Monthly Archives: June 2008

George and Stephen’s course

CoffeeblogThis is a must.  From two individuals espousing the benefits of networked, connected “Free-range” learning, a thing they call a course.

The course – Connectivism and Connective Knowledge – (the wiki is here) will be delivered fully online with a combination of synchronous and asynchronous interaction. Participants who have enrolled in the course will receive feedback on assignments and course work and will receive credit for their work. We are in the planning stages of what will become a Certificate in Emerging Learning Technologies (slated for delivery in January, 2009). Connectivism and Connective Knowledge will count as credit in that program. ltc.umanitoba.ca:83/connectivism/?p=15

Read the post: they are taking on some of the critical issues around learning for learning’s sake and learning for credit.

In summary:

  • If learning materials are freely available, what are learners paying for when they take courses? Are they paying for credit?
  • What is the nature of large scale learning experiences? What is the value created?
  • What kinds of technologies should we use? To what degree are we fully distributed?
  • How can we involve participants before and after the course?

This is cool.

I had tea yesterday with a friend who has a wife studying at an institution I have had a lot to do with.  My friend has described a litany of loose ends and sad experieinces with learning over the months, and his wife has in his words “figured out what she needs to do to pass and is engaged in doing it”. Sad.

I’m signed up for this course.  If we can call it that.  I expect to have a challenging and stimulating time, and sort out a few of my ideas further, and have some fun.  If anyone is interested in a New Zealand – or a Christchurch Learning Cell around this course – please contact me.  I’ve also advertised on the DEANZ blog.

More later . . .

Facilitatior or Teacher?? (Part One)

The debate still unresolved.

Probably won’t ever be. From Leigh:

As I teach and facilitate various online courses this year, a lot of the theories and concepts I subscribe to are getting some hard testing. The biggest challenge I am finding is the expectation for a teacher or instructor while everyone talks about a facilitator. I don’t think someone can be both, primarily because a teacher inherits a significant amount of power and traditional roles that counter act the more neutral and passive presence of a facilitator. This post will be a series of thoughts about this tension, and some ideas on how I can better manage my attempts at online learning community facilitation.

There’s a teacher at the party

I find it is all too easy to assume the role of a teacher if you are an expert in your field, but very difficult to adopt and maintain the role of facilitator to a group studying your field.

There is this fascinating thread in the list supporting the Facilitate Online Communities course

Two extracts:

Bron: this is our test of the group email. can you please tell the group about
your idea of a good time. This is a warm up so everyone can see how this
group email works.

Leigh: can you tell me/us how me telling everyone what I think makes up
a good time is going to help me/us understand how to facilitate online
learning communities better and quickly?

And from Bron’s Blog: [http://facilitatingonlinecommunities.blogspot.com]

Some questions: Why is this course called facilitate online learning communities and not teach online learning communities? Is teaching and facilitation really interchangeable? Is facilitation simply one of many techniques that a teacher employs in their work? Or is teaching just one of many 3rd party services that a facilitator might call on in their work? Is it possible to be both a teacher and a facilitator within the same group of people? What are the differences in the roles and what are the social dynamics in play when they function?

Follow on thoughts . . .

Sometimes I think it’s nearly impossible for me to think three thoughts in a linear function.  I often wonder if my degree of ‘success’ such as it was in the classroom was largely due to the ability of my students to sort out the stuff they needed from the rambling and shambolic sessions.  But I also gave every class a book.  And I re-wrote the book every year, set up to print from a pile of masters through the night before the first class.

Day one: “Here is the target: test samples, glossaries, quirky and whimiscal readings and problems, data sets, cartoons, advice (Like do some study), poetry and philosophy”  If I droned on or died they could still pick up enough to ‘pass’ (and notice I did not say ‘learn’ – this only happened sometime)

Rogers and facilitation

I have been fascinated by Carl Rogers. Facilitator extrordinaire.  Here is a quote from the wonderful infed site: (Probably better than wikipedia and citizendium in it’s field.)

Freedom to Learn brought together a number of existing papers along with new material – including a fascinating account of ‘My way of facilitating a class’. Significantly, this exploration brings out the significant degree of preparation that Rogers involved himself in (including setting out aims, reading, workshop structure etc.) (Barrett-Lennard 1998: 186).
Carl Rogers was a gifted teacher.

His approach grew from his orientation in one-to-one professional encounters. He saw himself as a facilitator – one who created the environment for engagement. This he might do through making a short (often provocative, input). However, what he was also to emphasize was the attitude of the facilitator. There were ‘ways of being’ with others that foster exploration and encounter – and these are more significant than the methods employed. His paper ‘The interpersonal relationship in the facilitation of learning’ is an important statement of this orientation (included in Hirschenbaum and Henderson’s [1990] collection and in Freedom to Learn).

The danger in this is, of course, of underestimating the contribution of ‘teaching’. There is a role for information transmission. Here Carl Rogers could be charged with misrepresenting, or overlooking, his own considerable abilities as a teacher. His apparent emphasis on facilitation and non-directiveness has to put alongside the guru-like status that he was accorded in teaching encounters. What appears on the page as a question or an invitation to explore something can be experienced as the giving of insight by participants in his classes.

Having someone in your class of guru like status changes things.  In light of the teaching/facilitation dialogue, this is important.  Sometimes reputation, your first sentence or your first post establishes something – a place to dialogue or not.  Etienne Wenger is superb at this: creating a space to move into.  But he is not just a facilitator.  More sometime.

I hear Leigh tomorrow. And Etienne in two weeks.  Cool

Random Thoughts

ust catching up with some links

The Painted Veil: Movie

A superb movie!! – couldn’t figure out where the title came from, but (from you know where!!) The Painted Veil is a 1925 novel by W. Somerset Maugham. The title is taken from Percy Bysshe Shelley‘s sonnet which begins “Lift Not The Painted Veil Which Those Who Live/Call Life.”

Is Google making us stupid?

Indeed. Is this true of you? From www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google

Bruce Friedman, who blogs regularly about the use of computers in medicine, also has described how the Internet has altered his mental habits. “I now have almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the web or in print,” he wrote earlier this year. A pathologist who has long been on the faculty of the University of Michigan Medical School, Friedman elaborated on his comment in a telephone conversation with me. His thinking, he said, has taken on a “staccato” quality, reflecting the way he quickly scans short passages of text from many sources online. “I can’t read War and Peace anymore,” he admitted. “I’ve lost the ability to do that. Even a blog post of more than three or four paragraphs is too much to absorb. I skim it.”

I’ve been reading one difficult piece regularly recently. I started with the New Yorker. Can’t manage a book yet.

Punished by rewards: Book

by Alfie Kohn, Punished by Rewards – The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s, Praise, and Other Bribes (reference via Tony Barrett)

Nice article from Educational leadership. (in PDF format) and interview with Alfie. www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/pdf/Punished%20by%20Rewards.pdf

” In this groundbreaking book, Alfie Kohn shows that while manipulating people with incentives seems to work in the short run, it is a strategy that ultimately fails and even does lasting harm. Our workplaces and classrooms will continue to decline, he argues, until we begin to question our reliance on a theory of motivation derived from laboratory animals.

Drawing from hundreds of studies, Kohn demonstrates that people actually do inferior work when they are enticed with money, grades, or other incentives. Programs that use rewards to change people’s behavior are similarly ineffective over the long run. Promising goodies to children for good behavior can never produce anything more than temporary obedience. In fact, the more we use artificial inducements to motivate people, the more they lose interest in what we’re bribing them to do. Rewards turn play into work, and work into drudgery.” www.alfiekohn.org/books/pbr.htm

Teaching Awards?? How does this apply to these strange entities? As I have quoted before:

At present the universities are as uncongenial to teaching as the Mojave Desert to a clutch of Druid priests. If you want to restore a Druid priesthood, you cannot do it by offering prizes for Druid-of-the Year. If you want Druids, you must grow forests

(Arrowsmith, 1967, pp. 58-59) Arrowsmith, W. (1967). «The future of teaching.» In C. B. T. Lee (Ed.), Improving college teaching (pp. 57-71). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Cool optical illusions

Got diverted. This is freaky: the winner of this year’s optical illusions competition.

Edupunk

Not sure what I think about this. The term has surfaced on the TALO list. I didn’t even have a clue really what it was all about. It’s probably pretty much the same as cyberpunk.

Gibson said it in a short story somewhere. Cyberpunk is the stuff that has EDGE written all over it. You know, not edge, it’s written EDGE. All capital letters. Now ask me how I’d define EDGE. Well, EDGE is not about definitions. To the contrary, things so well known that they provide an exact definition can’t be EDGE. They probably once were but now they ain’t. SO DON’T TRY TO DEFINE IT!!!”

This is an oft quoted defintion from Thomas Eicher. eg Syberpunk The original link to Thomas Eicher is dead, but if you want to see his real pages (not updated since 2002) try this: www.teicher.net/cyberpunk.html

Cyberpunk

The word ‘cyberpunk’ first appeared as the title of a short story “Cyberpunk” by Bruce Bethke, published in “AMAZING” science fiction stories magazine volume 57, number 4, in November 1983. The word was coined in the early spring of 1980, and applied to the “bizarre, hard-edged, high-tech” SF emerging in the eighties. The story itself is about a bunch of teenage hackers/crackers. (From syberpunk)

Snowcrash of course is the 1991 book from Neal Stephenson that is a classic ‘cyberpunk’ novel.

You have come of age when you have a professional website.

Cyberpunkproject 300x218

Edupunk

Some of the stuff I read doesn’t make sense.  It’s not commubnicating in verbal propositional form in a way I can grasp.  Or coherent images and metaphors.  A bit self indulgent.  Never mind.  In some respects I did identity quite a lot with just the ‘has edge’ bit.  We need edge.  for instance, many ‘academic’ papers don’t have edge.

Hmm. “Has EDGE” I’ve done little more than ponder this: I wonder if I have lost the amount of edge I once had? School can often be injurious to your education. Maybe working in a university can have a similar effect. Nothing more to say really.

PS.  Not everyone likes Edu-Punks. Ken Carrell.

“So here is my take: Allowing Edupunks to define themselves as agents of humanitarian uplift is absurd. Forty year old tenured men in hoodies, talking about revolution is no more than perpetual adolescence and self-indulgence.  By appointing themselves as the Defenders the Oppressed they are pre-empting the right to lecture on the subject. Personally I reserve that right for someone with a grown-up argument and a relatively serious attitude.”

I need less serious and more fun.