EdVentures in Technology
teaching, learning and change
Archive for Connectivism
February 17, 2007 at 8:00 pm · Filed under Connectivism, Social Software, Web 2.0
It appears that Mr. Internet himself, the esteemed Senator from Alaska, Ted Stevens, is at it again. He has introduced into the Senate a new bill entitled “Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act (S49).” But this post is not so much about this proposed legislation as it is about you and I.
Danah Boyd brought this latest version of DOPA to my attention in her post from February 9th. Danah was active in speaking against the first version of the bill and is feeling that another battle may be brewing. Her frustration is summed up in this quote:
“…i spent the bulk of the fall talking to politicians about this issue. I spoke twice in DC to rooms full of Hill folks and FTC people. I spent hours with AGs who were unwilling to listen to anything that i said. I talked with congresspeople and senators, aides and state officials. I talked to hundreds of reporters. Perhaps it is immature of me to wimper on my blog about my exhaustion with this topic but i am most definitely heartbroken by having to face this bill again. It took up the bulk of my fall and i felt very alone in that fight. Politics is not my world and i don’t know how to engage with it productively without it tearing me apart.”
I was compelled to comment on her blog and I’ve included the text below but the bottom line for me is this -
For all our talk about how Web 2.0 changes everything, we still have neither cultivated nor mastered the ability to come together as one and become our own political action machine. Yes, there are paid lobbyists whose sole job is to sway the vote of our elected officials. But what prevents all of us from becoming an even larger voice? What prevents us from creating the next evolution of the Read/Write web - the Read/Write/REACT web? Reading and writing is critical for personal and collaborative reflection but what we need now and will need in the future is to harness that and turn it into ACTION! Seems to me that we should be cutting our teeth on smaller issues so that we are better able to address the larger ones.
Food for thought…
My comment to Danah:
Danah, I can definitely understand your frustration although I admire the passion and commitment that it took on your part to see it through the first time.
It strikes me that perhaps some of your frustration stems from the feeling that you are a lone voice in the wilderness. For all the talk I hear in the edublogosphere and elsewhere proclaiming that the wonderful world of Web 2.0 is bringing people together and shrinking the world, we aren’t necessarily walking the walk so to speak. NCLB, DOPA and its progeny are just one example of what can occur when the best of intentions are co-opted by the political machine. Rather than going it alone, what would it take for us to combine and bring to bear the consolidated efforts of our library professionals, education professionals, and affected individuals from around the world. Rather than speaking as individuals, could we instead create a community of practice that cultivates a voice, a very loud and voting voice? Let’s make the web our tool, rather than being tooled ourselves.
Sorry for the rant but I hate to see someone with the passion you possess succumb to despair. The world requires balance - when the scales tip to one extreme, it is up to us to bring them back around.
Cheers!
John
[tags] dopa, internet, legislation, danahboyd, tedstevens [/tags]
powered by performancing firefox
February 10, 2007 at 9:42 pm · Filed under Connectivism, Learning Theory, Teaching & Learning, Web 2.0
The 2007 Online Connectivism Conference is in the books although the wrap-up event will be held at 11 CST/noon EST on Monday, February 12th. As a tool for myself but for others who would find this helpful, I’ve compiled the links to most of the PowerPoint presentations, audio files (mp3), video files (m4v), Elluminate sessions (when they worked) and Chat Text. Feel free to delve into these rich conversations, but if you want more, check out the Moodle site at: http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/moodle/
Day 1 – George Siemens: Connectivism: Learning conceptualized through the lens of today’s world
Day 2 – Will Richardson: Connective Teaching – How the Read/Write Web Challenges Traditional Practice
Day 3 – Diana Oblinger: Balancing Agility and Stability in Higher Education
Day 4 – Bill Kerr: A Challenge To Connectivism
Day 5 – Stephen Downes: The Recognition Factor
Day 6 – Terry Anderson: Research and Net Pedagogies
Thanks to Jim Coyle and Stephen Downes for the audio files, Thomas Bernhardt for the Google Video files, George Siemens for posting the chat text, and thanks to Elluminate for hosting the recorded sessions. And a big thanks to all the presenters who offered up their PowerPoint presentations for us to reference in the future. This type of open sharing in a wonderful community of practice sets a terrific example for others to follow.
[tags] connectivism, occ2007, siemens, richardson, oblinger, downes, anderson, kerr [/tags]
powered by performancing firefox
February 5, 2007 at 2:31 pm · Filed under Connectivism, Higher Education, Learning Theory, Social Software, Web 2.0
The opening session to the 2007 Online Connectivism Conference
just concluded and my head is spinning (In a really good way). There was so
much investment in this room, over 190 participants in the Elluminate session.
The message board was rolling, the discussion thought-provoking (even if,
especially with the differing opinions), and my hands couldn’t keep up with my
thoughts!
I came away with a number of things that I need to think more about:
- The importance of the relationship of context to
information, knowledge and learning.
- The continuing geometric explosion of information in
both pace (sum of knowledge doubling every 18 months) and breadth means
that we need to puruse less linear perspectives on how learning and
what knowledge mean to those of us involved in education, but more
importantly what it means to our learners both present and future.
- Monolithic institutions such as government and higher
education require large forces to affect changes in their culture. Are the
changes that are presently occurring in these areas a result of our
connected culture?
- How we facilitate bidirectional communication across
distances has changed dramatically in the last century in both modality
and in speed.
letters -> telegraph -> telephone -> radio -> cell
phone -> Internet
- Impact on authority – This is changing our concept of
trust (verification, digital savvy) and requires an approach using a
critical eye as opposed to open acceptance.
- A sea change from knowledge as product to knowledge/knowing
as process
- Our current web environment is cultivating an architecture
of participation powered by network effects (the strength of the
community).
- And yet the sheer abundance of information creates its
own problems – we’re drinking from a fire hose!
- George identified three means to accommodate the flood
of information:
- Increase human capacity (evolve bigger brains)
- Increase technological capacity (via bio-augmentation)
- Increase procedural capacity (employ network
intelligence)
The driving question for many of us
attending the Online Connectivism Conference is:
What is
connectivism and how does it apply to education?
Please check it out. Better yet, join the Moodle
and dive into this community of practice! We look forward to learning with you!
This is food for thought… And I’m starving!
[tags]occ2007, connectivism, siemens [/tags]
powered by performancing firefox
January 29, 2007 at 11:00 pm · Filed under Connectivism, Higher Education, Research, Teaching & Learning, Web 2.0
In one more case of attacking the symptoms of a problem rather than the source, some academians are refusing to allow students to cite Wikipedia entries in their papers. Now understand that I am not advocating for the unconsidered citation of Wikipedia or any other encyclopaedic work. But the net result of this effort is not an improvement of a process, but rather the unstated opinion that wikipedia, or any collection of socio-collaborative knowledge, is not of value to the educational process.
From Inside Higher Ed, comes this post:
“…the history department at Middlebury College is trying to take a stronger, collective stand. It voted this month to bar students from citing the Web site as a source in papers or other academic work.”
I am not trying to vilify the faculty at Middlebury, as a matter of fact I agree that making any decision or basing an assumption of fact on a single source is a dangerous idea at best. However I would opine that we should instead operate from the assumption that all of our sources should be considered suspect. Regardless of the source, in this digital age of information we should all be instilling within our learners a clear and focused approach to vetting that information. Rather than banning or explicitly ignoring social sources, we should instead be teaching our students how to verify their data. Even peer reviewed journals, the historical bastion of credulity, are not without their own margin of error(1).
I liken this process to the following analogy:
Growing up, I was a cadet in the Civil Air Patrol. One of our primary missions was search and rescue, often relying upon ELTs (Emergency Location Transmitters, now known as EPIRBs), to locate downed aircraft. If we were to rely upon a single line of bearing, the margin of error is such that we would be unlikely to find the plane. Utilizing two lines of bearing from two different angles results in a lower margin of error, but one with a significant search grid. But using triangulation, three lines of bearing, results in a degree of accuracy which minimizes the search grid and maximizes the chance of finding the aircraft.
If we were to use this approach with our information, we would require at least three sources from differing angles (read bias, approach, study type, etc.) to corroborate the meaning we derive from our data.
Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, and by their own admission should never be used as a primary source.
Wikipedia officials agree — in part — with Middlebury’s history department. “That’s a sensible policy,” Sandra Ordonez, a spokeswoman, said in an e-mail interview. “Wikipedia is the ideal place to start your research and get a global picture of a topic, however, it is not an authoritative source. In fact, we recommend that students check the facts they find in Wikipedia against other sources. Additionally, it is generally good research practice to cite an original source when writing a paper, or completing an exam. It’s usually not advisable, particularly at the university level, to cite an encyclopedia.”
However, the approach being taken is not addressing the cause, simply attacking the symptoms.
(1) This is not a solid conclusion but there is enough documentation to bear further review.
Sources:
[tags][/tags]
powered by performancing firefox
January 25, 2007 at 9:15 pm · Filed under Connectivism, Random Thoughts, Web 2.0
This is an amazing story about connections. Not network connections, not political connections. About connections between people. And it’s also about the power of social consciousness. The story starts like this:
A friend got a water buffalo for Christmas from her dad. She won’t actually take delivery of the animal. The Web page says that it will be given to a family in Asia. If you read the fine print on the page, however, it turns out that there is no actual buffalo and no actual family and you won’t get a photo of your family and your buffalo.
Philip Greenspun wrote this post, which got picked up two days later by a concert violinist from the United States who is now living in China. He blogged about it and from there started a process that culminated twelve days later in the delivery of a water buffalo to a grateful, if not overwhelmed, family in China. But the story doesn’t end there, the violinist recorded and posted an incredibly touching video of the donation process which has enervated others to take action.
in just about 48 hours, we’ve had people contact us wanting to fly to China to give a gift of some sort themselves, we’ve had book offers, thousands of people have already viewed the movie, people want to donate more water buffalos . . .
Timeline:
Dec 26 - problem noted
Dec 28 - solution presented
Jan 7 - problem solved
Jan 16 - viral video explodes
Jan 19 - shift in public consciousness leads to action
Cost: $200 U.S. and a little sweat
Return on Investment: Immeasurable
Cut out the middleman, people to people - this is what social consciousness is all about and what social software helps to facilitate. This is the power of the web, yes, but more importantly it is about the power of PEOPLE, you and I, and the ability to connect ourselves to the world around us - around the hall, around the corner, around the country, around the globe.
Thanks to Will Richardson for bringing this to my attention and for Karl Fisch’s moving piece! I think his conclusion is quite eloquent as he speaks about our children, our learners:
“…this is life in the 21st century (ironically demonstrated by very non-21st century water buffalo cultivation). This is 12 days from problem to solution, and 24 days from problem to Internet-viral-movie-extended solution that may impact hundreds or thousands. Shouldn’t we be teaching kids about this stuff? Can’t we address the curriculum and standards in ways like this? Shouldn’t we be helping prepare them to be really good at using these tools in both their professional and personal lives to impact the world around them? Shouldn’t we be helping prepare our students to change the world?”
Read…Write…REACT
[tags][/tags]
powered by performancing firefox
January 20, 2007 at 1:12 pm · Filed under Connectivism, Creativity, Learning Theory, TechTalk
Jeff Han’s amazing work with how we interact with our technology is not a new item, the video and buzz has been circulating on the ‘Net for more than 9 months. Yet it took Tim Lauer’s post, Jeff Han article in FastCompany, and another on Touch Interfaces… last week for it to sink in.
My issue of FastCompany (February 2007) arrived this week and I’ve only just now gotten a chance to sit down and flip through it. The article about Jeff Han (available online here) and his work on the touch interface is amazing and as I reflect, it strikes me as a way to kinesthetically interact with our technology in a much more organic and natural way than we ever have before. I also took the opportunity to view the FastCompany video clip thanks to Bryan Alexander and the TEDtalks video linked to by Tim. What I have seen resonates within me. It makes me wonder how this interaction will affect our learners. Will it improve accessibility? Is it intuitive enough? Will it lead to advances in learning?
We all have those kinesthetic responses: your PIN at the ATM, your password on your computer, phone numbers that you can only remember when your fingers simulate the act of keying them in. We don’t really have to think about them, they happen almost autonomically. But this action involves only our fingers, what would happen if our interactions utilized and/or required more of our body? What if recollections were based on physical gestures? I envision a musician or rock climber for whom their knowledge manifests itself in a physical form. Consider the new opportunities for kinesthetic learning that could be incorporated into the Wii system. There is already talk of creating a surgery sim but what else could be developed which would tap into this new tool for learning?
Data is no longer uni-dimensional, and as Han has shown it can be now represented visually in three dimensions. Think Minority Report meets the Matrix where tables, graphs and data can have a physical structure. How will this new way of visualizing and physically manipulating information allow us to retain, reuse and reconstruct knowledge? With visionaries such as Han, we may well find out within the next few years.
[tags][/tags]
Blogged with Flock
December 21, 2006 at 4:00 pm · Filed under Connectivism, Creativity, Random Thoughts
Ok, this might seem to be a bit off subject but I think it speaks volumes to how the cunning application of technology can engage learners.
I heard rumors that J. K. Rowling had announced the release of her 7th and final Harry Potter title. I had intended to visit her site but my ADD got the better of me. Then I came across a post by one of my most recent blog favorites, Wes Fryer,entitled Discover the final Harry Potter book title. Wes was reporting on a CNN link which provides directions on how Potter fans could learn the title of this last book. I won’t play spoiler for those who want to find out for themselves, but it turns out that J. K. Rowling’s website has hidden a number of “easter eggs” which in turn lead to a game which upon successful completion reveals the final title.
As I followed the instructions, it occurred to me that this sort of engaging, challenging and creative application of technology is what makes learning so much fun. It is not the rote memorization, it is not the regurgitation of meaningless factoids - it is in the exploration and experiential interaction engage our learners and this engagement generates excitement and passion which translates into lasting memories and this retention leads to a greater likelihood that these memories will be around to contribute to the cultivation of new knowledge.
Very cool indeed!
And to add to the novelty, this 7th installment will be available on the 7th day of the 7th month of the 7th year of the 2000 millenium, or 7 on 7-7-7. Hmm…
[tags][/tags]
powered by performancing firefox
December 20, 2006 at 12:56 pm · Filed under Connectivism, Higher Education, Web 2.0
This one is on my virtual calendar!
The Learning Technologies Centre at the University of Manitoba is hosting the Connectivism Online Conference. Thanks in large part to the efforts of George Siemens, this wholly online (oh and did I mention, FREE!) conference runs from 2-9 February 2007 and will feature the likes of Stephen Downes, Terry Anderson, Bill Kerr (link to presentation material) and Will Richardson as well as George Siemens himself.
This event will employ both Moodle and e-lluminate and will cover such areas as:
“…trends in K-12 sector, trends in higher education, research and net pedagogy, technological and societal trends, and connective knowledge and connectivism.”
I am looking forward to this event and hope that you will join me there!
Note: Bill Kerr’s link has been updated to reflect his new location and he kindly offered a link to his presentation material.
[tags]occ2007[/tags]
technorati tags:occ2007, connectivism, learning, online, conference
Blogged with Flock
November 18, 2005 at 12:59 am · Filed under Connectivism
I’ve been listening to the EdTechTalk podcasts lately and I picked up the scent of a common thread in a number of conversations - that of students, their use/familiarity with technology and their ability to not just consume but to evaluate, process and recombine the data to which they are exposed (whether analog or digital) in order to produce new solutions, new cognitive connections.
In EdTechTalk #25, the featured speakers were David Warlick and Terry Freedman. David made the comment 39:59 minutes into the cast that:
“These kids do not think of information as something that you merely consume. And I that’s a lot of where the classroom is today, that we still think of information as something that you consume. It’s a text book that you read, it’s a video that you watch. And kids are consuming information and memorizing it, whatever. These kids don’t look at it that way. Information is something that they interact with. It’s something that they work. It’s something that they remix. And unless we are addressing this new way of looking at information in our classrooms, we are going to lose these kids.”
In EdTechTalk Brainstorm #11 at 45:23, the conversation returned to wikis and I believe it was Jeff Flynn who said:
“…when I was presenting with my colleagues, there were 3 or 4 media specialist/librarians in the group. And I could not believe, I was shocked by, the fervor, repulsion and horror they had with the term ‘wiki.’ I mean they had been receiving so much email and listservs about the horrors and dangers involved with Wikipedia. They were casting aspersions just on the term wiki before I even presented the software because of the evils they see involved with the un-nailed down, corporate certification for every piece of information out there.”
To which, Dave Cormier replied:
“Yes like the information that comes from the textbook company is perfect.”
And Jeff responded:
“That’s right. And like you wouldn’t want to double-check what CNN has to say?”
I mention this not to vilify media specialists or librarians but to point out that technology has enabled us to not only have more access to greater quantities of data but to be more critical in our analysis of its veracity. Historically, truth has been the stronghold of the publishers, whether in the press or the hardcover. The relatively free and open access that network technology has provided to so many new sources of information has us challenging heretofore sacrosanct texts.
The bottom line is that when it comes to our students, technology and data, the more traditional analog conduit will continue to be challenged by new filters and perceptions facilitated by the digital medium.
November 15, 2005 at 2:49 am · Filed under Connectivism, Web 2.0
With all the buzz about social software and Web 2.0, it would seem to me that our basis for the assessment of the efficacy of technology as a learning tool should reflect its ability to facilitate the development of connections, whether those connections are social, cognitive or emotional. And isn’t that what learning is all about? Drawing connections between seemingly disparate pieces of data in order to form a more complete comprehension of a subject?
As the culminating project for my Master’s course in Theories of Learning and Cognitive Development, I plan to explore and reflect upon the impact that social software and Web 2.0 has on learning and cognitive development through George Siemens’ concept of connectivism.
