Skipping conferences: "I’ve barked and moaned previously...about the staleness and sad irony of the 50 minute lecture to a passive audience being the primary mode of information sharing at professional gatherings and the minimal information density of conference presentations."
Comment: I agree with Alan. I haven't been to a significant conference for over a year. The last conference I attended seemed to be a 6+ month delay of topics I encountered from education bloggers earlier. In a less critical note, often conferences are opportunities to connect with "the mainstream". Bloggers sometimes acquire limited vision - we assume that because we know, others know. To encounter rants about the value of blogs after a person has blogged for four years seems a bit "old". Yet for many in the education community, RSS is still a new concept. Perhaps that's the value of conferences - they provide the opportunity to connect with others outside of our small community.
An interesting exporation of learning from neurosciences (though parts read much like cognitive theory)...I'm sure we'll continue to see our notions of learning challenged by ongoing research from the neuroscience field: A Primer on Learning: A Brief Introduction from the Neurosciences "
Google has started offering RSS feeds for users of Google personalized. It reminds me of a Microsoft product I saw years ago titled dashboard. It treated various information sources as web objects that could be implemented into the page, allowing users to aggregate information of interest. It was quite clunky. The Google interface is simple and clean. The process of adding an RSS feed is simple as well, though adding many to this page would make for a complicated display. RSS for the masses will not come through Bloglines or Technorati. That will remain the interest of more devoted RSS readers. Most people don't care what RSS is...and probably will never want a definition of what it is...they simply want the benefits of what it does. I remember reading the initial magazines extolling the value of MS Windows. True diehards still liked their DOS line commands. Newcomers (the vast majority of computer users) wanted something simple. In a similar sense, Google is beginning to rewrite how information is shared, and they are focusing on the emerging market of new users (much like Microsoft did with Windows). While Google's mission is stated as "organizing the world's information", they are getting more interested in also organizing how the world's information flows...
Social Machines: "At bottom, the shift is bringing computing far closer to our everyday experience. We've just seen how social software can give us new ways to tap into the collective wisdom of the people in our social groups. But that's only one consequence of continuous computing. On a more personal level, for example, the portable devices that sustain the information field are more respectful of our bodies and our perambulatory nature. No longer do we have to slouch over desktop computers all day to stay connected to the Net: computing devices have become so small, light, and ergonomic that we can take them almost everywhere."
Socially, most of us adapt at a slower pace than technology develops. Even if we begin using new tools, the social/work/personal implications lag behind. Growing stress over information overload is an indication of this. Productivity experts are advocating the importance of "compartmentizing" tasks (i.e. read email only twice a day, turn of IM software). I think life/work/technology balance is a very personal experience. Ultimately, technology should enable, not squelch, productivity. Driven to distraction by technology: "For years, technology has worked to get people more connected. In the office there's e-mail, instant messages and the phone. On the road, cell phones and BlackBerrys enable workers to stay in touch with colleagues.
There is a mini rebellion under way, however. Desperate for some quiet time to think, people are coming up with low-tech strategies to get away from all their technology."
The Myth about E-Learning “We Don’t Need to Worry about E-Learning Anymore”: "Although online learning clearly has a growing presence in higher education, discussions about implementing e-learning continue to lack consensus. Part of the problem, as noted above, is the definition of e-learning. Many educators assume e-learning to mean that an entire course and all the interactions between faculty and students are online. But today’s definition has morphed from a fully-online course to the use of technology to deliver some or all of a course. Hybrid courses integrate face-to-face and online components."
Learning is an integrative task...a holistic experience. Moving learning beyond the artificial sanitary construct of a course and into the sometimes nebulous messy environment of real-life requires acknowledgement that learning is an open loop process - i.e. external factors influence what we know, decisions alter context, application of knowledge is a feedback generating process, etc. Over the last few months I've encountered increased focus on systems thinking in relation to learning. Systems Thinking and Complexity Links provides some very useful starting points in this discipline.
Mobile phones are likely to develop into a key learning tool. Few technologies are more universal, more versatile, and more used by younger learners. Learning designers should be moving towards a level of design where all their content is accessible via mobile phones. Some thought leaders have advocated that learning will eventually be intelligently designed into the appliance we are using (i.e. Stephen Downes has used the analogy that a fishing rod will have context relevant learning resources teaching a user how to fish). Until this happens, a cell phone is likely to be the transitioning tool that truly moves learning from classroom/desktop to learning in a context relevant manner. Here's a quick overview of some social/technical developments in mobile phones.
Blogging + Video = Vlogging...I've touched on video logging in this forum in the past - it's a part of a growing arsenal of tools (which include blogging and podcasting) enabling individuals to become media producers (or at minimum, broadcast their views to a select audience). I read recently that tomorrow's media will defer from traditional media in one critical regard: instead of a few producing for millions, it will be millions producing for a few. I'm not sure I completely agree with that as the central element of tomorrow's media, but I do agree that millions of producers will play an important role. Learning from blogging, for example, we find that similar power laws exist online as in traditional media. It didn't take long for a handful of bloggers to become central nodes carrying a larger portion of links and influence. The key difference, however, is that smaller bloggers still have a place in this domain - it is not exclusively the arena for large, successful bloggers.
Principles for Evaluating Websites: "How do you know whether something you read on the web is true? You can’t know, at least, not for sure. This makes it important to read carefully and to evaluate what you read. This guide will tell you how."
Beyond the Horseless Carriage (.pdf) The author of the paper (Gerry White) explores reasons why technology has not provided the same level of impact on education that it has on business, manufacturing, and finance. In the process, he explores stages of information and communications technology development, as well as learning theories.
Co-opting the creative revolution: "Digital technology is providing people with the tools to produce and share content like never before, and it is set to throw the relationship between them and institutions into turmoil, say experts."
Comment: Traditional organizations see something unnerving (toxic?) about the loose coupling and connection-based approaches to information, creativity and content management. The most substantial future debate (and has been ongoing in computing since day one) is centralization and decentralization. I don't think it's and either/or debate (though it is being framed as such by both sides). Both approaches are needed, depending on intended tasks/outcomes. The concpet of learning management systems (LMS) is a good example of this debate. Certain aspects of learning should be centralized (particularly enrolment), and others should be decentralized (interaction, content exploration, learner-created content (blogs, wikis), etc.). The problem arises when LMS vendors try to centralize processes (namely learning itself) that are best served in a decentralized model. Media is currently experiencing the impact of poorly judging the nature of this debate. Reduced consumer trust, dropping ratings/subscriptions, and newer technologies are altering the landscape. It's disturbing that many educators seem unwilling to acknowledge the same trends unfolding in the learning sphere.
Seeing Things Whole (via elearningpost): "It becomes increasingly difficult to see things whole in the old hierarchy. People in boxes, squares, and rectangles find it difficult to move easily across the organization, in teams and groups, all carrying their own share of the big picture. More and more leaders are moving the enterprise away from the old boxes, into meeting the challenge of "managing in a world that is round" (Leader to Leader, Number 2, Fall 1996). Seeing the organization whole, flexible, fluid, and circular moves us into the community of the future."
Personal Toolkit: Apertures of articulation : "The basic dynamic of collaborative knowledge work is not the deliberate creation or spontaneous self-organization of teams and groups, but rather the conversations that happen in them."
I'm getting a bit frustrated with the continual statements that learning is a social process. Certain types of learning certainly require a social process. Other types of learning are not at all socially enabled. I'm a strong advocate for the value of individuality in learning (especially group learning). My interest in learning networks stems from the individuality of each node in the larger network. For example, if a corporation designs an effective learning network (effective being defined as having diverse features with high level of learner control - i.e. blogs, wikis, mentorship, communities, access to resources, etc.), then any one node within the network can increase the value of the entire network simply by learning. If I'm connected within my organization, when I expand my knowledge, the entire organization benefits.
What does this have to do with social learning? Well, most learning is actually not social. When I wish to improve my own competence/learning, I may take numerous approaches - reading, researching, searching online, thinking, etc. The social element of learning occurs when I engage my network for feedback and understanding. It's very important that each node within a network brings value to the network, rather than simply attempting to learn together with the network. When an individual comes to the network as an individual with unique ideas, beliefs, and experiences, she is able to challenge and learn from/with the larger network. However, when an individual simply enters the network, without contributing individuality, she is largely an unnecessary node (as she simply reflects the existing content of a network).
As I've stated before, different types of learning are important for different learning needs. Plugging someone with no knowledge of a field into a network is probably not the best approach. Some base level of learning (even if only the terminology) needs to be present before meaningful interaction and contribution to the larger network can happen. This isn't to say that a newcomer to a field would be completely lost in a network...but that a base level of competence often needs to exist before the full value of the network can be utilized.
As well, a primarily social view of learning also overlooks many of the affordances of technology. I can learn (learning defined as actuated or actionable knowledge) from a computer program, an intelligent software agent, or a contextually appropriate learning resource (i.e. when I need to do the task, the learning resource is mediated by technology). So, yes, learning does have a social component, but anyone who has spent much time learning and interacting with technology will assert that it is not the only (or perhaps even the dominant) aspect of learning. My biggest issues with constructivism center on the emphasis that learning is social and largely subjective. As stated, yes it can be...but it's only a part. A large, more integrated model is needed to adequately express learning today (shall I plug connectivism again? :)).
Older students transforming some colleges: "At 55, Crowder is one of the growing ranks of what educators call "nontraditional students": those age 24 or older who did not proceed directly from high school to college or remain there full-time to earn a degree."
Comment: Anyone directly involved in higher education has seen this trend for years. At Red River College, I've found it's not unusual to have a range of learners from 18 years old to 50 plus. It's no longer the exception. It's the rule with virtually every new group of students entered our program. It does present a challenge for educators - i.e. how to engage and meet the needs of two very distinctive cultures/mindsets. I think it's a testament to our need to move from instructor dominated learning. If learners are given greater control in the learning experience, they are able to meet their needs on their own terms (rather than expecting the instructor to meet the needs of very diverse learners - an almost impossible task).
The concern expressed here is the heart of what I've argued with connectivism (though I have more optimism on the capacity for higher education to heal itself than the author does): Does College Matter?: "But I'm far less interested in whether majoring in a high-tech field is a good idea today than I am in whether the question even matters. The average education in computer science, engineering, and even medicine is partly obsolete within 18 months. Some weird variant of Moore's law I guess. The conventional wisdom says that the specifics of what you learn are much less important than the fact that you're learning the fundamentals, and you're learning to learn--things you'll need to maintain your skills and knowledge in a quickly changing world.
The problem is, you virtually never hear a student say that. It's always the parents or someone speaking on behalf of the educational system. When was the last time you honestly heard (and believed) an actual current college student claim that the true benefit of their formal college education is in learning to be a lifelong learner?"
The inability to "control something" is the source of many fears. It seems that our shift has gone from distusting government (i.e. "Big Brother") to distrusting ourselves: Sousveillance: "Yet the implicit mental model of Big Brother is curiously old-fashioned because it is Orwell's vision that has become so dominant. This vision is rooted in a post-war perspective on the future, where technology is used to create giant databases so the government can exercise centralised control of society.
However, if technology continues to evolve along current lines, then Big Brother will end up being far more powerful than Orwell envisaged (in the sense that we will have far less individual privacy). In a world of matchbox-sized MPeg4 camcorders and cameraphones, of always-on broadband and RFID, your next-door neighbours will be the nemesis of privacy."
I've posted a new article on elearnspace: Learning Development Cycle: Bridging Learning Design and Modern Knowledge Needs. It was an in transition article when Stephen posted his article on how instructional design is changing. It's rather interesting to see how various domains of education and learning are "catching up" to the new technology influenced environment. It seems that we like keeping models until they absolutely cease functioning. We usually don't evolve models smoothly.
Stephen Downes responds to the question, "Where do you see the money being made in elearning today?": Economy of E-Learning
Can Video Long Tail Boost Learning And Educational Opportunities?: "Call it Open Source Television, Internet of Video, Internet Television or any other name you like, the essence remains the same: a huge amount of openly accessible video content is already becoming available on the Internet...For the first time education could look at television as a new resource, rather than as an enemy and carrier of low-quality, brainless programming. The traditional enemy of culture and learning may be gearing up for a major comeback. "
I'm a sucker for idealism, even when I know it just wouldn't work. Still, statements like think are cause to stop and think "what if" - Idealism and Education: "Here is what I propose as a model for higher education. First, start an institution which will teach qualified students for free and provide those who need a living allowance. Only admit those who promise to give back to the institution according to their means later. And during the years of study, the least the institution can do is to produce human beings who are not only capable of earning a living, but are decent enough to recognize their obligation and fulfill them. If the institution fails in either of these two objectives, the institution does not have a reason for existence and should be allowed to go out of business. "
Arizona School Will Not Use Textbooks: "
A high school in Vail will become the state's first all-wireless, all-laptop public school this fall. The 350 students at the school will not have traditional textbooks. Instead, they will use electronic and online articles as part of more traditional teacher lesson plans...Often, cost, insecurity, ignorance and institutional constraints prevent schools from making the leap away from paper."
Citizen Journalism: "With the tsunami on Boxing Day we saw the power of the "citizen journalist" in providing instantaneous footage of events when no camera crews or photojournalists were present. But last week marked another step in the disintegration of media hierarchies."
The Structure and Function of Complex Networks (.pdf) - a fairly complex (mathematical), but very valuable, exploration of concepts in relation to internet, social networks, organizational networks, etc.
Not sure how many elearnspace readers listen to podcasts, but I came across this site (via unmediated) - Talkr: "Talkr provides a service that allows you to listen to your favorite text-only news sources rather than read them. If you can point us to an RSS feed (a machine-readable version of your favorite blog or news source) we will convert that feed from text to speech." I've applied for elearnspace. Will post once it's approved.
Technologies of Cooperation (.pdf) - a very useful report presenting eight clusters of cooperative technologies (including social tools, self organizing mesh networks, knowledge collectives, etc). Page 15 includes an excellent matrix displaying the eight clusters with strategic guidelines (structure, resources, identity, etc.).
Are the Basics of Instructional Design Changing?: "...human thought amounts to patterns of interactions in neural networks. More precisely, patterns of input phenomena - such as sensory perceptions - cause or create patterns of connections between neurons in the brain. These connections are associative - that is, connections between two neurons form when the two neurons are active at the same time, and weaken when they are inactive or active at different times...What online learning does is not merely to communicate information but to create such a network. Prior to the advent of online learning, all such networks were local - they were, even in instances of distance learning, physically constrained. But with online learning comes not only a much wider, more diverse network, but also the idea that (a) the network may be based on non-physical (or emergent) properties, (b) that the individual may choose to belong to or not belong to a network, and (c) that an individual may assume multiple identities or memberships in multiple networks."
Comment: Sometimes, just asking a question is indicative of a significant change in climate. Inquiring about the changing nature of instructional design indicates a core dissatisfaction with instructional design (and indirectly, existing views of learning). I've stated previously that in a network model, when one node expands or increases it's value/skill/efficacy, the entire network is altered (even if only slightly). If we view the entire domain of learning (from society's needs to learner to designer to administrator) as a network, when one element changes, the others are impacted. In today's environment we are seeing significant changes in the needs of society and the learner (rapid information development, globalization, increased competition, etc.). The alteration of these two nodes requires that other nodes react appropriately in order to remain a part of the network.
I strongly recommend Stephen's article as an excellent entry point into the debate of what it means to learn, and how this impacts our design of learning. Stephen explores the critical concept of causal systems of education in relation to network phenomenon. I believe that much of the future of learning and education will be battled out on these fault lines. It's strongly reminiscent of the ongoing debate of centralization vs. decentralization and hierarchy vs. connections.
Overall, a tremendous, thought-provoking read - a direct assault on much of how we have organized education and learning in today's organization.
Sebastien Fiedler offers a thoughtful reaction to Stephen's article, providing additional discussion through several links at the end of his post.
It's Who You Know (via Connectedness): "Social Network Analysis is a set of survey methods and statistics that reveals the hidden connections between people. The outcome of an SNA shows where collaboration is breaking down, where talent and expertise could be better used, where decisions are getting bogged down or where opportunities for innovation are being lost...Understanding how a company works used to be as easy as looking at an organizational chart. But in a networked organization (which most companies now are), the chart is no longer an adequate guide."
Comment: I recently interviewed Barry Wellman on the subject of networks and learning. During the discussion, I asked him if networks could be seen as "the theory of everything" in relation to how things work in today's information climate. Dr. Wellman stated that a theory of everything might be over-ambitious, but that network theory certainly does inform in a more direct manner the nature of our knowledge activities today. Hierarchy is a great system (for those involved in the early years of data management, hierarchy was the starting point of database systems). As database developers soon discovered, as information becomes more complex (and abundant), hierarchy becomes less useful. Relational (and now object-oriented) databases were developed as an alternative means for handling complex data relationships. I see a very similar trend in learning, organizational effectiveness, personal relationships, etc. Network theory is nicely aligned with our current knowledge needs and information climate.
A new study (New Mind Model) by Cornell is receiving a fair bit of online discussion. The study basically states: "The theory that the mind works like a computer, in a series of distinct stages, was an important steppingstone in cognitive science, but it has outlived its usefulness, concludes a new Cornell University study. Instead, the mind should be thought of more as working the way biological organisms do: as a dynamic continuum, cascading through shades of grey." I encountered a similar concept in a listserv recently. The discussion centered on the distinction between our learning as a process of pattern recognition, not information processing. The idea that we recognize patterns (instead of processing information) has the potential to strongly influence how we design and create learning. The concept is in keeping with connectivism as a networked view of learning.
"Pre-filters" vs. "Post-filters": "But in Long Tail markets, where distribution is cheap and shelf space is plentiful, the safe bet is to assume that everything is eventually going to be available. The role of filter then shifts from gatekeeper to advisor."
Comments: The two most significant directions of society (in terms of learning and how we organize) relate to networks and centralization/decentralization. I'm not sure which is the greater force (though it could certainly be argued that they are strongly connected). On the one hand, networks are altering how we see information flow and its impact on learning. On the other hand, centralization/decentralization is altering how we organize ourselves in relation to the information flow. If information flows (somewhat naturally) across corporate/organizational networks, then certain "control points" act as filters. In a centralized environment, traditional hierarchy often determines how information flows. In a decentralized environment, each network node is perceived as having equal access to any other node (and as a result, any type of information flow).
Brain-based research will alter much of how we think about our thinking. For all of our hypothesizing, we are largely unaware of how our brains really work. What Other People Say May Change What You See is an interesting article providing a glimpse into how new research is answering some very foundational questions. This article in particular explains how people's perception is actually altered based on the input from others - as if there is a perceived cost of going against group/other's standing views. Tightly linked to this type of brain-based research is a growing understanding of how people collaborate and behave in cooperative environments. The study of group behaviour is of strong interest to corporations and education. Collaborating and building networks are both vital knowledge skills. A functioning understanding of how these skills impact group and individual behaviour is important.