FLNW thoughts
Nichols, Mark
Hi everyone,
I was a part of the FLLinNZ gathering on Thursday night at eFest and enjoyed dinner with y’all. I’ve also been following this group and checking the various media you’ve so faithfully provided during the FLNW event. You have certainly challenged the four walls within which I have traditionally thought about things, but I think there are still some larger issues that we would profit from confronting.
Reading between the lines (and on them sometimes!) I get the impression that most of you see no or little value in education institutions, suggesting that classrooms and formal institutions get in the way of ‘real’ learning. Yet they are places where scholars and learners congregate. The course or paper is a forum for learners interested in the perspective provided by a subject expert. This is not to suggest that the expert has all of the answers, but at least they have a strong orientation to issues and to the ideas of others. I would like to suggest that we consider ‘the ‘classroom’ and ‘the institution’ as a venue and not as a metaphor for closed, informal and impersonal education – which everyone agrees is poor, and that no one is trying to endorse (not even institutions themselves). Not all institutional learning can be characterised in such negative terms. If learners did not perceive value in formal education, they would not enrol. There is very little stopping anyone from learning anything they want; public libraries have long been available, and online communities of practice are not difficult to join. If we do not value formal institutions we neither value the academy, nor the ideas they produce, nor the qualifications they provide. Until these values change, formal institutions will remain the mainstay of education. Perhaps we could view them as (or encourage them to become) formal communities of practice, that sit alongside less formal ones?
My own professional decision is to help make these institutions better places, not try to undermine them. I think that we are all well aware of the shortfalls of formal education, but we should also be mindful of the benefits it offers. After all, we have all benefited from it – even if the process was far from optimal at times.
Cheers,
Mark.
----------------------------
Mark Nichols, Strategic E-Learning Facilitator
College of Education, Massey University
Private Bag 11 222, Palmerston North
NEW ZEALAND
T +64 6 356 9099 xt.8830
M +64 (0)27 664 1184
Web: www.massey.ac.nz
Blog: masseyself.blogspot.com
FLLinNZ: www.fllinnz.ac.nz
“Develop for the maximum common denominator”
Marg
conversation...
You make a valid point about the place of institutions in education and
learning.
Nichols, Mark wrote:
>
> Reading between the lines (and on them sometimes!) I get the impression
> that most of you see no or little value in education institutions,
> suggesting that classrooms and formal institutions get in the way of
> 'real' learning. Yet they are places where scholars and learners
> congregate. The course or paper is a forum for learners interested in
> the perspective provided by a subject expert. This is not to suggest
> that the expert has all of the answers, but at least they have a strong
> orientation to issues and to the ideas of others. I would like to
> suggest that we consider 'the 'classroom' and 'the institution' as a
> venue and not as a metaphor for closed, informal and impersonal
> education ...
I'm increasingly aware of how we talk about and dichotomise aspects
like informal > formal; open > close; personal > impersonal; expert >
novice; and so on.
In doing so, we more often than not polarise the argument/discussion
and talk about one at the demise of the other, which is perhaps not
what is really being said. I like your point that our institutions are
places where learners and scholars congregate. There is always a place
for formal learning. I think that we tend to close our thinking when we
use certain vocabulary and pressume to value what those terms mean over
others. It's part of the human condition!
However, I'd be more interested in exploring ways to better manage the
complexities of learning and (re?)establish formal settings in light of
such complexities, rather than polarising or abstracting discussions to
the point of definitions which are far-removed from real experience.
There is a place for experts too. Especially experts who are able to
remember what being a novice is like. Those experts make great
teachers! They also help learners to realise when they are on to
something! They also create space for learning to happen and generally
leave an impression that can last (for some learners in their care) a
lifetime.
I reckon our biggest challenge is engaging learners to learn how to
learn. And to teach others we too must remain engaged as learners. To
do this we probably need to learn to communicate our ideas and
motivations to others in more effective ways and remain open to the
possibilities.
Given your role as a 'strategist' Mark, I'd like to hear more from you
about how you are attempting some of these changes, from your point of
view. I've been toying with some ideas, including things like
envisioning scenarios and so on - how about you? Others? What's
happening out there to communicate and prepare for a future of
learning?
All the best,
Marg
alexanderhayes
Mark, there are a number of people in this world who openly challenge
what structures and architectures are selected to contain 'learning' or
indeed suppress communication with undue order and structure.
It takes a degree of choas and disorder to engage people even a teenie
bit in critical discourse.
I attend conferences all year long and they generally have me bored
silly in a couple of hours. Prattle rattle and lots self congratulatory
behaviour.This un-conference gave me an opportunity to de-construct my
own bias and egotistical teaching nightmare.
> Reading between the lines (and on them sometimes!) I get the impression
that most of you see no or little value in education institutions,
suggesting that classrooms and formal institutions get in the way of
'real' learning.<
Perhaps reading on them is more likely to result in the facts rather
than a filtered fiction.
No pun intended - I reckon our biggest challenge is engaging teachers
in how to un-learn in order to be able to teach. Thats a reality. We
all seek to see the learner in the teacher - all so often lacking.
Would you agree that the first things in life for learners occur in
rules and teachers are only too happy to re-inforce them ?
Stephen Downes
I have discarded the long answer in favour of the short.
And the short answer is this:
- the opposition is to a particular manner of doing things, described as 'groups', not to entities named 'schools' and 'institutions'
- that said, it is observed that most people cannot separate the two in meaning, seeing an attack on one as an attack on the other
- they then seek a 'middle ground' which is not really a middle ground, but merely a restatement of support for the school and institution
- which is in essence support for the 'group' way of going things
- in fact, the network position is the middle ground, occupyinbg the space between 'individual' and 'group'
All this was said in my talk. I thought I was pretty clear, but I must not have been. I hope this clarifies.
I am also disappointed that after statements in both my video and my talk to the effect that I am not drawing a hard and fast polarized distinction and that the words are used merely to indicate an idea and not some sort of ontology, that I am within two days held to be polarizing.
Also:
Marg writes, "There is always a place for formal learning."
This is presumed by most everybody (all of whom happen to be employed in formal learning) but what I want to know is: why? What makes this so? Especially given the huge prevalence of informal learning, why do we clink to that last remnant of formal learning?
-- Stephen
-- Stephen Downes ~ Research Officer ~ National Research Council Canada http://www.downes.ca ~ ste...@downes.ca __\|/__ Free Learning --
rgrozdanic
anyway...
i would MUCH prefer a formally schooled dentist over a DIY enthusiast. and there are any number of contexts where formal learning (in my opinion) is preferable to an informal approach. i currently (no pun intended) work with young electricians and other trades students in a system called apprenticeships which IMO works extremely well - a highly structured and even perhaps ritualised kind of learning structure which balances theory and practice in sometimes dangerous industries which provide a way for people to move through levels of confidence and competence without killing themselves or other people. recently i was involved in literacy and numeracy assessments and i can tell you that if i had asked the "not yet competent" students to "explore" their way towards the needed understandings of trigonometry, order of operations, ratios etc in their spare time (rather than providing a structured, formal remedial program) they'd have hated it. and not only that, it would have wasted a bunch of time. just like alot of their schooling did, which is how they ended up "completing" 12 years of school without having picked up these basic skills in the first place. (i happen to think that alot of "unconferency" types of ideas have been misunderstood in formal education systems resulting in the worst of both worlds; education that is badly designed/unstructured and delivered by despots. Whereas i think that content can be quite cool and its the environments that need to be flexible, responsive and enriching).
so yeah - Mark, i was glad to read what you wrote today because it opens up the dialogue and i fully intend to dive in the minute my brain stops whirring from the NZ trip. i personally think there's something wrong with people who agree with each other all the time so it's good to see the edges of things that were explored F2F at unconference starting to radiate out here in the forums. (oh - btw Stanley - i never said that i thought blogs were the best way to distribute conversation - that was Leigh and a few of the others - i'm a fan of fora, communities and lists :-))
hope this makes sense - i honestly do feel like my brains are fried - will try to be more coherent before i post again.
r
Stephen Downes
Terry Marler
Programme Developer,
Educational Development Centre,
Otago Polytechnic,
Dunedin, NEW ZEALAND.
>>> ste...@downes.ca 3/10/2006 7:28 p.m. >>>
I have discarded the long answer in favour of the short.
And the short answer is this:
- the opposition is to a particular manner of doing things, described as 'groups', not to entities named 'schools' and 'institutions'
- that said, it is observed that most people cannot separate the two in meaning, seeing an attack on one as an attack on the other
- they then seek a 'middle ground' which is not really a middle ground, but merely a restatement of support for the school and institution
- which is in essence support for the 'group' way of going things
- in fact, the network position is the middle ground, occupyinbg the space between 'individual' and 'group'
All this was said in my talk. I thought I was pretty clear, but I must not have been. I hope this clarifies.
I am also disappointed that after statements in both my video and my talk to the effect that I am not drawing a hard and fast polarized distinction and that the words are used merely to indicate an idea and not some sort of ontology, that I am within two days held to be polarizing.
Also:
Marg writes, "There is always a place for formal learning."
This is presumed by most everybody (all of whom happen to be employed in formal learning) but what I want to know is: why? What makes this so? Especially given the huge prevalence of informal learning, why do we clink to that last remnant of formal learning?
-- Stephen
Sue....@openpolytechnic.ac.nz
this, the approach to learning or both? I've been interested to see the
views expressed here. Some of the views here seem to be suggesting that
formal learning is about being 'teacher-centred', or its because its
under the roof of a particular institution. Sometimes as educators we
need to create/facilitate 'environments' (or scaffolding) for our
learners to learn - so that yes, they can in fact build the skills and
the confidence to be independent thinkers who want to contribute to an
open network of ideas. Not all learners come 'ready made' with these
skills/confidence. Where standards are involved, especially because of
safety, learners need to have an environment where they can learn
safely. Its usually a formal learning organisation which can provide
this. So, we can create virtual/simulated worlds where learners
experiment, but in designing such 'worlds' we need to include some
scaffolding so that learners who need extra help and guidance can get
it. Many learners are deprived of the kinds of environments where they
have the kinds of freedoms we take for granted. When I listened to
Stephen's anecdote about the African Boy tending his animals - and his
question about whether it was appropriate to try and put that boy into
a formalised 'institutional' education setting then of course this
harked back to debates that have been going on for many many years. In
some societies (e.g. industrialised) if formalised education had not
been set up, then many people would have continued to be exploited. In
those cases it was the combined strength of the group that helped to
stop such ill-treatment. Don't let's get hung up on semantics -
whatever we call it I think its about what meets our needs - there's
absolutely a place for open spaces where individuals can have the
freedom to think and challenge/be challenged on their thinking, there
is a place for support structures, where individuals can learn from
others' experiences (a group even) and feel safe when doing so, and a
place where individuals need to reflect in private (Bronwyn's point).
I've enjoyed seeing the challenges presented during the tour, even
though I wasn't able to take part in person.
Stephen Downes
> hello stephen - good to see you finally got home safely after your
excruciatingly long trip (5 cities?) home.
Frankfurt - Bloemfontein - Johannesburg - Kruger - Cape Town - Sydney -
Dunedin - Stewart Island - Christchurch - Whangarei - Auckland - Wellington
Phew - I'm tired just typing that.
> i would MUCH prefer a formally schooled dentist over a DIY
enthusiast. and there are any number of contexts where formal learning
(in my opinion) is preferable to an informal approach.
OK, let's examine this.
What you (I think) mean is that you would rather have a good dentist (a
qualified dentist?) rather than a bad one (or an unqualified one). The
presumption here is that a formal dental education makes this more
likely, both from the point of view of producing good dentists, and from
the point of view of you being able to identify them and distinguish
them from the quacks.
So I ask:
1. From the point of view of producing good dentists, are you sure that
formal learning produces better learning than informal? Or as I would
rather state it, are you sure that group learning produces better
learning than network learning? It is important to recognize that
informal or network learning is not the same as no learning, or even the
same as chaotic learning. It is still learning, but organized in a
different way.
2. From the point of view of you being able to identify them, isn't this
the task of certification agencies and professional associations? If a
dentist passed all the test and were recognized by other dentists as a
dentist, would it matter how he or she learned dentistry?
> i currently (no pun intended) work with young electricians and
other trades students in a system called apprenticeships which IMO works
extremely well - a highly structured and even perhaps ritualised kind of
learning structure which balances theory and practice in sometimes
dangerous industries which provide a way for people to move through
levels of confidence and competence without killing themselves or other
people.
It is interesting that the trades are the one area that has resisted the
industrialization of learning. That is probably why the trades are today
viewed as being something like second rate learning (a contention I
would resist - I see very strong parallels between, eg., hacking
medicine in the 1880s, hacking electric motors in the 1900s, hacking
cars in the 1930s, and hacking computers in the 1990s).
Network learning has a lot in common with apprenticeships - much more in
common with this than with formalized (and sterilized) teacher lectures
and classes in schools. As for the internal ritual of apprenticeships -
one would ask, does this extend to the practice itself? Does an
experienced electrician use some sort of particular instructional design
theory to lecture the apprentice on how to wire the light bulbs?
Probably not - apprenticeships (at least the non-theory part) IMHO are
based as much on the demonstrate - practice model of learning as
anything, which to me fits squarely in with the model of network learning.
> recently i was involved in literacy and numeracy assessments and i
can tell you that if i had asked the "not yet competent" students to
"explore" their way towards the needed understandings of trigonometry,
order of operations, ratios etc in their spare time (rather than
providing a structured, formal remedial program) they'd have hated it.
and not only that, it would have wasted a bunch of time. just like alot
of their schooling did, which is how they ended up "completing" 12 years
of school without having picked up these basic skills in the first place.
If these are basic skills how is it that they are able to function in
the workplace without them? To me the definition of a basic skill is
that you cannot function without it. It seems to me that trigonometry
falls under the heading of 'optional' or 'enhanced'.
Seymour Papert writes, "I asked (choosing one out of a vast number of
possible examples) why the quadratic equation of the parabola is
included in the mathematical knowledge every educated citizen is
expected to know. Saying that it is 'good math' is not enough reason:
The curriculum includes only a minute sliver of the total body of good
mathematics. The real reason is that it matches the technology of pencil
and paper: It is easy for a student to draw the curve on squared paper
and for a teacher to verify that the assignment has been done
correctly." http://www.papert.org/articles/school_reform.html
> (i happen to think that alot of "unconferency" types of ideas have
been misunderstood in formal education systems resulting in the worst of
both worlds; education that is badly designed/unstructured and delivered
by despots. Whereas i think that content can be quite cool and its the
environments that need to be flexible, responsive and enriching).
This part I agree with. I like content too (I had better, I produce tons
of it each day). I like giving talks and explaining what I mean.
Sometimes I even like arguing, though not when I'm losing (happily, a
rare phenomenon). Learner centred and learner managed learning does not
mean giving up our knowledge, expertise, wisdom, and experience and
standing on the sidelines while people fumble their way to mediocrity.
We need to understand this point too - not just the conversation that
takes place from the perspective of the learner, but the contribution
that ought to be made by the educated.
I also agree that all of our brains are fried. So much happened, even in
a single day, that it is impossible to reconstruct everything that
happened. Impossible to place it in a context - it has created its own
context. But, we try.
-- Stephen
Sean FitzGerald
Mark - I enjoyed talking with you on the Thursday night at dinner and I'm surprised some of these issues didn't come up then. I guess you may have thought it would just end up in a bad case of indigestion for both of us! :-)
Reading between the lines (and on them sometimes!) I get the impression that most of you see no or little value in education institutions, suggesting that classrooms and formal institutions get in the way of ‘real’ learning.Yet they are places where scholars and learners congregate.
I believe in the value of institutions, but their role needs to be challenged. I agree there will always be a need to have spaces where scholars and learners congregate, but it's the hoops they are expected to jump through that allow them to stay there that I have a problem with. It's the idea that you must learn what we say you should learn, in the way we say you should learn if you want to get on in the world that I have an objection to. And it's the idea that sitting in a classroom talking about the world, rather than going out and learning by experiencing the world is the only or the best form of education that I have an objection to.
I think there will aways be a need for spaces to discuss the theoretical aspects of any subject (and the proportion of theory depends on the subject), but there is a lot more scope from getting out from behind the walls and learning experientially.
If learners did not perceive value in formal education, they would not enrol.
I'd rather see some form of system that acknowledges learning no matter where or how it is gained.
My own professional decision is to help make these institutions better places, not try to undermine them. I think that we are all well aware of the shortfalls of formal education, but we should also be mindful of the benefits it offers.
After all, we have all benefited from it – even if the process was far from optimal at times.
“Develop for the maximum common denominator”
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/ Blog: http://elgg.net/seanfitz/weblog/ Podcast: http://castingthenetpodcast.blogspot.com/ Nothing will ever be attempted, if all possible objections must first be overcome. -- Samuel Johnson
Sean FitzGerald
> I'm increasingly aware of how we talk about and dichotomise aspects
> like informal > formal; open > close; personal > impersonal; expert >
> novice; and so on.
>
Hear! Hear! We haven't been very post-modern, have we? :-) There's a
tendency to get into either/or instead of either/or/and.
I for one see the role for both open and closed spaces, formal and
informal learning and, yes, even LMSes alongside Web 2.0 tools and
networked learning!
> There is always a place for formal learning. I think that we tend to close our thinking when we
> use certain vocabulary and pressume to value what those terms mean over
> others. It's part of the human condition!
>
I think part of the problem here is that everyone has different ideas
about what formal learning is.
Is formal learning any learning in a formal setting, such as an
institution set up for the purposes of learning, as opposed to
experiential learning in the community?
Is formal learning a traditional way of delivering learning - me
expert, you learner.
Or is there a type of formal learning where there is a teacher as
facilitator, whose expertise is acknowledged, but who teaches in a more
student-centred way?
I'm more than happy to go to a short course and learn from an expert how
to use Photoshop, providing I am not coerced, I know what I'm getting in
advance, I get what I expected, the teacher teaches in a way that treats
me like an individual, and with respect and in a way empowers me.
So perhaps it's not formal learning that is the problem, it's the way
it's delivered. And perhaps the problem is that it's seen as the only
way, and that informal learning (learning without a teacher) is not valued.
> There is a place for experts too.
I agree. I thought the attempts to deny we were experts during the
preparation for the event and the development of the wiki were a bit
silly. We have expertise in certain areas and I think we should not be
afraid to acknowledge that. It's how we behave towards others that
counts. People seem to think that saying you are an expert is an act of
arrogance. Being an expert in something doesn't necessarily mean we are
going to be better than anyone else, we just have spent time and effort
becoming knowledgeable in a certain area. People can have differing
opinions and disagree with us and I can respect that.
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/
Blog: http://elgg.net/seanfitz/weblog/
Podcast: http://castingthenetpodcast.blogspot.com/
The most important thing we can do is to hear
inside ourselves the sounds of the Earth crying.
-- Thich Naht Hahn
Marg
I guess it is how we choose to define 'formal' and that a definition
may be influenced by our own learning experiences. I can 'formalise' my
own learning simply by setting a timetable in which I'll read texts,
review my study information and make sure I still fit dinner in. :o)
The term 'scholarship' basically means 'focused study'. I'd be happy to
see formal learning as simply that: focused study - wherever it is
(institution and kitchen table); wherever (scheduled tutorials and
recording thoughts to my mobile travelling home on the bus); with
whomever (colleague in Melbourne and Masters lecturer in Sydney).
I like where Leigh is going in his 'Out from under the umbrella' post
(http://teachandlearnonline.blogspot.com/2006/10/out-from-under-umbrellas.html),
where he considers the apprenticeship model. I also like Stephen's
thinking about an open and publicly funded system that tradition
institutions might like to hook in to. It's something I think many
would hope for and indeed we have had publicly funded education that is
being strangled by a government who seems intent on de-valuing learning
and its role in society. many of our current politicians (I'd argue
most) have themselves been recipients of free education. Now look at
what Julie Bishop is saying right now for God sake! We're in danger of
becoming even more of a nation state!
[http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20534218-1702,00.html]
Like others, I'm grappling with my own sensemaking of all this and
continue to hold onto many questions. I just hope to not become
paralysed by these questions and not be creating/initiating action
myself, and to continue to see the people first and always.
What brilliant minds AND open hearts you all have! :o)
Warm bits,
Marg
James Knightly
To Leigh, Alex, Marg, Rose and any others that took me hostage in the minivan from the Wellington Airport to the efest conference. While I am still trying to digest and figure out how to implement your ideas into my rather 'didactic' learning institute, I want to thank all you guys/girls for contagious, infectious nature of the FLNW experience and the spark it has left in the minds of all you meet.
James.
Leigh Blackall
--
Leigh Blackall
+6421736539
skype - leigh_blackall
http://leighblackall.wikispaces.org/
Teemu Leinonen
In this discussion there seems to be a lot of confusion in the way of
using the following terms: group learning, network learning, formal
learning, informal learning.
In my own bias way of thinking - as I am a member of many groups and
operating in many networks - these terms are not contradictory at all.
Number of groups I am involved in - our extended family, our study
circle of difficult books, our study groups at the university
programs, our research group etc. - are all important groups of both
*informal* and *formal* learning. Some formal learning events related
to operations of these groups - lectures, exams, conferences,
seminars, workshops and discussions in a closed spaces - are actually
supporting the informal learning processes. The groups are also very
well networked, as you may see for instance from the variety of
groups I am operating in. The people working in the different groups
are naturally creating the links between the groups and the people.
So, why groups? Or lets call them now networked groups?
Because groups - at least for me - are entities that are aiming to
some *goal*. In the case of learning it is hopefully "learning" or
something that could be called "better understanding of the phenomena
under study".
To make it less painful for all, the group agrees on norms and roles
in the group. This makes it easier to achieve the call. In some group
we may even have a leader (you may call her teachers, master, boss or
whatever you want) that is recognized to be more advanced expert of
the topics under study. As a leader she has took the trip before and
may help the others on their way. She knows how people will get over
the obstacles when aiming higher level of critical understanding on
the phenomena. She is also committed and interested in to help others.
Because I do not see this taking place in networks build out of nodes
of individuals, I prefer groups. Groups with people who share common
norms and roles and are aiming to co-construct something. To make
culture.
- Teemu
-----------------------------------------------
Teemu Leinonen
http://www.uiah.fi/~tleinone/
+358 50 351 6796
Media Lab
http://mlab.uiah.fi
University of Art and Design Helsinki
-----------------------------------------------
Stephen Downes
... groups - at least for me - are entities that are aiming to some *goal*... the group agrees on norms and roles in the group. This makes it easier to achieve the call...
... I prefer groups. Groups with people who share common norms and roles and are aiming to co-construct something. To make culture.
Every sees the Middle Ages from the point of view of the Kings and Lords, never the serfs.
If someone else were defining the goal for you, if someone else determined the norms and roles,
if it was someone else's culture, would you still prefer groups?
Teemu Leinonen
Stephen Downes kirjoitti 8.10.2006 kello 22:29:
> Teemu Leinonen wrote:
>> ... groups - at least for me - are entities that are aiming to
>> some *goal*... the group agrees on norms and roles in the group.
>> This makes it easier to achieve the call...
>> ... I prefer groups. Groups with people who share common norms and
>> roles and are aiming to co-construct something. To make culture.
>
> Every sees the Middle Ages from the point of view of the Kings and
> Lords, never the serfs.
In Middle Ages in my part of the world there were no kings, lords or
serfs. In a global scale we are not even exception in this. Maybe
this makes me think that even today we may live without kings, lords
or serfs.
> If someone else were defining the goal for you, if someone else
> determined the norms and roles,
> if it was someone else's culture, would you still prefer groups?
Repeating: the *group* defines and decides on the goals, the norms
and the roles. If you are part of the group *you* are doing it.
Stephen Downes
>Repeating: the *group* defines and decides on the goals, the norms
>and the roles. If you are part of the group *you* are doing it.
>
>
This is mythology. Hegel on a small scale.
Teemu Leinonen
>> Repeating: the *group* defines and decides on the goals, the norms
>> and the roles. If you are part of the group *you* are doing it.
>>
> This is mythology. Hegel on a small scale.
What might be mythology for you can be true and real for me. Which
makes it possible to become true and real for you too.
- Teemu
alexanderhayes
Groups, networks, ecology, masters, experts etc. - have we progressed
this conversation past
http://headrush.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/progress.jpg yet ?
I remember Leigh posting this to teachandlearnonline.blogspot.com a
while back and I've used it to through things at ever since.
> I also agree that all of our brains are fried. So much happened, even in
a single day, that it is impossible to reconstruct everything that
happened. Impossible to place it in a context - it has created its own
context. But, we try. < Stephen D.
So true. If we were to try I'm sure that there would be an implosion
and we'd all be left standing in the middle of a big intellectual
vacuam.
> Because I do not see this taking place in networks build out of nodes
of individuals, I prefer groups. Groups with people who share common
norms and roles and are aiming to co-construct something. To make
culture. < Teemu L.
I'm so glad we got past the fruit salad stuff :-)
Gladiators and knights and mythology makes for a more magic mix dont
you think ?
Stephen Downes
>http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/learning_communities.htm
>
>Groups, networks, ecology, masters, experts etc. - have we progressed
>this conversation past
>
>
http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=36031
Teemu Leinonen
> http://headrush.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/progress.jpg
The picture is missing the "networked groups". This is a third model,
that is found most efficient in many places. In the "networked
groups" there are some elements from the "old" and some from the
"new". I made a list:
* Networked, not too slow
* Shared but managed knowledge
* Ideas “paid forward"
* Mentors / teachers who are committed to work with the groups
* Learn by building knowledge
* Progress by “Shoulders of Giants”
* Wisdom
I am right now too tired to draw a picture. Anyone interested in to
remix the original picture with the "networked groups"?
Another thought and a question:
I was yesterday in a seminar arranged by the Finnish MInistry of
Education and with several people we discussed if we could put the
latest national curriculum on a Wiki so that anyone (well you must at
first study the language) may improve it. This "improved" document
could then be the bases for the next curriculum.
Have any of you heard about similar kind of project in some other
country? I know that the South African national curriculum is in the
Wiki Books but is it used to "improve" it or is it just there for
people to have a look?
Stephen Downes
If you want a middle way, you need to grapple with the distinctions.
What is the middle weay between 'central coordination' and 'individual autonomy'.
What's the middle way between 'uniformity' and 'diversity'?
What's the middle way between 'exclusive access' and 'openness'?
You are creating new 'divisions' in your list below, and then crossing them. But you need to bridge the actual distinctions between networks and groups.
-- Stephen
Stanley Frielick
I have been following the threads closely - why did I have any
misgivings before the FLNW tour about the possible lack of
'outcomes'?? :) Been a really inspiring debate and has rekindled all
sorts of thoughts for me ... too many I guess to reply coherently
here. Have managed though to compose a couple more posts - perhaps
bridging the distinctions between 'networks' and 'groups', perhaps
not....
"Suddenly he saw the city as a vast network of thoughts …. The
universities were places for self-perfection, places for the highest
education in life. Everyone taught everyone else. All were teachers,
all were students. The sages listened more than they talked; and when
they talked it was to ask questions that would engage endless
generations in profound and perpetual discovery.
Ben Okri - Astonishing the Gods" (it's a book about building bridges too :)
more at :
http://www.flexilearn.com/?p=4 and
http://www.flexilearn.com/?p=5
-Stanley
PS - thanks Leigh for the comments. I'm beginning to see the value of
a 'networked' way with blogs, shaking off that academic rust :)
Teemu Leinonen
Stephen Downes kirjoitti 11.10.2006 kello 14:11:
> This isn't 'Networked groups'. It's 'Groups'.
I think that if I'll write that it is a "networked group", a claim
that *it is not* without any more reasoning is pretty dull.
My first point in the list "networked, not too slow" means that the
group itself can operate more as a network than a "coordinated
group", still it is not "open, non-coordinated network". At first the
group itself can be networked. Secondly it's members as individuals
should be networked in many ways: in other networked groups, but
also as individuals in open non-coordinated networks. I see this
model to be beyond the "group" and "network" models.
> If you want a middle way, you need to grapple with the distinctions.
I think I am no more looking for middle way but a way beyond or a
third way.
> What is the middle weay between 'central coordination' and
> 'individual autonomy'.
Beyond way is a "autonomy of networked groups".
> What's the middle way between 'uniformity' and 'diversity'?
"Networked groups with diversity".
> What's the middle way between 'exclusive access' and 'openness'?
"Open access".
> You are creating new 'divisions' in your list below, and then
> crossing them. But you need to bridge the actual distinctions
> between networks and groups.
I am not trying to bridge the distinction. I am trying to show a
third way - beyond the distinction between groups and networks.
- Teemu
Stephen Downes
I am not trying to bridge the distinction. I am trying to show a third way - beyond the distinction between groups and networks.
I mean - what is this exactly? 'Beyond way is a "autonomy of networked groups".' It's very unclear. But so far as I can tell, it's still groups.
And this? '"Networked groups with diversity".' Still groups.
I really hate to be harsh, but to me this is just nonsense (in the literal sense, in that, it makes no sense to assert it):
My first point in the list "networked, not too slow" means that the group itself can operate more as a network than a "coordinated group", still it is not "open, non-coordinated network". At first the group itself can be networked. Secondly it's members as individuals should be networked in many ways: in other networked groups, but also as individuals in open non-coordinated networks. I see this model to be beyond the "group" and "network" models.
Or maybe 'the group is composed of people who are in networks' (with people outside the group?)
But as far as I can tell, you are still basing you approach on groups and then trying to attach some sort of network property - like diversity or openness - to it.
Like this, for example:
What's the middle way between 'exclusive access' and 'openness'?"Open access".
---
Now, having said all that, a better approach would be to look at this groups-network thing in the way I intended it, as a statement of an attitude or approach or way of looking at the world (loosely, a functionalist definition) rather than in the way I explicitly stated it should not be regarded, as a way of dividing things or an ontology or system of categorization (loosely, an essentialist definition).
Saying something then, is a perspective, a set of recommendations on how to regard or how to approach a collection of people. The contrast between groups still holds, but now there is not some presumption of an ontological essence underlying it.
To think of a collection of a people as a network, for example, is to think of them as a diverse collection of autonomous individuals, connected and interacting in a loose, open-ended manner. It is an approach that takes as fundamental respect for their differences and respect for their right to self-determination. It is an approach that doesn't see them as (or try to make them) somehow the same, that isn't based on trying to tell them what to do (what they should read, what they should hear).
When viewed in this way, I think you should see why I see so little value in the 'third way'. Part of it is the why of it - why is the description above unsatisfactory. A 'middle way' approach does nothing to address that. Part of it is the distinctiveness question. What is distinct about not treating people as autonomous one way (ie., the group way) or another way (ie. the third way)? This seems to me to be the same thing, no matter how you are approaching it.
---
Teemu Leinonen
Stephen Downes kirjoitti 11.10.2006 kello 17:42:
> I mean - what is this exactly? 'Beyond way is a "autonomy of
> networked groups".' It's very unclear. But so far as I can tell,
> it's still groups.
You may include my concept of "networked groups" to your category of
"groups". Fine.
However, still I think your definition of a "group" do not match with
my definition of a "networked group". I am a not native english
speaker, so it is also possible that we have a language problem in here.
Anyway, I am a member of many "networked groups" that are very
different from the "groups" you are talking about - or at least how I
interpret your definition of them.
> And this? '"Networked groups with diversity".' Still groups.
Still "networked groups with diversity" - not just groups you are
talking about (again my interpretation).
> I really hate to be harsh, but to me this is just nonsense (in the
> literal sense, in that, it makes no sense to assert it):
>
>> My first point in the list "networked, not too slow" means that
>> the group itself can operate more as a network than a "coordinated
>> group", still it is not "open, non-coordinated network". At first
>> the group itself can be networked. Secondly it's members as
>> individuals should be networked in many ways: in other networked
>> groups, but also as individuals in open non-coordinated networks.
>> I see this model to be beyond the "group" and "network" models.
> You are saying 'the group operates as a network but is still not a
> network' or something like that.
I consider "network way of doing thinks" something that is possible
also in groups, not only in an open network.
That is why I called these "networked groups". There is no hierarchy,
the group is self organizing, making decisions on norms and rules
while operating, build culture etc.
> Or maybe 'the group is composed of people who are in
> networks' (with people outside the group?)
Also this.
> But as far as I can tell, you are still basing you approach on
> groups and then trying to attach some sort of network property -
> like diversity or openness - to it.
Exactly. Networked groups are groups with some network properties.
This is the idea of going beyond the groups and beyond the networks
(as they are defined by you).
My own experience of working in groups with network properties are
very good. We may also approach this from the network approach.
"Networked groups" are networks with some group properties.
Example: the FLNW "group" is not a "networked group". It is a
network. This is because we have not agreed on any objectives, norms
or roles in it. We are just a network. An interesting one, but still
just a network.
> Like this, for example:
>
>>> What's the middle way between 'exclusive access' and 'openness'?
>> "Open access".
> If there is no distinction to be drawn between being in the group
> and not in the group, if there are no boundaries whatsoever, in
> what sense is it a group? I would not have common purpose, shared
> values, nor even need to be in some way proximate.
Open access in my case means that the group is "publishing" their
results when they feel that they have reach a state when they feel
comfortable to do so. The discussions and the work in process can be
be limited only for those who are member of the group.
The communication may also take place in an open space if this is
decided by the group. Still the aim is to have common goals, norms
and roles among those who are taking part in the work in the group.
> To think of a collection of a people as a network, for example, is
> to think of them as a diverse collection of autonomous individuals,
> connected and interacting in a loose, open-ended manner.
Without some group properties, such as goals, norms and roles (agreed
by the autonomous individuals) there will be very little results -
unfortunately.
I also find the demand of being "autonomous individual" very western
phenomena which is rarely seen very important in most parts of the
world.
> It is an approach that takes as fundamental respect for their
> differences and respect for their right to self-determination. It
> is an approach that doesn't see them as (or try to make them)
> somehow the same, that isn't based on trying to tell them what to
> do (what they should read, what they should hear).
I do not see how groups would take away people's right to self-
determination, if you are free to join and leave any of the groups
anytime.
All in all this is very interesting. I see that the demand of being
"autonomous individual" will actually make everybody the same,
whereas being part of "networked groups" with their own identities
will guarantee that we will be different.
> When viewed in this way, I think you should see why I see so little
> value in the 'third way'. Part of it is the why of it - why is the
> description above unsatisfactory. A 'middle way' approach does
> nothing to address that. Part of it is the distinctiveness
> question. What is distinct about not treating people as autonomous
> one way (ie., the group way) or another way (ie. the third way)?
> This seems to me to be the same thing, no matter how you are
> approaching it.
Hmm.. Sorry to say: the last paragraph is pretty much nonsense for me
- in the literal sense. Again it can be my personal problem of being
first at all something else than english language speaker (or
autonomous individual :-)