Knowledge Networks

This week, I came across a blog post from Tony Bates where he poses the question: does technology change the nature of knowledge? As usual, Tony’s brilliant yet practical observations drew me in and once I read Stephen Downes’ comment in response, I was hooked.

Rather than making a feeble attempt to re-state the arguments each made ( I’m not clever enough to be in that game), I just wanted to offer my own observation – however simplistic.

For me, the idea of knowledge is not abstract.

Knowledge is something I know, today.

What I know today may change tomorrow, depending on what happens between now and then. How I come to know  is the more interesting question in my mind. I believe I come to know through interactions with people, things (books, tools, materials, etc), nature and (I know it sounds “out there”) but also through some notion of cosmic forces involved with time, history and evolving of the universe.  It’s partly about what is passed on to me in tangible and intangible ways and partly about what I generate myself by seeing, touching, doing, thinking about and talking with others about.

In thinking about how technology has influenced my own knowledge networks – I imagine what it may have been like for me a hundred years ago and what would be the influences around me.  Compare that to now and (at least in my mind) this is the picture that evolves:

The real change is in the number of networks that have the potential to influence me and I have the potential to influence.  In the past, those networks would have been limited mainly to those in my own community and whom I knew and the connections between them might have been fairly linear and predictable. Today, technology makes it possible for me to hear directly from an author I admire, publish a poem and discuss my observations (like I am doing now).  My view of the world is broader and I am in almost daily contact with others who are part of the larger society and whom I may not know well or at all.  And they (in turn) may be connected to many more networks that I am not a part of.

I don’t think there is “a new type of knowledge” as Downes suggests.  In the end (to me) it still just something I know. Knowledge is important – however it comes to be and whatever label you want to put on it.  But the influences on its development require a much sharper set of competencies for making connections than we needed 100 years ago. I think they include:
•    the ability to read social cues in online spaces
•    confidence in communicating half formed ideas
•    an understanding of how our networks influence us and vice versa
•    an ability to think critically about the ideas that come our way
•    willingness to experiment with different tools and ideas for expression.
•    understanding that (as we produce content online) we are publishers – a role that most are likely unfamiliar with and perhaps unprepared for.
•    A return to an openness for ways of knowing that are based in nature and faith and have very little to do with the “logical” mind.

Developing these competencies requires more than skill training. They need to be practiced, observed, considered, tried out and mentored over time – basically integrated in how we learn and how we live.

Brainstorming or bust

In this case….bust! A couple of weeks ago, I was part of a panel to discuss information and digital literacy and share some examples of resources we are developing in the Office of Learning Technology. In preparation for the panel, my colleague Trish Rossel and I tried to collaborate on a Prezi – which left us both feeling a little digitally illiterate – since we were somehow inadvertently overwriting each other. Finally the tool crashed on Trish and we lost the shared presentation. Here’s what I managed to save of my bit (if you are interested).

We recovered what we could and all was OK. Except, we really didn’t know what the others would be talking about and weren’t sure how we could engage participants in a relattively short time frame (1 hour – 4 panelists). The morning of the presentation, I came up with the idea (in the shower – where- in my experience many great ideas hatch) to do a 1 minute – 1 word brain storming activity with the audience between the different panelists (while they were switching out their presentation stuff and setting up). The concept was simple (or so I thought) -  it went like this:

• have each panelist identify a question that the audience could brainstorm on in small groups in a 1-2 minute time frame.
• explain the concept to the audience before the presentation and have each table (small group) identify a recorder (so that we could share ideas following the presentation).
• pose the question after each speaker and have the audience limit themselves to one-word associations with the question.

The goal was to debrief at the end and see if any patterns emerged from the words that were brainstormed in response to each question.

Here’s what happened:

• people didn’t brainstorm
• no one wanted to respond to the question with just one word
• people looked frustrated
• nothing was recorded or debriefed.

Not sure what to make of this yet – except that the exercise was a bust. Maybe people don’t like brainstorming? Or maybe a simple word association would have made it easier to let go of the need to be “accurate”?

Community and temporal gatherings

I’ve been wanting to write about this for a while now – finally have a few moments to get something down.

A couple of months ago, my neighbor (Bill Jeffries) who also happens to curate the SFU Art Gallery organized a gathering of neighbors for a showing of some sort (having something to do with art, history and the neighborhood). We met in the park at dusk (the baseball diamond to be exact) to see friends and neighbors sitting on the ground, on blankets or lawn chairs – looking up at a screen that had been mounted on the chain link backdrop to the baseball area. This was (apparently) to be a showing of work (by neighbors and friends) documenting something of our history as a neighborhood. There were photographs, collages of images and sounds (mashups of sorts – though no-one called them that), images of architecture, billboards and landmarks in the “hood” from the past and present. There was at least one established artist among the group (whose work had been shown at the VAG among other galleries, and there were amateurs whose photos had been shot with disposable cameras. There was a slide carosel and projector (complete with blank and upside down slides) along side a Mac lap top with a narrated slide show. In short it was an incredible demonstration of community talents, interests and perspectives on a place we all care about. And, it was a moment for all of us to collectively reflect on our pasts, histories and those who lived before us in the place we all call home.

My (almost teenage) son had never seen a “slide projector” and – despite the fact that he is regularly wired to his online games and ipod music selection – he was riveted by the images on the screen – for an hour!

The event made me think about what it means to be part of a community and how we came together in the moment – with little notice and not much planing to participate in something meaningful together. Some of us may not see each other for months to come – it was a temporal moment – a moment of communion – of learning and experiencing something together. Translated to my world, this kind of gathering is much like what happens (from time to time) on Twitter or in various blog comment streams. People come together for a moment with something to share about an idea they care about. It doesn’t need to be planned or evaluated or even archived – it just is.

Things I learned at opened09…

OpenEd09 sign - uploaded to Flickr on August 13, 2009 by mikecogh

Brian Lamb, Scott Leslie and collaborators pulled off a fab Opened09 Conference in Vancouver!  Not only were many presenters engaging and thought provoking but participants held up the true spirit of “open” in their contributions to the conference.

On the downside – the “boys club” was supercharged and came across (at times) as exclusionary – which didn’t do much to “cross the chasm” unfortunately. Think this must be hard to avoid when a group of passionate, talented friends (who know each other well) get together.  Might have been mediated with a different presentation style though – less show and more involve – maybe sessions around questions for the participants to address (with a little context as background) might have been helpful to set a more inclusive tone? Something to consider for next time?

I went away with alot to think about.  Here are a few thoughts:

• there are many different views of “open’. For some it means sharing resources across institutions in the context of a single course or project. For others it is sharing their work openly via the internet and a CC attribution license.
• we need more thinking about process and OERs – otherwise we’ll have a repeat of the learning objects scenario. How are we supporting learners in making good decisions about using OERs (information literacy, digital literacy)? What are their goals? What does it mean to be an “open” teacher? How do we best support “open” practices – sharing within our own institutions and communities?
• there seems to be agreement that learning requires environments and communities that are safe yet stimulating learners towards risk taking (where the learning actually happens). What do we do to create safe environments for exploration in our own contexts?
• The flavor of the day (in terms of technology) is just that – the good stuff offers much in terms of a vehicle for collaboration and presentation and sharing.  The worst acts as a barrier to involvement. Might be helpful to have a shared framework for tech selection based on principles of openess and access.  Involve potential users in the decision making rather than offering the solution.
• How do we shift our approaches when expectations don’t match reality (users of OERs are not currently – nor necessarily – sharing back)? Chris Lott shares an enlightening perspective about the requirements for gift giving, receiving and sharing. What might the community of practice approach have to offer as an approach to preparing us for the gift exchange?
• Gardner Campbell’s narrating, curating, sharing: accessible concept for open ed.
• Ecotones – love the word and the concept – Kyle Mathews reference to architect Ann Pendleton-Julian’s work! 

Thanks to everyone who participated in opened09.

Learners and PLE’s

I’ve been reflecting on a panel I facilitated last week at the 2009 Canadian eLearning Conference.  Three UBC learners (Andre, Angeli and Zack) talked about their concepts of PLE – what they think is important and what they think about the relationship between learning, university and their own personal goals and explorations.

Here are some of the themes that they touched on:

• students are inherently practical and grades are key motivators for action.  We’ve structured the education system this way, it’s not their fault.
• PLEs will primarily include tools and approaches that support getting better grades. Tools like Quizlet, Facebook for study groups, google docs and wikis for shared work, blogs for personal reflection, IM and (sometimes) Twitter for networking with peers, etc. Not much room/time  for creative explorations with online tools, resources and social spaces unless it is part of a degree requirement.
• disconnect between personal learning goals, choice of tools and selection of approaches. Learning goals are set by the instructor and those are the ones that students pay attention to. Connection with the personal and reflection on learning process happens with support – usually in the context of a “work” project or an instructor’s approach to teaching.
• personal learning environments are not synonymous with technology – books, creative materials, etc. are just as important as part of a person’s personal learning environment.

So, how do we meaningfully support the learners in the activities that surround the  development of their personal learning environments:  reflection, identification of their own learning goals, consideration of the “fit” between their goals and twhat is required for their chosen field of study?  Educational reform, one interaction at a time? Lots to consider here…

Here are the slides (on Slideshare) that provided some context to our panel discussion:

Engaging Learners…

Uploaded to Flickr on August 17, 2006 by In Veritas Lux

A week or so ago, I listened to George Kuh speak about NSSE data, student engagement and what to do about improving it.  We heard about ”high impact” educational practices like learning communities,  collaborative assignments, undergraduate research, community service and experiential learning. These are all good things and we know students are more engaged in the kind learning activities that connect their studies with their lives outside of the classroom.

And yet, there was very little discussion about what we do as members of the university community to help students articulate, form and re-form their goals.  It seems to me that this is pretty central to being engaged.  And it’s a process that doesn’t begin and end in college or university – but, in supporting students, maybe we have an obligation to help them think consciously and critically about their education and how they might make it work for them.   I think that’s what was eating at me throughout the session.  Who defines success? How will students be truly engaged in their educational experience if they are not sure why they are there in the first place?  What can their institutional experience offer them and what do they need to find out there in the big wide world, on their own and with others?

I looked at the NSSE questions as they were delivered at my institution and I didn’t see one that directly asked students about their goals. There was something related to the university’s role in “helping you understand yourself” , but I don’t think this is the same thing.

UBC doesn’t fair so well when it comes to student experience with some of the learning experiences that George Kuh and others define as “high impact”:
•    Only 9% of first year students participate in community or service projects as part of their courses. 71% never take part in such activities.
•    By their senior year, only 21% of students have done research with a faculty member.
•    Only 16% of students participate in a learning community (where they are taking more than one class with the same group of students).
•    37% never talk with faculty members about career plans.
•    Only 33% of first year students work collaboratively with other students in class.

There was some support for the idea that one way to improve student engagement in “high-impact” activities is to ensure they get credit for it – so that it is not an “additional time burden” for students but that it becomes part of the requirements for a degree.  However, as one student so articulately replied, “slapping an extrinsic reward on something that should be intrinsically motivated is a questionable idea.” And, I think he hit the nail on the head.

So much of what drives the activity of the “academy” is about extrinsic motivations (grades, money, institutional ratings). Maybe we’ve forgotten how to do “instrinsic”. Maybe it takes too much time to help learners find their own learning paths, to examine their motivations and goals related to learning (broadly) and consider what part their university experiences play in helping them to meet those goals. Maybe we don’t consider this kind of intentional activity as valuable (or as valuable as learning “content”). Maybe we’ve decided that we are the experts, after all, and we should tell students what they need to learn – not the other way around.  I can’t help but thinking that (if this is the direction we are moving) we may be going in the opposite direction of real engagement.

Twittering and Twondering

It all started with a good laugh after looking at Super-Josh’s comic video “Twouble With Twitters”, posted on Dean Giustini’s blog. I am an occassional twitterer, so I could laugh at myself – thanks, Dean.  Then, on a more serious note, I followed a trail that Brian put me on to – first to Cole Camplese’s post where he laments what sounds like a less than warm reception by a bunch of academics to his ideas about Twitter and the social web in general – then to the Wired Campus article and discussion – fascinating stuff, yet again highlighting the differences in perception about what makes a good learning environment.

Couldn’t resist a little Wordle fun as I was thinking about the differences that came across in some of the comments. I decided to pull some words from the comments that seemed to indicate fear or open hostility towards Twitter-like tools in the classroom alongside others that indicated appreciation.  Here’s what they looked like:

Just found this article: A semantic approach to visualizing online conversations by Judith Donath . Provides some interesting theoretical background to the use of visualization tools to map online conversation.

Social Networking: Should it be part of my class?

Image by sitmonkeysupreme via Flickr

At my university, profs are on the fence about this. Some say yes, go where the students are.  Others say no, don’t want to jump on that bandwagon. Many say, tell me more…

In response to “tell me more”, my colleagues and I have gathered some resources together in a wiki. Maybe some of you will find this useful (and add your own resources?).

Desperately Seeking Solitude

You cannot hear God when people are chattering at you.

Somehow this passage hit home for me as I read The End of Solitude by William Deresiewicz in a recent edition of the Chonicle Review.   Lately, I’ve experienced a sort of yearning to be alone, with my own thoughts, without interruption or interference, to go on a long walk in the mountains or though the winter gardens in my neighborhood. The interferences keeping me from that are making me sad. What’s weird is that I began to think the universe was speaking to me in some kind of cosmic act of serendipity – given that I had just been transported while reading Greg Delanty’s poem Dropping Names on the same theme.

So, I’m pondering:

• what if solitude disappears as a social value – or has it already?
• are we losing our capacity to be alone?
• if we can’t be in solitude – how will we really learn to appreciate the natural world?
• isn’t solitude just as important to learning as connection? and why don’t we talk about that anymore?
  

Image by wanderinghome via Flickr

Net-Gen Skeptic

Some of my old colleagues from the DE&T days at UBC, Mark Bullen, Tannis Morgan and Adnan Qayyum, have recently completed some research looking at BCIT students and how they really use info and communication technologies (ICTs).   Not surprisingly:

generational differences are not the issue. Contextual issues such as the nature of the program are more important considerations when making decisions about the integration of learning technologies.

I’ve long been suspicious about some of the Net-Gen “mythology” and wrote about it a couple of years ago.  More recently, we encouraged some UBC students to share their opinions about learning, technology use, etc. via U-Stream. May be hard to watch the whole group of 1-2 minute clips (especially since many of the poor souls seemed to be suffering with colds) . Here are a few to start with: Cadence, Luke, Teena, Angeli and Kevin.

I suspect many students (at least in North America) are using their cell phones, Facebook, and other communication technologies:

• mainly for social purposes
• sometimes to study together
• occasionally for group work (which one student expressed open hostility for)
• often to entertain themselves when boredom sets in

What’s interesting is that students don’t seem to be asking for games or even technology in the classroom. They are asking to be engaged in conversation and real life research, listened to, included and considered.  These things have nothing to do with technology.