FLNW thoughts - Sean

[Nichols, Mark]

Sean,

Likewise enjoyed dinner with you – no indigestion, but I suspect the beef lasagne was probably just nuked rather than specially prepared! Besides, why talk shop when getting to know one another is much more important? Your Burning Man photos were a far better use of RL time!

I agree with most of your points but wanted to mention the significance of my email footer (“Develop for the maximum common denominator”). I see this as a progressive activity, as my role expects me to bring all people on board with e-learning to a certain level (see ‘core and custom’ earlier). It doesn’t mean that I limit people from going further with e-learning should they want to, nor that I withhold my support to them. BTW - I have another email footer that reads, “Unfortunately for human progress it is easier to throw stones than to stack them” (made that one up myself).

Some last thoughts. Firstly, in what sense does being in a class group require you to ‘conform’? Does that mean not be different in terms of what you learn, or confrmity in terms of who you are? If you have different ideas to what you’re being taught, it could be a good opportunity to revaluate your own ideas. I know in my undergraduate days I thought I knew more than I did. At that stage conforming to the ideas presented made good sense. Only later did I develop a sufficient framework to be critical – and I was rebuked in my PG days for not being critical enough!

Secondly, you note that the education sector is “behind others when it comes to adopting the new technologies and accompanying paradigms that come with them.” Yep, sure is! But other sectors are able to point toward clear efficiency and effectiveness gains. Research on this area for education tends to be conflicting; real gains are only made when a programmatic approach is taken, hence my own focus on programmes moreso than individuals (making sure that they are not lost in the process, of course). I am yet to see hard data on whether or not Web 2.0 learning really DOES improve outcomes or reduce costs. If anyone is aware of research on this, PLEASE let me know.

Perhaps there’s something to be said for anticipating learners' own development, rather than assuming all learners want to learn informally and in emancipated settings. After all, that’s what effective pedagogy – and my role – is all about.

Mark.

[Sean FitzGerald]

Nichols, Mark wrote:

> Some last thoughts. Firstly, in what sense does being in a class
> group require you to ‘conform’? Does that mean not be different in
> terms of what you learn, or confrmity in terms of who you are?

In the sense that Stephen talks about in that there is a pressure to fit into the group and engage in group think. But I was more reacting to what I thought “Develop for the maximum common denominator” meant, because it sounded to me like developing curriculum that wouldn't allow for individual differences and preferences.

> If you have different ideas to what you’re being taught, it could be
> a good opportunity to revaluate your own ideas.

Or it may be that your ideas are better than your teacher's! I don't mean to sound arrogant - I often change my views on things, but I generally tend to do a lot of research on a topic or subject before I form an opinion. I read widely including opposing views, so I feel I can defend my position. I've had plenty of of occasions where I have disagreed with my teachers and have found plenty of support for my position outside the classroom. There seems to be a disturbing implication in your statement that we should defer to the teacher's position. I think what tends to happen is a teacher assumes a certain authority simply because they hold the position of teacher - an authority that is supported by institutions, and often projected onto the teacher by the students themselves.

> I am yet to see hard data on whether or not Web 2.0 learning really
> DOES improve outcomes or reduce costs. If anyone is aware of research
>  on this, PLEASE let me know.

This sort of research is not really my area, but I am reminded of how mainstream Western medicine doesn't, and likely will never, accept homeopathy, Traditional Chinese Medicine and other forms of alternative therapies. Western medicine considers itself scientific and insists research must follow the scientific method. Their method of testing treatments is to use the double blind method where they divide a group of people with the same illness/condition into two and give one half the treatment (such as a drug) and the other half a placebo. If the half with the treatment fares better than the the half with the placebo, the treatment is considered effective.

But with homeopathy, TCM and other forms of natural therapy the practitioner examines the individual patient and their individual symptoms and prescribes a treatment unique to that individual patient, their symptoms and their circumstances.  Thus these treatments can never be tested using the double blind method, so there can never be statistical evidence or proof that the treatment works, but there are millions of practitioners and patients who can attest to their efficacy.

> Perhaps there’s something to be said for anticipating learners' own
> development, rather than assuming all learners want to learn
> informally and in emancipated settings. After all, that’s what
> effective pedagogy – and my role – is all about.

I think sometimes people think that we are advocating a total abandonment of any type of structure or scaffolding to education, with students left completely to their own devices. I'm not suggesting that myself. I'm suggesting that perhaps the scaffolding and the underlying educational philosophy can change so that the learner is more responsible for and much more in control of their learning journey and learning choices. Some of those choices would include self-directed learning and some would include taking advantage of formal education (and I mean this in the sense of with the guidance and support of some sort of educator/teacher/mentor/facilitator) opportunities when they recognise for themselves the need for some guidance and structure. As I mentioned in an earlier email - I'd be happy to go along to a structured course on Photoshop. I accept that often I don't know what I don't know and that having the guidance of someone knowledgeable in an area can be useful.

Sean

--

Sean FitzGerald
Tel: +61 (0)2 9360 3291
Mob: +61 (0)404 130 342
Skype: seamusy
Second Life: Sean McDunnough
Email: se...@tig.com.au
Website: http://seanfitz.wikispaces.com/

A man is what he thinks about all day long.
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson

[Stephen Downes]

Hiya,

 Nichols, Mark wrote:
> Some last thoughts. Firstly, in what sense does being in a class group require you to ‘conform’?
> Does that mean not be different in terms of what you learn, or confrmity in terms of who you are

I was puzzled when I first read this (not sure where the email went - I am digging out from a massive email load - connectivity in SA and NZ was uniformely bad and my email services did not respond well).

I mean - has he not noticed that the entire concept of the class is based on conformity?

- same start time, same place, same level of work, same subject, same duration, same method of instruction, same texts and resources, same demonstrations of achievements...

And that's before we get into things like school uniforms, peer pressure, cultural norms and more.

I was told to sit down and shut up so often it's now my natural reaction any time i sense a teacher is in the room. The classroom as the cultivator of difference? hah!

> If you have different ideas to what you’re being taught, it could be a good opportunity to revaluate your own ideas.

Well yeah - in the sense that you will discard them entirely or risk being failed.

This isn't so bad in higher education (though it still exists) but is pervasive in K-12.

> I am yet to see hard data on whether or not Web 2.0 learning really DOES improve outcomes or reduce costs.
> If anyone is aware of research on this, PLEASE let me know.

I have written extensively and in detail on the folly of research in this area. See
http://www.acm.org/ubiquity/views/v4i25_downes.html

That said, there is ample evidence from other domains. Kids memorizing Myst maps, solving complex problems in WoW, learning entiure PokeMon sets, etc. There is plenty of evidence there, if people would only look.

> Perhaps there’s something to be said for anticipating learners' own development, rather than assuming all learners want to learn

> informally and in emancipated settings. After all, that’s what effective pedagogy – and my role – is all about.

Anticipating needs is good. When kids - or adults - ask for help, you should be ready. Like the Fire Department.

But your solutikon is more akin to breaking down the door and hosing down the entire house in anticipation of the fire you're sure they'll have.
The tactic might prevent fires (that's what 'research' would show) but is otherwise useless and ineffective. Not to mention damaging.

I'm surprised all this is still at issue. Maybe I've isolated myself too much, because the reaction in recent days shows it is, very much so.
But I am waiting for a well argued defense of the current system, one that goes beyond "that's what we do now".

-- Stephen

-- 

Stephen Downes  ~  Research Officer  ~  National Research Council Canada
http://www.downes.ca  ~  ste...@downes.ca         __\|/__ Free Learning

--

[Nichols, Mark]

Hi Sean,

 

We’re largely in agreement. I’m not advocating deferral to the teacher’s position (and any academic in my College would be absolutely shocked at the thought!)

 

>>Or it may be that your ideas are better than your teacher's! I don't mean to sound arrogant - I often change my views on things, but I generally tend to do a lot of research on a topic or subject before I form an opinion. I read widely including opposing views, so I feel I can defend my position. I've had plenty of of occasions where I have disagreed with my teachers and have found plenty of support for my position outside the classroom. There seems to be a disturbing implication in your statement that we should defer to the teacher's position. I think what tends to happen is a teacher assumes a certain authority simply because they hold the position of teacher - an authority that is supported by institutions, and often projected onto the teacher by the students themselves.

In that case you’re the sort of learner any academic here would be proud to be involved with, and the sort of learner my colleagues here are trying so hard to develop. Not all academics are power hungry, and it is a mistake to paint all with the same brush (not suggesting that you’re doing that BTW). I suspect that many posts criticising formal educators are actually targeting straw ‘people’ (we’re very PC in NZ). Not every educator is authoritarian or unprofessional to the extent that “my word goes”. Of course, Mr Grogan in Form Five was an obvious exception from my own life… but he is overshadowed by many broad-minded and continuously curious academics that have made the biggest contribution to my own development. I’m certainly an independent learner, but I always seek to be informed by others. This is the underpinning goal of PG Ed.

>>… these treatments can never be tested using the double blind method, so there can never be statistical evidence or proof that the treatment works, but there are millions of practitioners and patients who can attest to their efficacy.

I don’t know enough here to comment with any authority, but my suspicion is that tests have been performed. Isn’t the ‘placebo effect’ cited as a reason for their success? Apologies to anyone involved in alternative therapies, please blame my own ignorance for any offence caused by that statement!

 

>>I think sometimes people think that we are advocating a total abandonment of any type of structure or scaffolding to education, with students left completely to their own devices. I'm not suggesting that myself. I'm suggesting that perhaps the scaffolding and the underlying educational philosophy can change so that the learner is more responsible for and much more in control of their learning journey and learning choices. Some of those choices would include self-directed learning and some would include taking advantage of formal education (and I mean this in the sense of with the guidance and support of some sort of educator/teacher/mentor/facilitator) opportunities when they recognise for themselves the need for some guidance and structure.

 

Your first sentence captured my concerns, so I appreciate your statement here. IMHO PG education is particular is well on the route of SDL you suggest. Perhaps we all have more in common than we first thought.

 

>> A man is what he thinks about all day long.
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson

This resulted in a scary ontological realisation that I probably won’t thank you for! I’m hoping Emerson is wrong.

 

Best,

 

Mark.

[Leigh Blackall]

Most of the lecturers I have met, both as a student and in my career, ARE extremely authoritarian. Its not intentional in some cases, in most cases its just a necessity. Dealing with people as individuals soon becomes very inefficient within the current system, and eventually most people just want their job to be simple and reliable.

I would like to see a social experiment conducted.

Take 40 people off the street.
Split them into 4 groups of 10... no! lets make it more realistic, 2 groups of 20
call 1 person in each group a teacher, pay that one person handsomely, ask the others to pay money
say to the others, "before you can earn money like your teacher you must learn this this and this from your teacher"
then watch what happens.

Even without the money bit, I would anticipate results similar to that experiment when prison guard and prisoner uniforms were handed out.

Its not the fault of the individuals, though being aware of the behaviour could help, it is much broader than that. Something even the most progressive teacher struggles with.

--

--
Leigh Blackall
+6421736539
skype - leigh_blackall
http://leighblackall.wikispaces.org/

[Nichols, Mark]

Thanks Stephen. I read your paper, and enjoyed your perspective. Your closing comment “students are already voting with their feet” probably holds the way forward. Empirical studies are one currency of HE institutions; another other is market forces!  

 

Comparison studies in formal education contexts (which are certainly irrelevant under the paradigm you are suggesting) are very inconclusive and contradictory (see for example DiBiase, 2000; Lazarus , 2003; Shaw & Young 2003, Spector, 2005; Tomei, 2006, references available). More work needs to be done here if the aim is to transform HE practice (which is not a goal you would be interested in regardless). Perhaps it is market forces that hold the key to the paradigm shift you desire; if ‘non-institutions’ (not sure of a better term – I use that one in ignorance) were to develop effective learners that became sought-after by employers, HE institutions would either adapt or die (and I’m sure you wouldn’t be mourning at the funeral!)

 

Until then, I for one need to be pragmatic. Opting out and resigning will not help anyone, even though it seemed to be your advice at the eFest keynote! I would be very interested in any writings you have prepared from a more metaphysical perspective, because I suspect it is there where we will find the terminology for more productive discourse. I think that philosophy is the correct arena for this discussion, as your ideas are very much deeper than discussion at this level can expose.

 

>> I mean - has he not noticed that the entire concept of the class is based on conformity?

- same start time, same place, same level of work, same subject, same duration, same method of instruction, same texts and resources, same demonstrations of achievements...

 

This overstates the issue I think. In K12 contexts it is far more true than in PG education ones, which is my immediate area of concern. I would replace the word ‘conformity’ with ‘critical alignment’ as it seems less sociologically charged. The goal of HE is to have people think as experts think rather than to think what experts think, and there is plenty of evidence in this group that higher educators have largely succeeded. We’re all individuals, and none of you are ‘conforming’ across the board. Neither am I. If the issue is really about K12, then let’s be straight up about that rather than painting all formal education as being deficient.

 

I’m enjoying this prying open of things – thanks for humouring me. I’m learning heaps.

 

Mark.

 

---

[Stephen Downes]

Nichols, Mark wrote:

Thanks Stephen. I read your paper, and enjoyed your perspective. Your closing comment “students are already voting with their feet” probably holds the way forward. Empirical studies are one currency of HE institutions; another other is market forces! 

Market 'forces' is a misnomer. What we see in the market is an effect, not a cause.

 

Comparison studies in formal education contexts (which are certainly irrelevant under the paradigm you are suggesting) are very inconclusive and contradictory (see for example DiBiase, 2000; Lazarus , 2003; Shaw & Young 2003, Spector, 2005; Tomei, 2006, references available). More work needs to be done here if the aim is to transform HE practice (which is not a goal you would be interested in regardless).

Hm. Asw I read what you have written, you are recommending more irrelevant work. Why?

I would change HE practice if I could. But it's the sort of effort that reaches diminishing returns very quickly. People are constantly trying to steer you back to 'the institutional context' and 'the reality we work with'. They are saying that these things simply can't be changed. Well, if that's their attitude, and if after a certain p;oint they tune out, there's not much point in continuing.

When asked where we will see the changes first, I always reply, "outside the institution." because, empirically, that's where they always occur first. When asked how to effect change I tell people, "Do it outside the institution, and make it so compelling the institutions are forced to accept it."

Similarly, while most change agents say "You have to get executive and management buy-in" I demur. These people will never buy into significant change - after all, they are doing very well in the current system; they're in charge. I have been saying recently, "to have a revolution, you don't change the government, you change the people." My focus is (to some degree) the teachers and (to a much larger degree) the students. I think the leaders and executives are almost irrelevant - even when you finally get someone supportive in place, they think they're in charge? It's the Reign of Terror all over again.

Perhaps it is market forces that hold the key to the paradigm shift you desire; if ‘non-institutions’ (not sure of a better term – I use that one in ignorance) were to develop effective learners that became sought-after by employers, HE institutions would either adapt or die (and I’m sure you wouldn’t be mourning at the funeral!)

Well what I would actually prefer to see is a parallel publicly-funded system of informal learning developed, a system that would allow people to learn on their own and that could be tapped into by traditional institutions, if they choose.

As for HE institutions, well, I';ve always held that the purpose of the education system isn't to support HE institutions, even if that's where most of them place their priorities. Keeping venerable universities around has history and value (and it seems a shame to waste such nice buildings). But not at the expense of education.

 

Until then, I for one need to be pragmatic.

That's a crock. From my perspective you are being the least pragmatic of all, contrinuting to a vast wastage of educational funds and resources in order to support an obsolete system. What you mean is "I need to be safe." But even that is a false security - just ask newspaper writers! - unless yhou are reasonably close to retirement.

Opting out and resigning will not help anyone, even though it seemed to be your advice at the eFest keynote!

Do I look like I have opted out and resigned?

I am very involved in education. I offer learning to thousands of people every day. I inform public policy. I develop software and other applications, work on system and learning theory, meet with people almost every day, and more.

My way is not the easy way of 'opting out', no matter how you wish to characterize it. Not even slightly.

Again - it's this false dichotomy between 'the institution' and 'chaos'. There is a middle way, the network way, and I have not merely been talking about it, I have been living it for the last decade.

I would be very interested in any writings you have prepared from a more metaphysical perspective, because I suspect it is there where we will find the terminology for more productive discourse. I think that philosophy is the correct arena for this discussion, as your ideas are very much deeper than discussion at this level can expose.

I should probably one day prepare again a volume of my collected writings. I have found recently that my discussions of people have been based on a fragmentary exposure to my views, mostly because there's no easy way to access a lot of this. It doesn't help that m y earlier, philosophical, writings are mostly offline.

 

>> I mean - has he not noticed that the entire concept of the class is based on conformity?

- same start time, same place, same level of work, same subject, same duration, same method of instruction, same texts and resources, same demonstrations of achievements...

 

This overstates the issue I think.

How so?. Support this! Which of the types of sameness I have listed does not exist?

In K12 contexts it is far more true than in PG education ones, which is my immediate area of concern. I would replace the word ‘conformity’ with ‘critical alignment’ as it seems less sociologically charged.

If you mean the same thing, I will adduce the same objections.

The goal of HE is to have people think as experts think rather than to think what experts think, and there is plenty of evidence in this group that higher educators have largely succeeded.

Can't speak for NZ, but in 'the most advanced educational system in the world' (so I am frequently informed) a significant number of people still think there's no global warming, still think Iraq was involved in 9-11, and still think the world is 5,000 years old. I don't define that as success.

We’re all individuals, and none of you are ‘conforming’ across the board. Neither am I. If the issue is really about K12, then let’s be straight up about that rather than painting all formal education as being deficient.

In the population as a whole - including the educated population - there are unacceptable levels of learned helplessness, willful ignorance, and purposeful blindness. The evidence for this is overwhelming - we can examine any newspaper from any city and view it for ourselves. Some people (such as Chomsky) have taken governments and the education system to task for certain aspects of it. But the malaise is pervasive.

Using the independence of the people here as evidence that the people here are wrong is about as ironic and cynical as you can get.

In all seriousness - a lot depends on us being successful here. The world will not survive the current educational system. We are being locked into an educational disposition that will walk us collectively off the cliff. Surely you've noticed this?

-- Stephen

p.s.

 

I’m enjoying this prying open of things – thanks for humouring me. I’m learning heaps.

It's my pleasure, but I caution that the volume of posts here is temporary, as I have the luxury of a few hours, and a new energy that will be more directed as time goes by.

[Nichols, Mark]

Hello Stephen,

 

>> the volume of posts here is temporary, as I have the luxury of a few hours, and a new energy that will be more directed as time goes by

 

Then let me make the most of the opportunity! You mentioned what you would like to see, and I am VERY interested to explore this further:

 

>> what I would actually prefer to see is a parallel publicly-funded system of informal learning developed, a system that would allow people to learn on their own and that could be tapped into by traditional institutions, if they choose.

 

Please elaborate on how you would see this working, in as much detail as your luxury of time will allow. This is the level of discussion that I think would be very useful – you have a very rich conceptual framework, and I am curious as to how you would pour the concrete, so to speak.

 

>> That's a crock. Frommy perspective you are being the least pragmatic of all, contrinuting to a vast wastage of educational funds and resources in order to support an obsolete system. What you mean is "I need to be safe."

 

In my own defence, I do NOT mean ‘safe’. I meant what I said, and I am aware of the distinction between terms. I still put up with the knocks of traditional educators reluctant to see things anew. Networked learning may well be the answer, and as it emerges I will be an active advocate. But for better or for worse, through reasons of choice or non-choice, people still demand formal education and I for one believe it still makes a positive societal difference. My role is not a waste of funds, otherwise (and please accept that I do have at least a shred of integrity!) I would not be here. As mentioned earlier, I am supporting traditional evolution rather than punctuated equilibrium. Whether Charles Darwin or Stephen Jay Gould were correct, both point toward progress within the evolutionary framework (advocating the concept rather than the theory BTW).

 

>> I have found recently that my discussions of people have been based on a fragmentary exposure to my views, mostly because there's no easy way to access a lot of this. It doesn't help that m y earlier, philosophical, writings are mostly offline.

 

There would be great value in such a compilation. I am one with fragmentary exposure to your views, and as I have suggested it is at the philosophical level that productive discourse is likely to be found. At this level we tend to scratch the same issues yet never really address the itch.

 

Anyway, my real interest is in your publicly funded system. Please do elaborate if you have the time; you have my sincere attention and interest.

 

Best,

 

Mark.

 

 

---

From: futureof...@googlegroups.com [mailto:futureof...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Downes
Sent: Thursday, 5 October 2006 11:44 a.m.
To: futureof...@googlegroups.com
Subject: ::FLNW:: Re: FLNW thoughts - Sean

 

Nichols, Mark wrote:

[Stephen Downes]

Nichols, Mark wrote:

>> what I would actually prefer to see is a parallel publicly-funded system of informal learning developed, a system that would allow people to learn on their own and that could be tapped into by traditional institutions, if they choose.

 

Please elaborate on how you would see this working, in as much detail as your luxury of time will allow. This is the level of discussion that I think would be very useful – you have a very rich conceptual framework, and I am curious as to how you would pour the concrete, so to speak.

 

Stephen Downes: 10:12:35

".So, now, how do we build a text this way. " - thios is putting walls around it - but do you need walls around it?

dave cormier: 10:12:53

i need a new word

the word text does carry its old meaning

hence the talk of neologisms that follows

Stephen Downes: 10:14:02

yeah

dave cormier: 10:14:04

but unless your going to start the 'everything forever ever' you need to put a boundary somewhere

Stephen Downes: 10:14:45

well -- it's like grass

or the earth

dave cormier: 10:15:03

the kind you walk on or... the other kind

Stephen Downes: 10:15:10

the kind you walk on

dave cormier: 10:16:00

how so?

Stephen Downes: 10:16:42

well - I was thinking - somebody asked me to talk about what I meant by my alternative of schools and classes

This would be an alternative to texts as well

And I was thinking about how I would frame that

as though I were doing a video

and the way I was thinking, I said (in my thinking, I haven;t written this) is that there would be two parts...

the first would be like the earth

dave cormier: 10:18:21

ok

Stephen Downes: 10:18:40

and then the camera would pan down, and you'd see the earth, then the image would face to a diagram, of a whole bunch of connected enitites, then to a whole series of connected wirtes, then to the earth again

so think of it as though it were this uinderlying layer, a network of multiple intermixed resources, all connected to each other, all stretching out into every direction

That's the first part

dave cormier: 10:20:09

reminds me of the interconnected basement analogy for quantum physics

Stephen Downes: 10:20:16

Then the second part are the individual things that grow out of the earth

each one interacts with a different part of that substructure, and both adds to it and draws from it

these are individual instances of learning - like learning tools, say - things that interact with you and interact with this substructure

dave cormier: 10:21:34

i follow...

Stephen Downes: 10:22:03

the 'learning' is always there, it's like this constantly existing substrate, constantly in motion, always with new reosurces being added and shifted about

dave cormier: 10:22:49

this is a nice model for the super secret project that's going on at the university that I'm going to try and introduce you to when you're here

Stephen Downes: 10:22:51

the 'education' is a particular application drawing from the learning, providing an interface to this substrate - a resource, a reference, an actiuvity, something your personal robot-buddy says, the recipes on your jars of jam, etc

dave cormier: 10:23:09

they have good intentions... but not the breadth of experience necessary to really push the 'limits' of learning

That's a big model stephen

Stephen Downes: 10:23:43

That's the model - that's why it always bugs me when people talk about the 'traditional context' - because nothing in that stops them from working on this

that's *the* model

everything else is an intermediate step

what else would we be leading toward?

people haven't grasped what happens when we have an ubiquitous network

dave cormier: 10:24:47

back to a learning model that is directly connected to its purpose

but your saying we already have one

Stephen Downes: 10:25:05

(I'm going to clip and paste this to thye flnw eemail forum, where I was asked this... so I don't have to type it twice)

sorry, don't get that question?

dave cormier: 10:25:25

and that the only real model for 'the network' is the only large one we have that works

the earth itself

or have i followed your metaphor too far?

Stephen Downes: 10:26:09

ah, yes, of course

this is what I saw in tasmania

"If we can revise our attitudes towards the land under our feet, if we can accept a role of steward, and depart from the role of conqueror, if we can accept the view than man and nature are inseparable parts of the unified whole - then Tasmania can be a shining beacon in a dull, uniform, and largely artificial world." Olegas Truchanas, 1971.

posted on a building in Strahan

dave cormier: 10:27:37

very nice.

so i do understand your metaphor

Stephen Downes: 10:27:53

http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=20

yes

The rest of the model is just details... how do the bits of underlying infrastructure work together, how do applications grow out of it, how doi we use these in pareticular circumstances, how does stuff get fed into it, all of that

dave cormier: 10:33:47

[10:29:42 AM] Nancy White says: Do you k now about fairy rings? Fungus
[10:30:10 AM] Nancy White says: All the structural growth is underground, out of site. The fruiting bodies (the mushrooms) show up in this amazing order that appears to be magical
[10:30:17 AM] Nancy White says: but it isn't. Its the rhizomes
[10:30:46 AM] Nancy White says: It is both structure and randomness both. It is not either or
[10:30:47 AM] dave cormier says: it is the rhizomes
[10:30:56 AM] Nancy White says: It is tension used creatively, not battled

no sense re-writing it

Nancy is great.

Stephen Downes: 10:36:48

Yeah, I like that

[alexanderhayes]

> Most of the lecturers I have met, both as a student and in my career, ARE
extremely authoritarian.<

Nope. They are simply imparting the Cantarian didactics of their own
formal traing with disregard to their exposure to the Thomas Holts and
the Glassers of the utopian edu-tope. They have no authority - they
only gain it in mistakes and formulating their own ways forward in
spite of the slash-burn politics of their proprietal learningware.

As Nancy white retorts, it's no more than three tensions -
http://nswlearnscope.com

Progressives in my opinion dont reside with holidays attached.

It's a known fact given the retraction of humane cues of the "group'
that the individual is more inclined to agree to administer the shocks
to those whom they dont see, dont care, dont engage, dont dont.

Personally, holding a switch which buries a humans digital interactions
into a closed loop is at best reliable and statistically satisfying yet
......hmmmm.......I'm looking for the glitch in the grid. The glitch
that enables my learners to escape the glitch ditch.

Less holidays.

More action.

More love in this god fearing world of do-righters.

Likewise Mark WAS and IS an FLNW a participant. I object to;

> I mean - has he not noticed that the entire concept of the class is
based on conformity? <

That's base.......conformity is not the home run even though the path
is mapped from strike-out.

It's best to know what base your on..... lest you get smacked in the
nose on your way through thinking home is where orange juice is served.
Best be not pushing questions to left of field.

Mark rocks. the uniform may not fit but we have a champion in our
midst.....provided he survives the induction and late-night
shenanigans.

I like a strong. strong Capo. Two sugars and no teddy bear biscuits on
the side......to wake up to.

[Nichols, Mark]

Thanks Stephen, and everyone. And apologies to Sean, whose name has been dragged through this thread in the Subject – but also thanks to him for prompting it.

 

I’ve been loud this week for long enough and now I’m going to reflect on what I’ve got out of it. There will no doubt be some healthy disagreement (I guess that’s what community and networking is all about!) and I stress that these are my points of view. I am not attempting to project these on to FLNW, as if they characterise it.

 

1. We all desire the same thing, but it is not the demise of the institution. Rather, it is the realisation of true social constructivism, as demonstrated by Web 2.0 (also called connectivism?) This is possible in formal institutions, as I think Diana Oblinger demonstrated so well at eFest. Granted, formal education’s not emancipatory; but whether or not formal education should be emancipated is a different debate. As it stands, it serves a public service and provides a social critique (at least in the Uni sector).
2. There is a place for didacticism, provided it is in the context of shared community – that is, provided didacticism is not an excuse for assuming power (as an aside, if there’s no room for didacticism why are podcasts so popular? And why do large rooms of people assemble when they hear Stephen’s speaking?)
3. The future of learning in a networked world is still in its conceptual stages, but worth looking ahead to. I got this from Stephen’s helpful expose of the ‘like grass’ and ‘earth’ analogy. I can see more of what he’s getting at, and it’s well worth pursuing – but it is not yet concrete enough, perhaps, to attract the public funding that Stephen mentioned in an earlier post.
4. The ‘either/or’ thing is NOT helpful. Dualism sucks, as does middle ground. The future relies on multi-dimensional discussion that escapes the ‘black or white’ mentality. I like the way Jesus does this BTW, in Matt 22:17-21. “Is it this, or that?” “Well, actually, it’s this”. Not the middle ground, just a completely different way of appreciating the situation.
5. In the words of Mark Strom (eFest keynote), “Modernism is the emperor with no clothes; post-modernism is the little boy.” That is, PM can criticise modernism but does not adequately solve the problems it identifies. It’s time to outgrow the ill-fitting mental constraints of the PM garment. Bring on PPM; my hope is that it will be a philosophical framework that is socially constructive, self-critical (but not self-conscious), progressive, and tolerant – as characterised by the sort of openness that has been demonstrated in FLNW over the last few days.

 

I’m hanging up for a while now. Thanks for the rich exchange. When I posted my first message (http://groups.google.com/group/futureoflearning/browse_thread/thread/2ce977fb7ffd4b84/44ba2f8b0c19556f#44ba2f8b0c19556f) I wasn’t sure whether I would have rocks thrown at me. The only mention of rocks was in one of Alex’s previous posts… much appreciated.

 

Mark.

[Sean FitzGerald]

Happy to be dragged, and pleased to be a catalyst.

My recent absence from this thread is due to the fact that others are expressing my thoughts - often more articulately than I could - and I didn't want to clog the list with "What he/she said" posts.

Sean

-- 

Sean FitzGerald
Tel: +61 (0)2 9360 3291
Mob: +61 (0)404 130 342
Skype: seamusy
Second Life: Sean McDunnough
Email: se...@tig.com.au
Website: http://seanfitz.wikispaces.com/

If we could see the miracle of a single flower
(or child) clearly, our whole life would change.
-- Buddha

[anne paterson]

Mark, I appreciated your summary and I think it is a rich discussion that has been drawn from Seans earlier posts. I particularly liked the reference to PPM as progressive and tolerant and socially constructive as was the FLNW tour. 

 

I think not being self-concious is a critical part of the paradigm shift to a networked world - not being self concious to learn, or not be an expert. The other aspect of not being self-concious is being available and seen and heard in all the richness of learning that comes all the media that made us feel like we were participants to an extent. I think that is very new for teachers who traditionally aren't exposed like that, and learners too.

 

Lack of Self - consciousness is a critical skill or attribute for teachers and learners in networked world. To participate I think u need to be seen and heard and part of the matrix.

 

Anne

 

I'm hanging up for a while now. Thanks for the rich exchange. When I posted my first message ( http://groups.google.com/group/futureoflearning/browse_thread/thread/2ce977fb7ffd4b84/44ba2f8b0c19556f#44ba2f8b0c19556f) I wasn't sure whether I would have rocks thrown at me. The only mention of rocks was in one of Alex's previous posts… much appreciated.

 

Mark.

 

[leighb...@gmail.com]

Thanks for this Stephen. I waited with held breath for this, it is an
inspiring description. I made an attempt at taking this further, or
grounding it in a scenario that partly explains a model I am thinking
about. <a
href"http://teachandlearnonline.blogspot.com/2006/10/what-would-it-be-like-to-be-rain.html">What
would it be like to be the rain</a>, extends on the idea about
umbrellas I put out a few days days ago.

[Stephen Downes]

Hiya,

Mark can summarize and sign out, but it doesn't make him right.

Not directly related, but here is some theoretical background: http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2006/10/whats-number-for-tech-support.html

OK, on to his comments:

1. We all desire the same thing, but it is not the demise of the institution. Rather, it is the realisation of true social constructivism, as demonstrated by Web 2.0 (also called connectivism?) This is possible in formal institutions, as I think Diana Oblinger demonstrated so well at eFest. Granted, formal education’s not emancipatory; but whether or not formal education should be emancipated is a different debate. As it stands, it serves a public service and provides a social critique (at least in the Uni sector).
   

I am not sure we all desire the same thing. It is clear to me that there is an ongoing desire on the part of some people to direct (in the sense of determine the outcome of) learning. My position is that this causes more harm than  it does good. Using learning in an attempt to mold little children into a certain type of adult usually results in broken children and adults.

That said, if we instead agree that we all are seeking some form of constructivism (and cf. my Connective Knowledge paper http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=33034 ) then while it is possible in an institutional context (anything is possible) it is not likely because of the numerous constrains of such a system. Unless the manner of givernance of a traditional institution changes dramatically (and I see no evidence that it will) people will continue to tend toward directive rather than connective learning.

Not sure what this says: "Granted, formal education’s not emancipatory; but whether or not formal education should be emancipated is a different debate." As to be 'emancipatory' would be 'to promote the self control of students' and 'emancipated' would be 'the institution is given self-control'. Either way, it seems clear that the institutional objective is not (yet?) the individual empowerment of learners. Certainly not within the institutional context, anyways.

As a public service, the educational institution should serve social objectives. This I believe we agree on. Indeed, it is precisely for this reason that some people want educational institutions disbanded - they do not agree with the social objectives currently served by educational institutions. Wherre we encounter differences are in how this social objective ought to be pursued. The directive school believes that the social objective ought to govern learning (and hence learners) and form part of the content of learning (and hence what learners must learn). Connectivists (on my reading) believe that the institution ought only to instantiate these social objectives and that its members should model them to students.

1. There is a place for didacticism, provided it is in the context of shared community – that is, provided didacticism is not an excuse for assuming power (as an aside, if there’s no room for didacticism why are podcasts so popular? And why do large rooms of people assemble when they hear Stephen’s speaking?)

Didacticism - aka 'instruction' or 'guidance' can exist, certainly (by empirical observation) does exist, but (by the same observation) need not occur in a shared community. Indeed, making shared community a requirement for instruction or guidance strikes at the heart of connectivism and learning networks - it implies that you must become a member of a group in order to learn.

Prima facie, this cannot be. It is like saying 'you have to be a part of the class in order to benefit from instruction'. Otherwise, there would be no point to didactic literature, which is drected at people who might not even exist yet, much less inhabit the same group as the author. Didactic museum displays suffer the same fate. Even my own newsletters and podcasts suffer under this definition - either they are not didactic or the definition of 'group' is so watered down as to be meaningless.

Is there a 'sameness' needed in order to benefit from didactics? Of course there is. You need to be (more or less) able to speak the same language as the speaker. You need to inhabit, at some point in time, the same place as some instance of the didactics (you, and the literature you read, need at some point to be in the same room). But there is a clear limit to the sort of sameness required (and arguably it doesn't even include sameness of language), and many evident statements of required sameness (such as attenting the same class, believing in the same values) are manifestly constructions. They are artificial. They hurt, rather than help, the conduct of learning.

Can people 'assemble' in order to learn? Of course they can. Must people do so? Of course not. Is it better to assemble? Depends on what youre trying to do. If it's not interaction - if you are just there to listen and absord - assembly is fine. But for anything else - interaction, practice, innovation - assembly is less fine.

1. The future of learning in a networked world is still in its conceptual stages, but worth looking ahead to. I got this from Stephen’s helpful expose of the ‘like grass’ and ‘earth’ analogy. I can see more of what he’s getting at, and it’s well worth pursuing – but it is not yet concrete enough, perhaps, to attract the public funding that Stephen mentioned in an earlier post.

This future is already attracting significant public funding.

Much of the work involved in putting the 'grass' into place is in the funding and creation of content repositories. At present, the creation and storage of millions of resources has already been enabled (OAI alone has more than a million academic papers). More are available ever day.

The work involved in creating the 'network' part of this is also being widely publicly funded. Institutional projects such as OCW and OKI and Sakai are examples. In addition, mandated contributions to institutional eprints archives are other examples. Work, such as fuinded by JISC on personal learning environments, on architecture is also proceeding.

The question fo whether this future should be funded is moot. It is being funded. The real funding question is this: ho much longer will there be public funding for traditional institutions of learning? How much longer will governments continue to pay for social clubs for rich people?

1. The ‘either/or’ thing is NOT helpful. Dualism sucks, as does middle ground. The future relies on multi-dimensional discussion that escapes the ‘black or white’ mentality. I like the way Jesus does this BTW, in Matt 22:17-21. “Is it this, or that?” “Well, actually, it’s this”. Not the middle ground, just a completely different way of appreciating the situation.

The groups-network thing isn't an absolute. The four dimensions defining this distinction are approximations I'm not even defining anything, really, merely using works to point vaguely to what I mean. The world does not slice and dice neatly into categories. The very same thing might sometimes be called a group and at other times be called a network, depending on your point of view.

To say that something is a 'Network' is to describe a perspective ( = a function, = a way of filtering the perception ) of an enviroment ( = a distributed representation ). It is to view things in a certain way, to act on these things in a certain light. It is to describe, not some essential or absolute property of the thing being described, but rather, to outline (vaguely) our attitude and form of conduct toward that thing.

'Dualism' is a group way of looking at things. You're in or you're out. Where the first act is to try to classify something (think of how much literature does this). The network alternative is to play with things. To interact with them and see what they do.

1. In the words of Mark Strom (eFest keynote), “Modernism is the emperor with no clothes; post-modernism is the little boy.” That is, PM can criticise modernism but does not adequately solve the problems it identifies. It’s time to outgrow the ill-fitting mental constraints of the PM garment. Bring on PPM; my hope is that it will be a philosophical framework that is socially constructive, self-critical (but not self-conscious), progressive, and tolerant – as characterised by the sort of openness that has been demonstrated in FLNW over the last few days.

This seemed to me to be a pretty empty critique. It is certainly empty is it is a critique of what we are doing. For example, to say that we offer no soutions would be simply false.

There is a philosophical framework. It is (more or less) what I describe in 'connective knowledge'. There is a practice. It is (more or less) what George describes in 'Connectivism'. Whether it is "socially constructive, self-critical (but not self-conscious), progressive, and tolerant" is for others to decide. Whether all of these things even mean the same thing as before is an open question.