TechTicker
educational technology, eLearning & emerging technology

The above slides are to be used during a brief use case being presented tomorrow to the Open Education Workshop 2008 at Macquarie University.

The talk covers an overview of “Connectivism and Connective Knowledge“, my experiences as a student of the course and a quick discussion of some of the tools used by the other students.

Unfortunately with only 5 minutes allotted for the entire talk I can’t go into much detail. We have also been told to limit our visuals to under 3 slides (as you can see I broke the rules there) - so I’ve had to be tactical about what was included. Given the bulk of the workshop seems to reflect an interest in more technological aspects, and those of transparency and of course openness - I’ve opted to outline the platforms I used to engage in the course, with the nature of the engagement discussed orally.

As much as I want to elaborate on the fact the participatory models are heavily influenced and informed by the subject matter being explored - and what the key themes and topics were - I suspect I will only be able to reference them in passing. Hopefully there will be opportunities to discuss this more at-length later in the day, and particularly after the event has drawn to a close.

I’ll be posting a reflection here shortly that elaborates on my experiences and thoughts about CCK08 in greater detail. It’s been a fantastic experience and I want to ensure it receives the attention it deserves.

This may be cheating slightly, but the last post was intended to make a point that I didn’t manage to get to, and that was a response to Jenny’s train of thought as expressed in “A 10 Minute Post.”

In this post she discusses the following points:

• The issue of time constraints in connectivism and CCK08
• Rapid interaction versus slow blogging, reflection and listening
• Their fundamental “meaning” for connectivism

I’m a verbose writer. I have a great deal of trouble making a succinct point in 10 minutes, so covering this much territory in a short period of time will be a huge challenge.

George said early on in CCK08 that you’ll constantly have the feeling that you’re missing something and this tone is quite apparent in Jenny’s post. I myself have this problem constantly. I want to wholly engage in the course, do all the “required” readings, complete the Concept Map, read all the blog posts, reply to all the Tweets, be in all the disparate communities that have popped up over the course of the session, and participate in the forums - but I’ve realised that’s just not possible. It’s a superhuman feat that even the most hyperactive learner couldn’t keep up with.

The point for me is CCK08 as a formal course – or as formal as you can be in an informal capacity – is that it’s the beginning of a journey; not the start, middle and end of it. I anticipate much of my exploration of the subject matter, and many of the epiphanies I have of its implications – won’t be realised until after the formal component comes to a close. The primary purpose as I see it is the laying of the foundation for future inquiry. Importantly this relies a great deal on the formulation of networks with other CCK08 learners.

This is just the beginning.

Herein lay another importance of open education. You can return to it later. Rome wasn’t built in a day and neither is an understanding of Connectivism. As with learning in general, an appreciation for its intricacies will evolve over time and will change as we change. We can always come back to what we missed – what’s important is that we engage in as great a manner as we can.

This survey can be accessed directly here: “What tools do you use to engage in CCK08?”

Come mothers and fathers throughout the land
And don’t criticize what you can’t understand
Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly agin’.
Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin’.
– Bob Dylan (“The Times They Are A-Changin‘”)

The Glee Club
When I was in primary school I decided to join the Glee Club, which was an extra curricular activity for students interested in singing. I hadn’t ever sang before and had no idea whether I could or not; I didn’t even know if I’d like it. I just had an interest in trying out the experience and thought it would be fun.

Unfortunately the instructor ruined the experience. She was strict, highly authoritarian and in the end sucked all the enjoyment out of something that is meant to be inherently filled with passion, joy and emotion. The objectives became paramount, and the means through which the objectives were achieved, clearly dictated by the instructor. It became clear that the “club” was her instrument to be played; we were not individuals with interests or hopes in our own right. We were students to be kept in line.

Once, when we were performing for an assembly she grew upset about something we were doing – I can’t remember what – and stopped right in the middle of a song, as if to make an example of us and make it clear who was in charge. It was a truly mortifying and embarassing experience.

So I quit. Worse still, I came out of the experience hating music, and thinking I had no musical abilities; and this notion stuck with me for nearly 15 years.

Rediscovering Music
Then in my early 20s I found myself watching a documentary on the 1960s and was blown away by the energy and passion in the music and community idealism of the era. In particular I was drawn to Bob Dylan and the acoustic guitar. The fact his singing style was unconventional and not as honed as others I’d heard was inspiring to me. I realised that, if he could do it, so could I. Despite my experiences in primary school I decided to give it a try.

I had no overarching objectives in mind; no learning outcomes, no curriculum; no expertise, no existing knowledge; no network of any kind – just a desire to learn and to experience playing for the sake of doing so.

For quite some time it was a slow and exruciatingly unproductive experience. I didn’t read music and didn’t understand tablature; when playing, my fingers would ache; I couldn’t hear music of any kind in what I was doing, and would end each session feeling like I’d accomplished nothing - but I had a vested interest and sense of ownership in continuing to try and was thoroughly enjoying the journey. Where I ended up wasn’t a concern.

Eventually I realised I could actually hear a coherent song emerging from what my fingers were doing. More significantly I could even recognise patterns developing. I realised many songs used the same chords, and eventually saw and heard destinct recurring structures in music. This lead to connections with concepts and ideas that in turn lead to others.

The personal ownership I had in the learning experience led me through the difficult beginnings until I gained an appreciation – or cognition – of how seemingly disparate musical concepts tied together, and importantly began to see progress and improvement in my abilities. Thus began an entirely different chapter – I started exploring areas where I’d not been interested before – and in particular musical theory. There was no agenda in doing this, it was just an interest that I explored; once again without any specific outcomes in mind. But what it did was enhance contribute to my overall understanding of what I was doing.

Outcomes

Today I have one of the best musical ears and musical memory of anyone I know and can figure out how to play entire songs without being told the key – just by ear. I still can’t read music though; and still doubt my abilities.

Whereas my experiences with the glee club – and especially the instructor who lead it – was one of the more scarring experiences of my youth, the self-led exploration of music that began in my 20s has been – and continues to be – one of the most fufilling and personal experiences thus far. The realisation that I could direct my own learning and follow whatever path I chose was instrumental in empowering my exploration of the musical landscape.

And yet I still can’t help but wonder where I would be today if the instructor had taken a different tact with the students – encouraged empowered exploration rather than self-doubt; fostered a culture of passion, enthusiasm and encouragement rather than one of passive obedience; and above all treated students as unique individuals rather than subjects to be ruled over.

QUESTION AUTHORITY
Originally uploaded by Wurz

This week in CCK08 covers the topics of power, control, validity, and authority in distributed environments and I’m quite interested to see where the discussion takes us; especially in light of yesterday’s excitement in the Moodle forum.

The week began with an authoritarian decision to force everyone in the course to subscribe to the week’s forum thread - whether they wanted to or not.  Downes’ preliminary post to the thread read as follows:

Moodle offers me the option to ‘force everyone to be subscribed to this forum’.

Given that this week we are talking about Power, Authority, and Control… what did you think about that?

And if you are one of the many who simply did not subscribe to new weeks’ forums as they came up… why not?

My interpretation is the move was obviously intended to make a point and instigate some discussion - and in that sense it was quite effective. In my case it’s led to a very interesting, philosophical train of thought that I’d like to explore here.

Statement of Philosophy

This began with the following thought:

Power and authority are not things to be taken, but given. Their source lay not in the hands of those who claim to possess it; but rather in the minds of those who relinquish their own internal power and authority. Control, real control, is an illusion.

Upholding an Ideology

Rather than grow irate about some sort of violation of my personal space, after chuckling about the irony of Downes’ example,  my next immediate thought was “You think you can force me to read these forum threads, do you?  I don’t think so!  Let’s find a way around this.”

I know I’m not alone here, but I don’t react particularly well to people telling me I must do something.  I am, among other things, a left-wing, open source sympathiser after all, which means I don’t like to have pressure exerted on me - especially arbitrary pressure - nor technological decisions made on my behalf without consultation, or indeed in contradiction to my wishes.  So my mind immediately turned to how best to fend off the unwanted email.

Ultimately I opted for a relatively simple Gmail filter that took any message from the forum, tagged it as “CCK08″, and immediately archived it - thus bypassing the Inbox completely.  It wasn’t so much about a lack of interest in the thread so much as an ideological stance against an intrusion on my personal freedoms.  I’ll probably go back and reread the responses later - in the meantime I choose to protest on principle.

On Power and Authority

Having ventured down that philosophical path I was then brought to consider the concept of combating authority and exertion of power.  This is where my philosophy statement originated from.

We live in a world where physical prowess and military might often determines victory, and yet this does not equate to authority - and especially not validity.  Might does not make right, as they say.

From much a less violent standpoint, our culture has also traditionally cast teachers and educators in a role of power, control and influence over students - with learners portrayed at a lower, more subservient level in the hierarchy.  The arrival of the digital age has seen this notion emerge online in the form of the Learning Management System - which as the name implies, seeks to manage learning.  Perhaps not surprisingly the LMS has been largely embraced by institutions, as it is in keeping with the commonly held socio-educational perspectives on the roles and position of administrators, teachers and students.

Importantly too, throughout the traditional schooling process something much more fundamental has occurred, and this is the conditioning of learners to look for direction, guidance and personal validation externally rather than internally.  We are taught to listen, memorize, recite, and importantly, to obey.

The result is a student who needs a teacher, a curriculum and a classroom in order to learn, rather than realising the power to do so lay within themselves, and their fellow students; that the world around them is filled with learning opportunities and networks that need only be seen and embraced, but instead know only to focus on the teacher in the front of the classroom.

Without knowing, students begin their learning journey by making it someone elses, and giving authority to those who would not have it otherwise.

The Illusion

The concept of control is an illusion, because ultimately it implies lack of choice on the part of the individual.  This is incorrect.  Politicians in Democratic countries would not be in power were it not for choice.  Using proprietary software is a choice.  Attending formal schooling is a choice.  Reading the threads in the Moodle forum is a choice, and indeed so too is having an account in the Moodle installation at all.  Like all choices, we can change our minds; this is where the true power and control lay.

Certainly choices aren’t always easy, but the power to make them is ultimately in our hands - the critical element in this is that we realise it.

In response to my post on collaborative spaces, Gina Minks over at Adventures in Corporate Education posted her thoughts on what she sees are some issues with my argument. I posted an initial response as a comment, but wanted to follow up with further elaboration here.

The main question her post brought me to consider is that of the role and purpose of institutions in an age of increasingly open access to course materials, portability of information, and hyperconnected learners. Significantly too though is the notion of the digital divide and how to accommodate the needs of learners with limited access to resources and technology.

Background

Projects like the Open Courseware initiative, Wikieducator, and to a fair degree iTunes U as well, have all begun to demonstrate a new manner of course delivery in which materials and curricula are openly shared, freely adaptable and available to any learner who cares to explore them.

Connectivism and Connective Knowledge (CCK08), offered out of the University of Manitoba, is another example of this - and has been implemented on a massive scale. At least at the outset of the course there were 2,200 enrollments - with the majority being informal.

Meanwhile other initiatives such as the Social Media Classroom have emerged as collaborative endeavors in which groups of educators from across the international sector work together to develop a curriculum that is independent of any institution.

Fundamental Questions

In some regards the entire notion of what education is seems to be in a state of flux, with the traditional framework of institutions, universities, educators and learners suddenly brought into question, and their roles in a state of renegotiation.

This leads to very practical questions:

If, in this changing landscape:

• Content and course materials are no longer necessarily something to be owned and hoarded, but freely and openly shared;
• Curricula is no longer centrally organised and dictated, but instead contextually interpreted and adapted;
• Enrollment is no longer controlled, but instead open to all ages, levels of experience or existing knowledge, and geographical regions;
• Information no longer flows one-directionally from an expert to a novice, but is instead discussed, interpreted and negotiated by a network of its participants…

…what is the role and fate to be for a system of learning that is founded on the former tenets?

Having said that, what unique experience is afforded to students that choose to formally enroll? What are they paying for?

A Facilitator of Connections

One might argue that the awarding of recognised degrees upon completion of years of rigorous assessment and review is a key role that institutions and universities will continue to hold in a new paradigm (if it can indeed be called one); and it most certainly is. I would argue, though, that this is just a tiny part of the overall equation, and that an even greater and more significant role than is in the facilitation of connections.

As discussed early on in CCK08, we have a need to address several key points during the learning process, including

• We have a need to externalise;
• We have a need for frameworks or structures for sense-making;
• We have a need to socialise and negotiate around knowledge;

For the individual learner, then, the social element and presence of other learners with whom to interact is of critical significance. So too is access to informed, expert nodes to act as pathways through key concepts in the subject matter. Certainly groups of learners might seek to come together independent of formal education and undertake a subject on their own, however with universities and schools recognised as institutions of learning, prospective students stand a far greater chance of discovering valuable nodes or connections there than on their own.

Furthermore, many universities and institutions maintain close ties to industry that the average individual just won’t have developed. Some departments will, for example, bring in guest speakers from the private sector to discuss their real-world experience and thus add a practical element to theoretical discussions. Certainly these events can be recorded and made available online along with other course materials, however this arguably pales in comparison to sitting in the same room in-person and having the opportunity to ask them questions.

Additionally there is the notion of resources and infrastructure. There is a tremendous difference between reading and discussing a section on chemistry experiments - or watching a video clip - and having access to a laboratory within which to actually conduct them yourself, as well as interact with expert technicians skilled in their use. Institutions and universities are in a position to offer these sorts of opportunities to formally enrolled, paying students; the average individual is not.

Learning Design

The role of the educator in this landscape, then, becomes one of guide, informed node, more granular facilitator of connections; perhaps even translator and moderator of discussions. The significance of this lay in the notion that organising one’s own individual learning experience is a very different matter to overseeing the learning experiences of an entire cohort of students. As such it requires a much different, more tactical approach.

Universities as Learning Bazaars

To adapt Eric Raymond’s seminal work on open source software development, the new landscape of learning in formal education may begin to resemble a bazaar more than a cathedral.

Here learners can congregate in a seemingly chaotic marketplace full of different perspectives and personal learning objectives, yet in which the essential processes of negotiation around knowledge, and externalising can occur.

As with most FOSS projects though, the presence of a central body to help guide the process is important in ensuring that adequate cohesion and cooperativity exists amidst the populous of independent agents, while at the same time recogising the importance of autonomy and room for exploration.

A comment by David Elliot on my last post yielded a train of thought that I think is worth discussing. Initially I had posted the following thoughts as a reply to his comment, but the thought occurred that this is tangential enough from the original post that it warrants a dedicated one in its own right.

David raises the topic of Personal Learning Networks versus Virtual Learning Environments, and asks “How can we bring institutions back into the Connectivism picture as foci of collaboration within the larger PLN?”

[This is perhaps not as well worded as it could be because I was in a rush at the time, but hopefully it will serve to get some discussion going.]

Personally speaking I much prefer PLN’s/PLE’s to VLE’s because of the notions of personal empowerment of learning and continuity. As useful as many centralised platforms are, the key issue for me is they retain user contributions, so learner contributed content isn’t necessarily portable.

By contrast, the opportunity to use the same blog for CCK08 that I had been using previous is tremendously valuable in that respect and goes a long way towards mapping my personal and professional development over time. I don’t think VLE’s - especially LMS’s - have nearly the same capacity.

Then again the reality regarding the best choice of framework needs to consider other factors as well. Just off the top of my head, institutions like the Australian Defense Force Academy have very pronounced issues of privacy and security to consider and might not view high levels of public transparency in subject matter as a desirable thing. Local context, as always, is an essential consideration.

Continuing on the notion of institutional perspectives, there are also legal obligations of preservation of student data to consider; and this isn’t necessarily something that cloud services (e.g. freely available tools) devote much consideration to. There may be compromises or innovative approaches that will support distributed frameworks, while ensuring legal obligations are met - such as a central Moodle instance that aggregates and stores all student posts from a course. The point is the reality needs to be considered.

Moreover, it seems clear from the usage of the CCK08 Moodle Forums that centralised spaces for discussion remain a critical aspect of learning; and this seems to be a key area of importance for the VLE. And for that matter, the notions of how to best convey or disseminate the initial subject matter for student discussion. In the case of the latter a blog could arguably be used - even an email digest; but are they the best options? I’m not sure at this stage. What do you think?

Given some VLE’s like Moodle enable learners and/or administrators to plugin or aggregate 3rd party sites, at least on the surface it seems like they might play a valuable role as portal and source of at least some of the information students are exposed to. This might also go a long way to addressing the notion of establishing “informed nodes”, “gateways” or “pathways” that Lisa Lane and I spoke of as being needed convey key concepts.

This seems to be a good segue into this weeks topic on the role of the educator come to think of it. Your point on the role of the institution is quite significant in that respect. I’ll ponder that further and see what I come up with.

I’ve only just broached the topics of chaos and complexity theory, which we’re covering this week in CCK08, however in reading George Siemens thoughts as expressed in his Google Document, I’ve been brought to a train of thought I want to explore.  This is in the form of an analogy.

At least according to my understanding of it, in Buddhism the concept of the individual and the soul do no exist; in fact they are refuted.  Nor is there an inherent sense of me-ness that can be distinguished or segregated from the rest of the world.  Everything, they say, is related and dependant.  Nothing is independent.

The argument goes that each situation, each decision, each so-called “fact” was reached through a complex series of incidents, without which the uniqueness of its circumstances just wouldn’t exist.  This applies to the argument against a notion of self as well.

What I consider to be “me” is in fact not one distinct unit.  “Me” is comprised of hands, fingers, wrists, elbows and so-on; but even these are not distinct unto themselves either.  Cells regularly die and are replaced by new ones.  So literally speaking, the physical personal I call “me” right not is not going to be the same one getting on the bus tomorrow.  Physcially the cells will be different.

Similarly, if a person is the sum of their experiences, this too is different from one moment to the next.  Therefore I cannot say I am consistent and ever-present throughout my lifetime because of the circumstances and experiences I am a part of; because the aggregated pool of experience changes from one instance to the next.

Likewise is the concept of mind as distinct from brain. As with an inherent concept of “me”, what we consider the mind - at least in my understanding - is reliant on our comprehension of reality, information, and experience, both past and present.  Given this changes constantly, the notion of one eternal mind cannot exist either.

Furthermore, as we’ve discussed throughout CCK08 so far, the brain is comprised of distinctly distributed activities.  As such it is not a single entity.  Physically it’s also composed of cells too, which as I said die and change from one day to the next.

I wonder if this is what we’re taking about when we say chaos and complexity theory?

Over the last few weeks I’ve been particularly bad about posting my reflections for CCK08. In fact this post may represent the very first one I’ve done so far. I’m beginning to realise the grasp I have on reflective writing may not be nearly as firm as I previously thought; and what I had been considering “reflective” wasn’t, it was topical. This post, therefore, is my attempt to start rectifying the vacuum.

Background

Last week’s reflection topic asked us to consider the following:

“Have you begun to see the rudiments of a learning network forming? Has some of the conceptual uncertainty settled?”

I’ve had a solid comprehension of the practical aspects of learning networks for some time now, with much of the interaction between me and my PLN occurring via Twitter, this blog, and the posts of others. However the development of that network has been a long time in the making - perhaps a year or more in fact. It’s spanned a variety of platforms and online tools, at times linking fairly disparate activities and people together. So the prospect of applying such an organic, wide reaching model to a clearly defined, less diverse - albeit large - group of educator-students is a bit of a different scenario.

Adding to this an established (albeit lose and accommodating) curriculum, pronounced social roles (instructors, students), and for some the prospect of grades and marks has meant that the focal point is far more external and specific than my non-CCK08 learning activities, which by nature are very broad and self-directed. Perhaps not surprisingly I find myself focusing here more on “what I am supposed to be writing and reading about” than “what do I want to be writing and reading about.”

The result has been a much different - and at times frustrating and discouraging - experience than I had initially anticipated. By and large though I’ve found the subject matter very interesting, and have enjoyed the opportunity to interact with so many educators - especially those in similar professional roles.

Rudiments of a Learning Network

Due largely to the factors mentioned above, the formation of a learning network has taken far longer to occur that I had initially expected; however it is growing slowly. I’ve found myself returning to certain blogs far more than others and have begun to pay close attention and/or reply to the Twitters of a select group of people. Interestingly too, I’m starting to see the same names popping up again and again, which suggests that mutual, shared linkages are beginning to develop. Some of these take the form of blog trackbacks or blogroll listings, but more commonly they appear as blog comments.

In the case of the latter, there are times where discussion threads emerge in the wake of a thought-provoking post, or indeed develop into something tangential. Both are welcome opportunities, since I am becoming increasingly disillusioned by the tone and discord in the centralised spaces such as the Moodle forum, and more recently the Elluminate meetings. In some cases it’s reached the point where personalities and perhaps even personal agendas are taking precedence over the pursuit and empowering of the learning experience.

This seems to be a common theme amongst the people I’m increasingly interacting with, who for one reason or another are uncomfortable contributing to the central discussions and have instead turned to the blog spaces.

Conceptual Uncertainty

An unfortunate effect of the discord for me has been the emergence of an environment that is not conducive to learning in the way I find beneficial and am therefore the most comfortable with. Consequently I’m now reluctant to ask questions and contribute to central discussions. This has lead to gaps in my understanding of certain concepts and ideas, and in turn to conceptual uncertainty.

Compounding this, as I said, is the fact that many people in my PLN have the same aversions to argument and debate. I do see us as trying to work through the concepts together, but the learning process appears to have slowed as a result.

In some ways this is a valuable scenario to face, because it highlights a potential obstacle or adversity in the practical implementation of this sort of learning that needs to be carefully considered before it should be used in more formal circumstances. From the perspective of a student in the model, there are times when frustration and disillusionment leads to despondency and lack of interest.

If a key objective of a course is to empower learners to seize hold of their own destiny, there need to be mechanisms in place to ensure they are capable of maintaining their interest and enthusiasm through periods of disillusionment.

In considering the concept of groups, networks and collectives a bit further the thought occurred to me that project work is an instance when a group model would or could be more appropriate than a network one.

In the case of my current project regarding SecondLife for example, we have been tasked with exploring and assessing the educational uses and applications of the virtual world.  That in and of itself is a fairly broad topic, however when factoring in additional requirements and conditions of the project, the nature of our task becomes more specific and conditional.

For example, the culture of research into educational technology - at least in my part of the world - is evidence-based.  That is, you need to provide demonstrated proof of your assertions, recommendations and conclusions.  In establishing this then, you introduce the need for nominated outcomes, and in turn, the method through which these outcomes are going to be pursued.

By necessity then, these outcomes must be established and adhered to by all project participants - and in our case organised by co-leaders (which introduces a hierarchy).  The outcomes will of course be preceded by discussion, debate, and finally consensus - but the ultimate reality is one where the group follows a unified vision.

Secondly is the idea of deadlines and timeframes.  We have purchased an island for 6 months, which means all of our project work - including planning, building, research, and implementation - must be completed within the allotted time frame.  With so much involved in this sort of project, milestones and deadlines become a necessity.  Once again, this demands a unified focus on an explicit plan that everyone follows.

All that being said, as far as I’m concerned the true comprehensive value of SecondLife to education cannot possibly be addressed in a 6 month project, however these are our constraints and we must work within them, while accomplishing as much as we possibly can.  I’m also reluctant to introduce the notion of Learning Design and templates; but like I said, the culture I work in demands demonstrated outcomes, and this is one way of providing them.

Ultimately I’d like to encourage more exploratory, learner-led use of the virtual world - but this will require more longterm cultural change; and before we have the opportunity to do this, we must prove educational efficacy in the eyes of the skeptics.