TechTicker
educational technology, eLearning & emerging technology

In light of this Friday’s Open Education Workshop being held at Macquarie University this presentation by Stephen Downes is quite apt. It’s a fantastic overview into the nature of open educational resources, or OERs. I’ll try to post a personal reflection my experiences with OERs later, but in the meantime this is a great introduction

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

The presentation embedded above has been prepared for a discussion of last week’s NMC Virtual Symposium 2008 I’m presenting for my department’s monthly Research Showcase. With only 30 minutes to cover the presentation and subsequent discussion I’ve unfortunately had to be brutal in what I leave out - so if you’re work wasn’t included please don’t take it personally. I would have needed several hours to do the symposium justice.

Please feel free to use the comment area on this post to discuss the symposium, this presentation, or anything tangentially related.

[Do yourself a favour and watch this 60 minute presentation in its entirety. It is a truly inspiring and throught provoking experience.]

It’s been a few days since the 2008 NMC Virtual Symposium drew to a close and its full impact is still materialising in my mind. The event was a first for me in several respects - the first time I attended a formal event in SecondLife, my first NMC symposium, and perhaps most important of all, the first time I’ve heard Jim Groom and Tom Woodward speak.

I’ve followed the activities of the North American contingent for some time now - both Americans and Canadians alike - and have gained tremendously from the activities of folks like Brian Lamb, Alan Levine, George Siemens, Stephen Downes, more recently Jim Groom, and many others. In my mind, they are the true innovators. Much of what I know about educational technology today, the way I see education and learning, my views on openness, open source and collaboration - all stem in one way or another from the work they’ve done. So seeing their presentation was a treat. I am but a stumbling novice walking within their tremendous shadows.

The significance of their work to me - and this presentation - lay in several areas. First, that learning can be fun, it can be creative, and it can be fueled by passion and enthusiasm. Equally importantly, that the true power in learning is found within the individual; not handed down in a curriculum or scripted by an LMS module. For me there is no personal investment to be found in the scripted path; no way to gain a sense of my place, or my relevance to the subject or to the other students. If I cannot see my place in learning, I cannot embrace it.

Natural learning is not scripted. It’s not neat, tidy, and orderly; organised or in-line with learning objectives or attributes - to act otherwise is both shortsighted and to our detriment. Learning is messy, complex, complicated, wrought with false starts and at times highly frustrating. It is exploratory, and experiential; fueled by incessant curiosity and endless questioning of our world and our place within it - it is also an inherently personal process that cannot be handed down from on-high. I cannot learn for you, and likewise you cannot learn for me. We can, however, learn together, and learn from each other.

Our circumstances, perspectives, desires, limitations, strengths, existing knowledge or lack thereof are unique unto ourselves - and in this uniqueness lay the seeds of diversity from which truly stunning learning networks and landscapes can develop. The way I see it, the greatest lesson to be learned in education - whether formal or informal, private, public, homeschooled or unschooled - is the notion that we, the learners, have the ultimate power over our learning experiences. We have as much power over our learning journey as we recognise and embrace.

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.

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.

What follows is my submission for CCK08 Short Paper 1

Connectivism is a new theory of learning and knowledge that seeks to explain how the scale and scope of information, depth and levels of discourse and interaction, and technological opportunities that have emerged in the wake of the Digital Age have affected the learning process.

Connectivism can be classified as a learning theory due to its embodiment of five key principles (Siemens, Sept. 2008):

1. We have a need to externalise to make sense;
2. We have a need for frameworks and structures for sense-making;
3. We have a need to socialise and negotiate around knowledge;
4. Our mind is a patterning mind;
5. We have a desire to extend our humanity through technology.

Siemens and others argue that the onset of the Digital Age has produced a climate of abundance characterised by an overwhelming quantity and therefore complexification of information, which existing learning theories fail to address. The significance of networks then is one of both filter and source of information and knowledge, thus permitting “a scaling of both abundance and diversity” (Siemens, Aug. 2008). As such the value or quality of one’s network is dependent on the depth and diversity of their connections.

Furthermore, whereas theories such as Constructivism argue that knowledge is internalised and meaning “made”, Connectivism argues that information has no inherent symbolic meaning, but instead relies on a specific context (Downes, 2007). As such, knowledge cannot be transferred but is instead distributed across networks. The act of learning then involves establishing neural, conceptual, or external connections to nodes within or across networks (Siemens, Sept. 2008) and recognising patterns between nodes. Thus enables the development of further connections.

Importantly, while Siemens (Sept. 2008) argues that consideration for technological opportunities is an important distinction between Connectivism and other learning theories, it is arguably not an essential component. Furthermore, the concept of what qualifies as technology is important to bear in mind as well. Technology does not refer merely to the Internet and web-based tools, but anything that “enables us to overcome our limitations” (Siemens, Sept. 2008) and establish or enhance connections. This includes, for example, telephone, television, and the automobile.

The practicalities of Connectivism
A fair amount of discussion has emerged regarding the practicality of Connectivism – particularly with respect to formal education. Some, including myself at one stage, have argued that Connectivism is very contextually dependent and is therefore more relevant to certain situations than others. Highly structured environments, such as classrooms founded upon instructivist pedagogy for example, will not be as conducive to the empowering of Connectivist learners as a more learner-led environment.

While this may or may not be the case, it’s important to emphasise that the underlying concepts and ideas in the theory of Connectivism and Connective Knowledge are independent of a specific pedagogy or educational model – formal or otherwise. Certainly there are opportunities in which to implement Connectivist learning models in classroom settings, however as Etienne Wenger (1998) discusses in his notion of communities of practice, networks of learning can occur both formally and informally within the shadow of an organisation or educational system.

Effectively Connectivism need not be formally implemented in the classroom to stand as a valid theory of learning; indeed in all likelihood network learning may occur informally outside the classroom.

Joost Robben (2007), found that in a sample of 224 students of preliminary vocational education in The Netherlands: “The technologies that are most frequently used facilitate or support relations with other individuals.” While sweeping conclusions cannot be made based on this sample, Robben’s findings nonetheless point to high levels of interactivity between individuals outside of formal education.

Additionally, given the fact that “On average students have around 200 contacts in their [MSN] contact list,” Robben’s findings indicate the average student is part of a large online network. This is is marked contrast to the number of offline contacts, in which “28% reported to have contact with 5 to 9 friends and 41% reported to have contact 15 or more friends.” These findings would seem to support the Connectivist notions of technology being an important opportunity for facilitating connections.

Conclusion
Connectivism is not a prescriptive model that proposes a universal implementation framework for both formal and informal education. It is a theory that seeks to describe how learning occurs and to a lesser degree, why.  This is a critical distinction for educators to make.  Instead of focusing on perceived problems or challenges in implementing Connectivistic models in the classroom, perhaps it’s better to look to the theory to better understand the way some students are beginning to learn so educators can more effectively connect with them.

Works cited
Downes, Stephen. (2007). “What Connectivism Is” Half an Hour, 3 February 2007. http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-connectivism-is.html

Siemens, George. (Aug. 2008); “What’s the unique idea in Connectivism?” Connectivism Blog, 6 August 2008. http://connectivism.ca/blog/2008/08/what_is_the_unique_idea_in_con.html

Siemens, George. (Sept. 2008) “What is Connectivism?” Connectivism and Connective Knowledge MOOC, 8 Sept 2008. http://elearnspace.org/media/WhatIsConnectivism/player.html

Robben, Joost (2007). Learning Environments for the Net-generation learners. Masters Thesis, University of Twente, Enschede, August 2007. http://joostrobben.info/files/Robben_Master%20Thesis_Learning%20env%20Net-gen%20learners_28-08-07.pdf

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning as a Social System. Systems Thinker, June 1998. http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/lss.shtml [viewed 28 Jul 2008]

Very early on into the CCK08 course I made a connection between the concepts being discussed in the course and those much more specific to my own context.  I have, however, been trying to avoid discussing it - largely out of fear of being branded a radical and burnt at the stake by traditionalists.  Yet something Stephen Downes said in the CCK08 Ustream.TV recording from 19 September really struck a chord with me and I’d like to explore the idea here now.

In discussing the notion of how Connectivism relates to - or can be related to - the learning experiences of children, the conversation began by essentially echoing the sentiments I expressed in my last post.

Paraphrasing the response: In trying to implement a Connectivist model in an authoritarian, curriculum-based, hierarchical structure, educators are effectively trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.  In many regards the two are fundamentally opposed to one another.

You cannot empower learners and encourage them to sieze hold of their own learning experiences while at the same time controlling what they learn, how they interact, who they listen to, the networks they form, the way they are exposed to the information, and the time frame in which they are expected to learn it.  You can’t both give away control and keep it at the same time.

Then Downes went one step further, saying [49:23]:

“We teach our children by separating them from society and putting them in little rooms.  This strikes me as exactly the wrong way to do it…Education ought to be the process of integrating children into society.”

While Siemens took a much softer approach, reaffirming the importance of considering “multiple stakeholders” as well as the role of educational institutions, the implications of Downes’ message were pretty clear.

Thus brings me to my opinion on childhood learning and Connectivism.  The two can absolutely work together, and do it well; but not in traditional, highly structured educational systems.  In my view, Connectivism works best in learner-led environments, and the most learner-friendly environment of them all is the home.

As author, educator and proponent of homeschooling, John Holt, once wrote (source unknown):

“What children need is not new and better curricula but access to more and more of the real world; plenty of time and space to think over their experiences, and to use fantasy and play to make meaning out of them; and advice, road maps, guidebooks, to make it easier for them to get where they want to go (not where we think they ought to go), and to find out what they want to find out.”

Based on the next few minutes of Downes commentary, the above paragraph could have quite easily been said by Stephen as John Holt.

One of the key concepts for many homeschoolers is the importance of connecting interest with real world application.  Instead of lecturing on music, you encourage exploration of musical instruments or go to symphonic concerts; instead of looking at pictures of animals, you go to a zoo or an aquarium, visit a veterinarian or animal shelter.  If parents don’t understand a concept or subject their child is interested in, they don’t fudge it; they seek out someone who does understand it; or better still, explore and learn together.  You don’t teach your child; you facilitate connections with tangible, relevant concepts or people so your child can realise the learning experience themselves.

Furthermore, on several occasions I’ve read or heard Downes emphasize the importance of doing away with the idea that learning is done in a specific place, rather than being natural part of life that occurs anywhere and everywhere.  In my view, by conditioning children to see learning as something you go someplace to do - namely the physical classroom - you imply that learning doesn’t occur outside of there - or worse still, doesn’t need to.

Worse still is the notion of learning being scripted, and the motivation to learn arising from the external in the form of lesson plans with a grade or mark associated with them.  In those conditions, learning becomes something to get through in order to get back to real life, and the focus of the experience directed towards the achievement of a mark rather than the curiosity and fulfillment of the process.

In contrast to this, by tying learning interests back to real life examples and applications - and importantly letting the learner dictate the flow of the experience - with all the tangents that may entail - you reinforce the idea that learning is something to be explored, discovered and enjoyed, rather than endured.

Day one of CCK08 begins today and we’ve been provided with a hefty reading list to get our heads around and start to ponder and discuss.  In addition to this, George Siemens has put together a presentation - “What is connectivism” (audio only version) - to help introduce the topic, as well as place it in the context of several other learning theories such as Behaviorism, Cognitivism, and Constructivism.

Following on this he’s asked us to consider “Do you agree? Does connectivism add something not covered by existing theories of learning?”

My Learning Curve

Thus marks the beginning of a tremendous learning curve, as I have only a basic understanding - if that - of all of these theories.  I’m in the midst of the other readings as we speak and hope to develop a better appreciation during this process.  In the meantime I have also begun to discuss some of the ideas with members of my various networks.

I expect much of this process will involve building/establishing a wider context within which I can begin to explore these ideas.  Almost inevitably this will include seemingly unrelated discussions.

For example a Twitter discussion I had today with @petrock that went like this:

Mike: Spending a lot of time tonight asking questions like “what is knowledge”. Is it discovered, made, acquired, realised or something else…

Mike: Also, is knowledge static, dynamic, dependant on context, etc?

petrock: @mbogle Typically, I don’t see knowledge as discovered. It’s not realized either. Made & acquired, yes. But this depends on the definition.

petrock: @mbogle For instance, a discovery or apparent realization is made and then knowledge is constructed to express that. What do you think?

Mike: @petrock Would you say for example a link is established between two concepts or ideas, and then the nature of the connection identified?

Mike: @petrock Next question is, are we talking about constructivism right now or is this something different?

petrock: @mbogle I think I agree with seeing a “link” and then identifying that. Constructivism may apply but not necessarily. For instance…

petrock: @mbogle Does knowledge made from self-realization fit “constructivism”? Seeing how one acts seems different than linking pre-existing ideas.

petrock: @mbogle If I act like an ass and see it, I have realized something about myself but haven’t really linked theories or used others’ ideas.

Mike: @petrock “I’m not sure” would be the short answer Couldn’t self-realisation involve linking of private/internal ideas?…

Mike: E.g. in order to “realise” something don’t you need to have a comparative point of reference and therefore a way to link ideas?

Mike: In your example, the point of reference could be the ideal, and the realisation occuring when compaing ideal to reality.

petrock: @mbogle Ahh, I see. Yes it could be a result of comparing the ideal to reality. Though, I meant a genuine realization in my example.

petrock: @mbogle For instance, I hurt someone and see that hurt first-hand. I didn’t read in a book what an “ass” is. Rather, the fact penetrated me.

Mike: @petrock But even in this case you’d be making a conclusion. E.g. instead of just observing an effect, you’d also be realising your relation to it

Mike: @petrock …and then comparing this to an ideal of some kind, such as “you’re not suppose to hurt people.” Getting late here too

Comparing Learning Theories

At this stage I can clearly differentiate Behaviourism and Cognitivism from Constructivism and Connectivism, but I’m having some trouble differentiating  the latter two from each other.

Stephen Downes’ “What Connectivism Is” should hopefully shed some light on this.  If you’ll excuse me for quoting this at length, I suspect I’ll need to read this several times before I fully appreciate the implications:

“In a representational system, you have a thing, a physical symbol, that stands in a one-to-one relationship with something: a bit of knowledge, an ‘understanding’, something that is learned, etc.

In representational theories [such as Constructivism], we talk about the creation (’making’ or ‘building’) and transferring of these bits of knowledge. This is understood as a process that parallels (or in unsophisticated theories, is) the creation and transferring of symbolic entities.

Connectivism is not a representational theory. It does not postulate the existence of physical symbols standing in a representational relationship to bits of knowledge or understandings. Indeed, it denies that there are bits of knowledge or understanding, much less that they can be created, represented or transferred.

This is the core of connectivism (and its cohort in computer science, connectionism). What you are talking about as ‘an understanding’ is (at a best approximation) distributed across a network of connections. To ‘know that P’ is (approximately) to ‘have a certain set of neural connections’.”

Justified true belief

The ‘P’ that Downes refers to in the final paragraph of the above quote appears to refer to notion of Justified True Belief account of knowledge.  According to Wikipedia (”Gettier problem“), this suggests that:

…the claim that knowledge can be conceptually analyzed as justified true belief — which is to say that the meaning of sentences such as “Smith knows that it rained today” can be given with the following set of necessary and jointly sufficient conditions:

A subject S knows that a proposition P is true if, and only if:

1. P is true
2. S believes that P is true, and
3. S is justified in believing that P

I’m still trying to get my head around all this.  If anyone can provide some insight I’m all ears.  In the meantime I’ll keep reading.