on reflection
Leigh Blackall
Regards
Leigh
--
--
Leigh Blackall
+6421736539
skype - leigh_blackall
http://leighblackall.wikispaces.org/
sparker
Apology accepted, one of the most interesting things to come out off
this group so far for me is the lack off conversation in this space,
(though appears to have been of great interest when meeting group
members face to face). I look forward to the day when there is a
general change in attitude to open up and freely express oneself
online as a whole.
Going back to my questions of the group:
# How do you encourage participants (students teachers) at all levels
to want to participate and express themselves within an open network?
# How do you quickly seek resolution and overcome differences of
opinion elevating a conversation to have meaning focus and relevance?
# How do you quickly generate agreed solutions to specific
questions/problems?
On reflection I think this must be tied to effective communication
skills in networked conversations, by this I mean network members
respecting and utilising
Reflection on communication skills (As you have done ;-)
Attending behaviour
Active listening
Paraphrasing
Summarising
Reflecting
Using questions
Perception
Difficulties with communication
Conflict
Thes are skills that I feel I must work on with myself
I also think there must be a collective a tone for the commuiction set
by the group a sense of purpose, respect, ownership and support within
an online space . How to achieve this? Not sure but starting to work
and respect the rights VTE students to work within an open environment
is a start, kicking off a little trial on Monday...
PS. I have found Jo Mcleay theopenclassroom blog to be very good check
out
http://theopenclassroom.blogspot.com/2006/07/internet-safety.html
Also building up resource with tag :NLR
http://del.icio.us/stevenraymondparker/nlr
Cheers
Steven
> ------=_Part_83053_8978434.1155246659889
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
> X-Google-AttachSize: 587
>
> I want to apologise to Steven for my harsh tone in criticising his efforts. I don't know what's come over me lately. Its a credit to Steven that he has maintained composure and positivism throughout my tantrums. I want to say that I appreciate Steven (and other's) efforts and hope I have not alienated myself from that too much, or demotivated the efforts of others in anyway.
> <br><br>Regards<br>Leigh<br clear="all"><br>-- <br><br>--<br>Leigh Blackall<br>+6421736539<br>skype - leigh_blackall<br><a href="http://leighblackall.wikispaces.org/">http://leighblackall.wikispaces.org/</a>
>
> ------=_Part_83053_8978434.1155246659889--
Tyrrell, Colin
I know I am one of the people you speak of when you commented on lack of conversation.
As per our chat the other week at Technology park, I have been thinking quite a lot about the original question.
The reason I had not written till now has been mainly lack of time but also I was trying to come up with something concise. This has not happened yet so here are some of my initial thoughts.
Briefly:
to question 1: the encouragement to participate: this must be done on the basis of trust and respect.
The same as in a physical group where people are bound by laws such as libel and slander, assessment and anti-discrimination, etc.
These same aspects of our community need also to apply to the virtual community. Often, these are not reflected because some people believe in the virtue of free speech and think that everyone has the right to say exactly what they want in what ever way they want.
These laws are not an infringement of free speech but actually help it.
Example
If person A believes in something and says it, but person B thinks differently and calls A a nutcase on nothing more than self thought, person A is likely to be insulted and will possibly not speak again or worse get a reputation that is not true because person B has a large social following. In the virtual world this has become a hot topic.
I think back to a hot topic on TALO last year about a student removed from college because he critised his lecturer. Many people supported the student's right to make these comments. I don't. If you think that a person is wrong or has something against you there is a proper course of action. Nearly 30 years ago I had a lecturer who failed me because I dared to question his theories, based on research I did during 2 teaching pracs. Rather than public name calling (which back then and possibly still today whould have seen me thrown out of uni and possibly charged for libel/slander), I took it up with the Dean of studies, resubmitted the papers to different lecturers, and ulimately it led to the uni taking action against the person (especially as I started a charge of others who had like wise been marked down).
People need to bbe encouraged to be objective and not subjective. To say things supported by fact not feeling. To be willing and able to defend their statements in court if necessary (so to speak). In an open community it takes a long time to get a good reputation but only one careless/malicious statement to ruin a career. And mud slinging is not the answer.
You set some rules for this group. That is fair because you created it, and people know where they stand. And I think we saw some of the reaction from Leigh. And I am glad that Leigh came back with his statement below. It is an example of reflection on an action that could have got out of control.
Therefore a framework that encourages openness goes a long way to get participation. Otherwise a direct question to one or 2 people in the forum (like direct questions in class) may help start some action.
The answers to the other 2 come out of what I have just said. If people respect each other and the rules of society, then the conflict may not arise. If it does, the agreed rules of engagement help find the common ground for the differences. If they are personnal the should be taken offline, out of the public forum and dealt with quickly.
This leads to the question of moderation. Always a touchy subject. But some examples of positive uses: my son has a large blog site. He vets the posts of new people and some others. If someone posts something he deems offensive or aginst his "rules" he takes them ofline and may take it up with the writer. Originally this was to stop spam, but it had a larger result. And he openly states this in the note on the comments screen. Has this stopped freedom - no. In many ways it has freed others to respond and be open with their thoughts. He has stopped lots of spam but I don't think he has not allowed publication of a comment.
My thought on moderation also includes that if I were to deem something unfit to allow (by my rules) I think I would be inclined to publish a comment staing the reasons. (A bit like the rules around mobile phones and music in class - don't disturb the next person and respect me and the rest then you wil make the right choise - and they usually do.
I think that your relections below sum up my thoughts as well.
Colin
My blog: http://colinselearning.blogspot.com
________________________________
Hi Leigh
http://del.icio.us/stevenraymondparker/nlr
Cheers
Steven
**********************************************************************
This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain
privileged information or confidential information or both. If you
are not the intended recipient please delete it and notify the sender.
**********************************************************************
rgrozdanic
# How do you encourage participants (students teachers) at all levels to want to participate and express themselves within an open network?
- Find champions/the "converted" and get them to model the behaviour and culture you're encouraging.
- Provide structured, simple opportunities to participate (and in my view these should be as playful and non-threatening as possible at first - in the olden days of the AFLCommunity we used to regularly run polls and competitions that were designed to just get people CLICKING on something eg "what colour underpants are you wearing today?", "what Star Wars character do you most resemble?").
From there we had a scaffold-type setup where people could move from minimal engagement (the example above, designed to get them used to the environment) through the various levels of engagement and difficulty - competitions with easy/fun conditions, conversations about opinion (rather than fact, which is more threatening in terms of talking "in front of the whole world" and not wanting to look stupid - opinions can't really be "wrong"), opportunities for people to share facts/knowledge in areas where they're strong/confident, encouragement for people to ask for help/advice in areas where they'd like to learn more, etc. Which eventually hopefully leads to people sharing strong opinions in areas where they're weak/wobbly (where new knowledge lurks, waiting to be lit) which can also be a recipe for smackdown but i tend to think that's not always a bad thing anyway 'cos by then you've got relationships and most relationships can survive the sort of thing we've just seen with you and Leigh where the respect and trust is implicit and people are generous/well meaning. So I reckon it's ok to run with the passion and enthusiasm sometimes and not mind the p's and q's so much. But of course it depends on the sort of culture you're building. Informal networks are more - er - informal and I prefer them 'cos there's less pressure to sound a certain way or whatever. And I reckon people are more resilient in informal networks where you can just talk freely, which in my mind means you also chill out a bit more about whatever is said and not take it so personally or whatever.
- Give people jobs to do with clear instructions and lots of support. (Like you would at a party when someone's hanging around looking uncomfortable - "here - take these spring rolls round and offer them to people").
- Accept that some people don't want to talk/write/actively engage and are happy to read/listen/watch. We accept silence in F2F forums - I think the whole expectation about total engagement from all just pathologises reticence and natural reserve. I also have mixed feelings about the whole open network thing where one's conversation is viewable by everyone in the world. My personal preference would be to also provide annexe type areas where people can talk privately within a group that is at least defined/bounded by someting (membership?) and requires some level of disclosure/personal information/ID/whatever to access the discussion. Remember that to many people, talking in a form like this feels like they're standing with their eyes shut in a huge auditorium full of people they don't know. It's pretty scary.
- I also think it's up to you and your champions to get the ball rolling, much as the idea of a caring, sharing, totally democratic environment built from the ground up might be an ideal. Leadership is not a dirty word and I think it's a good thing to structure things the way you think they should work and then go from there, supporting people in the growth of their confidence and empowerment (and then cursing yourself later when they storm the Bastilles... :-)
# How do you quickly seek resolution and overcome differences of opinion elevating a conversation to have meaning focus and relevance? # How do you quickly generate agreed solutions to specific questions/problems?
On reflection I think this must be tied to effective communication
skills in networked conversations, by this I mean network members
respecting and utilising
Reflection on communication skills (As you have done ;-)
Attending behaviour
Active listening
Paraphrasing
Summarising
Reflecting
Using questions
Perception
Difficulties with communication
Conflict
I also think there must be a collective a tone for the commuiction set by the group a sense of purpose, respect, ownership and support within an online space . How to achieve this? Not sure but starting to work and respect the rights VTE students to work within an open environment is a start, kicking off a little trial on Monday...
Good luck.... heh.
r
alexanderhayes
Alex : Group. .......e'collective......roped
in..........nominated.....self
selected.......mates.........friends......colleagues......I'm glad
you've realised your part of more than one group....for a while there
last year, TALO seemed to be the only progressive group where a few
bolshi cigar smokin e-geeks back patted and spliced form with function.
It was more than entertainment value. The lurkers and stalkers have
made themselves obvious this year. Who else commands 40 responses to an
EDNA thread even when everyone's saying Moodle is Noodle.
Steven: How do you encourage participants (students teachers) at all
levels
to want to participate and express themselves within an open network?
Question yourself as to why your coining such termninology. Any student
I know, 16 - 80 would tell you to clout off if you defined their
participation in an elearning educational setting as open networked
behaviour. In my estimations there is no " within". Stop trying to box
it in. The secrets out.
As Rose suggests offer a few more trays of spring rolls. As Colin
espouses, stand your ground and if you think your on to something be
prepared to defend it. Open network ? Far from it. Question whats
occured and dont dismiss the reality that we are bound by. Government
employees have a charter and only the brave tout the line. LMS and
Smart Teachers are here to stay.....or have we decided to move on from
all that ?
As for Leigh's apology I'm calling ......... Not for an instant do I
consider it appropriate tirade after tirade to keep interjecting fuel
where the fire burns brightly ( speak from your heart son ). Teaching's
not friggin dead. The act of didactic, paternalistic teaching may well
be home and hosed dead....redundant.....useless......worthy of a
t-short .....circumvented........crap......... but nothing will take
away from those who have informed themselves, have invested countless
de-schooling hours and who have challenged, stepped up, fought the
battle, argued, disagreed etc. and still call themselves teachers /
parents / educators.
I recall being as angry, pissed off and as disenchanted within the
slow cycle of the education sector but hey....jump ship and work in
Justice or DOCS or Health and see wheels grind, and children squirm and
familys explode and souls expire. Sign warrants and court orders and
know that your signature was no fancy geek week speak but the reason
for a crying mother and a traumatised father.
Steven in my humble estimation has stepped up to the mark and I'm
damned happy he has....and he's endeavoured to keep this conversation
"open". .......at least he replies and converses with those who also
contribute and not by fear, favour nor gender. We are priveleged for
gods sake! A critical discussion is great but a trite, vindictive and
self absorbed one is as useless as a flag poking out of a lump of poo
that says Howard Made Me Do It
My advice has been to put the god danged link back and be done with it.
Everyones seen the content and only one person decide to remove it.
Hands up who says reinstate the post ? !
.
Steven : How do you quickly seek resolution and overcome differences of
opinion elevating a conversation to have meaning focus and relevance?
Alex : Immediately. Nor do I think that those worthy of my energy need
prompting. Nor do conversations ever waver between focus and relevance
under pinned by opinion. I have an opinion which shifts as sands drift
and seas sway and birds flutter. ....my ethics however never waver.
The petty panterings of the party politic are never far from what one
would say when they cut to the chase such as " I dont appreciate nor
honour what you are saying. Could you consider and listen to my point
of view please ? " Failing that cut back to your Botox injections
facelift pose and feign aloofness. One of the above is bound to resolve
the situation - human pending.
# How do you quickly generate agreed solutions to specific
questions/problems?
With lightning speed. As often as policy will allow. As common as a HQ
Holden hammering down King Street on a Saturday night. As quick as a
stuck pig in quicksand. Nothing has a definitive left brained answer
for as complex an issue as moderation or netiquette nor other
right-brained antics which relate to being and educator. Questions /
problems come from attachment to issues which need solutions that
cannot be outsourced no matter how hard we try.
Fact is no-ones demotivated rather making careful decisions as to which
way to go next.