Connectivism Blog tag:connectivism.ca,2008://1 2008-09-05T20:46:41Z Movable Type 3.32 Connectivism course starts Monday... tag:connectivism.ca,2008://1.118 2008-09-05T19:27:56Z 2008-09-05T20:46:41Z As mentioned in June, we are offering an open online course on Connectivism. The course begins on Monday and is freely available to anyone with an interest in learning more about the topic. You can sign up for free here.... George Siemens open online course on Connectivism. The course begins on Monday and is freely available to anyone with an interest in learning more about the topic. You can sign up for free here. The course outline is also available. And, for a bit more information, I've put together a short introductory presentation on how the course operates. For learners wishing formal credit through University of Manitoba, a paid enrollment option is also available.]]> New Structures of Learning tag:connectivism.ca,2008://1.117 2008-08-28T17:27:22Z 2008-08-28T17:29:50Z As posted on my elearnspace site, I have an article available on New spaces and structures of learning: the systemic impact of connective knowledge, connectivism, and networked learning (MS Word file). The concepts explored in the article are reflective of... George Siemens New spaces and structures of learning: the systemic impact of connective knowledge, connectivism, and networked learning (MS Word file). The concepts explored in the article are reflective of a previous discussion on this site about "a world without courses". How long, after all, can we flirt at the edges of change before we seek a full embrace?]]> Short Interview on Connectivism tag:connectivism.ca,2008://1.116 2008-08-15T21:59:13Z 2008-08-15T22:05:44Z I had a nice chat with Richard Schwier this morning on connectivism. He has posted the video on his site: Interview on Connectivism. As I mentioned during the discussion, at a recent conference, Stephen Downes and I were chatting about... George Siemens Interview on Connectivism. As I mentioned during the discussion, at a recent conference, Stephen Downes and I were chatting about research basis for learning theories. The notion of connectivism - pick another term like networked learning if that works better for you - is better supported through research than existing theories of learning. The concepts from AI, connectionism, cognitive neuroscience, conceptual learning, and social network analysis - all of which form key foundations of connectivism - all contribute to validating learning in networks. On rethinking the interview - I really should have spent more time during the discussion emphasizing the work of others in the articulation of connectivism. As I've mentioned previously, connectivism as a theory has been developed in the manner in which connectivism say learning occurs: networked, multi-faceted, continually evolving, and so on. I've expressed the multi-contributor aspect - people like Downes, Kerr, Richardson, Anderson, Cross, and many others - in other forums. But I really should have made that more explicit in this interview. ]]> My Take on Connectivism tag:connectivism.ca,2008://1.115 2008-08-12T18:50:37Z 2008-08-12T18:55:34Z Matthias Melcher (I think that's his name - had to dig around his x28 blog for a bit) provides an interesting commentary on why he feels connectivism should not be seen as a learning theory. I'll quote it at length:... George Siemens x28 blog for a bit) provides an interesting commentary on why he feels connectivism should not be seen as a learning theory. I'll quote it at length:
IMO, a definition or description would be more appropriate for simpler things that do not suffer when they are isolated and formalized. I think, a complex, emerging concept like connectivism is better understood by its relationships. So, rather than “What is…”, I would prefer something like “How is it related”, or connected, to other ideas, or even, to the world. Connectivism would, IMO, suffer from restricting definitions such as being a learning theory, which has to obey traditional criteria of an empirically provable but very narrow scope of application. Even though the theory is addressing extensive changes and emancipation, this will not increase the perceived scope of what the theory explains but, instead, the prevailing resistance against such changes will further diminish and restrict the conceded scope. The whole new view, however, that is enabled by connectivism, extends to much more than learning and schools. Downes’ and Siemens’ discussions shed new light on fundamental concepts, such as rules versus patterns, complicated vs. complex, equivalence vs. similarity, and coping with ambiguity and uncertainty. And these consideration render many entrenched practices of the entire knowledge industry questionable.
]]> What is the unique idea in Connectivism? tag:connectivism.ca,2008://1.114 2008-08-06T18:35:26Z 2008-08-06T21:33:55Z Late last week, I threw out a question to Gary Stager on Twitter: "when a constructivist constructs knowledge, where does it reside physically/biologically?". Gary replied with something along the lines of "we don't know and I don't care. I can... George Siemens question to Gary Stager on Twitter: "when a constructivist constructs knowledge, where does it reside physically/biologically?". Gary replied with something along the lines of "we don't know and I don't care. I can teach well without knowing the details of how the mind works". Fair enough. Different educators adopt different approaches in order to makesense of the teaching and learning process. I'm trying to define it from the perspective of how our mind works. Gary is - in true constructionist form (and I don't mean that negatively!) - is focused more on the practical results and activities. Gary then asked a critical question: what is the unique idea in connectivism? The response takes a bit longer than the 140 characters allowed by Twitter, so I'll tackle it here. First, a new idea is often an old idea in today's context. For example, what is the new idea in constructivism? That people construct their own knowledge? Or the social, situated nature of learning? Or that knowledge is not something that exists outside of a knower? (i.e. there is no "there" out there). Obviously each of those concepts can easily be traced to numerous philosophers. The ideas have existed in various forms over 2000 years ago. What is new with constructivism today is that these principles are being (have been) coupled with existing calls for educational reform by individuals such as Spencer, Dewey, and Piaget. See Kieran Eagan's book Getting it Wrong from the Beginning for a more detailed exploration. But it is more than just the shift in policy and calls for increased learner control. Constructivism made sense in that it rode on the cultural trends and philosophical viewpoints of the day. As authority in society shifted, Truth was questioned, post-modernism flourished, and our understanding of diverse cultures and ways of knowing increased, it only seemed natural that cognitivism and behaviourism took a back seat. What is new in constructivism, and please provide commentary if you disagree, is that it combined existing ideas into a framework that resonated with the needs and trends of the current era. In this regard, connectivism also shares in bringing to the forefront ideas of philosophers and theorists from previous generations. Much of what is unique is the particular combination and integration of ideas that reflect the broader societal and information-based trends. But I do think there are unique ideas in connectivism. Before I get into those, however, I'll address some of the existing theory that serves as the fertile soil of connectivism (and, I think, to a large degree constructivism). From whence does connectivism originate? All ideas have a heritage. All concepts have roots. A few related to connectivism: 1. Tools augment our ability to interact with each other and to act. Tools are extensions of humanity, increasing our ability to externalize our thinking into forms that we can share with others. Language is an example. Activity theory provides a basis in this regard. So does the socio-cultural work of Vygotsky. Gibson's notion of affordances of tools, while based in his research on perception, also serves a role in validating tool use. And how could we leave Wittgenstein's notion of negotiated understanding out of a language discussion? Similarly, tools are "carriers of patterns of previous reasoning" (Pea) and reflect some type of ideology. This view is also prominent in Postman's assertion that all technology carries an ideology. 2. Contextual/situated nature of learning. Situated learning draws from the work of Lave and Wenger, though, it's not too much of a stretch to say that Papert's emphasis on active doing fits this at least partly. 3. Social learning theory. Here we can draw from Bandura's emphasis on self-efficacy, Bruner, Vygotsky, and others. 4. Epistemological views: all learning theory is rooted in epistemology (even though von Glaserfeld declares we are in a post-epistemological era, suggesting that providing a theory of knowledge is exactly what constructivism cannot do). As an epistemological basis for connectivism, I've found Stephen Downes' work on connective knowledge valuable. More recently, Dave Cormier has been advancing the concept of rhizomatic knowledge and community as curriculum. 5. Concept of mind. The notion of mind is enormously complex. We encounter a unique blend of philosophers, neuroscientists, and artificial intelligence in this area such as Churchlands, Papert & Minsky, McClelland & Rumelhart, Clark (embodied cognition), Spivey, and more. Mind is seen - too varying degrees - as embodied and distributed across numerous devices, relationships and artifacts. Hutchins popularized the notion in his text on Distributed Cognition. These concepts are also reflected in Weicks' papers on heedful interrelating. Salomon's edited text on Distributed Cognitions extends these ideas into an educational context. 6. We also find a compatible view of connectivism in the work of new media theorists such as McLuhan, exploring the impact of technology on what it means to be a human. The impact of technology on humanity will continue to grow in greater prominence as we are increasingly able to augment human cognitive functioning through pharmaceuticals and the future promise of embedded chips. 7. We also find support for connectivism in the more nebulous theories of complextiy and systems-based thinking. For example, Mason, Davis, and others, recently published a series of articles on the impact of complexity theory on the enterprise of education. Individuals like Barnnett suggest it should more accurately be called "supercomplexity" as we are not able to even begin to understand the directions things will take in the future. 8. Network theory. Sociologists, mathematicians, and physicists have spent several decades defining networks and network attributes. We are able to define key network structures, manner of behaviour, and flow of information. Concepts like small worlds, power laws, hubs, structural holes, and weak/strong ties are common in literature. Educational focus of networks comes from work by Starr-Roxanne Hiltz, Chris Jones, Martin de Laat, and others. Networks are prominent in all aspects of society, not just education. This prominence is partly due to the recognizable metaphor of the internet...but networks have always existed. As Barabasi states, networks are everywhere. We just need an eye for them. The Unique Ideas in Connectivism If those elements form the basis of connectivism - and to varying degrees share in the heritage of constructivism and cognitivism - what is it that's unique about connectivism. As a starter to the discussion, and one that will be a critical focus in our fall course, I'll suggest the following: 1. Connectivism is the application of network principles to define both knowledge and the process of learning. Knowledge is defined as a particular pattern of relationships and learning is defined as the creation of new connections and patterns as well as the ability to maneuver around existing networks/patterns. 2. Connectivism addresses the principles of learning at numerous levels - biological/neural, conceptual, and social/external. This is a key concept that I'll be writing about more during the online course. What I'm saying with connectivism (and I think Stephen would share this) is that the same structure of learning that creates neural connections can be found in how we link ideas and in how we connect to people and information sources. One scepter to rule them all. 3. Connectivism focuses on the inclusion of technology as part of our distribution of cognition and knowledge. Our knowledge resides in the connections we form - where to other people or to information sources such as databases. Additionally, technology plays a key role of 1) cognitive grunt work in creating and displaying patterns, 2) extending and enhancing our cognitive ability, 3) holding information in ready access form (for example, search engines, semantic structures, etc). We see the beginning of this concept in tool-based discussions of Activity Theory. Connectivism acknowledges the prominence of tools as a mediating object in our activity system, but then extends it by suggesting that technology plays a central role in our distribution of identity, cognition, and thereby, knowledge. 4. Context. While other theories pay partial attention to context, connectivism recognizes the fluid nature of knowledge and connections based on context. As such, it becomes increasingly vital that we focus not on pre-made or pre-defined knowledge, but on our interactions with each other, and the context in which those interactions arise. The context brings as much to a space of knowledge connection/exchange as do the parties involved in the exchange. 5. Understanding. Coherence. Sensemaking. Meaning. These elements are prominent in constructivism, to a lessor extent cognitivism, and not at all in behaviourism. But in connectivism, we argue that the rapid flow and abundance of information raises these elements to critical importance. As stated at the start of this post, constructivism found it's roots of growth in the social reform-based climate and post-modern era. Connectivism finds its roots in the climate of abundance, rapid change, diverse information sources and perspectives, and the critical need to find a way to filter and make sense of the chaos. As such, the networked centrality of connectivism permits a scaling of both abundance and diversity. The information climate of continual and ongoing change raises the importance of being continually current. As Anderson has stated, "more is different". The "more" of information and technology today, and the need to stay current, forms the climate that gives roots to connectivism. This is simply a starting point of a discussion. I don't know if I've fully managed to address Gary Stager's question. I'd appreciate reactions or comments to the above ideas. ]]> A humble call for a new discipline: The Study of Change tag:connectivism.ca,2008://1.113 2008-07-25T15:48:30Z 2008-07-25T16:28:07Z Parmenides held to a view that nothing changes. Everything is permanent and unchangeable. While we have only fragments of his writing, his ideas are prominent in Plato, which in turn gives Parmenides a weight in philosophy that is often not... George Siemens Parmenides held to a view that nothing changes. Everything is permanent and unchangeable. While we have only fragments of his writing, his ideas are prominent in Plato, which in turn gives Parmenides a weight in philosophy that is often not explicitly acknowledged. Heraclitus, on the other hand, felt everything was in a state of flux and change. He is credited with some variation of the common statement: you can't step into the same river twice (or, more precisely, you can't step into the same water twice, even if the river itself remains largely unchanged). While Parmenides thoughts found some resonance with ancient atomists, and occur in the ongoing quest of physics to find the one base element of all things (currently this has been reduced to such a level that it has become nonsensical to most human beings - note string theory), most people today would likely find Heraclitus' view of change to be more reflective of reality. Change is constant. Everything changes. All the time. At times, it would appear that the main task of technology is to disrupt any sense of sameness. Books move to electronic devices (Kindle). Newspapers move online. Then, online newspapers are augmented by citizen journalists. These are then evaluated, "fact-checked", and held accountable by annotation, comments, and ratings. The main unchanged aspect of my youth is that I still wear clothes (I intend to maintain this habit for the time being). Most everything else has changed. Video, work, information access, libraries, cars, TV, cassette tapes (records)...and so on. My attention has lately been on the nature of change. What is change itself? To my dismay, I've been unable to find many resources of value in this exploration. Change is treated at best as a casual statement: everything changes...or in business literature: the only constant is change. I have yet to come across a considered, thoughtful body of work on the analysis of change itself. If anyone can offer comments or direction, I would be most appreciative. It appears to me, that in an era of continual change, what we most need is an understanding of change. What are the characteristics of change? Does a physical system in the process of change - such as an aging body - possess a similar cycle or attributes as social change? Can change be analyzed to a certain level of depth and then be used to broadcast subsequent developments (based on change cycles)? Can change be understood sufficiently to willfully enact it at a social system level? We all talk about change and live with change. But we don't really understand it. I suggest we need a body of study and research devoted to change itself. Yes, I know, all fields have this as at least a peripheral element - i.e. medicine continually changes and evolves, therefore doctors are continually adjusting as are hospital systems and government/corporate funding. Every field has the DNA of change in its veins. And that is the very problem. Change is so prominent, so ever-present, that we don't see it as a unique field in itself. I think it's time that it becomes a separate field of study. University's need departments of "change" in the same sense that we have physics, psychology, and chemistry. After all, isn't it important to understand an aspect of existence so prominent that we all feel it on a daily basis? It seems odd that the field has to this date remained largely unexplored. Thoughts?]]> Connectivism and Connective Knowledge Course blog tag:connectivism.ca,2008://1.112 2008-06-17T22:24:14Z 2008-06-17T22:27:22Z We've set up a course blog for our Connectivism and Connective Knowledge online course. The intention of the blog is to open up the conversation around course design and delivery and changing value points in education. The transparency will hopefully... George Siemens set up a course blog for our Connectivism and Connective Knowledge online course. The intention of the blog is to open up the conversation around course design and delivery and changing value points in education. The transparency will hopefully capture some of our (Stephen Downes and myself) thinking around course design and foster interaction with others on ways to improve delivery. From the blog: We’re hoping that this course will serve at least three purposes: 1. To address the questions about value points in education and the role of learners and faculty in large scale open courses 2. To model alternatives to existing course design and delivery models. These alternatives are defined by openness, innovation, active participation, connectedness, and learner autonomy. 3. To expound connectivism as a learning theory and provide a forum for critical thought, debate, and consideration of future steps in research and implementation.]]> eLearning Africa tag:connectivism.ca,2008://1.111 2008-06-17T21:27:55Z 2008-06-17T22:10:55Z My understanding of education and learning technologies is largely confined to European, Canadian, Australian, and American contexts. While I have frequent informal interactions with individuals from other regions, my understanding of the unique challenges facing these areas is limited. In... George Siemens eLearning Africa 2008, I eagerly embrace it. The conference itself ran for three days, including various policy and government meetings before and after. Needless to say, after only three days, I’ve mainly learned how much I have to learn. What follows are a few reflections on the experience. I arrived at late in the evening. My arranged ride did not materialize and astute local entrepreneurs quickly realized I was a dazed visitor. It took only a few minutes for them to have me loaded in a cab where I was happily charged tourist rates (in retrospect, as I've been advised by others, it's generally not a good idea to accept rides in unmarked cabs when in foreign countries). A cab ride, according to locals, should be about 4 cedis (their currency, roughly the equivalent of US dollars). My cab driver was nice enough to offer me “12 cedis, but I don’t have change, so just give me 20”. No problem. I pay that and more for most rides from the airport to the hotel. While I didn’t begrudge the fare, the fact that it was “unfair” did chafe slightly (why does that sense of not wanting to feel cheated, though it’s only a small amount, reign so strongly?). Once I got to the hotel, I discovered my prepaid reservation didn’t exist. I quickly realized that I needed different (not lower) expectations. All problems are solvable in Accra, I discovered. They just take patience. After about two hours, I was in a different hotel, a significant downgrade. I doubt the facility would have passed a 2 star rating in Canada or US. But, the people were the friendliest I have ever met. Any where. From cab drivers giving me advice on how not to get mugged, to hotel front desk staff, to interactions with people during the conference, I found graciousness largely non-existent in much of western culture. Lesson one: patience with people is the hardest of all attributes to acquire Police were in full presence at the conference centre, though surprisingly, no one had a gun. On the opening day, I was on a panel with a fairly diverse group (I was the token white guy, I think). The conference was slated to start at 9:00 am. But the panel included the Vice President of Ghana. So we waited. And waited. Around 10 am he arrived. The other panelists were escorted from the waiting area into the main conference room (I can’t imagine being in the audience waiting over one hour). Then, the VP was escorted into the room, lead by a few drummers and flanked by a few security members and an individual I later discovered was mainly there so the VP didn’t have to pull out his own chair. Once he entered, the doors had to be closed and no one else could enter. A few diplomats stuck in traffic were not granted the privilege of entering late. Why they were still stuck in traffic a full hour after the event was scheduled to begin is beyond my capacity to understand. The VP was very polite and generous, opening the conference with much acclaim as to the urgent need for Africa to embrace ICT in order to educate the continent to compete in the knowledge age. Each panel presentation started off with about 2 minutes of “professor chairman, your excellency, honorable ministers, distinguished guests and on and on”. I only managed to remember a few of the titles. I got the “his excellency” part. I’m guessing that was likely the most important. Lesson two: Patience, formality, and respect are critical aspects of African culture The theme and tone of the conference was mixed. Huge challenges. Profound optimism. We would be in a session and suddenly all the lights would go out. After a few seconds electricity would be restored. And in the next breath someone would talk the rhetoric of western education: learner-centred, knowledge construction, blogs and wikis, open source software, open educational resources, constructivism, etc. This was a bit disconcerting. Is the educational focus in Africa largely a duplication of the western system? Examples used were heavily from Europe and USA. Is it possible that Africa had a simultaneous emergence of concepts, ideas, and language with the west? I doubt it. There has been much information sharing – largely by development groups. Lesson three: optimism and humanity seems strongest in some of the direst circumstances Lesson four (well, ok, more of a speculation): Africa risks being an extension of the ideals of development agencies and governments who provide funding. In the long run, that’ll only lead to significant backlash. Most astonishing, educators were doing some amazing things. Without huge grants and research dollars. In many cases, innovation was driven by enthusiasm, commitment, and love for one’s culture. Many of the leaders at the conference had been educated in the US, Europe, or Canada, and had returned through a desire to assist their family, country, or community. Innovation was seen through “mobile telecentres” – vans equipped with laptops, satellite internet access, and solar electricity panels. Or through the development of small solar panels the size of a sheet of paper used for recharging mobile devices. Or the use of SMS to inform farmers of market prices. Lesson five: Innovation driven by commitment to core values and existing difficult conditions reveals the ingenuity and creativity of humanity. Many aspects of the conference reflected what I have encountered at different conferences over the last few years: web 2.0, blogs, wikis, collaborative learning, and so on. Missing, however, was the discussion of millennial learners and game-based learning. Second Life wasn't mentioned once. The vendors, however, were a "who's who" of technology. Cisco. Google. Intel. HP. Microsoft. Oracle. And they were hiring. Google was the most aggressive of the group. They were promoting existing African offices and mentioning a half dozen to be opened soon. It was the same overlay of technology we see in developed countries. Lesson six: We are exporting our solutions to problems we don't fully understand. The in-conference conversation was dramatically different from the out-of-conference conversation. Much more so than what I generally encounter. And I don't know if that's good or bad. Or neither. As my visit to Accra was quite short, I wasn't able to explore the city as much as I would have wanted to. Some assumptions of life in Africa are quickly dashed. Others are enforced. Mobile phones, for example, are almost as prominent as they are in other parts of the world. My evening taxi rides to the hotel revealed numerous cell-phone card vendors set up on the side of streets. Phones are everywhere. I don't know about the quality of mobile connectivity. My wireless access at the conference came in at a roaring 5.5 kbs (I spent the better portion of a day downloading a 30 mb file). The infrastructure and the mindset for connectivity is definitely mobile. I would be interested in studies that address what people are doing with mobile phones. Staying in touch with family/friends? Information access? Sharing images? Morning cab rides revealed a city with a similar entrepreneurial spirit one would encounter in New York or London. The scale in Accra was a bit different. Vendors on the side of the road were selling soft drinks, clothing, and fruit. Large black cauldrons (not sure if there is a better word) full of steaming broth/stew/something appeared to be strategically placed in one block intervals. Vehicular traffic was accented by numerous individuals (amazingly balancing baskets of fruit and other food items on their head) selling a huge array of items. Clothing. Chips. Toilet paper. It was like driving through a supermarket. In Canada, I go to the grocery store to shop. In Accra, the grocery store appears to come to the customers. A few highlights of the conference: 1. Getting a chance to chat with John Connell during the evening of the first evening of the conference. I've known John through his blog for years. We technically were at the same conference in Sydney a few years ago, but we didn't chat. Our conversation in Accra took place against a wonderful backdrop. The organizers had arranged for local musicians and dancers to perform. Stunning. John has posted a few photos. 2. Chatting with the director of Aluka on an initiative to build a resource base of African artifacts and resources. Great to see these types of initiatives that seek not only to adopt good ideas from other regions, but also to export their own history and culture. I made a similar point during my pre-conference interview. 3. Getting somewhat acquainted with the research being conducted on the status of ICT use across Africa. While their may be other organizations, infoDev was the one I found most valuable. In particular, their report on Survey of ICT and Education in Africa..and Using Technology to Train Teachers. Numerous other reports and publications are available. 4. Meeting with Rebecca Stromeyer of ICWE. I've had the pleasure of meeting her several times. She has a passion and energy for learning and technology that is unmatched. And meeting Sally Reynolds again as well. She has a wonderfully pleasant demeanor. I bump into her every 15 minutes at the conference it seems! Accra was truly fascinating, reflecting the best of human character and the weight of challenges facing humanity. While I often found myself wishing for some of the comforts of Canada (in particular, a nice cup of Tim Hortons), I never felt alone. I had more casual conversations and exchanged more smiles in Accra than I do on many trips.]]> Connectivism and Connective Knowledge tag:connectivism.ca,2008://1.110 2008-06-12T22:03:43Z 2008-06-13T18:05:41Z Stephen Downes and I will be offering an online course starting September through University of Manitoba on Connectivism and Connective Knowledge. The course is available for credit (enrollment is required) or for personal interest (no fee). All discussions and learning... George Siemens the course wiki. If you are interested, you can sign up here in order to receive more information on participating or enrolling. Quick update: for some reason, the above link to the wiki doesn't work for everyone. It is also available here: http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/wiki/Connectivism ]]> Cute Kitten Syndrome: Open Educational Resources tag:connectivism.ca,2008://1.109 2008-04-29T16:03:19Z 2008-05-01T02:43:21Z I was at CNIE earlier this week and participated on this panel discussingopen educational resources (OERs). Educators are periodically afflicted with a psychological condition called "Cute Kitten Syndrome". This syndrome manifests itself as evoking perceived universal favor for an idea... George Siemens this panel discussingopen educational resources (OERs). Educators are periodically afflicted with a psychological condition called "Cute Kitten Syndrome". This syndrome manifests itself as evoking perceived universal favor for an idea or concept and with those opposing cast as lacking some key element that comprises humanity. I mean, really, who doesn't love cute furry kittens? If a person is to speak against OERs, they are essentially revealing their callus nature. But, I must say a few critical things. First, I'm in favor of OERs as a concept. In fact, in 2003, a group of us started a community on open educational resources based on a few articles I had posted online (Free and Open Source - Part 1 and Part 2 and Why we should share learning resources) and Stephen Downes' concept of DLORN. Summary notes from our first meeting are here: Open Education: Moving from concept to reality. We set up a few discussions, ran a few listservs for a while, tried to organize sub-committees, but things never really moved forward as Stephen and I had hoped (well, as I had hoped, anyway). The group slowly breathed its last and the domain name went to the land of unfulfilled dreams. Where are we now with OERs? The term is used very broadly and the landscape is shifting constantly. MITs OpenCourseWare initiative is often cited as the starting point of OERs, but David Wiley and others were already dealing with the notion of openness from a licensing perspective in the late 90's. (Slightly off topic, David's involved in a new project with open textbooks: Flat World Knowledge). Some view OERs as simply making resources freely available. Some - such as OCWconsortium have a required minimum commitment in order to participate. And it appears, that OERs are the new hype feature of educational conferences...almost getting to the learning object and repository level of late 90's early 00's. We're in that same happy state of chaos where we find ourselves in so many areas of emerging technologies - moving too fast with too many voices to give this thing a concise name. As we were. While I have huge appreciation for OERs and hold out for the prospect that OERs will truly make a difference to people who most need them, I still have a few critical views. 1). Why OERs? What are we trying to achieve? Marketing our institution? Reducing costs for learners? Better quality learning materials? Making the world a better place? Help people in developing countries? What's your motivation or the motivation of your institution in pursuing OERs? I fear too many educators are talking about it because others are. Look deep within your soul. Why are you interested in OERs? What can we do with them that we cannot do under our current system? From my perspective, resources developed with public funds should be accessible by the public. Journals publishing research funded by the government should be open. Content/curriculum created by public institutions should be made public. Additionally, education has been listed as one of the primary determinants of life expectancy, reduction of poverty, etc. To deny people access to education has an ethical dimension. In a wealthy country, we could make the argument that learners who pay for their education possess a reasonable prospect of earning sufficient revenue from having a degree that some trade off is possible. I won't get into this discussion here...after all, even in a prosperous country, opportunities for education are confined to a certain segment of society. In developing countries, those with greatest need to access education, are often locked out due to high resource issues. A typical learner from Africa cannot afford to attend a well known university. It's not just that finances are a burden. Finances are an insurmountable barrier. But to withhold the prospect of education to learners in developing countries is to condemn people to the possibility of a perpetual cycle of poverty. For me, that's the big "why" of OERs, but concerns exist with targeting this audience, as detailed in #3. 2). OERs are window dressing if systems and structures of education do not change. Toward the end of the panel, one member stated "OERs can change education". No. They can't. OERs, like blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other ideas and tools are daily blips in the long term trend of how we are interacting differently with information and with each other. OERs have not yet achieved divine status. I don't think they will. They are an important reflection of the larger trend wave, but the are not driving the larger trend. Paul A. David in The Dynamo and the Computer: An Historical Perspective on the Modern Productivity Paradox suggests systems are confined by previous innovations. New innovations, in a very McLuhanesque sort of way, are used to do the work of previous innovations. It's only when we change the system that we change significantly. In our interaction with information, we have many constraining elements from previous innovations such as books, libraries, and even the design of school systems. Deep, significant, and systemic change is required (he says in a non-sweeping, non-overstated, kind of way). 3) OERs exhibit (are embedded with) certain ideologies/views/pedagogies, etc. For a student in the Middle East to use MITs resources requires they use the English language...or Aboriginal learner lose Indigenous knowledge when encountering resources created with a different world view. Better yet, how do we encourage people in developing countries to create their own OERs and export them to our countries? I had a discussion following the session with an individual who felt that as other culture appropriate OERs, they would naturally inject their identity and their culture. I'm not sure. But, in fairness, there are many things we are not sure about with regard to OERs. Who is using the resources? How are they being used? I've heard of Chinese students translating entire MIT courses into Chinese. How common is this? What is the impact of these courses? Why are students taking them? For personal interest or part of an academic program? And how will we sustain these initiatives? We need more research on the actual impact. BTW, I do like cute kittens. ]]> Pedagogy First? Whatever. tag:connectivism.ca,2008://1.108 2008-03-16T03:55:46Z 2008-03-16T05:43:40Z In dealing with faculty and instructional designers, a series of almost default phrases are vocalized once technology is mentioned: "We need to start with pedagogy"..."It's pedagogy first". Or, whenever I'm in a meeting and someone says "pedagogy first", the apparently... George Siemens no significant difference? Or significant difference? Is the media used important? (.pdf) or is the type of media not important? Oh, wait, here's another fun one: transactional distance (.pdf). Better yet, let's talk about brain-based learning, learning styles, and problem based learning. Simply put: if you want to create your very own pedagogy, you can likely find research that supports it. If you think we should do "a" or shouldn't do "a", if you think we should use technology or shouldn't use technology, if you think learners need more guidance or less guidance, you will be able to find research that supports what you're saying. (For a slightly less, but not much more so, cynical view of the quality and value of educational research, see Arthur Levine's report Educating Researchers (.pdf)). The term sound pedagogy means nothing unless it's used in a very specific context in which individuals hold to generally similar views of what is and isn't not appropriate educational research. The use of sound pedagogy as a concept for a diverse group of educators with a diverse group of interests is of no value. What, however, does the term vaguely mean? Common definitions provide some type of reference to art and/or science of teaching. Wikipedia (which is not pedagogically sound), adds additional detail: "generally refers to strategies of instruction, or a style of instruction". Art? Science? Style? How can these be determined by research? Who is to say art is sound? The confusion I find most difficult to deal with is the type that arises from using a certain (apparently sound) line of reasoning in service of the wrong role. While consideration of pedagogy can be important in how we use technology, pedagogy should NOT be the basis of deciding what type of technology we should use. The logic (can I use that word in reference to what is also called an art?) of pedagogy ought to be applied after this selection has occurred. Pedagogy is not the starting point of planning to teach with technology. Context is. Consider, for example, an educator who decides to start using Second Life in class. Pedagogically (again, I have no idea what it means due to diverse use) people could suggest it's not the best approach. The uncertainty can be high...it's an additional barrier to learning materials...spatial orientation can be difficult for people who have not used virtual worlds before...it's a clumsy way to present content. Educationally it's tough to say that Second Life for teaching is the best way to go in teaching (other than in fields like engineering, architecture, game design, or research of group behaviour where using 2L is the primary task. Learning poetry is a secondary (pun!) task in 2L). Why then would anyone want to use Second Life? Because of the learners. It's new, it's different, and it captures their attention. Second Life in this instance is a motivation tool (hey, let's throw that in the pedagogy bin, then we can say 2L is pedagogically sound because it invokes motivation). I had the experience of students being awakened to learning several years ago while still at Red River College. A colleague - Steve Yurkiw - designed an Authorware game modeled after Jeopardy!. Students worked with basic knowledge terms, a section of the curriculum that was generally dry and boring. In this instance, however, students were motivated and engaged, with about half the class crowded around the laptop and the other half shouting answers from their seats. Or consider teaching students in a remote location. How should we select technology? In my eyes, selection should be based on the funds available. The experience of the educator. The technology learners can already access. The intended outcomes of the program. And so on. In the end, we may end up using video conferencing in central room. Or we may use ustream with distributed participants. Perhaps skype and chatterous for interaction. Pedagogy should not even be a consideration during the planning stages of technology use. Harsh statement? Perhaps, but it's a reality. Few Utopian situations exist where our decisions on how to teach can be based exclusively on pedagogy. Resources, expertise, technology, needs (of learners, educators, society), and funds impact what we choose to do. In a world: context. The mix of multiple, mutually influencing factors determine what we types of technology we select. For more information on context, see this wiki page on the subject that I've used at U of Manitoba for workshops (much more detail is required, but I haven't got around to expanding it). Or for a more esoteric discussion, see pg 61 - 63 in Knowing Knowledge (you can download the book, no charge). Or a page I'm working on related to research. Let's abandon the somewhat silly notion of pedagogy first and recognize that the choice of technology is driven by many contextual factors and therefore context is what we are evaluating and considering when we first start talking about possible technology to use. Then, after we have selected technology, we can start talking about pedagogy. Pedagogy is just not a practical starting point for deciding the technology we should use. ]]> I mean, really, where did we think all of this was going to go? tag:connectivism.ca,2008://1.107 2008-03-14T18:18:59Z 2008-03-15T18:41:07Z **UPDATE - for some reason, I'm having issues with comments on this entry...several people have said they posted a comment, but it's not showing up. If all else fails, send me an email (see bottom of post). About a week... George Siemens A World Without Courses. It generated a fair number of comments, was picked up by Wired Campus (with the attendant dismissal found in many traditional academics). Chris Lott (one of the more thoughtful edubloggers I follow) interacted with the idea as well, posing some important questions about implications and practicality. With this conversation, I've been trying to trace current directions to some future point. Is it speculative? Absolutely. Anyone who claims to know where we are heading societally and educationally doesn't understand the current climate. We are in a complex space with multiple competing factors. Corporate sponsorship of educational activities is increasing. For-profit providers are showing strong growth. Middle Eastern countries (such as Saudi Arabia with KAUST) are aggressively pursuing research and advanced education. China, India, Brazil, Russia - are all rapidly developing their economies and educational systems. No one - outside of some degree of speculation and extrapolation of trends - knows what type of climate this interplay of trends will ultimately create. I'll posit, however, that the current pace of development of participatory and social technologies will have a significant impact on how we create, deliver, and administer education. But then, what were we expecting? What did we think would happen when learners started using the web for creating and accessing content? When they started creating social networks to assist each other in learning? What did we think would happen when large distributed, global conversations started to occur around how to teach? What did we expect would happen to classrooms when the walls became increasingly permeable and learners could directly access video and audio recordings of experts? What did we think would be the final outcome of a tremendous shift in control over what and how our learners deal with content, each other, experts, and the rest of the world? Did we actually think that we could have a revolution within the confines of existing structures? Without getting too melodramatic, consider the revolutions ignited by individuals like Luther and Newton. Both were devout spiritual men, seeking to live a life of obedience to God as they felt they were called. Luther wanted a revolution within the Catholic Church. Along comes Calvin and draws his ideas to an unintended (by Luther at least) conclusion. Newton viewed his work in math and science to be an exploration of the spectacular universe of God's creation. Newton's followers took his ideas in entirely unintended directions. In order to better represent what I was attempting to say with the presentation, I have been forced to open up Fireworks and actually attempt to graphically represent key concepts. As you'll notice with my selection of lovely pastel colours, three key areas are under consideration:
  1. Content
  2. Conversations and Connections
  3. Reputation and Accreditation
image The first component - content - is often freely available. Open educational resources, open journal articles, TED Talks, conference proceedings, and so on. Unfortunately, an individual needs to know the content exists, and where it exists, before this is of significant value. The second component - conversations and connections - faces far less barriers than only a decade ago. Skype, ustream, blogs, podcasts, department websites, Facebook, Second Life, and a myriad of other tools, allows learners to connect with each other, with content, with experts, and with peers from around the world. I've also become somewhat intrigued by eharmony (not for personal reasons). Think about it: if we can find life partners through an online profiling service, don't you think it's possible to match educators and learners? The third component - reputation and accreditation - is perhaps the least developed. Example systems do exist, however, when we look at eBay, Amazon, Digg, and other rating services that provide individuals the ability to provide commentary on value of a resource, significance of a contribution, or even a statement of the competence of an individual. Is it perfect? No. But it is an indication of what a system of accreditation in distributed social connections and content might look like. As presented here, this approach raises a few significant concerns (and reflected in Chris' comments as well as those on the initial post). First: How will be find valuable content? And how will we know we need it before we find it if we are novices? How will we be able to validate it? Wikipedia has consistently been challenged by educators for its sometimes sloppy articles. I tackled the idea of finding content once before in a presentation on online and blended learning, but that project has stalled. Secondly, how will learners make sense of the content space. How will they navigate an obviously confusing network of content? We need a mix of structured learning material put together by others (say and expert) for newcomers in a field...much like open source software sites often have tutorials available for newcomers. Those who have a bit more experience in a discipline can then happily go out and consume/create the material they need. It's possible if the content is in small enough chunks so it can be aggregated/mashed up as needed. Feasible? Absolutely, and seen in many of the self-organizing communities around Facebook, WordPress and other sites. Will that model transfer to other fields? I'm not sure. But, keep in mind, I'm currently in brainstorming, not implementation mode. Thirdly, how will we find teachers that we want to learn from? How will teachers find learners they want to teach? Again, we can find a rudimentary beginning in online social networks, where one connection leads to another, which leads to another. Or a service like Twitter where we connect based on those who are actively contributing content, or connections, to the network. Is this simplistic? Absolutely. I cannot, however, think of a better approach that participatory web tools in connecting people. It far exceeds the classroom model for allowing learners to form global networks. Finally, the tension point I'm least clear on relates to accreditation. Accreditation is the main task of educators in colleges, universities, and corporate training departments (well, ok, in universities, research is the main task...but teaching is still a key component). Another critical element which runs as a strand through this discussion relates to learner ability to be self-motivated. Is it simply about teaching learners new skills to function in this environment? I hope so...but I don't think so. Humanity is as it is...and I recall my post high school days when my motivation to learn was hardly academic. We need to conceive a system that captures the interest of as diverse a learner need base as possible. What will that look like? I'm not sure, but with smart people like Chris Lott, Gráinne Conole, Terry Anderson, Stephen Downes, Will Richardson, Jennifer Jones, John Connell, and many other edubloggers contributing to the conversation, I suspect we can at least have a good crack at the problem. These changes are not certain, nor will they be uniform in their impact. As I stated at the outset, times of transition provide uncertain glimpses into the future. The best we can do is consider existing trends and extrapolate possible scenarios. What I am convinced of, however, is that the tools and approaches we are using will impact education. Significantly. Courses will be rethought. So will schools. Classrooms. (See OECD's future schools scenario). What are next steps? I have proposed - as linked to above on blended learning - a model of certificate design that partly does away with courses, but still retains some of the key concepts or support structures that courses and educators can provide for novice learners. An initiative I was working with has stalled, but I'd be interested in working with: a) Colleges/universities who are interested in developing an alternative model for learning delivery b) Software developers who are interested in tackling a model or approach that permits the delivery of learning as detailed above. If you fit into a) or b) above, let me know: gsiemens AT elearnspace DOT org. Beyond that, I'd appreciate thoughts/reactions/etc. on this concept.]]> Networks are getting faster... tag:connectivism.ca,2008://1.106 2008-03-12T18:50:14Z 2008-03-12T20:56:14Z I was born in Mexico. Spent the first six years of my life in a society very different from what I have known since. Somewhere, in my already weakened neural connections, reside memories of a world not based on explicit... George Siemens largely parallel, not direct, but a new level of energy existed in the network. A trackback, link, or comment relating to a blog post formed the basis of an emerging network. Learning was becoming somewhat social. Information dissemination was accelerating at a much quicker rate than in traditional media. A newspaper published once a day. The evening news on TV was a similar "fixed time" summary of the day's events. "The expert" dispensed information at select times. In contrast, blogs and other web-based tools enabled information to be disseminated at a significantly more rapid pace. The cost of this speed? Amateurs were granted equal footing with experts in the production and exchange of content. The network trend has since continued and even accelerated. del.cio.us, Myspace, Facebook, ustream, and Twitter represent an acceleration of information sharing on par with the distinction between a traditional newspaper and blogs. Growing up, my information network was slow, but social contact was high. In early school years, the information network accelerated, at the expense of humanness of the exchange. In university, both information and social networks grew in intensity but did so separately. And with the growth of network tools for learning, socialization, and information exchange, the world became rather small. It was not unusual for me to spend more of my day in conversations with people in Europe, Australia, Middle East, US, or across Canada, than with others a few desks down from me at work (see Barry Wellman's article on Little Boxes, Glocalization, and Networked Individualism (.pdf) for a more thoughtful exploration of the topic). In a digital sense, my early experience of small network conversation (though peripheral due to my age at the time) was revived in these global conversations. While we didn't share the same geographical space, we shared the same ideals and passion for learning, information creation and sharing, and desire to belong, to be a part of something. I have been critical of Twitter in the past. Recent experiences, however, cause me to rethink Twitter (my profile is here). Tools like Facebook and Twitter continue the long trend of "binding back" to our social, networked, small-group past. A past centered on the social sharing of information and making sense of the world together. The breakdown of distance and the growth of the speed at which information flows in our networks, is fortunately balanced by the rise of social tools. We don't, after all, make sense of our complex world as individuals. We make sense as a network...a network in which we possess a unique identity and in which we find our sense of belonging and our sense of humanity. The flickering oil lamp has given way to Twitter, yet the context of engagement and need to socialize remains as it was then. ]]> The Honour of Attention tag:connectivism.ca,2008://1.105 2008-03-06T17:13:05Z 2008-03-06T17:21:16Z Gardner Campbell’s post stirred my thoughts on attention. Linda Stone coined the almost intuitive "yeah, that’s it!" term "continuous partial attention". While we might not always see it as such, our attention is limited and how we use it has... George Siemens post stirred my thoughts on attention. Linda Stone coined the almost intuitive "yeah, that’s it!" term "continuous partial attention". While we might not always see it as such, our attention is limited and how we use it has notable consequences. For example, I am not a goal setter, nor do my "to do lists" embody an organized spirit. I find myself frequently distracted from perhaps more worthy pursuits as I engage in fragmented activities, hoping in the depths of my sub-conscious mind that these disjointed pieces will one day snap into place and form a holistic (advanced?) understanding. This disjointedness of thought is reflected in my conversations with others. I frequently retreat to interior considerations as comments made by family and friends trigger a side-journey of reflection. When dialoguing with others at conferences, each statement provided by others seems to serve as a conversational hyperlink into contextually unrelated, but personally important, thought streams. Quite simply, I’m distracted and wish I could slow the world down frequently so I can more fully pursue the conversational side-journeys, tracing ideas and connecting them with what I already know into a new synthesis. But, the ease of distraction, while valuable for being able to briefly explore and connect ideas with weak links, can be seen as rude. This evening, while speaking on the phone to my dad, I found my attention gallivanting to all kinds of peripheral concerns. Should I have phrased the concept of networks differently in that last paper? What about this Edmodo thing? Oh, wow, that relates to Plotinus’ notion of Nous. I wonder why I’m not more creative? I really should start working with images more in my blogs. Why hasn’t that person replied to my email? And on and on. Then, almost outside of my own consciousness, but in keeping with the well worn path of social ritual I heard myself ending the phone conversation. And I was shocked. An entire conversation had essentially passed me by while I permitted myself to explore personal interests rather than to focus on what was being shared by a family member. A few thoughts (heh) arose from this conversation. First, giving attention to others is a sign of respect. It is an act of getting out of ourselves, our thoughts, our concerns, and becoming willing to receive the perspectives, opinions, and ideas of others. Second, technology can make this more difficult. I can surround myself (in Twitter, Google Reader) with people who share my interests. I end up needing to pay less attention because my own thoughts already overlap with those I’m reading or listening to online. Third, while continuous partial attention is a part of who we are and who we have been for centuries, it seems to be much easier today to not pay attention to people around us. When is the last time you’ve had a difficult conversation (difficult defined as one where you needed to focus on what others were saying because world-views/opinions were so far removed from your own that you had to ramp up cognitive capacity to follow)? I personally spend the majority of my day being a one-dimensional person. My focus is fairly consistently on educational technology. Reading blogs, journal articles, listening to podcasts, etc .all centre on that particular focus. When engaged in conversations outside of that space, my thoughts begin to exhibit addictive withdrawal traits (jonesing for ed tech?). Finally, attention plays different roles in different contexts. In fields where I am well versed, attention can be partial and distributed, as it allows me to quickly explore different ideas. However, when interacting in a field where I am not well versed, or when talking with others, this can be a challenge. Fragmented attention can be seen as a sign of lack of interest...and can result in missing key points of information. I'm just not very consistent at using my attention appropriately in varying contexts. All of which, as I continue to seek ways to absolve myself of the guilt of being a distracted listener when people are not talking about things that I already predispositional interest in, comes down to the importance of developing habits of respecting and honouring (yes, I’ll use that outdated term) other people. Thoughtful and intentional attention directed at understanding others – even those not in my field – forms the basis of weak ties to worlds beyond my own ("Please, help George become a multi-faceted human being...send weak ties..."). Weak ties are connections that bridge worlds. Serendipity, an underestimated value in learning – occurs in those moments where we bring together two or more ideas that appear to not have direct relation. The smashing together of varying, unrelated, and contradictory ideas forms the basis of innovation. Purposeful attention serves not only to honour those people around me (virtual and physical), but also to aid in my personal growth and learning. Deep understanding, after all, is a function of ongoing, sustained focus and attention on a particular field or discipline (see Biggs Solo Taxonomy). "Time on task" is a key point of value in learning and often a critical distinction between those learners that succeed and those that don't. Is paying attention (appropriate to the context) a skill we ought to be teaching learners? Something we (ok, I) ought to be more vigilant in addressing in ourselves (myself)? ]]> Additional connectivism resources and discussion tag:connectivism.ca,2008://1.104 2008-02-29T22:49:09Z 2008-02-29T23:04:39Z For some reason, I'm encountering all kinds of resources or instances of discussion on connectivism. A few resources today: Situating Connectivism Connectivism - Teaching and Learning Connectivism I should mention as well, all of the talks from our online conference... George Siemens Situating Connectivism Connectivism - Teaching and Learning Connectivism I should mention as well, all of the talks from our online conference last year have been transcribed if anyone is interested (I keep wanting to get them formatted in .pdf file for printing as a book via Lulu...but time is always a factor. Would anyone find that to be of value?): Situating Connectivism (G. Siemens) Research Models of Connectivist Learning (Terry Anderson) Connective Teaching: How the Read/Write Web Challenges Traditional Practice (Will Richardson) The Recognition Factor (Stephen Downes) Balancing Agility and Stability in Higher Education (Diana Oblinger) A Challenge to Connectivism (Bill Kerr) Learning Conceptualized through the Lens of Today's World (G. Siemens)]]>