Now that I have your attention, I will shamelessly admit that the title was just a hook. Yes, you should read this book. If not for yourself, for your children or for your neighborhood’s children. My thanks to Christian Long over at think:lab for his post which brought The Dangerous Book for Boys by Conn and Hal Iggulden to my attention.
I just happened to be online in a Borders bookstore after an off-campus meeting when his post came in to my reader. Checked out the author’s site, watched their video, and immediately bought the book for my own motley crew. My seven year old is already hard at work on his knots, having mastered the reef knot and clove hitch, working on developing his own mnemonic for the figure-8 and trying to figure out the bowline.
What I love about this book is that it encourages kids (and those of us refusing to grow up) to get out and play like we used to. As has been pointed out in the blogosphere, learning is messy. So is life. Yes there will be bumps, bruises and tears along the way, but they make the laughter, joy and happiness (dare I say learning?) all the sweeter. This book is just one more reminder.
Thanks to Jennifer Maddrell for pointing out this great video which discusses the process of learning and the applicability of learning theory as viewed through the context of learning a new skill, in this case, golf. What is unique about this video is it’s explicit identification of the significant milestone events along the learning continuum. This video is a great companion to any learning theory course.
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
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.
The 2007 Online Connectivism Conference has definitely got my head spinning. I still haven’t had a chance to post my thoughts on Will Richardson’s presentation on Monday! This post is an attempt to wrap my head around two concepts that came out of the message board during Stephen Downes‘ presentation yesterday.
There was a lot of buzz over the interchangeable use of the terms information and knowledge, how they relate to learning and whether connectivism was simply another term for pattern recognition. I see a difference, almost a continuum between the terms: information, knowledge and learning. I envision information as a discrete and independent entity. Information can exist even if it is not known - that the earth was round and not flat was information that existed prior to its “discovery.” Knowledge is the product of consuming, owning or internalizing information. Giving it a personal context. Learning is the application of that knowledge to a certain end.
Here are two examples, one is for the geeks out there, the other is for the rest of us.
The Database Example
In a database, information exists discretely but doesn’t become data until, as input, it is entered into a table. Once information is known by the system, it becomes data (or knowledge). And yet the simple storage of data in a table does not have use to us until we combine it with other data and apply the result to satisfy a query. So data/knowledge is inert until it is used and applied in a specific context to solve a problem (for some reason, this reminds me of potential versus kinetic energy). The application of knowledge to satisfy a problem constitutes learning and as this process recurs our learning expands geometrically.
The Lego Example
With the Lego example, information is much like a Lego block, in that you may not own Legos but they still exist. Holding a Lego block or a number of blocks in your hands, that’s knowledge. But until you apply a context and then use those Legos to build, to solve a problem - that to me is equivalent to learning. As is the process of disassembling and reassembling those blocks to create new objects based on new contexts and new problems seeking solutions.
Pattern Recognition
Much of the message board discussion spoke of pattern recognition as a fundamental component of connectivism. We agreed that pattern recognition is contigent upon context and is a basic aspect of the human learning process. However I am not sure that it is an innate feature as opposed to a learned skill. Is the ability to recognize patterns not dependent upon our ability to first develop associations, relationships, connections between seemingly disparate pieces of knowledge? It would seem to me that pattern recognition is a meta-skill built upon connective skills. But I’m still trying to wrap my mind around all of these incredible ideas that the participants have been throwing out there.
So Stephen, if you happen to come across this rant would you mind tossing your thoughts my way?
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:
It’s interesting how we use the phrase “play with it” as a synonym for learning. “I don’t know much about that yet, as I haven’t had a chance to play with it.”
This popped into my head while I was listening to a speaker at the NERCOMP SIG talk about how they were learning a new technology. It got me to thinking that we use the term to denote experiential learning. The ability to experiment, fail, retry and grow as a result of the process is exactly what our children do, and we ought to be doing ourselves, as adults, perhaps even more importantly, as educators.
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.
What would happen if we took everything we thought we knew about the virtual learning environment and threw it out the window? What would it look like if we treated the learning environment as if it belonged to the learner? What could learning look like if it weren’t treated as an administrative function? These were the questions I asked my colleague Casey Bisson as we travelled to and from a NERCOMP Social Software SIG.
This first post will set the stage for this re-visioning.
At Plymouth State University, we use SCT’s Luminis product as our campus portal. We are very proud of our true single sign-on methodologies as pretty much everything a student needs is tied to their portal account: email, calendar, groups, news, their e-coursework (via WebCT), library resources, the Student Information System (SIS), even their 200+ MB of network storage is web accessible. It is one of the most robust environments I have used when it comes to student services.
Yet there exists a disconnect. The portal does not speak the language of our students. It is based on technologies at least 5 years old and is not as interactive or responsive as the web tools available today. In Web 2.0 terms, it is more like Web 1.5 - more pull than push, more consumptive than contributive. In short, it is perceived to be an administrative tool rather than a learning resource. A necessary evil for doing the business of higher education.
And then there is our Learning Management System - WebCT (now Blackboard). Everything about the LMS screams academic administration tool. It provides all the requisite tools: syllabus tool, communications tools, assessment tools and learning content tools. But even with Blackboard’s burgeoning attempts at learner-centricity in the journaling, web link and media library contributions, peer review and blog tools available in their latest Application Pack, it is still a tool for teaching rather than learning. If you’ll pardon the melodrama, it lacks soul.
In part 2, we’ll throw out our current set-up and start from scratch.
The USNH e-Portfolio summit went off nicely last Friday. We had 63 registrants and Plymouth State fielded eleven attendees. The crowd was quite diverse and represented the mix administrative, technical and pedagogical crowds we hoped to attract. Faculty represented 25% of our attendance which was wonderful considering that these are the folks we need to have at the table.
Dr. Barrett’s presentation was well delivered and, I believe, well received based on conversations I held with a number of participants. She will be sending copies of her presentation as well as an audio version recorded on her iPod! This is great for me as I often get so embroiled in thought in these types of presentations that I tend to miss pieces. With her permission, I will link to them here when they become available.
Our panel presentation went very well (or so I am told - I was too busy focusing on what I was going to try to say!) and showed the varying degrees to which our four campuses are currently pursuing and/or utilizing electronic portfolios.
The post-luch round table discussions focused on two areas:
A review of thoughts and impressions of electronic portfolios in general, and
How can the representative institutions work together on the pending e-Portfolio initiative coming out of the USNH Long-Range Technology Plan (LRTP)?
It will be interesting to see where this opening dialogue takes us and how the faculty and administration at our own institutions respond.
As part of the committee charged with developing the USNH e-Portfolio summit, one of our tasks was to determine our audience. Now this initiative is coming out of a system-wide $450,000 block grant so on one hand an obvious audience are the constituents who pay into the system, namely the University of New Hampshire, Plymouth State University, Keene State College and Granite State College. But my friend and colleague, Dr. Royce Robertson, has thoughts similar to mine when the topic of e-portfolios in the state arises. In his blog, The Virtual Sherpa , he states:
The cycle of change regarding ePortfolios in the State of New Hampshire has a few missing links - teachers, employers, college admissions, and licensing boards.
Which echoes my thoughts exactly. Three of the four institutions have a focus on teacher preparation and education. The State of New Hampshire is eyeing an electronic portfolio requirement. And then there is what we do with those portfolios when we’re move from K-12 to higher ed and from higher ed into the job market. It strikes me that the most logical partnership would be one between the State and the University System so as to create standards and portability between all of our institutions. Consider what an effective model of Dr. Robertson’s cycle listed above could look like. Our learners begin their electronic portfolio career as early as the primary grades. These portfolios then follow our learners into middle and high school. As part of their commencement, these learners will be expected to present a portfolio which highlights their mastery of certain core competencies. As they begin to look towards their post-secondary education, these learners submit their portfolios to the institution(s) of their choice as part of the admissions process. Once admitted, the build upon their existing portfolio with their post-secondary work and employ the portfolio as part of their degree defense. As our newly graduated teachers begin to seek employment, this comprehensive portfolio is used during their job hunt to highlight their competencies and areas of expertise. Because these schools are using similar standards, the evaluation process is simplified. Now if the learner decides to pursue an advanced degree, they take their portfolio and carry it over (virtually) to their new institution. I’ll admit that their are a lot of assumptions here, but since all of these entities are utilizing e-portfolios in one way or another, would it not make sense for folks to be able to take a look at any portfolio and have an understanding of what it represents?
