Still Thinking…
Posts tagged Web 2.0
Designing for learning – a case for understanding collaboration
Aug 10th
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.
Network Learning: Social and Technological implications
Sep 3rd
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§ion=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.
Using Social Media in Academic Practice: A student-led Initiative
Jun 7th
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.
Social Media: A student-led programme at the University of Nottingham
Jun 7th
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 7th 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.
Recent Comments