the outcomes of education. "How do we know they know" is heard so often in the halls of academia, especially among institutions, like ours, that is in the midst of the re-accreditation process. North Central accreditation depends on assessment of student outcomes. Schools depend on their accreditation because they are literally not worthy of attendance without it. Additionally, those who finance education want to know the bang they get for their buck. so there are outside pressures on institutions to "prove" that learning occurs. This pressure trickles down to the classroom where teachers look for ways to prove themselves and their strategies in a world that is not particularly ripe for "knowing." "How do we know they know?" We often don't, but we have to find some way to let others be assured that something went on in the minds of the people that attended this class!
And so Instructional Design comes to the rescue. Read this, view that, discuss this, turn in that, and then answer these questions and we will "know" what you know. Of course, it's not as simple as this, but when I look at courses not developed by instructional designers, I literally get sick. No discussion, no written assignments, just PowerPoints and multiple choice quizzes with lots of flashy, blinking graphics and clarifications all over the place. How does a student navigate THAT? It feels more about glitz than content.
OK, so I've got this very invested and comfortable view of Instructional Design with all its little ducks lined up in a row, when along comes Connectivism and Connected Knowledge. How do I assimilate all this new material into my workings or do I need to chuck out everything and start anew?
Learning
I'm back to the question of learning vs knowledge. Stephen Downes states that knowledge and learning consists of thousands of little pieces which we cannot possibly measure. There is no way to measure every single related bit of information a person possesses coming into the course and equally, we cannot measure and compare those pieces of information for each person at the conclusion of the course. So what do we look for? As instructors, we search for the underlying patterns that demonstrate knowledge. Using the dart throwing analogy that Downes suggested we ask, does the person consistently throw darts in the right direction or does the dart wander into the correct position by luck? A consistent pattern of throwing would indicate that the individual has some measure of underlying knowledge.
Knowledge grows with learning and learning means that the knowledge connections are new or deeper or stronger...more complex in some way. We look for the patterns of response to change or grow. We look for the student to become more confident about their knowledge and be better able to cope with new situations or at least cope with the same situations in new ways. This process has to come from within, but there are external circumstances can enhance or hasten the process. And which processes are those? Well, that's the $64,000 question, right? If we can't know the pre-existing knowledge held in a student's brain (but we can guess), matching tools and information to the student's need is almost impossible. Providing a wide range of tools allows the student to create their own personal learning environment. But arrrrggghhhh! How can we possibly do this for all students and somehow point them in the right direction?
instructional design (that's lower case "i", lower case "d")
At the beginning of the week, George Seimens proposed his view of id which includes 4 domains: Analysis & Validation, Ecology Design & Network Fostering, Adaptive Learning, and Review & Evaluation. Keeping in mind that throughout each domain are impacting factors such as context, readiness, resources, and time to name a few, the id process is the cyclical process of analysis, design, learning and review to which I am accustomed. However, one area that I began to see differently this week was what Seimens calls "ecology" of the course. I think what he means is the entire intertwined environment of the course taking into account the strengths and weaknesses of the students, the tools built into the course, the content and related materials, the desired outcomes, and the instructor's (and those others who hold stakes in the outcomes) expectations. Siemens maintains that by allowing greater flexibility in the outcomes we expect, we increase the chances of success.
As someone wrote in the chat in Friday's session, this looks less like building a house and more like planting a garden. Yes, more like preparing the soil, providing the nutrients and water that the seeds need and then hoping that the seed sprout and take root. Building an architecture for learning may make us feel more like we are constructing learning, however, that's not how learning is really accomplished. If knowledge is held within the connections and each person comes into the class with a different network of connections (neural, social, and conceptual), then learning occurs when we expand those networks and integrate nodes not previously established. As we design instruction, it is important to remember that we're not building a path or constructing a house as much as we are nurturing a garden. It is the designer and instructor's responsibility to weed out those tools and content that are misleading and irrelevant while nurturing the bits of learning actively taking place within the course.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Week Six: Complexity, Chaos and Randomness
A couple of things jumped out at me while reading Complexity and Information: Overload in Society: Why increasing efficiency leads to decreasing control (Heylighen, 2002). First is the idea that as we reduce the friction between complex network connections, we increase the speed at which unanticipated or untended consequences occur. As the network grows, these consequences or side effects become increasing difficult to predict and control. This explains how a variety of problems, like red tape, seem worse than before we had modern mail and communication systems.
The second thing that I reacted to in the article was the idea of opportunity overload which results from a decrease in friction in a network so that a person is offered many options that formerly were not available. For example, with the advent of the Internet, I can now receive job postings that meet certain criteria sent directly to my email in-box. These are opportunities that, a few years ago, I might never have known about. However, now I have to think about whether any of them might be worthy of some follow-up. Opportunity overload can result in confusion, stress and fear of not being able to take advantage of the "right" opportunities.
So I was wondering about how this opportunity overload might affect students. If we "de-frictionize" the connections and offer a multitude of ways in which to learn, might students not become distressed over these options and feel stressed to explore every single one of them? I know I felt overwhelmed by the number of tools and information in this course and I am a very self-directed learner. Do we have a responsibility as educators to help students limit the opportunities available in a course so that they don't feel overwhelmed while still allowing them the options they need? Or is our responsibility to open up as many opportunities as possible for students?
In the article, Developing Online from Simplicity toward Complexity: Going with the Flow of Non-Linear Learning (R. Phelps), Phelps outlines the conversion of a linear web-based computer skills course to a more non-linear format. I could particularly relate how Phelps described non-linear learning in the practical terms of learning to be a parent. Coming from an educational background, I've had a difficult time imagining what non-linear learning might look like, but this example was perfect! There is no one class that people take to become the "perfect parent". People may take different classes, read books, talk to others and so on, but many of us just experiment to see what works best. We're told this is a more natural form of learning and it's better for learners.
The question is how to sell this idea to learners. My experience with non-instructor led, non-linear learning was just dismal. The students rebelled and literally demanded that I spoon-feed them the information - going all the way to the college president about my "horrible" teaching methods. Luckily for me, the president understood what I was trying to achieve and backed me up. In retrospect, I probably should have given them more rationale and maybe even tried to wean them off the spoon-feeding routine. It's hard for me to imagine students like these dealing positively with opportunity overload, but perhaps using an approach like Phelps' would help.
Teachers also "teach in the way they were taught", but Phelps makes a compelling case for leaping off that moving train to benefit a new generation of students who are much more used to learning in non-linear fashions. I'm looking forward to next week's materials about instructional design and connectivism.
The second thing that I reacted to in the article was the idea of opportunity overload which results from a decrease in friction in a network so that a person is offered many options that formerly were not available. For example, with the advent of the Internet, I can now receive job postings that meet certain criteria sent directly to my email in-box. These are opportunities that, a few years ago, I might never have known about. However, now I have to think about whether any of them might be worthy of some follow-up. Opportunity overload can result in confusion, stress and fear of not being able to take advantage of the "right" opportunities.
So I was wondering about how this opportunity overload might affect students. If we "de-frictionize" the connections and offer a multitude of ways in which to learn, might students not become distressed over these options and feel stressed to explore every single one of them? I know I felt overwhelmed by the number of tools and information in this course and I am a very self-directed learner. Do we have a responsibility as educators to help students limit the opportunities available in a course so that they don't feel overwhelmed while still allowing them the options they need? Or is our responsibility to open up as many opportunities as possible for students?
In the article, Developing Online from Simplicity toward Complexity: Going with the Flow of Non-Linear Learning (R. Phelps), Phelps outlines the conversion of a linear web-based computer skills course to a more non-linear format. I could particularly relate how Phelps described non-linear learning in the practical terms of learning to be a parent. Coming from an educational background, I've had a difficult time imagining what non-linear learning might look like, but this example was perfect! There is no one class that people take to become the "perfect parent". People may take different classes, read books, talk to others and so on, but many of us just experiment to see what works best. We're told this is a more natural form of learning and it's better for learners.
The question is how to sell this idea to learners. My experience with non-instructor led, non-linear learning was just dismal. The students rebelled and literally demanded that I spoon-feed them the information - going all the way to the college president about my "horrible" teaching methods. Luckily for me, the president understood what I was trying to achieve and backed me up. In retrospect, I probably should have given them more rationale and maybe even tried to wean them off the spoon-feeding routine. It's hard for me to imagine students like these dealing positively with opportunity overload, but perhaps using an approach like Phelps' would help.
Teachers also "teach in the way they were taught", but Phelps makes a compelling case for leaping off that moving train to benefit a new generation of students who are much more used to learning in non-linear fashions. I'm looking forward to next week's materials about instructional design and connectivism.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Week Five: Connectives and Collectives
Networks and groups and collectives, oh my! What's the difference? Is there a difference? How and when does each best function? These are some of the questions we explored this week (and yes, I DO feel more on track this week!). There are so many things in this course that I never really considered, but I feel as though I should have done so a long time ago, but alas, here I am. In this post, I'll try to briefly recapture some of what I managed to glean from this week's materials.
The Seimens presentation focused on three critical elements of difference between groups and networks: individual autonomy, task specialization, and complexity. Differentiation between groups and networks can be defined as a function of these three aspects. Groups have less autonomy, greater task specialization, and complexity. Networks have more autonomy which results in a greater diversity of ideas. But don't rely on a network of people to get your task complete for there will be discussion and it may take a long while for action to occur. I had a random thought this week that perhaps that is why so many students struggle doing group work. Somewhere the autonomy, task specialization, and/or complexity is wrong for the expectations of the instructor or students.
Groups
I now recognize that groups are much more structured than I would have supposed a week or so ago. They usually have a set start/end date and are restricted or defined by rules to accomplish some very specific task. The only example of a group I belong to right now is my running group, Women's Running 301. We've come together, paid a fee, and meet every Monday night for track work and every Saturday morning for a long run. Our goal is a 10 miler in December. Our coach, Alison, leads the group by organizing our activities. There's not always the teacher/ student relationship in a group, but there are usually defined roles for some, if not all, members. Groups use certain sets of tools to accomplish their goals whether that is a track or a certain type of software or some other thing.
I really liked what either Terry Anderson or Stephen Downes (sorry I can't remember which) said in the Elluminate session this week about groups creating "same-ness." Everyone has the same group, the same tools, and the same direction. The end is the goal and we all work to get there.
Networks
"If groups are managed, networks emerge" - another great quote from the Elluminate session this week. In thinking about which networks I am a part of, I came up with a much more impressive list than the groups I belong to. In addition to belonging to the running group, I also belong to a network of runners here in Tucson and also in Pennsylvania. This is different than our group in that it's much more loose. Each run may include different runners, but there is also a sharing of knowledge whether it's where the best prices for running skirts is or different stretching techniques. We share information among each other while sometimes filtering by interest - usually the guys don't get the running skirt information!
Other networks of which I am part are those of birders, instructional designers, vegetarians, and community college employees. Some of those networks are national, for example, I keep in contact with several birders and vegetarians throughout the United States. We exchange stories, recipes and sightings. Other networks are more local. I'm very active in the instructional design network here at work, but don't really have too much contact outside of that.
Networks can be differentiated from groups in that the members are more independent. There are few if any goals to accomplish and members generally float in and out of the flow of information. Members provide information for each to use as needed. Want a new recipe? Just click on the the recipe wiki we vegetarians started at work. Where is the local birding hotspot this week? Check out the listserv.
Collectives
The most important thing I learned about collectives this week is that people don't join them, but simply become part of them as a by-product of being part of a group or network. The best example of a collective to I belong is e-Bird. This is an electronic species listing software that tracks a birder's sightings (where and when). it keeps track of all your sightings and lists - the year list, the yard list, the life list, but it also aggregates the information input by thousands of birders to output all kinds of birding statistics so that if I wanted to see a certain bird on a certain date, the software could tell me where my best chances of finding it are.
Education networks?
Certainly, groups have proven their effectiveness in academic settings, but what about networks? Do they have a place in education and if so, what is it? Given the fact that it is so much easier to network, it would seem to me that students should be given some exposure to networking in the classroom, but how? How could an instructor incorporate a network within a class? It seems to me that instructors need to start to reach beyond the limits of the semester and foster networking among students in a program, a university, a country, a career. Social learning software is doing just that, but some instructors are trying to force group "rules" onto a network.
The Seimens presentation focused on three critical elements of difference between groups and networks: individual autonomy, task specialization, and complexity. Differentiation between groups and networks can be defined as a function of these three aspects. Groups have less autonomy, greater task specialization, and complexity. Networks have more autonomy which results in a greater diversity of ideas. But don't rely on a network of people to get your task complete for there will be discussion and it may take a long while for action to occur. I had a random thought this week that perhaps that is why so many students struggle doing group work. Somewhere the autonomy, task specialization, and/or complexity is wrong for the expectations of the instructor or students.
Groups
I now recognize that groups are much more structured than I would have supposed a week or so ago. They usually have a set start/end date and are restricted or defined by rules to accomplish some very specific task. The only example of a group I belong to right now is my running group, Women's Running 301. We've come together, paid a fee, and meet every Monday night for track work and every Saturday morning for a long run. Our goal is a 10 miler in December. Our coach, Alison, leads the group by organizing our activities. There's not always the teacher/ student relationship in a group, but there are usually defined roles for some, if not all, members. Groups use certain sets of tools to accomplish their goals whether that is a track or a certain type of software or some other thing.
I really liked what either Terry Anderson or Stephen Downes (sorry I can't remember which) said in the Elluminate session this week about groups creating "same-ness." Everyone has the same group, the same tools, and the same direction. The end is the goal and we all work to get there.
Networks
"If groups are managed, networks emerge" - another great quote from the Elluminate session this week. In thinking about which networks I am a part of, I came up with a much more impressive list than the groups I belong to. In addition to belonging to the running group, I also belong to a network of runners here in Tucson and also in Pennsylvania. This is different than our group in that it's much more loose. Each run may include different runners, but there is also a sharing of knowledge whether it's where the best prices for running skirts is or different stretching techniques. We share information among each other while sometimes filtering by interest - usually the guys don't get the running skirt information!
Other networks of which I am part are those of birders, instructional designers, vegetarians, and community college employees. Some of those networks are national, for example, I keep in contact with several birders and vegetarians throughout the United States. We exchange stories, recipes and sightings. Other networks are more local. I'm very active in the instructional design network here at work, but don't really have too much contact outside of that.
Networks can be differentiated from groups in that the members are more independent. There are few if any goals to accomplish and members generally float in and out of the flow of information. Members provide information for each to use as needed. Want a new recipe? Just click on the the recipe wiki we vegetarians started at work. Where is the local birding hotspot this week? Check out the listserv.
Collectives
The most important thing I learned about collectives this week is that people don't join them, but simply become part of them as a by-product of being part of a group or network. The best example of a collective to I belong is e-Bird. This is an electronic species listing software that tracks a birder's sightings (where and when). it keeps track of all your sightings and lists - the year list, the yard list, the life list, but it also aggregates the information input by thousands of birders to output all kinds of birding statistics so that if I wanted to see a certain bird on a certain date, the software could tell me where my best chances of finding it are.
Education networks?
Certainly, groups have proven their effectiveness in academic settings, but what about networks? Do they have a place in education and if so, what is it? Given the fact that it is so much easier to network, it would seem to me that students should be given some exposure to networking in the classroom, but how? How could an instructor incorporate a network within a class? It seems to me that instructors need to start to reach beyond the limits of the semester and foster networking among students in a program, a university, a country, a career. Social learning software is doing just that, but some instructors are trying to force group "rules" onto a network.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Week Four: History of networked learning
Gosh golly! Say it isn't so Joe! This can't be Friday! I'm only now working on the readings for the week and with less than 2 hours left until the weekend, I doubt I'll get to it all. No introduction video this week and I feel as though I floundered around far too much. Only today did I get to review the recordings from Wednesday (which I usually attend live) and I was interrupted multiple times during the Elluminate session today to the point were it was pretty much useless. I'm also finding the Moodle discussions useless as well. I can't seem to find a place to interject coherently. I feel I'm losing grip of this course pretty rapidly. Each week's work gets done later and later in the week. next week, I need to get a grip on this or get out which I do NOT want to do. My original plan was to spend my first hour of the day on the course and I've been pushing that back to the last hour, but that's not working, so I will go back to my former plan. OK, I've got the article printed and the video will be my first job on Monday morning. I'm determined to get back on track.
Some random thoughts as I read A History of the Social Web by T. Scholz (2007, Sept. 26).
Both the telegraph and the telephone produced networking effects similar to the Internet. Certainly I know that networks weren't invented with the Internet, but hmmmm... I hadn't thought about the advent of other technologies and how our experiences might be similar to my grandmother's or great-grandmother's. They thought the telegraph would end all war??? Funny, how the most devastating wars came after the telegraph. Also, there were telegraph operators that dated long distance. I can hear the chatter about the "dogs" you could meet on "the telegraph."
The development of our Internet can be traced back to the 1950s.
The first wireless network was developed in Hawaii to communicate surfing conditions. Hang ten, baby! I guess without war and recreation we wouldn't have any technical advances.
1994 saw a 350,000% rate of growth in the WWW. Yup, that's when we all jumped on the bandwagon and got the show rolling. Desktop computers got affordable (or at least within reach) of many families. I took on teaching 2 classes as an adjunct to come up with the cash for one, but it worked the other way as well. I needed the computer to teach the classes. I wonder has anything else ever grown 350,00 percent in one year? Inflation in Zimbabwe this year and the ROI on the Blair Witch Project. Dang! That's a big jump.
Justin Hall, in 1994, begins writing and publishing his intimate sexual details in the first web-log. Many people felt he was invading their privacy(!) If you don't like it, don't read it for crying out loud!
OMG! Every minuscule point of Internet and WWW development must be in here. I know it's only a draft, but it's Friday afternoon and I'm grouchy, you know?
The Digg riots are an interesting twist in which the users make demands on the developers of a site and change policy decisions. The power of social networks. OK, here's something I can dig my teeth into. This is the real power ofnetworks . They not only pool knowledge, but influence as well. Those who might otherwise not have a voice suddenly can make themselves heard. I'm seeing this played out in this crazy election. There's not only television, radio and newspapers this time. It's even more than we had on the Internet(z) four years ago when we still were on thereceiving end of the information. We can now make ourselves heard, whether you are right or left, white or black, or somewhere in between. American, the world even, is making itself heard on the presidential election. I get daily updates from my party with ways in which I can make a difference. Admittedly many of these involve giving money, but there are local calling parties and other action-oriented events. I get my information mainly from blogs, podcasts, and targeted emails. So different from the days when our mailboxes were stuffed with political junk mail.
The other article, A Brief History of Networked Learning by G. Seimens, has an interesting 5 phase model or process that networked learning appears to follow. At first, the idea of "learning networks" focused on the hardware and infrastructure and then progressed to incorporating the theories, terminology, and views of other fields into the concept of network learning. These networks then move beyond the "bleeding edge" and become more popular, as we have seen with sites like Facebook and, finally, become fully integrated and usable even as they become "invisible." This can be seen in Blackboard's agreements with Facebook, Twitter, and Second Life so that students can be "dinged" about course materials.
OK, the weekend's about to start. Next week will be better. I promise!
Some random thoughts as I read A History of the Social Web by T. Scholz (2007, Sept. 26).
Both the telegraph and the telephone produced networking effects similar to the Internet. Certainly I know that networks weren't invented with the Internet, but hmmmm... I hadn't thought about the advent of other technologies and how our experiences might be similar to my grandmother's or great-grandmother's. They thought the telegraph would end all war??? Funny, how the most devastating wars came after the telegraph. Also, there were telegraph operators that dated long distance. I can hear the chatter about the "dogs" you could meet on "the telegraph."
The development of our Internet can be traced back to the 1950s.
The first wireless network was developed in Hawaii to communicate surfing conditions. Hang ten, baby! I guess without war and recreation we wouldn't have any technical advances.
1994 saw a 350,000% rate of growth in the WWW. Yup, that's when we all jumped on the bandwagon and got the show rolling. Desktop computers got affordable (or at least within reach) of many families. I took on teaching 2 classes as an adjunct to come up with the cash for one, but it worked the other way as well. I needed the computer to teach the classes. I wonder has anything else ever grown 350,00 percent in one year? Inflation in Zimbabwe this year and the ROI on the Blair Witch Project. Dang! That's a big jump.
Justin Hall, in 1994, begins writing and publishing his intimate sexual details in the first web-log. Many people felt he was invading their privacy(!) If you don't like it, don't read it for crying out loud!
OMG! Every minuscule point of Internet and WWW development must be in here. I know it's only a draft, but it's Friday afternoon and I'm grouchy, you know?
The Digg riots are an interesting twist in which the users make demands on the developers of a site and change policy decisions. The power of social networks. OK, here's something I can dig my teeth into. This is the real power ofnetworks . They not only pool knowledge, but influence as well. Those who might otherwise not have a voice suddenly can make themselves heard. I'm seeing this played out in this crazy election. There's not only television, radio and newspapers this time. It's even more than we had on the Internet(z) four years ago when we still were on thereceiving end of the information. We can now make ourselves heard, whether you are right or left, white or black, or somewhere in between. American, the world even, is making itself heard on the presidential election. I get daily updates from my party with ways in which I can make a difference. Admittedly many of these involve giving money, but there are local calling parties and other action-oriented events. I get my information mainly from blogs, podcasts, and targeted emails. So different from the days when our mailboxes were stuffed with political junk mail.
The other article, A Brief History of Networked Learning by G. Seimens, has an interesting 5 phase model or process that networked learning appears to follow. At first, the idea of "learning networks" focused on the hardware and infrastructure and then progressed to incorporating the theories, terminology, and views of other fields into the concept of network learning. These networks then move beyond the "bleeding edge" and become more popular, as we have seen with sites like Facebook and, finally, become fully integrated and usable even as they become "invisible." This can be seen in Blackboard's agreements with Facebook, Twitter, and Second Life so that students can be "dinged" about course materials.
OK, the weekend's about to start. Next week will be better. I promise!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)