On Tuesday 9th Aug I visited Open University to listen to the inaugural lecture of Prof Agnes Kukulska-Hulme – The Mobile Mind: learning differently with mobile devices. More and more I am getting a better picture of what it means to learning in the digital age. The lecture left me reflecting even more learning in the connected, networked, digital age and helped advanced my thinking of how I am visualising collaborative learning or knowledge-building. The lecture also left me reflecting on a session that transpired on the previous evening.
Monday evening sparked the opening of the Caribbean Educators Online Conference (COEC). Prof. Curtis Bonk presented an appraisal of the ‘flat world’ of learning. To my thinking, the keynote challenged our assumptions about learning and put forward the notion of learning as something that is collaborative, multifaceted and self-directed. The challenge to rethink our held assumptions of learning leads to the need to make sense of learning in the ‘flat’ digital age.

To begin, I think unpacking the notion of collaboration and collaborative learning is worth some deliberation. While collaboration is often deemed as working together for common purpose it is often confused with the notion of cooperation. The subtle difference between the collaboration and cooperation is nuanced in the way collaboration is perceived by some practitioners – “I give, you take; you ask, I share.” Collaboration has deeper meaning and application and I have written on this previously. However, does collaboration have different meanings and applications between disciplines? It is appears easy to contrive an answer that addresses this question and I am left thinking even deeper into that regard following Camille’s mention of Geert Hofstede during the session. But what exactly is that culture of collaboration that is worth exploring? Perhaps we could start exploring what is proposed by Geert Hoofstede Hoofstede and Evan Rosen. I used Rosen (2007) in arguing for a case for collaboration in my research but Hofstede’s (1984) perspective on culture’s consequences provides fodder for crafting a stronger argument for a culture of collaboration in education and online learning. Thereby advancing an understanding of a culture of collaboration that help make sense of effective learning designs in the ‘flat’ digital and ‘muddy’ terrain of learning in this digital connected world.

What I present in the ensuing section seeks to make a claim for aspects of this culture of collaboration within education. While the argument is not set in stone it presents a standing point for navigating through rushing mesh of data that flows through the internet.

It seems more and more there is a blurring in the formal and informal learning divide and this helps to shape the argument for understanding the culture of collaboration in education further. While most of us are wedded to the notion of informal and formal learning, Jane Hart (website) provides an insightful deconstruction that factors intentionality, context and agency aspects of learning:

1. IOL – Intra-Organisational Learning- how social media tools can be used to keep employees up to date and up to speed on strategic and other internal initiatives.
2. FSL – Formal Structured Learning – how educators (teachers, trainers, learning designers) as well as students can use social media in education and training – for courses, classes, workshops etc.
3. GDL – Group Directed Learning – how groups of individuals-teams, projects, study groups etc – can use social media to work and learn together (a “group” can be just two people, so coaching and mentoring fall into this category),
4. PDL – Personal Directed Learning – how individuals can use social media for their own (self-directed) personal or professional learning
5. ASL – Accidental & Serendipitous Learning – how individuals, by using social media, can learn without consciously realising it (aka incidental or random learning).

(Hart 2009)

Taking Hart’s conceptualisation further Jarche (2009), proposed an interpretation of self-directed learning which juxtaposes intentionality in both the individual group and organisational contexts in which attention is given to self-directed learning in the matrix where the personal-directed, group-directed and intra-organisational learning are seen as requiring a lot of self-directed learning. Jarche’s matrix (see below) provides a design representation this conceptualization.

source:http://www.jarche.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Screen-shot-2009-11-14-at-11.26.05-AM.png

These deconstructions of the informal and formal learning divide leads us to rethink design for learning in the online setting. Thus designing for learning or designing for collaborative knowledge-building, is more than just a focus on content it requires a deeper understanding of what it means to collaborate. What is presented here proposes understanding self-directed aspect of collaboration in online settings that beckons us to rethink our designs in a context that is marred by complexity.

References:
Hart, J., 2009. Social Media FOR learning – Part 2 – Social Media for Working & Learning. Social Media FOR learning – Part 2. Available at: http://janeknight.typepad.com/socialmedia/2009/11/social-media-for-learning-part-2.html [Accessed August 10, 2011].

Hofstede, G.H., 1984. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values, Sage Publications, Inc.

Jarche, H., 2009. Social media and self-directed learning. Social media and self-directed learning. Available at: http://www.jarche.com/2009/11/social-media-and-self-directed-learning/ [Accessed July 4, 2010].

Kukulska-Hulme, A., 2011. Inaugural lecture – The Mobile Mind: learning differently with mobile devices – Berrill Stadium. Available at: http://stadium.open.ac.uk/stadia/preview.php?s=1&whichevent=1735 [Accessed August 10, 2011].

Rosen, E., 2007. The Culture of Collaboration 1st ed., USA: Red Ape Publishing.

Still here in Anguilla, doing something strange-blogging and thinking about teleporting myself to ALTC2010. I guess I will have to wait till I get my head out of the virtual and into real world. Nonetheless, here goes another one of my ramblings that seeks to address network learning by focusing on its social and technological aspects.

In a previous post, “Collaborative Learning in Social Networks”, I reflected on collaboration and participation in the social network setting in trying to make sense of how individuals negotiate meaning in social networks. This time Hurricane Earl made this blogging process a challenge. My central argument established collaborative learning as a process that requires participation, negotiation, critical dialogue and critical reflection. My developing perspective takes this sense-making process a step forward by giving some attention to the theoretical assumptions of learning in social networks. I go on to show how some common themes assist in explaining theoretically the sort of learning that takes place in social networks. As started in previous post, this blogging activity draws on the social media sessions that I co-presented with Andy Coverdale at the University of Nottingham, Graduate Centres.

Online social networks or social networking sites has shifted the focus on content acquisition to the process of content creation, sharing, and remixing as predominantly an attitude that enables participation using various technological tools that repositions the thinking online learning (Downes 2005). Therefore, learning in social networks addresses the social aspects of learning and this approach to learning is associated with a number of theoretical frames that seek to explain the sort of learning that takes place in online social networks. These theoretical frames which seek to explain learning in social networks has been linked to a number of learning theories. These theoretical frames go on to explain the sort of learning that takes place in networks (network learning), but remain overshadowed by the complexity of coming up with a single definition. However, an understanding of the notion of network learning manifests itself in the social, technological and cognitive aspects of learning within the online social networking setting. I will focus on the social and technological aspects and give attention to the cognitive later.

Social aspect of network learning
Learning is seen as a social activity that is facilitated through interaction and engagement over time. The idea of learning in networks therefore is an extension of social aspect of learning that takes place within networks in that it stresses the inherent interconnectedness of humans. It further assumes that humans are connected to each other into networks which are socially constructed and maintained. Therefore an important aspect of network learning is seen as ‘forming and promoting connections’ (Siemens 2005; Johnson 2008). At a very basic level, this follows very closely to what defines a social network. Social networks comprises of individuals which are seen as ‘nodes or hubs’ connected to each other by a number of social relationships. While social networks formed a basis for human learning before the increase of technology, much of its usage and understanding is situated within a technological background and this makes the connection between individuals more visible. On the surface of this, it appears that there is an inclination to equate social networking with network learning and this mismatch further undermines making the concept clearer. However, I see social networking as the broad spectrum of activities within which network learning operates and build on the thinking that network learning as a process of engagement with particular nodes in a network. It follows therefore that if learning in networks are defined by social connections and relationships that individual be seen as actively trying to build these connections. Within an online social network, these social connections are mediated by the technological tools. This is given some attention next.

Technological aspect of Network learning
Technology impacts learning in many ways (Andersen 2007) and this influence though not limited to network learning seems to suggest themes that emanate from the way individuals interact online using various tools. Technology has always been a major aspect of human learning and it therefore becomes a challenge to exclude technology from its social dimension. As such, any attempt to describe the technological aspects of network learning should factor in the social affordances that network learning offers. Warschauer (2004) in his multiple country empirical research identifies this connection between the technological and social as the ‘social embeddedness of technology’:

The framework of the digital divide implies that technological and social contexts can be separated from each other and that these two separate context interact through a mechanism of causality…There is a complex mutually evolving relationship between a technology and broader social structures, and the relationship cannot be reduced to a matter of the technology’s existing on the outside and exerting an independent force.
(Warschauer 2004, p.202)

Thus network learning takes advantage of the social affordances of the internet and is subjected to the notion of online identity, user connectedness and the sort of dialogic exchanges that form part of this online interactive framework. I identified from previous blog post that the social web or web 2.0 as it is often labelled speaks to a set of social values that seems to propel network learning. These values go on to upset the way learning takes place in online settings. These include aspects of social participation and collaboration, openness, sharable, ‘remixable’ and accessible and these values though not directly addressed is hinted by Illich (1971) in his prophetic deschooling agenda proclaimed in what he called ‘learning webs’ long before the establishment of online social networks. Ilich pushed for a consumer focused use of technology to support decentralised learning webs that would prevent institutions from monopolising the learning process (Illich 1971). Therefore network learning is underpinned by Vygotsky’s notion of learning as a socio cultural embedded activity. Such a claim manifests itself in the way users actively seek out and build knowledge using various online tools such as blogs, social bookmarking, wikis and online social networks. This according to Andersen (2007) addresses the ‘innate’ pedagogical implications of how web 2.0 tools are adapted. The proliferation of online social networking tools signifies the value users place on this social learning approach. Siemens takes advantage of this by promoting what he calls ‘Connectivism’ a learning theory for the digital age. But this is given some attention in the cognitive aspect of network learning. Perhaps another pending hurricane will motivate me to write something.

Short of a conclusion, I will hasten to add that network learning will continue to receive attention as a process that is socially situated but linked to a wider set of processes and practices that makes it a complex process to pin down.

References
Andersen, P., 2007. What is Web 2.0?: ideas, technologies and implications for education, Citeseer.

Downes, S., 2005. E-learning 2.0. eLearn magazine, 2005(10). Available at: http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?article=29-1&section=articles [Accessed August 6, 2010].

Ellison, N.B. & Boyd, D., 2007. Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.

Illich, I., 1971. Deschooling society, Harper & Row New York.

Johnson, M., 2008. Expanding the concept of Networked Learning. In The 6th International Conference on Networked Learning. Halkidiki, Greece. Available at: http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2008/abstracts/Johnson.htm [Accessed May 10, 2010].

Siemens, G., 2005. Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3-10.

Warschauer, M., 2004. Technology and social inclusion: rethinking the digital divide, MIT Press.

Introduction
I am here in Anguilla reflecting on a number of ‘Social Media and Academic practice’ sessions that I co-presented with Andy Coverdale from the University of Nottingham. As PhD researchers at the School of Education, we felt comfortable enough to extend our knowledge and experience in what we saw as a gap in the doctoral training programme. What we found was that most participants use social media tools like Facebook, but did not see the need or connection of using these social media tools¹ as part of their academic researcher identity. These sessions afforded us the opportunity to address transferable skills that could provide the context for academic researchers to develop and maintain their digital academic identity within the online digital landscape. We held these sessions at the Jubilee Graduate Centre, the Arts and Engineering graduate centre and recently presented an overview of what we have been doing at the e-learning conference at the University of Greenwich. This blogging activity is therefore the offspring of this session at the University of Greenwich e-learning conference.

In three separate blogging entries, I will focus on ‘making sense of collaboration in social networks’ while Andy will focus on ‘blogging as a collaborative process’. It is our hope that a joint publication will result from our separate blogging activities. Interestingly, I will seek to maintain an approach that is semi-academic while not losing my naturalistic blogging voice. This blog entry will focus on the notion of collaboration & collaborative learning and in subsequent blog entries I will go on to show how collaborative learning is seen in social networking setting and how this is related to the process of making sense for academic researchers. It is my hope that making these inferences explicit will help in describing how as academic researchers we can make sense of collaboration in the social networking setting.

Collaboration
Simply put, collaboration is described a process of working with others with a similar goal in mind. Working together however, implies that there are other processes at play which deserve some attention. Roschelle & Teasley (1995) for example, defines collaboration as “…a coordinated, synchronous activity that is the result of a continued attempt to construct and maintain a shared conception of a problem” (Roschelle & Teasley 1995, p.70). Although this definition limits collaboration to synchronous activity, it recognizes collaboration as a process of organised effort that requires negotiation of joint activity. I will like to think that this joint activity can be referred to as the participation that is required to make collaboration possible. But how does participation evolve into collaborative activity within the online setting? This is an important question to address since there might be the inclination to accept social networking as collaboration. Perhaps this is where social networking tools play a role.

Social networking tools & collaboration
The tools of collaboration in social networking are endless and while many tools promote collaboration, using them do not mean collaboration is taking place. It follows therefore that although these technological tools allow individuals to participate easily and it would take more than a comment, rate or tweet to collaborate in social networks. Likewise spending endless hours of commenting, posting, tweeting may not necessarily lead to collaboration. In his book, The Culture of Collaboration, Evan Rosen set out to showcase collaboration as a way of creating value within specified spaces (Rosen 2007), and introduces the Ten Cultural Elements of Collaboration: Trust, Sharing, Goals, Innovation, Environment, Collaborative Chaos, Constructive Confrontation, Communication, Community and Value. He purports that value creation is an integral part for collaboration. While I do not elaborate on these cultural elements, it is important to note how these elements resonate what we identified during our social media presentations as the core elements or values of social media. These are seen in figure 1 below:

Figure 1

It is these values that seem to drive the proliferation of social media and social networking tools and this goes on to upset the traditional approach to learning. But how do researchers make sense of the process that is necessary to make the leap into understanding what it means to work collaboratively when working in current academic setting do not promote these core values. Putting this aside, I now give attention to collaborative learning.

Collaborative learning
Dillenbourg (1999) defines collaborative learning as:

a situation in which particular forms of interaction among people are expected to occur, which would trigger learning mechanisms, but there is no guarantee that the expected interactions will actually occur. Hence, a general concern is to develop ways to increase the probability that some types of interaction occur (Dillenbourg 1999, p.5).

Thus a focus on the ways to increase the probability for interaction assumes that collaborative learning as a social activity that is participative, open and accessible. But within such environments, dialogic exchanges form the basis in which meaning is negotiated. Garrison (1997) for example, explains that within collaborative learning environments critical discourse is valued and encouraged (Garrison 1997) and such emphasis on reflective dialogic exchanges finds support in the works of Freire (2000) & Wells (1999). Therefore taking into account the need for dialogic exchanges within collaborative learning environments, I will like to put forward the following:

Participation + negotiation + critical dialogue +critical reflection = collaborative learning

Dialogic exchanges, comments and postings form the basis of how individuals collaborate within the social networking setting and a number of social media tools mediate the collaborative learning activity. A brief look at a sample of social media tools reveal the sort of social media activities that support the dialogic view.

Table 1 Sample of tools that were highlighted as part of social media sessions.

Conclusion:
While I have just touched the surface on collaborative learning, I have provided the basis for taking the discussion further in subsequent blog entries. I have attempted to make some head way into understanding the processes of collaborative learning that remain largely tacit. The way I see it is that when individuals engage in collaborative learning, they are in fact engaging in a set of critical and reflective dialogic activities in such a way that enables them to negotiate meaning in their context. The negotiation process however remains somewhat of a mystery and needs further exploration to fully understand. This is something that perhaps will unfold in the next blog entry. However, I end with more questions than answers. How do we go about negotiating meaning in social networks? What sort of tools mediate this negotiation process? Questions, do you have any to add to this list?

Footnote: I use tools in a rather lose sense to include technological tools and the social networking behaviours (commenting, tweeting, following, posting, liking, rating etc) they afford

References
Dillenbourg, P., 1999. What do you mean by collaborative learning. In Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches. Oxford, UK: Elsvier, pp. 1-19.

Freire, P., 2000. Pedagogy of the oppressed, New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Garrison, D.R., 1997. Computer Conferencing: The Post-Industrial Age of Distance Education. Open learning, 12(2), 3-11.

Roschelle, J. & Teasley, S.D., 1995. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. In C. O’Malley, ed. C. O’Malley (Ed.). Berlin, pp. 67-97.

Rosen, E., 2007. The Culture of Collaboration 1st ed., Red Ape Publishing.

Wells, C.G., 1999. Dialogic inquiry, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

The 8^th annual e-learning conference at University of Greenwich was a very interesting event. I am here on the train back to Nottingham and what I do here is just provide some very short reflection on how I saw things.

Professor Gráinne Conole started it off the conference with a great tone. I should add that this was one keynote that I did nod through since an interactive and open approach was maintained. Certainly, that approach proved successful in getting the message across to me. The keynote maintained a high level of intellectual stimulation and had me constantly thinking that I am not alone in this digital learning ecology. My excitement probably peaked when I saw my tweet in the presentation – all the more reason for me to fully engage with the keynote. Although I did not attend EDMEDIA I got a glimpse into the challenge of predicting the future in education from the reference to Hermann Maurer, 2010 Keynote. However, despite not being able to be educational seers I think Gráinne presented a good idea of what education might look like particularly with regards to the challenges of designing for learning. And so her thread through the terrain of what technology driven education would look like in the future proved rather prophetic. I think her focus on the processes on bridging the gap between the fantasy and the reality makes for a sensible way forward in learning design. More importantly the skills learners and designers would need to make sense of it all. So we can’t predict the future but we can sure prepare for what is coming. And this is what I think is the challenge of design – to come up with approaches that take advantage of the digital learning ecology. I speak of digital learning ecology in a rather lose sense and I chose to deconstruct it in way that in give me a sense of verbal candour. Put simply, I see digital learning ecology as the digital landscape as hinted in work of Dron & Anderson (2007) in relating the notion of collective, network and the group. As such the usage of the phrase incorporate aspects of situated learning (Lave & Wenger 1991), distributed cognition (Salomon 1997). Going back to the key note, I found it rather insightful that Gráinne adopted a pragmatic approach in which she presented a typology of theories in a recursive framework underpinned by Constructivist, Associative, Situative, and Connectivist ideology. As such, learning is complex set of processes that build on previous approaches of learning to include drill and practice, role play, problem-based learning, reflective and dialogic learning, resource learning (Mayes & de Freitas 2004). The work of some notable examples of these were featured including that of Joyes et al. (2009) which focused on the work of e-portfolios. The marsh-up framework provides a good way to rethink the way designers approach the design process. The keynote ended on a high note in that what I would suggest as the human & tool dance to include approaches of taking existing models frameworks and helping teachers make informed decision about their practice (learning design). Interestingly though I thought the work of Wells (1999) which focuses on ‘Dialogic Inquiry’ as a good fit in the scheme of things.

Reflection on individual presentations

In the first session Andy Coverdale and I presented our work on Social Media in Academic Practice with graduate and early career researchers at the University of Nottingham. We attempted to make the session interactive enough to maintain the same sort off style that we used in the social media sessions at university. Interestingly enough Andy did not use those time cards when I was speaking. Nonetheless, we maintained our time! Great job Andy.

Jennefer Hart of Open University did a great job in presenting some work that was carried out as part of a JISC funded project entitled Atelier-D project. The project aims is to create a VLE that supports the basic aspects of the traditional ‘design studio’ The presentation, the Virtual Design Atelier puts an interested twist of what it means to create a VLE for designers.

In Two Communities One Conversation, presenters Professors Shawne Johnson and Paul Wright gave a good overview of the context for a project in its initial stage. The project aims to bring together students from US and UK using social media tools to share texts and explore social and historical contexts through firsthand experience. The use of conversation to moderate the events in communities. It will be interesting to follow the project and see how the moderating process unfolds. The whole notion of moderating in groups is something that wholes value in my research and this is featured in the work of Salmon (2004) for example.

References

Dron, J. & Anderson, T., 2007. Collectives, networks and groups in social software for e-Learning. In Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education Quebec. Retrieved Feb. p. 2008.

Joyes, G., Gray, L. & Hartnell-Young, E., 2009. Effective practice with e-portfolios: How can the UK experience inform practice? In Same places, different spaces. Ascilite Auckland 2009. New Zealand: University of Auckland, pp. 486-495. Available at: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland09/procs/joyes.pdf.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E., 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation 1st ed., Cambridge University Press.

Mayes, T. & de Freitas, S., 2004. Review of e-learning theories, frameworks and models. JISC e-Learning Models Desk Study. Available at: http://www.jisc.org.uk/uploaded_documents/Stage%202%20Learning%20Models%20(Version%201).pdf.

Salmon, G., 2004. E-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online 2nd ed., London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Salomon, G., 1997. Distributed cognitions, Cambridge University Press.

Wells, C.G., 1999. Dialogic inquiry, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

On July 7th 2010, I will be co-presenting with Andy Coverdale on the topic: Using Social Media in Academic Practice at the University of Greenwich Future Landscapes conference. The presentation is an overview of a student-led Initiative which is a presentation on our work on a number of student-led sessions on social media to academics at the University of Nottingham. I am posting the abstract the we presented to the conference.

Abstract (for presentation)

The effective use of social and participative media is seen as a key requirement in 21st Century academic practice and professional development. This case study describes a collaborative, student-led initiative which, identifying a gap in existing Doctoral training provision, engaged in delivering a series of interactive sessions to PhD students and Early Career Researchers at the University of Nottingham. With an emphasis less on the technologies and more on their social, participatory and collaborative affordances, the sessions were designed and presented by two PhD students to raise awareness of social media and provide an opportunity for discussion and shared practice. Hosted and supported by one of the University Graduate Centres, the sessions were supplemented by an online resource. In this presentation, we will summarise the initiative with key observations, perspectives and feedback from the organisers and attendees, discuss implications for practice within training and professional development contexts, and outline future plans in this area.

We welcome your suggestions and comments on how you think your university should aim towards helping research students understand the challenges and issues presented by social media.

This blog gives a reflection of my work with Andy Coverdale in the social media sessions that we co-present at the University of Nottingham.

There is growing indication that universities are recognizing the use of social media among academics. However, how is this recognition translated in the PhD training provisions that universities offer to students?

I have been co-presenting with Andy Coverdale on the implication of using Social media within an academic setting. It seems that while universities welcome the idea of social media or even instances of digital literacies as part of higher education offerings (see Open University study) there is a slow move to include such aspects in the PhD training programme. This is particularly interesting since internet inquiry is fast becoming a way in which researchers investigate the digital. Researchers use a number of approaches and tools to navigate and tease out the vast digital terrain. We are thankful to the insightful feedback that continues to transform the sessions into something that is more responsive to student needs and this was made even more apparent with how Engineering researchers seem to see social media in their work.

I appreciate the efforts of Vitae and was able to take part in the digital researcher The work of Tristram Hooley (@pigironjoe) and others made #DR10 a rewarding experience.

As research students we have taken the steps to present an overview of social media to research students that the university of Nottingham. Thus far we have presented the sessions at the Jubilee Graduate Centre (3 day sessions) and at the Engineering Graduate Centre (1day session). On July 7^th we will be giving an overview of these sessions with the hope of generating interest among other research students to do the same. Interestingly enough, our resea4rch focus is not on social media per se. It does however play a role in how we do things.