A new beginning

My blogging activity will now take a new focus, aligned with previous work that seems to have gained some traction! You're welcome to join the monologue at http://e-ako.blogspot.com.

Mark.

It dies with its comments on...

This may well be the end of eBCNZer.blogspot.com. Its demise has been somewhat immanent for some time. The blogosphere will scarce shed a tear, but it may find my reasons of interest!

1. It's distracting me from my actual research activities. I'm at the stage of my career where I think I need to specialise. Frankly, Web 2.0 in education speculation ain't my area (no surprise to some!) My PhD study is in the area of spiritual formation through distance education, and that's where I need to head. I will direct activity on this in my parallel blog, chredits. I have written a book chapter on Web 2.0 in education (awaiting reviewer feedback... it's been a long wait!) and so my voice here in eBCNZer is no longer needed. My previous post took an entire research day to compile!
   
2. I'm after a different form of discourse. This came home for me (1) in my previous post, which I think did not really provide grounds for extended thinking... to extend in this theme is (2) the arrival of the journal Distance Education 29(1) yesterday, from which I received more useful, thought-provoking and [insert word here implying more objective, considered, peer-reviewed, transferable] ideas than I have from recent blog posts. PLEASE don't take this the wrong way; for me, this has always been a matter of genre and is not meant as a slant on anyone's ideas in particular! I find myself wanting to write more for journals, which I find both more demanding and more satisfying. I also know that there are other writers who will build on my ideas in journals with the same level of scholarship. Elitist? I don't think so. It's rather a desire to deal in ideas which are critiqued and refined before they are published. I value my own ideas going through this process.
   
3. The learning curve has plateaued. At first I found the blogosphere alive with fresh and edgy perspectives. Now, it's getting somewhat repetitive - new contexts, same perspectives. It was the perspectives I was after. Some, I found, are deeply held yet built on shallow evidence; others have been genuinely challenging and cage-rattling. Most often there has been a blend of both, mine included. I have read various blogs with the intention of providing comment on the ideas displayed. As I find that my own perspective is probably getting rather predictable, again things have plateaued.
   
4. The institution is changing its name! As of 2 August we will no longer be BCNZ, Bible College of New Zealand. Instead, our new name will be.
   

So I'm hangin' up the spurs, turnin' off the tap, shuttin' down the power, flicking the switch... so long, from eBCNZer.blogspot.com. I'm still reading your work with interest!

Solid thinking: A challengable position on learning 2.0 and the incumbent

I've been reflecting lately on the claims of Bauerlein in The dumbest generation. Completing his book has come parallel with exposure to some additional materials:

• Martin Weller's post mentioning the transfer of "hierarchy, control and centralisation" from the classroom to e-learning 1.0 and his suggestion of a revolution;
  
• An HEA report "Learning from digital natives" (PDF, 380KB);
• Will Richardson's position on Carr's recent article;
  
• A recent YouTube clip concerned with 'test scores vs community'.
  

So, I'm thinking: where might all of this lead? Of course, I have immediately broken the first rule of textual exchange in the online medium; keep it short. Sorry. Brevity would make this too simplistic, and problematic for trying to explore the thought behind the position. A blog is a lousy place to express oneself like this, but, here goes...

Let me start by saying that there is no question of the importance of collaborative exchange, self-expression, and creativity in learning (these are commonly lauded for Web 2.0-based education). However we must not lose sight of the broader objectives for education - cognitive growth, conceptual maturity, the development of reasoning, exposure to alternatives. There is a very real, very deep tension here in my view. I'm not suggesting that development of the latter might not and do not take place in Web 2.0 community, just that they are important enough to make explicit as educational objectives.

I think that Bauerlein provides an important perspective - and he has the research goods to back it up. He cannot be lightly dismissed; his argument is cohesive, verifiable, and consistent with actual research evidence. The simple fact is that kids aren't reading, aren't engaging in wider cultural experiences, aren't developing broad horizons of interest or knowledge. And so, they are not building the cognitive frameworks they require for a flourishing life (Brighouse). As the "Learning from digital natives" report points out, it is well established that there is "a widening of the gap between the culture of the educational institutions and the culture of learners' lives outside school" (p.4). This is concerning because “learner’s lives outside of school” are moving, not because educational institutions are not. One of Bauerlein's main contentions: kids are, well, in his words, becoming dumber because what they are doing outside of school is not reading (and, by not reading I mean seriously not reading. No one is asking for a 150 page non-fiction book a week here. Kids are seriously ignoring books). Instead, they engage in media and Web 2.0 connections (with one another). This connectivity takes on a very socially-oriented role, rather than engaging them in communities of practice or communities of educational discourse (unless it is associated with homework, a decidedly traditional educational requirement).

So, arguably, school’s lack of response to Web 2.0 is not the ‘problem’. What takes place out of school is. One of my hesitations about learning 2.0 as I understand it (and please correct me, I make no claims to comprehensively represent it) is that it seeks to remove the formal structures that require students to broaden their horizons and explicitly develop those skills mentioned earlier (“cognitive growth, conceptual maturity, the development of reasoning, exposure to alternatives”), making ‘out of school’ the replacement for school. If this is too simplistic, well, I have exposed my lack of appreciation for learning 2.0 and am more than happy to look further into it (please provide references). Incidentally, if I do not properly understand e-learning 2.0 I think I can only take part-blame. I am no slouch to edublogger discourse.

I believe it is productive to seek ways in which Web 2.0 can be applied within the incumbent formal education system. However, I believe that we must do so from an attitude of appreciative inquiry. It seems that most criticism of the incumbent does not provide it with this courtesy. The 'Learning from digital natives" study betrays its own bias somewhat early in the piece:

Outside formal educational environments individuals act as active participants navigating their way independently through complex multimodal digital environments. Yet in school they are expected to submit to a pedagogic regime that is fundamentally premised on the transmission and testing of decontextualised knowledge and skills, and which is dominated by “old generation” technologies (Web 1.0) underpinned by a radically different philosophy and a different set of affordances.

Is this a fair portrayal of the incumbent? I think, at least in New Zealand, it is not. The contrast between the brave new world of community-based knowledge negotiation and the existing ‘old world’ of transmitting decontextualised knowledge into passive containers is extremely inaccurate. Read Bauerlein and you will understand my reaction; the statement cited above is all too typical of discourse in this area. The difference between ‘independently navigating the complex, multimodal digital environment’ of World of Warcraft, Facebook and YouTube and the development of transferable cognitive skills is fundamental. The former 'independence' is incredibly less educational than studying social issues via Ministry-related Web sites, engaging with the opportunity to ask online questions of government officials, and poring over independent reports (and media). Guess which of these is more typical of today’s ‘active participant’? See also previous critique of 'Mind Hack's take on Carr; 'mental development' is an insufficient grounds for Web 2.0 advocacy, as use of the term is too generous. It’s not the opportunity for discourse in Web 2.0, it’s the actual level of engagement that concerns me and other Web 2.0 critics.

I think too often we as edubloggers either encourage or else are encouraged to think in terms of revolution, to overthrow the shackles of "hierarchy, control and centralisation" so as to achieve a community-based series of self-expression and negotiation of truth. However I see substantial evidence (in some ‘e’ critics such as Bauerlein and Jeanneney, but especially in the broader educational works of Mezirow, Gardner, Ramsden, Biggs, Brunner, Palmer, Tubbs, Brighouse, Dewey) that the latter will not necessarily lead to better or sufficiently comprehensive educational outcomes to develop conceptual reasoning.

Citing Friere and Illich are not useful counters to this position unless a coherent argument can be made about how formal education seeks to subjugate students in ways that exploit them. Friere in particular is concerned with issues of social justice; where is this absent in our incumbent schooling system? Is it really correct to suggest that formal education is based on the banking concept? Take another look. Illich, another oft-cited critic, sought to reduce the culture of compulsion in formal education so that its value would be better appreciated. Further, I have much respect for George Siemens (he is by far the most conversational and open-minded edublogger I have had the pleasure to communicate with and learn from!), but I do have some serious reservations about the theory of connectivism. Knowledge ‘distributed across a network’ is great if you’re looking for answers, but it seems less useful if you’re trying to establish the skills necessary to reflect on them, express yourself logically through the preparation of a complex argument, engage in sustained debate, or explore the tension of ideas. The network simply cannot sustain conceptual discourse. The latter is too complex, abstract and fraught with the potential for miscommunication and imbalanced representation. Radical ideas are too easily dismissed, and their owners too easily ignored. In some ways, a lack of comment to this post will reflect just that – assuming that any reader has made it down this far! With the sheer volume of ideas, blog feeds and emerging norms of reading (a la Carr), I would be surprised (and humbled) if anyone took the time to seriously reflect on this post and engage in a serious discourse relating to it.

Well, to bring this to a close... I see value in "the transmission and testing of decontextualised knowledge and skills", even though this is not a fair description of the incumbent. I see value in the incumbent formal education system, because of the exposure it provides to broader ideas and tasks (please don't label me a behaviourist, determinist, or instructivist; I make the aforementioned statement with an underlying commitment to social constructivism and know my own mind. I am all too conscious that this post, though a deeper-than-normal explanation of my position, does not provide a comprehensive picture of the complexity of my own educational thinking). Such exposure is critical for one's development as a citizen and broad-thinker. Bauerlein (and Clay Shirky) recognise that people tend to congregate to opinions just like their own. Bauerlein describes this in terms of limiting one's horizons; Clay uses the term homophily. I consider that the requirement to think beyond what one would normally choose to think about, across subjects that one does not usually choose to engage with, along with people one would normally not be exposed to to be extremely valuable elements of formal education.

Finally, I think there is value in the control, hierarchy, and centralisation of formal education. Without it there can be no verification of achievement, no transparency, no measure of consistency for each student, no criteria for evaluation and improvement, no ability to self-reflect and improve. It is when the incumbent system stands still that we should become concerned; the formal education system is frequently reinventing itself, responding to scholarship, social issues and the requirements for effective citizenship. Bauerlein’s concern is that students are increasingly opting out of such responsibilities. Of course, my advocacy of the incumbent must be understood alongside my own desire to see students having the freedom to express themselves and develop their own view of the world. There is a real and natural tension in educational systems, hence ongoing activity and debate.

And so, my ideal future: A formal education system based on social constructivism, actively pursued within the incumbent system of control, hierarchy and centralisation, applying Web 2.0 tools when it makes sense to do so. This, I think, is a more realistic, sustainable and viable response to future possibilities than adopting a system with a deliberate Web 2.0 or learning 2.0 foundation. I am not suggesting that one can only learn through formal education. I am suggesting that an education afloat on Web 2.0 community would be impoverished by comparison to an incumbent system arranged around social constructivism within the framework of a solid curriculum.

Whew.

[Grammatical edits made following original post. A peer reviewer would have picked them up earlier... ;o)].

Getting back to basics

One of the latest reports from the Pew Internet & American Life Project concerns teens and their writing. This is an excellent report, with teens confessing that their 'e-communications' are not perceived by them as writing, and expressing their desire for more formal writing at school. Teens agree that writing is an important life skill, and they are not against writing extended pieces. What teens describe as motivating for them when it comes to writing (pp.51-64) is well within the grasp of creative and dedicated teachers.

Mostly, I am glad to see that teens, at least in this sample, are able to tell the difference between social communications that use text, and writing as a means of expressing ideas and opinions in more formal ways - and I'm greatly encouraged that they value formal writing. It is our responsibility as educators to provide them with opportunities to express and learn from it! There is much room for creative requirements within the essay-as-assignment genre. While some view the essay as passe and artificial, teens (at least in this report) see it as providing valuable and transferable skills. I'm happy to side with them!

Are we getting dumber?

The effects of the 'Net on learning seems to be a contemporary issue. This morning (my time) in elearnspace was a piece drawing attention to a recent Atlantic column: "Is Google making us stupid?" and a response (I'm not generous enough to call it a rebuttal!) by 'Mind Hack'. I tried posting this on George's blog but was told that I had to 'register' (not sure how, George...?), so here's my five cents in response to George's conclusion that "While the evidence supporting the idea that we think differently due to technology use may not exist, anecdotal seems to trump empirical for most people...":

Hi George. According to Mark Bauerlein, the empirical evidence IS there (he cites numerous studies) and it strongly supports Carr's concerns. It also mounts serious question marks over 'Mind Hack's' conclusions which support VISUAL improvement but not neccesarily any cognitive or conceptual framework improvement. Bauerlein's The dumbest generation is careful to cite studies concerned with matters broader than simply visual development, which is where you would expect improvement. The phrase in Mind Hack's piece "linked to better mental performance" is very misleading, as the studies cited do not indicate better overall mental performance but rather improved visual and spatial intelligence. Equating the two is a rather serious oversight! In Gardner's terms we may well be making excellent progress in the areas of spatial intelligence, however the evidence IS that the intelligences of verbal-linguistic and logical-mathematical are being compromised.

Of course, the compromise in the V-L and L-M are not taking place solely because of technology. The real issue is how people are engaging with technology and taking for granted the important disciplines of sustained and investigative reading and writing, and the importance of structured essay writing (components of building V-L and L-M intelligence). These are unfortunately regarded as passe however their importance to "mental performance" is fundamental. This from a paper I have recently submitted on Web 2.0 and education:

A search [online] for a ‘fact’ will reveal the answer quickly; a search for a complex question or issue such as ‘whether democratization favours equality or not’ renders a search engine largely useless (citing Jeanneney 2007)

And,

A blog entry... will typically contain around 300 to 400 words and be read in about a minute and a half. To what extent can an in-depth conceptual position be established in this medium? Might we lose the ability to engage in extended evaluation as we embrace expediency? Could it be that we may actually sacrifice depth for reach in our desire to be connected, and in the process miss the opportunity to present our ideas in the context of our overall meta-views?

Carr, I salute you.

A pass!

Just received notification that I have passed the Wikiversity course in "Composing free and open online educational resources", from this blog post, which doubles as my graduation ceremony!

Thanks Teemu and Hans, great work - and free. Thanks for furthering my perspective on OER and their potential; all the very best for your own future endeavours!

More on Net Gen nonsense

A good slideshow from Mark Bullen, and some comments by Chris Lott. This quote from Chris stands out:

...a whole lot of learning is not about biology but about cognition and the mental processes built on top of that biology. The two points with which you [referring to George Siemens] conclude your post (”1) the changed ways in which we can access, interact with, and create information, and 2) the changed ways in which we can access, interact with, and connect to each other.”) are changes in learners, and they are changes that happen as a result of living in a very different and quickly changing technologically mediated environment than others. Fight it all you want, but those learners are different [emphasis added].

Yes, and it is this different that is cause for concern about Net Gen nonsense. These differences do not represent opportunities to be exploited; evidence is suggesting that they are weaknesses that require serious deliberation and intervention. The 'different' is epistemological, and concerning. It is great to see debate taking place on this; my suspicion is that Net Gen evangelism will soon turn from our need to apply new technologies, to rescuing them from our own pedagogical folly in suggesting that facts are not important, and our more traditional means inadequate (not suggesting for a moment that they have ever been perfect).

Net Gen nonsense, to me, is characterised by an exaggerated optimism about:

1. Young peoples' IT and media savvy.
   
2. Young peoples' ability to learn, and their affinity for cognitive development.
   
3. The ways in which technology can be used in order to leverage these abilities (usually by getting the teacher and curriculum out of the way).

It is these three generalisations that are now being reconsidered in blogs such as Net Gen nonsense. That Chris is able to himself refer to "extremism ala Prensky" indicates that this is happening rather rapidly - not to mention the objective studies that are now rapidly emerging.