Openness versus being open and closed

This discussion made me reflect on the term openness in terms of degree.

Simply, everyone should have the freedom to use any type of license that is available – I typically refrain from judging which creative license is “better” than another.  Each type of license provides different degrees of openness and I don’t see this changing anytime in the future (if ever); that is, an open educational resource under a Creative Commons License typically falls along an open and closed continuum.  There are many types of teaching and learning contexts that exist and it is unfair to generalize the importance of any particular type of license over any other.  When I see groups develop a licensing policy (that usually singles out one or a few acceptable licenses), I am quickly reminded of how my own learning is networked based (i.e., connective) as opposed to group based (i.e., collective).

Using the Community to Build the Curriculum

It would be interesting to set up a PLENK2010-like course but with no pre-determined content whatsoever.  This course has no center with regard to the spaces used to interact with others (and content), but there is a ”center” when it comes to content.  Why not start with essential questions (that come from the participants and/or facilitators) and build a course around that.  Each participant brings in content and experiences to the mix and suddenly learning truly emerges.  Instead of front-loading content (e.g., recommended readings), facilitators could reference these same readings through forum discussions; in others words, as evidence to form an argument or point of view.  Other members would follow suit.

I’m sure Dave see’s shortcomings to this approach but the thought just occurred to me once again as I participate in PLENK2010 simply by responding to questions posted by members (and related readings referenced by them), then seeing where the dialog takes me.

Is Teaching a “Class” a Big Mistake?

Learning is social.

I think most would agree that learning occurs through social interaction, but I see this as being different than learning being social.  One can intuitively see how this is the case when considering how one learns how to play a musical instrument.  If I study from the same music teacher, the same number of hours, the exact same instrument, under all the same conditions as my friend, the two of us would still not play music in the same way, with the same musical style, etc.  Learning is personal.

A problem with class sizes of 25 – 30 is the peer group is often too small to be functional. Not everyone is ready to give feedback when a learner needs it. Larger group sizes are needed for peer review to work. From our experience groups of around 50 – 60 students should be considered as a minimum, groups of 90 – 120 or more is even better.

This really depends on how one defines a group.  Since “virtual learning enviroments” is being considered, I would argue that we are really looking at a network as opposed to a group whereby peers become not only the classmates within the same school, but peers that extend beyond the classroom.  Regardless, it’s the type of interaction between the students that counts, and not the number of students that make up the learner’s network. 

Teachers (and schools) have the obligation to find innovative ways to connect students and experts in ways that bring about multiple perspectives.  Teaching a class is not a mistake, teaching a finite group is.

The Social versus the Personal

The Yin and Yang of Ideas and Creativity

My response…

Is social creativity more productive than individual productivity?

It depends on how one views “social creativity”. This made me think of Siemens’s collective/connective or Downes’s group/network distinction. Social creativity (in terms of degree) is the result of the individuals’ creativity. If some individuals are marginalized in any way, the misconception is that social creativity is representative of each person. As Downes has referred to a connective community as being open, diverse, autonomous, and interactive; as I see it, these same attributes are required when promoting creativity in general.

Personally, I tend to avoid terms like “social learning” and “social creativity” – both happen at an individual level through social interaction.

Connectivism and Relational Trust

leadership is about relationship, and nurturing of relationship with others in the networks (Suifaijohnmak’s webblog)

I agree to a degree.  It’s about making the connection then developing the connection in a way that builds trust.  This is intuitive and would make sense when working with the same individuals over time.

But I also learn by occasional connections I form online.  For example, I might get some information from one source with no strong relational affiliation, then take that information to a more relational-trust network or community and build on the idea.  In fact, there are many possible learning scenarios that do not include connections that are built solely on relational trust.

I still see the relational trust as a community-based perspective whereas the individual and the role the individual plays within a variety of communities as a connectivist perspective.  Again, communities based on social capital and relational trust (Serviovanni, 2005) certainly have merit, but I do not think it’s a complete look at how we can learn best – growing connections that are transactional, collaborative, and/or relational, all of which are dependent on the individual and the context.

A video on the importance of relational trust:

Curriculum, assessment, and instruction and today’s youth

Why is it so vital that curriculum development and instruction are tailored to the youth of today’s unique learning styles? (Kelly Clark)

It’s vital that the written, taught, and tested curriculum; assessment; and instruction be tailored to today’s learner (avoiding a discussion of learning styles at this point) because today’s learners learn differently than those in the past. Technology affords learners to network with others which opens up educational opportunities like no other time in history. Learners now have the world as their audience as opposed to only the teacher.

In terms of learning objectives, expressive over behavioral outcomes provide the potential for diversifying assessment and instruction in terms of content, process, and products. Giving learners a choice in their own learning shifts to a more learner-centered paradigm that considers teachers more as curators, way-finders, and facilitators. Finally, today’s learner needs to know the what, how, when, where, why, and with whom of education in a way that focuses more on ontology (i.e., Who am I? What is my role in life? How do I impact my own personal learning network?) and not only epistemology. And yes, I think these same questions can honestly and productively be applied to youth of all ages in ways that promote creativity, criticality, and caring.  This is one perspective on why it’s vital that the written, taught, and tested curriculum; assessment; and instruction be tailored to today’s learner.  Thanks for asking.

To Use or Not to Use an LMS

Below are responses to a post regarding Moodle and the audience of a classroom.

“[When using Moodle], why would you say the target audience is the teacher?”

When educators (in mainly formal institutions where grades matter) set up a learning management system (LMS), such as Moodle, they are the target audience as a rule. Those who participate within the LMS are more of a group than a network (Downes, 2006, slide 8) where teachers tend to have more control over the content and degree of openness. And yes, external web tools can and are being used but they are being “siphoned” through an LMS because the intended audience is still the teacher. Students can interact with each other in an LMS but it is still within a contained atmosphere that requires anyone to see this interaction to join “the group”. Each teacher then must evaluate the type of course to be given, the maturity level of the students, etc. to determine which type of LMS is best suited for their teaching context or whether they will use an LMS at all.

As an alternative to an LMS, think of the entire Internet as an “LMS”. Imagine using Google Wave, blogs, wikis, twitter, multimedia tools, etc. in absence of any particular LMS to conduct a class. Now the audience begins to shift away from the teacher, and learning becomes more open. Learners as part of a formal class begin to interact more with the global society as opposed to mainly interacting with those within the LMS group. I recently saw a TED talk with Sir Ken Robinson where he discussed the importance of creating “organic” learning environments for students, and I see learning in a non-LMS environment in the same vein.

What are your thoughts?

———-

Subsequent response…

…the teacher may relinquish full control to the learner and allow the learner to drive and control the content and learning environment.

I agree with you as I suspect most would. The question becomes is this surrender of power best served within or outside a LMS. If my teacher were to give me full rights over the content and learning environment, I could then choose whether or not to use the LMS in the first place (I’m thinking CCK08, CCK09, Edfutures, etc.). And as a learner, I would still have this perception that even though I’m using outside web tools and that I’m in control of the learning environment (however one wishes to define “control”) that the main audience is still my teacher because all the content was being channelled through an LMS.

Can you envision what it would look like in an EFL/ETL class?

Yes, I can envision it becoming more common in the future through the ongoing development of a personal learning network (PLN). My current research, in fact, addresses PLNs and professional development among EFL/ESL educators. In developing a PLN, I see an LMS as a “stepping stone” in facilitating EFL educators (i.e., learners) to become more interdependent.

I Develop as my Network Develops

I just wanted to thank all of those who participated in my talk today!  Keep in touch as I look forward to continuing our dialog on connective learning in the EFL/ESL classroom!

.prezi-player { width: 550px; } .prezi-player-links { text-align: center; }

I Develop as my Network Develops on Prezi

I think critically, therefore I am

Just as important as the article itself is the path it took to get here!

OLDaily>Critical Thinking blog post>I think critically, therefore I am – original blog post

Who says we don’t learn differently than we did, say 20 years ago! In less than 24 hours, this single idea has been exposed to four different readerships: Times Higher Education, elearnspace (George Siemens), OLDaily (Stephen Downes)> and of course to the Collaborative Understandings blog!

CCK08: explanation of connectivism from Bauwens

Bauwens mentions here the following:

1. …a transmission from someone that has the knowledge with someone who doesn’t have the knowledge.

2. The value becomes in your experience in tapping the network  rather than the particular relationship between teacher and learner.

Doesn’t this first statement put more value on the importance of content while the second statement places more value on the “pipe”? And isn’t the teacher part of the network? 

Building a learning community within a class requires that clear objectives be established (i.e., desired results that learners understand), learners have the chance to self-assess, and they collaborate with others (1).  Adhering to a connectivism learning theory (based on the description in this video) leaves me to believe that it’s more important to simply “tap the network” and let the learners create their own network set (I wanted to say interpret) that guides them to some intended practice.  But teachers are looking for a type of practice that provides the evidence needed to accurately evaluate the learner (based on the class objectives), so learners must be able to distinguish between good and bad content (i.e., understanding, knowledge, skill, process, or concept) as they prepare for their future or ongoing practice.  This is where I think the teacher plays a critical role as part of the learning network as a whole.