- 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)].
29 comments:
love your work, thanks for references and links (not read yet), taking on Illich, Friere and putting together a coherent position ... your blog had me sitting on the edge of my seat :-)
I would have been put off by the attention seeking title, The dumbest generation , I would see that as a hypothesis not a fact - to me that style of language is of the same ilk as natives / immigrants, very regrettable that good books have to promote themselves in that way in this age of the attention economy
I did put a commentary and reading list together on this topic some time ago, effect of technology, work, play and media on our intelligence --> I should add in some of your references there to update it
I agree that George is a nice guy, he encouraged me as a critic, but feel he had done us a disservice by prematurely producing a new theory of learning before doing the hard hards of integrating the other, older theories - which I believe makes constructivism superfluous. I see that as another aspect of the attention economy
correction: wrt george I meant connectivism is superfluous not constructivism (sorry)
Thanks Bill, I appreciate your feedback. Of course, the viability of the position rests upon my representation of learning 2.0!
Just a few points of clarification. Firstly, I'm not trying to "take on" Illich or Friere. Rather, I think their concerns have been misrepresented by edubloggers. Also, I don't think George has necessarily done us a disservice; he has put into a coherent theory the epistemology of Web 2.0. I think that the real disservice here is the lack of critique connectivism has been subject to. George has always been open to constructive criticism, and in many ways that makes him a model blogger, theorist and scholar!
Thanks so much for the link to your prior work, a very effective bibliography!
Mark.
hi mark,
yes, I expressed myself poorly re. your Illich or Friere statements, I think I was excited to see something different to what I perceive as fairly automatic reverence in their direction (but I could well be uninformed about that)
I've added links to the Carr article, the Bauerlein book and this blog recommendation of that book to my blog, our intelligence
alan kay's education vision provides another perspective to the limitations of web2.0 / learning2.0
I'm a newcomer to edublogging and I suppose I've been reading too much of the same thing. FINALLY, I'm finding some balance in this apparently uniform world. I even wrote a post about this some time ago in my (incipient)blog- eLearning 4 Empowerment .Of course the fault is with me who haven't been able to look "around" properly. Anyway, I loved your post; I particularly liked the way you defended your points of view without (I think) leaving space for others to say you said something you didn't say. By the way, as a Brazilian, I couldn't let this pass: the guy's name is Paulo FREIRE, not FRIERE.
Hello Annamaria,
Thanks for your comments. VERY sorry about misspelling Freire! I noticed from your own posts that you have an MEd. I have an MA in Open and Distance Ed from the OU... interesting how we are seeking balance. Something to do with our educational heritage?
Re the post you linked to in your comment: I think you finally found a cynic! ;o)
Sorry Anamaria, spelled your name wrong!
Hello Mark.
I have a few short comments:
You said:
I believe it is productive to seek ways in which Web 2.0 can be applied within the incumbent formal education system.
In my recent post I try to change the direction implicit in that thinking resulting in a remix of your words to:
I believe it is productive to seek ways in which the incumbent formal education system can be applied within Web 2.0
I hope you can recognisie the usefulness of the rearrangement and its relationship to society at large (unfortunate term that Web2 is).
But in terms of productive uses of social media inside the incumbent, I would point to non other than Konrad Glogowski research of blogging in a middle school English class.
Of course, my perspective to offer in the context of child learning has to be limited due to the fact that I occupy adult learning spaces. But in saying that, in all the "web2" literature, where exactly are the references to Illich? I don't recall Siemens or Downes making reference (perhaps they have more recently, but not in 2004/5. I don't recall Prensky or Richardson referencing Illich. In fact, I have been surprised to see that very very few commentators of education in our social media age have referenced Illich. To date, I am only aware of myself and Pam Hook (Artichoke). Perhaps I've exposed my limited range of reading on the topic?
Hey Leigh,
Thanks for your comments. The reference to Illich is wider than your own work; try Googling "Web 2.0 Illich".
I'm not certain of your distinction, but I am interested to explore it further. Perhaps in your next blog post...? I'm VERY interested to explore any relationship of Web 2.0 with the incumbent, whether the former drives the latter (as you seem to suggest) or (in my thinking) the latter making use of the former. Would you be able to add some further flesh...?
Thanks Leigh.
Good idea to Google Web2 and Illich.. however I received results of a reading group of which I am a part, a scan of an original manuscript, some other links to people I would say are well known, and then Artichoke, who has been by far the strongest referrer in my reader. I'm not claiming originality in the reference to Illich, he's an obvious link. But I was trying to say that (in my experience anyway) the reference to Illich has been very weak. I'll keep an eye out for more though.
As for more flesh, I did think my post was it :( an attempt at arguing that school is not the right place to be exploring learning through social media... I failed I guess :(
I meant to say, a list of links to people I WOULDN'T say are well known...
Hi Leigh,
No, not failed... I'm just interested to hear more. On the one hand, it seems you are calling for an END to school. On the other... reference to Konrad's work and your comment "I believe it is productive to seek ways in which the incumbent formal education system can be applied within Web 2.0". I'm just not reconciling these at the moment, so I know that there is more to learn from your thinking.
So, not failure on your part... just an incomplete understanding on my part. My bad!
Hmm, well - perhaps one thing that clearly comes through from "edubloggers" is the call for fundamental change to school and education. So, perhaps what I mean is - if education doesn't change (and it will) then END school. But if education does change.. well school will still have ended, but education will live on.
Who knows really!? No one knows.
Hi Mark - I'm going to leave about half a dozen comments here replying to a few of the threads in your post and comments :).
I have not read Bauerlein yet, so I obviously cannot comment on the quality of his work/research. What you explore coming from his work, however, is vital: how do we foster deep learning (or as you put it "cognitive growth, conceptual maturity, the development of reasoning, exposure to alternatives") in an age of weak ties, loose connections, and fragmented reality. I tackled the concept mismatch between the need for deep learning and weak ties in a presentation last year. If you're interested, the slides are here: http://www.slideshare.net/gsiemens/living-learning-communicating-in-an-immediate-world/
We assume - and for that matter, have a reasonable research base - that slower, more involved activities like reading contribute to the development of learners in a way that fragmentation does not. One of my favorite explorations on the subject is Cunningham and Stanovich's What Reading Does for the Mind - http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/spring_sum98/cunningham.pdf .
But perhaps it's not the lack of reading we are chastising. Perhaps the concern is the fragmented attention span of learners today (as Carr suggests in his anecdotal exploration...or Oppenheimer's criticism in the Flickering Mind). The concept of "time on task" and years to acquire expertise cannot be replaced simply because we have blogs. Weick explored the notion of time required to become an expert and concluded that experts possess a richer array of patterns based on experience than novices do. As such, (obviously) the capacity for experts to intelligently act in difficult circumstances is greater than novices. Why? Because experts match patterns rather than think linearly in solving problems. Kirschner, Sweller and Clark suggest a similar distinction between expert/novices frame of thinking in "Why Minimally guided Instruction does not Work": http://projects.ict.usc.edu/dlxxi/materials/clark/Constructivism_EP_05_Kirschner_Sweller_Clark_Ss.pdf
All of this to say, that I share your concern about lack of deep understanding exhibited by learners today...and that this lack of understanding/depth of thinking is not a school problem but a society problem. A colleague shared a recent study about school kids in Calgary and how their lives were being spent indoors, rather than outside playing. While this may not seem very significant, this is a change that has literally occurred in 10-15 years, largely due to video games, internet etc. Obviously kids can learn playing games. Steinkuehler suggests that kids who play World of Warcraft have advanced capacity for scientific, diverse, and complex thinking than kids that do not. Why? The need to collaborate, problem solve, consider alternatives, coordinate with a guild, etc, all require complex thinking and reasoning skills. This argument, however, quickly brings us back to time on task. WoW players are known for hours/days/weeks worth of focused attention. They are, in Csíkszentmihályi's term, in a state of flow - fully immersed, motivated, and focused. Simply having access to "web 2.0" tools does not change how we learn. We need focused time. We need reflective time. We need discourse/debate/dialogue. We need to see situations of use/non-use of key concepts and ideas. The real question, once we've asserted that the challenge with reading and learning is a function of focus, commitment, and time on task, is to explore whether so-called web 2.0 tools can achieve this. I personally think they can. But it's not all or nothing thinking. Yes, bloggers get more link love when they state provocative concepts in absolute terms. Nuanced, contextual, and balanced perspectives appear to the be new extreme :). We'll likely end up settling somewhere in the middle as the pendulum of reform continues its swing.
I will comment on your concerns with connectivism in a separate comment.
Hi (again) Mark:
You state: "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!"
I take a contrary position on this. I do think the network can support conceptual discourse. After all, aren't scholarly journals a type of network (although not very effective networks - too many road blocks, time delays, and limited capacity for feedback)? I'm a bit unclear about how you view networks. An effective open network (contrasted with an echo chamber) will deal with all of the concerns you mention. Radical ideas will be considered. Miscommunication has the potential to be balanced and reconsidered. Corrective measures, feedback, and diversity are all potential attributes of networks. But not all networks are configured to deal with these elements.
Biggs SOLO taxonomy is an interesting example of how we can see learning (or understanding) as a function of connectedness. While I personally think the model is too linear, it does provide a useful view of learning as related to depth/frequency of connections. Similarly, what is diverse thinking but exposure to (connection with) various viewpoints and perspectives? If we treat ideas as nodes (instead of as antagonistic elements where one is right and the other is wrong), we can see how multi-faceted connectedness can permit different, even contradictory ideas, to exist in the same general space. It's for this reason that I personally welcome criticism and contrary perspectives to my own work. While I feel Bill Kerr misunderstands my position and simplifies it to a framework more suited to his argument, his voice is important. It needs to be heard to others can see not just evidence for, but also against, connectivism.
As well, when I discuss learning as networking, I see it on multiple levels: neural, conceptual, external. Neural comes form the field of connectionism and neuroscience - i.e. the notion that learning is physically represented by connections in our brain. Conceptual is based partly on the work of Ausubel and recently Novaks who suggest that concepts are held in our mind in some time of related manner. i.e. ideas and concepts are networked and connected. Finally, external relates more directly to what I've been discussing as a function of so-called web 2.0 tools, social networks, etc. A social network - which is what I think you're uncomfortable with - is not the understanding itself. Understanding exists at the neural and conceptual network level.
...and as a quick side note - the response to your post seems to at least somewhat challenge your statement that networks are not able to address complex discourse/concepts! :).
I'll post on your comments related to schools/evaluation and the need for control hierarchy next...
Hi Mark (for the third time),
You mention the value of some control and hierarchy. I fully agree (though we may not agree on the exact situations when this is valuable). Networks, for example, that are too well connected can actually lead to paralysis (Beinhocker addresses this concept in his discourse on modern economics). We don't need any connections. We need certain connections that actually provide value and the information we need.
The more clearly defined our desired outcome, the more likely we'll find value in increased control/hierarchy. Education serves society (at least partially, there are certainly other stakeholders). We have curricular goals and targets that are created by industry, advisory boards, gov't committees, etc. While I do think we can achieve clear aims through distributed means, the current system is not structured that way. As a result, when we have a gov't mandated curriculum, we will likely turn to a system that permits the control and structure we feel is needed.
I'm a bit unsure about your concluding comment with regard to web 2.0 tools being applied within the existing construct of education...or in your words "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". I vacillate on this. At times I think we should preserve the system and augment it with different technologies. At other times, I think we should rethink and redesign the whole system. Technology is embedded with ideologies and mindsets of the generation that creates it. As such, technology has both a disruptive and transformative impact on education. I look at India, africa, and other developing countries. Their education system still mirrors ours to varying degrees, but I think they'll continue to depart from our model because their system's current design is not as rigid as western countries. i.e. their system is still able to develop and adapt based on new tools and opportunities. India, for example, simply cannot build enough schools to meet the needs of their learners. They'll likely adopt the (networked) tools and approaches we are currently seeing as peripheral in our education systems.
Thanks for stirring the pot Mark!
George
Hi Bill,
As I've stated numerous times, I appreciate your viewpoints. I've learned much through our previous discussions. Our interactions has helped me to personally define my own perspectives and viewpoints. I hope you'll have time (or interest) to participate in the upcoming Connectivism and Connective Knowledge online course we're offering in fall: http://ltc.umanitoba.ca:83/connectivism/
One of the more consistent claims you have directed at connectivism is that a) it addresses what is already addressed by existing theories and b) that I haven't done my homework with regard to other theories and have prematurely offered a counter perspective.
As much as this may shock you, I disagree on both accounts :). First, I don't think existing address what happens in a networked world (I'm less interested in "connectivism" surviving as a concept than I am in educators rethinking teaching and learning in a world where we interact in significantly different ways with information and each other...I've posited connectivism and one notion, others have suggested networked learning more broadly (particularly de laat, Koper, CR Jones), Brown suggestions "navigationism", and Cormier more recently offers rhizomatic knowledge). My premise is still largely unchanged, though I personally wish I would have used different language in my initial post as sections have become a distraction to the real issue. I believe that our ability to access, create, disseminate, co-create, alter, and multi-create (i.e. in different media - sorry I don't have a better word) information substantially alters learning. My logic is really quite simple: information is the foundation of knowledge and learning. When we do different things with information, the systems built on information, namely knowledge and learning, require some degree of rethinking. Perhaps the rethinking is on level with what Mark suggests - i.e. subsume new tools and processes into existing models of education. Or perhaps the required rethinking is more radical (as I would suggest).
Regardless of approach, we can glean much from existing theories of learning - namely the situatedness, sociability, and contextual dimensions of learning. Can we draw from the work of theorists such as Vygotsky, Bruner, Dewey, Papert, Leont'v, Wenger, Lave, Piaget, Engestrom, and others? Of course we can. But by drawing on their work and by integrating disparate thoughts and ideas about distributed cognition, activity theory, tool-mediated interactions, social networks, etc., we end up with something new. And, I choose to call this connectivism :).
Your second point stems partly from what I addressed above (though your criticism here is slightly moderated from what you have previously offered in that I created a theory without being aware of existing theories). This is a frighteningly obvious thing to say, but we have not reached the end of theorizing about learning. We are very much at the beginning. Disciplines that have hundreds, even thousands of years of discourse(philosophy and religion come readily to mind), have created a rich knowledge base where divergent and integrative ideas have been put forward. If one doesn't like Plato, they can have Kant. Or if Descartes is not to your liking, go with Nietzsche. In educational theory we have a shallow brand of thought, easily categorized into three broad streams (with corresponding epistemological roots): behaviourism,cognitivism, and constructivism. As the edtech field matures, I suspect we'll continue to see a diversification of thought about learning theory.
Does one theory have to be declared "the winner"? Maybe personally (i.e. each person selects the theory and world view that resonates with their thinking - as Mark has done by declaring social constructivism as his preferred view of learning). But I don't think we can have one theory for the entire school system and for all learners. As always, context is king.
Beyond these few simple comments, I have written about these concepts at length in other forums (of which you are aware), so I suspect there is limited value in simply repeating my previous claims.
As always, Bill, a pleasure chatting :).
George
Hi Leigh - (my final comment for now) - I have addressed Illich and Freire in this publication: http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/Paper105/Siemens.pdf
It was a very brief mention and used to build an argument that networked views of learning have existed for a while...and that today's calls for education reform exist outside of a technology mindset. I haven't bothered looking at web 2.0 references to Illich, but Mark's suggestion is worth pursuing.
I have tried to limit references to web 2.0 in my own writing recently. Ideas such as expressed by theorists and reformers (Illich for example) will exceed current trends/buzzwords. When we tie people like Vygotsky and Illich too strongly to current trends, their is the risk that we'll overlook their longer more significant contributions.
George
Thanks George. Plenty to mull on here... but a busy day at the office, so will definitely get back to you later on the points you have raised. I appreciate this level of discourse, and of course plan to make he most of it!
mark wrote: "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"
mmm ... so there is a ripple effect at work here, which does count for something; quality work does get noticed in this media
Hi Leigh,
I guess a lot comes down to the assumptions we make about the incumbent. I'm assuming that it IS working, well in fact, and that it can make use of Web 2.0 opportunities to do what it does do, better. In other words, I don't see evidence that school is a barrier as far as education is concerned. Simplistic 'straw-man' descriptions of the incumbent ('didactic', 'banking', 'one-way', 'drill and kill', 'decontextualised knowledge') don't help. Now, I'm not saying that these are YOUR words, just pointing out that any critique of the incumbent system should be made from a position of appreciative inquiry. From this position, I think my suggestion is the most likely, i.e. that the incumbent should make use of Web 2.0 as a part of its activity, not that it reshape itself around Web 2.0 norms.
I am interested, too, to discover whether or not those disadvantaged by the incumbent would be any more advantaged by a Web 2.0-based system. There are much broader issues than pedagogy at work in formal education (see http://ebcnzer.blogspot.com/2008/02/context-is-king.html).
Thanks for your stimulating comments and ongoing work. There is much to deliberate on...
Hi George,
Wow, thanks for the considered feedback. Most appreciated. I followed your slideshow and agree that the tools are there, and on the importance of networks. The criticism I offer is more one of what the tools encourage. I have commented previously on matters of genre, something which I think is woefully missing in discussions about use of social technologies in education. As you say, "Perhaps the concern is the fragmented attention span of learners today (as Carr suggests in his anecdotal exploration...or Oppenheimer's criticism in the Flickering Mind). The concept of 'time on task' and years to acquire expertise cannot be replaced simply because we have blogs." Yep. Blogs encourage rapid writing, surface processing, and rapid response. What we arguably need is more 'slow pedagogy', but the genre of Web 2.0 (and associated tools) is not congruent with this. After all, this blog post - (un)important as it may be - will soon be forgotten in the hyper ebb and flow of other RSS feeds and new ideas. Reflection is difficult to entertain in such conditions.
"We need focused time. We need reflective time. We need discourse /debate /dialogue." Absolutely. And this can - and does! - take place in the school classroom. As I mentioned to Leigh above, part of the edublogger problem in my view is the denial that this sort of thing DOES take place in school.
On to scholarly discourse... I would argue (strongly, actually) that journals are a far better medium for this type of exchange. For start, they are reviewed before being brought to others' attention - that ensures that they are coherent and appropriate for a particular audience. Second, they require a higher standard of writing. Third, they attract a more dedicated audience. In blogs, we perhaps get the discourse... but in the process I would argue that the genre of blogs loses the 'scholarly'. Based on Carr's observation about reading (again, Bauerlein would agree - as would average blog post length and interaction statistics) blogs are simply insufficient to provide a detailed and comprehensive point of view on something. Posts and comments of this note are very much the exception to the genre. Thanks, too for the further commentary on networks. Again, terminology is a contentious element in this discourse! I appreciate your explaining things further. In response to the quick side-note about "the response to your post seems to at least somewhat challenge your statement that networks are not able to address complex discourse/concepts!", do bear in mind that this level of exchange is a real exception!
"...technology has both a disruptive and transformative impact on education" Fair comment. My suspicion mainly stems from a lack of clear imagination on what the transformative impact might be, and the lack of the wider impact this might have... some of the associated rhetoric is actually quite alarming.
"Thanks for stirring the pot Mark!" Thanks for adding saltiness to the flavour, George!
...And, if I can make a request of you... Why not provide an up-to-date version of 'connectivism' as a journal submission? I'm suggesting possibly an adult education journal, or one for higher education... anything to expose your work to the sort of reflective scholarly critique that would introduce it into those realms of discourse. You've won edubloggers over, I would love to see you take it to a broader audience of scholar-practitioners. I'm certain, too, that it would benefit from a version update following the significant thinking and redevelopment it must have undergone in your own mind since you last presented it. Bringing together the comments made "in other forums" (response to Bill) would be a wonderful service.
Theories of learning ought to be thought about in terms of learning *something*. That something is sometimes learning about learning theories but to be authentic (fair dinkum) I think there should be some element in there of children learning about their world. One feeling I have about George's writing here (and earlier when I read quite a lot of George, including most of his book) is the tendency to cite lots of authors and their ideas but IMO it lacks the nitty gritty of a real practice to theory spiral
By contrast when I read Minsky he talks about kids learning to build with blocks; Piaget talks about children changing their knowledge structures over time about the amount poured from one glass of water to another of different shape; Papert always includes anecdotes about his experiences with children and his own learning, etc. These authors theorise a lot as well but they convey their message through the full theory / practice spiral
The point that Mark has raised with regard to the scope of web2.0 / learning2.0 / connectivism is what I call slow, deep thinking. Do they help in that regard?
Leigh mentioned, and is working with, Konrad Glogowski who I feel has deeply addressed the question of children learning how to write well using a combination of blogging and Vygotskian ideas. eg. it takes 18 months of developing an environment of trust for creative writing to emerge.
Although learning theories can address any or all types of learning I think we also need ways to identify which knowledge is more important --> something which I believe was not done in the initial formulation of the connectivism theory. Everyone here seems to agree that slow, deep thinking is important but that can be easily forgotten in the hurly burly of School. I've read articles about powerful learning which fail to identify why it is powerful. (does world of warcraft really lead to powerful learning, what are our criteria?)So what knowledge is important or powerful? How do we identify that in a way that is more significant than just someone's opinion? For me that question has been best answered in fairly obscure references by alan kay about non-universals.
From anthropological research of over 3000 human cultures, he presented two lists, the first were universals, the things that all human cultures have in common. This list included things like:
* language
* communication
* fantasies
* stories
* tools and art
* superstition
* religion and magic
* play and games
* differences over similarities
* quick reactions to patterns
* vendetta, and more
He then presented a list of non universals, the things that humans find harder to learn. This list was shorter and included:
* reading and writing
* deductive abstract mathematics
* model based science
* equal rights
* democracy
* perspective drawing
* theory of harmony
* similarities over differences
* slow deep thinking
* agriculture
* legal systems
I think a good test of a modern learning theory is its ability to address the non universal list - and connectivism or web2.0 or learning2.0 doesn't throw much light at all in that direction. I think that some other theorists at least do address those issues, eg. Papert, Vygotsky
Hey Nichthus;
Thanks for the great post and conversation/thought starter. I too grew up intellectually within a social-constructionist framework in Grad School, I also think that intellectual achievement takes great effort, and I think that the interactive web might be a place where this can happen in new and collaborative ways. In fact traditional journals (referencing your discussion in comments with GS) do not have much of a conversational nature and constrain the idea of joint action, which could be seen as a much more natural way of being in a social space. (I read John Shotter frequently See the Virtual Faculty website) I've been trying to get a blog up and running. In fact part of my reason for my response here is to better work out some relevant ideas for use later.
My first thought when considering questions of technology is to look at the pedagogical goals and then try to conceive of how it is possible for technology to enhance those goals. Coming up with good ways to use technology is not an easy task for me and I'm always looking for examples of technology that are embedded and integral to supporting and scaffolding activities, not just bolted-on. Web 2.0 usually refers to social-media and interactivity. It is the latest, but not the only thing you can do with technology. Again, the question is, what is the pedagogical goal and how can technology support that goal. I remember of one blogger who's described how a class blogged their assignments. (sorry, I can't track down the reference) During the 1st third of the course there was little reported interaction. During the second third the class was responding to each other. By the last third of the course they were getting comments on the assignments from bloggers outside the class. The interaction (I believe) was noted as being helpful for motivating, deepening and reinforcing the pedagogical goals of the class. I took this as a valuable use of the interactional web, but this type of experience does not seem to be the norm.
My disagreement with most centralized forms of education that you mentioned (transparency, consistency, etc. ) are associated with my understanding of the concept of validity. (I studied Samuel Messick for my dissertation and found him echoing the same type of philosophical concerns as expressed in the social-constructionist lit..) Most verification regimes test students with measures that are valid, but only in a narrow sense. Messick list 6 broad concerns of validity:
Content (scope),
Structure (consistency between a measure's construction and the underlying theory)
Substantive (This concern overlaps with content and structure, but should include
empirical evidence, which is not usually included in the previous two).
Generalizability (How do scores relate to groups, settings, tasks, time periods)
External (correlation w/ criterion measures)
Consequential (Is measurement actually helping to achieve your goals)
You can find a Messick article here:
http://www.education.wisc.edu/ELPA/academics/syllabi/2006/06Spring/825Borman/Messick1995.pdf
The relevance that I'm building towards is this; that testing / accountability regimes most often focus on external validity and substantially ignore consequences and generalizability. (In example, social-constructionism says that constructing narratives are an important way that we construct our identities, are a way we can enter into discourses in consequential ways and the ability to construct narratives is an important pedagogical goal. Do improved test scores correlate with this ability to construct meaningful narratives. Usually not. We can construct evaluations to do this validly, but they depend on a holistic conception that is more than empirical. Therefore it must be argued, not just announced with an r value. (A recent set of article in the Educational Researcher (Lissitz and Samuelsen, Educational Researcher 2007 36: 449-455) argued for a return to a period of education authority where validity could be argued without reason argument as advocated by Messick.) If the testing authorities and the teachers are working together with the same mind and spirit, you can work together with a broad conception of validity. If, however, the authorities (or the teacher for that matter) are playing a game of got-ya, you'd rather have a statistic instead of an argument.
Lastly . . . I also like Connectivism. I need to learn more about it, but my initial concerns was how it moves beyond social-constructionism / social-culturalism / distributed cognition. My primary grad school mentor impressed upon me that the best new theories / paradigms should move forward by subsuming and moving beyond the previous ideas in the ability explaining things of consequence.
Whew right back at ya; and thanks
Nichthus: "Blogs encourage rapid writing, surface processing, and rapid response. What we arguably need is more 'slow pedagogy', but the genre of Web 2.0 (and associated tools) is not congruent with this."
Compare with:
“one of the diseases of this age is the multiplicity of books; they doth so overcharge the world that it is not able to digest the abundance of idle matter that is every day hatched and brought forth into the world“
Barnaby Rich (1580-1617), writing in 1613.
Hi Tony,
I'm not advocating the removal of Web 2.0 from education. Sorry if you got that impression! My concern is that the normal use of Web 2.0 is not conducive to educational outcomes. Hence, 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."
Your use of the Barnaby Rich quote is therefore somewhat off target. When I mention the genre of Web 2.0 in your excerpt, I am referring - quote validly - to the normal ways in which Web 2.0 is experienced by under 30s (as per Bauerlein). These norms shy away from transferable skills such as Gardner's "verbal-linguistic" and "logical-mathematical" intelligences in favour of "visual-spatial", and can also alienate students from wider exposure to the real world. Yes, the fact that people now have more potential to be exposed to wider themes yet actually experience smaller horizons sounds contradictory, but note my citation of Bauerlein and Shirky on this point.
I'm not in favour of banning Web 2.0. I just want to ensure that if we are talking about using it in education we do so with a commitment to curriculum-based outcomes, within the incumbent system. In other words, that we do not abdicate our responsibility as the guardians of culture to fail in passing on the choice fruits of our heritage. Bauerlein's work demonstrates that the existing generation of students is missing out. Brighouse (2006) suggests four ‘rights’ foundational to children in their schooling:
1.The right to learn about a range of ways of living.
2.The right to become self-sufficient participants in society.
3.The right to have rich and flourishing lives independent of the economy.
4.The right to be effective and reasonable participants in public policy and execution.
There is every indication that a Web 2.0-based education would deny children these rights, unless it were done in ways congruent with the incumbent system (in which it would not be Web 2.0-based!)
I hope this helps explain my position further, I welcome further thoughts and critique.
Best regards
Mark.
Thanks Bill, I'm enjoying your ongoing thoughts. Actually, I'm also somewhat frustrated by them! There are some excellent ideas emerging here, all over the place... it would be great for my 20th-century trained mind to have them all brought together somehow - not to tie them off, but to at least have a solid and easily referenced article with all of the tensions we face as we consider education 2.0. It concerns me that we still misunderstand one another and try to place one another in easy boxes; Tony's (above) misreading is all too easy in this sort of medium, where reading is 'skimmy' and commenting is easy!
That's why I still see value in scholarly, peer-reviewed discourse. Now, again, please note that I am NOT saying that meaningful exchange cannot happen outside of journals, but I am saying that journals have a valuable place!
I think the 'slow' mantra is a good one. If we would only take the time to truly understand each other, we will find discourse so much more meaningful and other's perspectives so much more interesting. We may even learn something...
Hi Howard,
I think starting with the goals is definitely the right step to take. The validity perspective you raise is a valuable one. I think that assignments and measurement are at best indicators, but they should provide adequate insight into someone's development in the v-l and l-m intelligences (Gardner), and provide a way of indicating the extent to which the skills gained are transferable. The Messick article is of interest, thanks for the link. I am certainly interested in innovative assessment practice and questions of validity; as mentioned I find the work of Biggs helpful here (and that of Kitchener and King, Mezirow).
I'm very interested to learn about your impression of connectivism, particularly with your background in the various paradigms you've listed. I suspect that George would also appreciate your comparisons and insights. As you have seen in the comments above, he is extremely generous in sharing his perspective and engaging in dialogue.
Cheers,
Mark.
I am really enjoying this discussion. A few humble comments of my own.
Can theory exist independently from actual practice? Does all theory need to be grounded in research and past experiences? At least in technology (from my limited experience), innovative breakthroughs are not possible if only based on past experiences and accumulated wisdom.
I think I agree that networks can and do support multiple levels of interaction – from one way sharing to multimodal interactions as in this post. The medium is not that important (though it may limit the form of interaction and other media, formats or technology may be far more suitable for a particular type of interaction). And also that group and individual dynamics play an important role in facilitating and sustaining these interactions as well as their quality from a learning perspective.
I looked at some of the discussions around groups and networks (and have my own observations), and I feel that perhaps we need to look deeper at how people come together and are able to meet their learning goals in a distributed fashion. If you look at a model like the one proposed by Tuckman (forming-storming-norming-performing-adjourning) and plot the stages against the complexity and quality of interaction in a network, we would perhaps find that most of the interaction so far do not get past the storming stage (including may be this post and it’s discussions). The ones at the other end of the spectrum, those that do get to the performing stage, would perhaps result in very effective learning experiences (as I am hoping George’s course on connectivism will turn out to be ). Also experiences that partly inspired George’s connectivism course, of the 18 months taken to build an environment of trust for creative writing that Bill refers to and the one that Howard mentions of a class blogging their assignments, show that there is an evolution that is both temporal and replete with group dynamics that must be taken into account.
The question of will 2.0 be better subsumed or adopted under a traditional 1.0 system rather than the other way around for me is really moot at this point. I believe that we can build in enough formal learning methodology (which can be researched and tested) around 2.0 as there is in the 1.0 system, perhaps by a healthy mix of the best practices in both.
The more I read, the more I seem to vacillate – is this really a revolution in learning? Does it deserve a 2.0 tag? Is it a major “release” that everyone will have to or should upgrade to make learning more effective or become obsolete? Isn’t it a really radical new way of viewing the learning process? In an increasingly “flat” world, isn’t this really the obvious direction?
George, you make an important point - “Understanding exists at the neural and conceptual network level” and external is a function of web 2.0 tools and social networks. It is important, because very often we all get carried away by thinking that a particular technology or theory or perspective is the only right one.
Thank you all, once again, for sharing your thoughts. I have and will continue to learn from your discussions and would love to be corrected wherever you feel I should be!
Post a Comment