Yesterday as I was traveling (with free wifi from the good folks at Norwegian Air, I might add), I caught this tweet from Jim Groom:
— Jim Groom (@jimgroom) May 11, 2016
The comment was in response to my previous post where I detailed my interest in understanding how learning analytics were progressing in Chinese education. My first internal response was going to be something snarky and generally defensive. We all build in different ways and toward different visions. It was upsetting to have an area of research interest be ridiculed. Cause I’m a baby like that. But I am more interested in learning than in defending myself and my interests. And I’m always willing to listen to the critique and insight that smart people have to offer. This comment stayed with me as I finalized my talk in Trondheim.
What is our obligation as educators and as researchers to explore research interests and knowledge spaces? What is our obligation to pursue questions about unsavoury topics that we disagree with or even find unethical?
Years ago, I had a long chat with Gardner Campbell, one of the smartest people in the edtech space, about the role of data and analytics. We both felt that analytics has a significant downside, one that can strip human agency and mechanize the learning experience. Where we differed was in my willingness to engage with the dark side. I’ve had similar conversations with Stephen Downes about change in education.
My view is that change happens on multiple strands. Some change from the outside. Some change from the inside. Some try to redirect movement of a system, others try to create a new system altogether. My accommodating, Canadian, middle child sentiment drives my belief that I can contribute by being involved in and helping to direct change by being a researcher. As such, I feel learning analytics can play a role in education and that regardless of what the naysayers say, analytics will continue to grow in influence. I can contribute by not ignoring the data-centric aspects in education and engage them instead and then attempting to influence analytics use and adoption so that it reflects the values that are important for learners and society.
Then, during the conference today, I heard numerous mentions of people like Ken Robinson and the narrative of creativity. Other speaking-circuit voices like Sugata Mitra were frequently raised as well. This lead to reflection about how change happens and why many of the best ideas don’t gain traction and don’t make a systemic level impact. We know the names: Vygostky, Freire, Illich, Papert, and so on. We know the ideas. We know the vision of networks, of openness, of equity, and of a restructured system of learning that begins with learning and the learner rather than content and testing.
But why doesn’t the positive change happen?
The reason, I believe, is due to the lack of systems/network-level and integrative thinking that reflects the passion of advocates AND the reality of how systems and networks function. It’s not enough to stand and yell “creativity!” or “why don’t we have five hours of dance each week like we have five ours of math”. Ideas that change things require an integrative awareness of systems, of multiple players, and of the motivations of different agents. It is also required that we are involved in the power-shaping networks that influence how education systems are structured, even when we don’t like all of the players in the network.
I’m worried that those who have the greatest passion for an equitable world and a just society are not involved in the conversations that are shaping the future of learning. I continue to hear about the great unbundling of education. My fear is the re-bundling where new power brokers enter the education system with a mandate of profit, not quality of life.
We must be integrative thinkers, integrative doers. I’m interested in working and thinking with people who share my values, even when we have different visions of how to realize those values.
Slides from my talk today are below: