TechTicker
educational technology, eLearning & emerging technology

Trekkie’s forgive me if I butcher this analogy, but it’s relevant here:

In one of the original Star Trek movies - I think Star Trek III - there is a scene in which the Enterprise is chasing down a stolen ship, carrying the Genesis Device.  The stolen ship, captained by Khan, heads into a nebula to try escape.  Moments pass where neither ship knows where the other is, and they’re effectively flying blind.  Then suddenly Spock makes an observation to the effect of “Khan is not used to space.  He only thinks in two dimensions”.

In trying to get my head around the design for the SecondLife project I’ve been asked to co-lead, this notion keeps running through my head.  How do you use the allotted space effectively?  Architects may be comfortable with working in three dimensions, but it’s a very new experience to me - especially when you consider the scale and scope of elevations that are at your disposal.  This goes for both terriforming and sub-marine, or extra-terrestrial locations.

Furthermore, when considering educational uses of SecondLife there is the added element of maximising the learning possibilities to consider.  Not surprisingly I’ve been finding all this a challenge.

During this weekend’s unconference on the Island of Jokaydia, however, one speaker mentioned something that I’m currently looking into.  Given several of my CCK08 classmates have indicated they are in a similar head-space with regards to the educational uses of SecondLife I thought it was worth sharing here.

Apparently the island of Terra Incognita, run by Lindy McKeown (aka Decka Mah) has a really nice example of functional use of space in the form of “Decka’s Decks.”

As McKeown explains in an audio file:

“Decka’s Decks is designed as an innovative teaching space capable of seating groups of up to 35 of the large groups, but able to convert instantly into 5 different breakout rooms.”

As shown in the embedded image at the top of this post, the space resembles a relaxing, outdoor, open-air venue whereby a facilitator - seated in the middle - can facilitate the activities of a collection of people.  This alone does not make it innovative though; it’s the break-out rooms that do this.

McKeown continues in the recording:

“…when small group discussions are needed, a simple touch of a button on the table and each pod can fly to a safe chat distance.  Pods can be locked down by the facilitator to prevent accidental departure and recalled at anytime.”

This is a very creative approach to facilitating groupwork that capitalises on the potential that SecondLife has to offer.  In my view there are too many instances in which educational sites are mere replications of what exists in the real world.  I think one of the key opportunities for engagement in SecondLife lay with seeing site design in a brand new way, uninhibited by the traditional factors that we see in real life.

Resources:

• Lindy McKeown discusses Decka’s Decks: http://www.teachers.ash.org.au/lindy/sl/deckas_decks.mp3
• Terra Incognita: http://slurl.com/secondlife/Terra%20incognita/128/128/39
• Decka’s Decks:** http://slurl.com/secondlife/Terra%20incognita/179/40/66

**NB: You cannot teleport directly to Decka’s Decks using the above link; this slurl included for reference only.  To visit Decka’s Decks go to the link to Terra Incognita and you will be taken to the landing location.  Then from the lower right-hand corner of the visitor’s map in the landing location, right-click on the red dot beside Decka’s Decks and choose teleport.  You’ll be taken straight there.

A comment by Artie on my last post reminded me that I’ve yet to write a post about Discussion Forums for our Facilitating Online Communities course. Essentially we are to locate a forum somewhere on the web, cite it in our blogs, and use the example to discuss the concepts of facilitation and communities with regards to forums.

Background

Discussion Forums are centralised spaces where groups or communities can house their conversations. While forums come in many different forms, communication is typically done via multiple, concurrent, threaded conversations. The two main characteristics of forums are centralisation and a group/community focus.

Centralisation: Unlike blog networks, in which a topic can be covered by many bloggers across many different sites; discussion forums provide a single site where all the communication takes place. As such, participants need only go to one location to review the entire history of the discussion rather than scour a web of different blogs.

Group or Community Focused: Unlike blogs, which tend to focus on the needs or thoughts of an individual, discussion forums are set-up to serve the needs of a group or community. Each individual’s contributions are then tied to the space and incorporated into the aggregated pool of knowledge or information.

Personally speaking my preference is for blogs and not discussion forums. Having tried to use forums in the past I’ve come to the realisation that I really don’t like them, instead preferring to explore my own ideas on my blog and holding discussions with other bloggers via comments or trackbacks. For me there is a far greater sense of ownership in a blog than a forum, since I have far greater input into what is discussed and how. I can also use one blog to discuss the topics of several communities; in that sense they become a hub for my contributions to all my networks.

That said, this post is mean to be about discussion forums and not blogs, so I digress…

The Ubuntu Forums

Location: http://ubuntuforums.org/

The one and only forum I’ve ever followed with any regularity is that of the Ubuntu Community. Largely devoted to support matters, most threads begin with a question or problem regarding some aspect of the Linux distribution. Subsequent replies expand on the incident, include screenshots or error messages, work around suggestions or bug fixes. Some threads also begin with a suggestion on use cases, recommendations or implementations.

A clear code of conduct exists for the forums, which is in line with that of the wider Ubuntu project; and any moderation decisions are informed by and based upon that policy. Users have a fairly firm grasp on what conduct and behaviour is expected and I’ve yet to see any instances where things got out of hand.

Strengths and Weaknesses

In my view the key advantages and disadvantages of discussion forums both come down to its centralised nature.

Strengths

(Fairly) Comprehensive view of community consensus - The centralised nature of forums is such that most - if not all - conversations on a specific topic occurs in one place. As such readers and/or contributors are able to get a quick, fairly comprehensive view of the community consensus on something.

That said, with one of the weaknesses of forums being the vulnerability to disproportionate representation of certain viewpoints, and worse still griefers and trolls (see below), the possibility also exists that some people will be more vocal than others and not all views may be represented.

Provides quick access to other community members - In my view this is a very significant benefit of forums. With distributed networks, like blogs, it can be very difficult - neigh impossible - to locate all members of a community. Centralised spaces like discussion forums on the other hand can provide an index of all community members. From the standpoint of developing a Personal Learning Network (or indeed network of any kind), this is a great place to start.

In the case of Siemens and Downes Connectivism and Connective Knowledge course (which I’m presently taking), students were asked to post a thread during week one in which they introduced themselves, discussed their learning objectives, and provided a link to their blog.  This provided a great way to identify people you share interests with.  In many cases it also led to discussions on individual student’s blogs, which has greatly helped in the learning process.

Fast way to centrally locate and distribute information - Forums are a good way to disseminate information to a large number of people in one place. To a degree blogs will do this as well, but with forums you have the advantage of a designated, recognised central space where everyone goes for updates and information.

Weaknesses

Disproportionate representation of viewpoints - In my experience in forums, a few people will contribute the majority of replies to a thread, fewer still will contribute occasionally, and the majority will contribute rarely - if at all. This can serve to misrepresent a consensus.

To be as comprehensive as possible, I think it’s important to incorporate a mixed distribution of options that includes both centralised discussion forums and distributed blogs. While this may/will serve to fracture the discussion somewhat, it will arguably help ensure that a more holistic representation of viewpoints is maintained than would exist in the presence of a forum alone.

Vulnerability to Griefer’s and Trolls - Following on the last point are the bane of the discussion forums - Griefers and Trolls.

As Wikipedia explains:

“An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response^[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion”

In the realm of online gaming, the Wikipedia article on Griefers indicates:

“Griefers differ from typical players in that they do not play the game in order to achieve objectives defined by the game world. Instead, they seek to harass other players, causing grief. In particular, they may use tools such as stalking, hurling insults, and exploiting unintended game mechanics.”

Central spaces like forums are particularly vulnerable to these sorts of activities because they are a singlular, large target.  In the absence of moderation, Griefers and Trolls can inflict a whole lot of damage to forums that can drag conversation to a halt, flare up flame wars, and even drive users away.  Trolls and Griefers are the antithesis of community.

Conclusion:

Discussion forums can be a powerful, valuable way to facilitate conversations amongst members of an online community; however it’s critical to bear in mind their challenges and shortcomings - not the least of which involve differences in user preference and moderation issues. One person may love forums, while another may not. So in terms of facilitating online communities, the ideal solution will be one that considers the gamut of issues and preferences and maximises the opportunities for users, while maintaining the safe and nurturing environment that’s critical for open, healthy discussion.

As part of the second online course I’m currently taking this session, Facilitating Online Communities, I’m meant to be posting weekly blog reflections about designated topics. ‭ ‬Unfortunately in the excitement of start of session at work and then Week One of CCK08,‭ ‬my contributions have slow to a trickle,‭ ‬and then dried up completely. ‭ ‬So in the interests of getting back on track here are my thoughts on the topic of Blog Networks.

Specifically we’re asked to discuss what characteristics we see in a Blog Network,‭ their nature, strengths and weaknesses for community development and ‬finally a review of this course as a blog network

Defining Blog Network

Given my current work on Connectivism,‭ ‬its concepts and practical implementations I see a fair amount of overlap to explore here. ‭ ‬So let me first begin by defining what I mean by the term‭ “‬network‭”‬.

As I discussed in the comments area of my post on Growing a Network,‭ ‬when I say network I refer to the broad idea of people connecting with one another.  In the case of a Blog Network therefore, the means of connecting is via blogs.

There is a difference though between blogs that discuss similar topics, and those that comprise a larger network.  So it’s important to make this distinction and discuss what it entails.

For example, there are many people who discuss politics on their blogs, but this does not necessarily constitute a network.  The same goes for edubloggers, or parent bloggers.

In my view, the characteristics that define a blog network are:

• Shared interest in a topic, activity or endeavour;
• A degree of mutual influence on one another;
• Regular interaction;

Shared Interest

Shared interest is the magnetism that draws the network together.  Inspires mutual exploration and discussion, and defines the duration of the network’s existence.  In the case of the latter, there is no rule that says networks must exist in perpetuity.  Indeed they may come together for a short time, for a specific purpose, and eventually dissolve; or perhaps transform into a something different.

In the case of politics, examples might include those interested in American or Australian Politics, Supporters of John McCain or Barrack Obama, or environmental activists.  The significance is that the subject is fairly clearly realised in the minds of the bloggers - whether formally established or by virtue of the ongoing subject matter of their posts.

Regular Interaction
In my view, one of the primary distinctions between members of a blog network and bloggers who simply discuss similar subject matter is frequency of interaction.  A blog network to me features ongoing discussion between bloggers, typically characterised by discussions in the comments area or trackbacks and cross-linking.  By necessity then, the network is also characterised by fairly regular frequency of new posts.

Mutual Influence
Continuing on the point of the latter, the third characteristic of a blog network to me is mutual influence.  Whether knowingly or otherwise, members of the network influence each others viewpoints, comprehension, and awareness - they learn from each other.  It’s important to note here that I’m not referring to educational blogs, or those with a vested interest in learning; but the notion that a natural by-product of regular interaction will be cross-pollination of ideas, sharing of knowledge, and to a lesser degree influencing of each other’s opinions and beliefs.

Strengths and Weaknesses

In my view the key advantages and disadvantages of a blog network both come down to its distributed nature.  Unlike discussion forums, in which all discussion and interaction occurs in a single space, blog networks spread the conversation across a distributed web of blogs.

In terms of advantages this does several things:

Provide personal space - blogs establish a personal space where individuals can - at their own discretion - explore their thoughts and ideas, express their opinions, and discuss issues that are important to them

Empower the individual - Whereas the rules of discussion forums are subject to the consensus of the community, on a blog the blogger makes the rules.  This includes commenting and moderation policies, as well as visibility settings (who can see what).  There is also a clear hierarchy between the thoughts of the blogger and those of readers and commenters.

Tie content to the blogger, not the network - Thirdly, the contributions of the blogger are easily and quickly distinguishable from those of the rest of the network.  This makes posts and comments portable.  If a blogger decides to leave the network, they preserve their thoughts in their own space rather than leaving them behind, as would be the case in a forum.

In terms of disadvantages:

Conversation Fracturing - The primary drawback of a blog network lay in how it conveys conversations.  Unlike forums, where an entire conversation and the contributions of many people can be encapsulated in a single thread and visible all at once, the distributed nature of blogs spreads the topic across many different locations.  This makes it very difficult to gain a quick consensus on anything.  This is true for both initial posts and any resulting discussion via commenting.

Complicates Facilitation - For facilitators the prospect of engaging with learners/participants becomes both time consuming and logistically challenging with blogs because the conversation is anywhere and everywhere.  Additionally, the nature of blogs as a personal space means rules on moderation are devolved to the blogger to decide, and the role of facilitator, moderator or educator may not be the same as it would be in a centralised space.

FOC08 as a Blog Network

In terms of assessing whether the FOC08 blogs constitute a network, my absence from the course activities over the last 3 weeks puts me at a disadvantage.  However in the interests of furthering the discussion I’d like to evaluate the course’s blogging activities against the three criteria I’ve outlined above.

Shared interest (FOC08)
In a broad sense the facilitation of online communities could be used as the shared interest, however drilling down into the detail it appears that there are in some ways some fundamental differences that prevent a cohesive network from forming.

First there is more granular interest.  Some learners, such as myself, have a specific interest in the educational aspects of communities, while others take a broader view.

Having said that there appears to be mini-networks developing around specific topical interests.  So it might be more accurate to describe the course as being comprised of several/many mini-networks rather than a single cohesive large one.

Regular Interaction (FOC08)
In my view this is where the network falls apart.  The primary vehicle for discussion in the course is - and arguably always has been - the Google Group.  Some scattered interaction is happening in small pockets in blogs, but by and large many seem to have stopped blogging with any regularity - or indeed altogether.  So too have comments and cross-linking slowed to a trickle as well.

Mutual Influence (FOC08)
Without posts, comments, and cross-linking/trackbacks there can be no mutual influence (at least inasmuch as the blog network is concerned).  I would suspect that this is taking place in the discussion forum however, which continues to see fairly active discussion.

Conclusion:

As far as this course is concerned, in my view a blog network does not currently exist on a broad scale.  This is not to say that none exist at all - as I said there seem to be mini-networks slowly forming amongst specific collections of students.  Furthermore, blog networks take time to develop, so it’s conceivable that they may start to emerge in the future.

However for the moment at least, with the bulk of interaction taking place in the Google Group, contributions to blogs (both posts and comments) appears to be a secondary or tertiary concern for many people.

Jeffrey Keefer said to me today: “You seem to have a large and wide network yourself. How do you foster that?”

The short answer to this is: “I actively seek out my network contacts and go where they go” or as Robert Scoble has said before: “I go where the conversations are.”

The longer explanation, as you might expect, is more involved that that.

Background

I’ve heard a couple of CCK08 students state that they had implemented Connectivism in practice long before they even knew what it was, or that it had a formal term. I’m starting to wonder whether the same applies to me.

I never made a conscious decision to follow the path that I’m on now, it just happened that way. The learning process I’ve experienced was never scripted or planned in advance. When I had an interest, I explored it. If I didn’t understand something, I researched it. If I couldn’t find the information I was after, I looked for people who might know where I could find the information.

I discovered very quickly that learning what you want to know is as much about who you know (depth, quality and diversity of connections) as it is about the subject matter itself. One of the interesting by-products of this is I’m no longer afraid to say “I don’t know.” There’s just too much information in the world to know everything. For me the only crime is to not ask questions, or to let uncertainties go unresolved. When I say “I don’t know” now, it’s inevitably followed by “…but I’m going to find out.”

[Often times this is then followed by, "Who would be a good person to talk to about this?"]

Developing my networks

In response to Jeffrey’s question, my approach to fostering networks has more or less always been the same - even when I wasn’t consciously doing it. I begin by determining my own position on something - my values, opinions, objectives, goals, ideals, etc. - and then start to seek out others who shared these characteristics.

For example, in my early blogging life I was a left-wing political blogger. When establishing that network I began by searching for bloggers who had similar opinions and values as I did. When I discovered a potential candidate I would read everything they wrote and would contribute comments as frequently as possible to try and build a relationship or connection with them. I’d also start to pay attention to the people they had listed as contacts, or who were contributing comments themselves. When I discovered someone I’d visit their blog and go through the process all over again.

Overtime this caused my network to slowly grow, and with it my awareness of what was going on in the world.

Even after shifting focal points to elearning and emerging technology my approached has remained more or less the same - though at times it took me a while to realise it was up to me to seek people out.

For example, when I first started using Twitter I thought it was really stupid. I made no attempts for months to establishing any contacts, and as a result I felt like I was talking to myself and the application was a complete waste of time. Then eventually I followed one person. He had some interesting people in his contacts list, so I followed them. Eventually I began to reply to their Tweets, share information about myself, ask questions, and respond to the questions of others.

Ultimately what had started as a “stupid” tool has over time become something I rely quite heavily on to link me into my learning network.

Go where the conversation is

The other important idea for me is the network is key and the environment in which the interaction occurs is just a detail.  I have slowly but steadily expanded my online activities across a web of different tools - each of which is suited to a different purpose.

The above illustration depicts what I like to call my core “PLN toolset.”  Each item represents a different way I connect with my learning network.  It’s important to note here though that my PLN includes information resources as well as people, and is not limited to online activities.  Phone and face-to-face interaction is just as important and just as valuable.

The key for me, ultimately, was the realisation that the building of a network requires action; it requires an investment into seeking people out, getting to know them, and over time helping them get to know you.

Perusing some of the discussion threads and blog posts on the CCK08 course I’m taking tonight I was met with a stark realisation that I’ve left a crucial element out of the description of my criteria for a personal learning network as well as the people in it:  respect for others.

I made an attempt to look at some of the criticisms being leveled against the suggestion that Connectivism is a Learning Theory - and indeed the whole notion of Connectivism itself - and I am appalled by some of the attacks that are being passed off as “academic debate.”  Healthy debate can inspire some valuable trains of thought, which in turn can motivate learners to support their opinions - or even realise conceptual holes - but this must be tempered by logic and objectivity and always respectful in nature.  Some of the tirades I saw were anything but; and frankly I’m disgusted.

I want to make it clear at this point that I’ve yet to side either in favour or against the suggestion that Connectivism is a learning theory.  What I’m interested in first is exploring the concept and underlying theories, discussing their implications and utility with others, and then perhaps eventually down the line coming to a logical, informed decision on where I stand.  The end-all and be-all for me is to determine ways that the subject matter can support learning, and observing the different ways people use online tools and environments to support their own learning.

Trying to turn this very negative series of readings into something positive and relevant to the notion of the facilitation of online communities, this provides a valuable example of a really critical issue in online learning and interaction - the need for moderation.  I’m not sure whether I’d go as far as saying intervention is necessary in some of the posts I read, but as a concept it warrants exploration.

In my experience, when I see an argument carried too far in a forum I’m immediately alienated and any sense of community cohesion quickly vanishes - often times taking with it my motivation for staying.  I’ve left countless discussion groups because of this exact thing; and I suspect I’m not alone there.  Group members who hurl verbal attacks and abuse are exceptionally self-centred people who exhibit a complete disregard for the values and wishes of others.

It’s also highlighted several factors about blogging that I highly value and cherish.  Blogs are very personal spaces, where the blogger makes and enforces the rules; they need not suffer any conduct they don’t approve of.

Make no mistake though, I have no intention of abandoning this course because of a few bad apples - I find the subject matter too interesting and valuable to do otherwise.  I’ve also had some wonderful discussions with people and expect this trend to continue.  However I will think twice before returning to some of the centralised spaces again and will be highly selective about the blogs I read.  With nearly 2,000 students in the course and a lot of existing literature there is no need to frequent areas where the values and conduct are out of phase with my own.

I’m here to learn, not to argue.

More than that though, my ultimate focus lay with the big picture: How to best and most effectively support the learning experience of others.  As Alan Levine said (”I Swear! A Behaviorist Dog Ate My Homework!“):

“Why are people so doggedly tied to a theory? Is one theory fit all? I kind of see useful bits across the spectrum. But the bickering back and forth, the battle to quote the most obscure academic reference, is, well for me… uninteresting.

I care more about what we do with all this.

Brian Kelly from the UK Web Focus blog, began a Seesmic thread earlier this week, by asking “What is the most rewarding aspect of blogging?” Given this weeks FOC08 theme of Blog Networks, the timing of this discussion is quite apt and I’ve posted a couple of responses.

Whether you contribute to the Seesmic thread or not though I think this question is an important one for every blogger to ask themselves, as it can be a valuable reminder of the motives, mission and values that lead us to maintain a blog in the first place.

The discussion began with a post from YouTube, and for some reason the embed clip that Seesmic provides is to the YouTube instance rather than the Seesmic one. So in the interests of providing access to the thread I’ll start with the first response from a Seesmic user. You can view the original YouTube post here.

Original Post:

Resulting Seesmic Thread:

Re: Video blog post 4: Is blogging rewarding?

The downside of video
With respect to online video discussion - and in fact online video in general - one thing I should have added to my second contribution of this thread, but didn’t, is the idea of indexing. Search engines enable us to locate relevant material on the web by indexing the content of posts and then cross-referencing search criteria against it to yield the most likely and appropriate results. In the case of online video this isn’t possible, because there isn’t much of anything to index. Aside from the title of the clip and perhaps key points (if any) included in a description field, the actual contents of the clip are unknown and difficult to determine until you actually view it.

In discussions with other colleagues this was flagged as a major downside of online video, as was the inability to quickly skim the content. Unlike text where the entire message is clearly visible all at once, the only way to consume the information in a video is to sit and watch it at speed. If you get to the end of the clip and it wasn’t what you hoped it would be, too bad.

I think this highlights the significance of properly annotating clips in the description field. Online video is a powerful medium, but it’s important to bear in mind the viewer of the content and give them as much advanced information as possible.

Consider this a mental brain dump. I want to come back to this and compose a more coherent blog post when time permits, but in lieu of this I’d like to present the following thoughts for discussion.

Developing Learning Networks - Significance and PracticeConsider this a mental braindump that I hope to translate into a proper blog post later. I’m very interested in hearing the thoughts of others on this - so please let me know what you think.

In the wake of my preliminary thoughts as expressed in the above clip, I’ve begun to explore the following ideas:

Establishing your personal networks
One of the key tasks to tackle during the initial days of a course like this is establishing your own personal network. In the case of the CCK08 course, some people began doing this several months before the start of session - with language-cohorts developing, as well as SecondLife user groups.

In my case my approach will be slightly different. As I posted earlier, the first task we’ve been asked to undertake is to discuss our background, location, motives for taking the course, and measures of success. Many have posted their contributions to the Moodle forum, which I’ve found to be particularly useful.

As a result of establishing my own personal goals, I will now be able to go through the forums in search of others with similar personal backgrounds and/or objectives. This can in turn lead to the early inception of personal learning communities that help to tackle the deluge of upcoming information that we’re all sure to face as the course progresses.

In terms of my initial thoughts from the Seesmic clip, this process has continued to empower the learner by enabling me to establish my own learning networks based upon my own needs, values, and personal goals. This has lead to a far greater sense of vested interest in the network than activities I’ve participated in historically where groups have been established by a third party. Effectively, this preserves the learner-centred control of the learning experience.

In terms of the facilitating technical framework, Moodle has been quite helpful. Unlike Google Groups instances that I’ve seen used elsewhere I’ve personally found it much easier to browse and keep track of specific threads. This has made the network establishing process very easy.

What do I mean by network?
At this point I’ve realised I’ve made several references to network but haven’t provided much indication of what I mean by that. When I say network I refer to a collection of people whose activities, insights, and reflections I pay close attention to, and whom I make a great effort to keep in regular contact with - either via asynchronous discussion (forums, email, Seesmic, Twitter, blog commenting), synchronous discussion (IM, Skype, webconference), or perhaps SecondLife.

My network is composed of people who’s opinions and judgment I value and trust, and who contribute to my learning experience in a very positive way.

Network filtering of information
The “filtering of information” I spoke of earlier directly involves the contributions of and interaction with the members of my network. I’m not able to track all the information or news that flows down the ongoing river of data, and neither can they. By working together, and remaining in close contact with one another, we are collectively able to cover far more territory as a connective than we could as individuals. This serves to empower and contribute to the learning experiences of all parties involved.

I’ll add more to this post as this process continues.

I was asked by a work colleague to take the department on a tour of SecondLife at our recent staff meeting and spent a fair bit of time earlier in the week putting it together. Unfortunately it didn’t end up happening, so rather than let a perfectly good presentation go to waste I thought I’d transform it into a video that could be shared on the web.

Given a number of my online colleagues, friends and other contacts have begun to discuss similar questions I would suspect - or at least hope - that this video may prove useful to others as well. I’m also quite interested in exploring more widely the questions I pose in the presentation, so if you have thoughts or experiences in this area please leave a comment or trackback with your thoughts.

Also I haven’t historically had the opportunity to do many presentations so any feedback on how I could improve things would be welcome as well. Roll film…

A colleague of mine has indicated I speak way too fast during parts of the presentation. So in the interests of making sense I’ve uploaded a transcript of the talk to Scribd. This file is available below:

While wrapping up my last post on self-directed learning a thought occurred to me that I’d like to explore here.  I’m also hoping to inspire some discussion around the subject since in my mind this could present a key opportunity for higher education moving forward.

I attended a Research Showcase yesterday in which one of the topics covered was Threshold Concepts.  This notion is a new one to me, and to be honest I don’t know much about it; however based on the definition I’ve just uncovered online, a threshold concept is defined as having five characteristics:

1. First, they should be transformative, in that once acquired they should shift perception of the subject.
2. Second, they should be irreversible. Once an individual has begun to perceive the world in terms of a threshold concept it should be inconceivable that they would return to viewing it in a more primitive way.
3. Third, a threshold concept is integrative. Meyer and Land describe this as the capacity of a concept to expose the previously hidden interrelatedness of something.
4. Fourth a threshold concept is bounded. That is, it helps to define the boundaries of a subject area.
5. Fifth, a threshold concept may be counter-intuitive, or lead to knowledge that is inherently counter-intuitive. In grasping a threshold concept a student moves from common sense understanding to an understanding which may conflict with perceptions that have previously seemed self-evidently true.

This has led me to think that perhaps self-directed learning is a Threshold Concept.

Personal Experiences

At least in my own experience, the transformation from a reliance on learning through directed instruction to experiential learning through self-directed exploration took me through all 5 of the above characteristics.

I came to UNSW from a very small, micromanaged private sector company, and had experienced university as a student in a firmly entrenched instructivist model.  I studied Economics at a university of 40,000 people and attended mass lectures in which overhead slides were frequently used, the instructor spoke and students listened.

So when I began at UNSW I was accustomed to being told exactly what I was supposed to do, the way I was meant to do it, when it needed to be completed, and assessed on whether my work was adequate.  The environment I found when I arrived though was diametrically different to this.  There was no instruction, minimal feedback, and an incredible amount of flexibility on what I did, when, and how.

For some time I found this positively excruciating, since I was conditioned to look outside of myself for validation of my work.  When I didn’t receive this information I had a tremendous amount of difficulty knowing what to do next.  In hindsight it was an incredibly difficult period.

According to the Threshold Concepts 2008 Conference website, my experiences characterised the idea of “liminality”:

“Meyer and Land suggest that difficulty in understanding threshold concepts may leave the learner in a state of ‘liminality’, a suspended state or ’stuck place’…”

In the absence of a management structure I was accustomed to, I was in a state of liminality for a number of years.  It was only after making a conscious decision that it was up to me to sort myself out did I start to feel comfortable with what I was doing.  In time this led to a sense of empowerment that has only grown over time.  Now I can’t imagine doing it differently; but it was a very difficult transition.

The Implications for Higher Education

Assuming for a moment that self-directed learning is indeed a threshold concept, in light of my own experiences it would seem that this represents a critical need that higher education could address.

As mentioned earlier though, given the devolved nature of this learning model it would require a much different approach to education as well as a fundamental shift in role from instructor to that of facilitator or moderator, since the student would be informing the instructor on what they would be learning, and how; rather than the other way around.

Given weeks 4 & 5 of my Facilitating Online Communities course is slated to cover facilitating, moderating or teaching I’m hopeful there will be some insightful conversations that might be applicable to this train of thought.

In the meantime if you have thoughts on this idea please jump in and leave a comment - or elaborate on your own blog and link back here so I know where to go for your input.

A post I read yesterday really got me to thinking about curriculum-based instruction versus self-directed learning models.  This post is a reflective writing exercise that seeks to clarify my philosophies on the subject in my own head.

In “Downes on Learning and Web 2.0“, Diego Leal reflects on the following video in which Stephen Downes argues 3 key points:

1. You are at the center of your own personal learning network;
2. To gain from self-directed learning you must be self-directed;
3. These principles should guide how we teach as well as how we learn.

Leal’s thoughts on the video are worth a read, so I recommend you visit his blog for the full run-down.

To a fair degree Downes position flies directly in the face of the traditional model, characterised by a push of information, rather than a pull.  Here mass lectures enable instructors to disseminate information to large quantities of students, with minimal concurrent reciprocal opportunities for them.  The flow of information is largely singular, and is based on the instructors opinions about what students need to or should know, rather than the students’ opinions themselves.

In my opinion, this serves to disempower the learner by placing control of their learning in someone else’s hands, and relegating the student to the role of an information consumer rather than the architect of their own destiny.

To a degree smaller class sizes will afford students more input into the discussion.  Nonetheless, the model still ultimately puts the instructor at the top of the heirarchy, with the lecturer controlling much/most/all of the learning that takes place via established learning outcomes.

This model is not cause for a tremendous sense of ownership in the learning process by the learners themselves, since by definition they rely on the objectives of an external party - in this case the instructor.

The logic behind this learning landscape might be attributed to university accountabilities on accreditation (who they award degrees to), the logistical challenge of facilitating the learning journey of large numbers of people, assumptions regarding student expectations, even liability concerns for workplace competency (for example in the medical field); however the irony in this - at least from my perspective - is that the learning model that is so widely used to educate students is not the one that is used by the staff themselves.

Downes argues that “these principles [on self-directed learning] should guide how we teach as well as how we learn.”  In light of these inconsistencies it seems clear that this just isn’t happening.

This is a generalisation, I admit, however based on my experiences there is a fair amount of validity to it.  Particularly in the research field, much of the work my colleagues and I do amounts to self-directed learning.  In a field where there are many unknowns, there is not necessarily an established, well-worn path.

As a member of the Grateful Dead once said “When you’re on the avante garde, you don’t really know what you’re doing anyway.  You just make it up as you go.”

This analogy is perhaps not a perfect fit, since there are core methodologies used in the research process; but the fact remains that the learning process is largely an exploratory, experiential one in which the outcomes are uncertain.  You cast your net wide and constantly reflect on and evaluate the available information, and in doing so determine the next appropriate step.  You don’t ultimately know whether something will work or not; but that’s where much of the learning process occurs.

Conflict in Generational Paradigms

Innovations in web technology over the last few years have in fact exacerbated the inconsistencies between how we learn and the educational model that higher education and its underlying culture insists on using.

Downes’ video is a good overview in this sense.  Web technologies are now an empowering force in which people can establish or join their own networks and communities - and effectively take an active role in guiding their own learning processes.  These technologies are also extremely collaborative in nature, placing large masses of users at equivalent levels, regardless of existing knowledge or experience.  For all intensive purposes new media (Web 2.0) has dispelled instructivist heirarchies and replaced it with connective learning networks.

It is perhaps not surprising then, that uptake of these new technologies has been slow in higher education.  As I discussed the other day, many of these technologies are inherently out of phase with the current university culture.  So instead of technologies that empower learners such as blogs, wikis and experiential virtual environments, we continue to see use of systems that seek to manage or control learning.  The latter is arguably concerned more with the needs of the instructor and administrators than the learners.

From the standpoint of the existing culture I can understand the concerns and reservation.  The new paradigm brings the entire notion and purpose of instructors and indeed institutions in to question.

As George Siemens wrote yesterday (”Explaining Leads to Information“):

“At one point, we thought content was the value point of universities. Wrong. MIT’s OpenCourseWare initiative changed that. Ok, then the interaction with faculty is the value point. And wrong again. Open communication and collaboration in online environments with networks of peers and experts gave us control over our interactions. Fine. Then the value point is accreditation. Yes, for now. Our ability to rate, review, comment, and provide feedback has increased with the development of the read/write web. I’m not sure how long we can build education’s value on the concept of accreditation. As I’ve frequently suggested, we can glean much insight from a field that has spent more time journeying down the path of shifting value from content to something else: the news/journalism/media industry.”

Personally I don’t feel that universities, educators and facilitators will become obsolete anytime soon.  I do think, though, that it’s critical that this new paradigm be accepted and recognised by the existing culture and that plans be made and implemented that seek to understand and engage with the new methods of learning.  If we are to remain effective in facilitating the learning journeys of university students we must understand where they are coming from both philosophically and pedagogically.

Ultimately the same motives and methods that drive and inform research must be applied to the learning and teaching culture as well.  In research objectivity is key; a theory that is biased towards an outcome jeopardises the entire model.  Assumptions are therefore questioned, tested and retested against new information or circumstances in order to confirm or disprove their accuracy and relevance.  The importance is on realising the true reality, not necessarily the desired one.

Reference:

Stephen Downes’ video is embedded below.  You can also access it directly on Google Video: