mr hazi

I passed (credit actually) and i feel fantastic.

I’m sure my mother and girlfriend are so very proud

I have found this subject extremely challenging. The limits of my digital literacy have not helped nor has the workload. I think the demands of this subject have been at times unrealistic and more in line with an undergraduate subject. I feel as though i have completed an undergraduate and postgraduate subject simultaneously.

That said i have picked up some excellent tools and have learnt a massive amount with regards to the design of communities and the functioning. I hope that once the dust settles i will be able to see more of what this subject has to offer. 

Innovative Technologies – Weller, Pegler & Mason innovative text

This paper provides an insight into application of technologies in courses rather than just providing theoretical frameworks. As they state ‘technological implementation in a positive learning experience can be one of the strongest influencing factors in their subsequent uptake.’ Based on a postgraduate course in the U.K. there were many similarities between it and this course/subject. The 4 main technologies were blogging, audio conferencing, instant messaging (IM) and Harvard’s Rotisserie system.

The areas that these tools are used to cover include costing e-learning, organizational change, online communities and digital divide. The use of a blogging tool is now becoming more common. At the Open University they saw 3 uses for them. Firstly to provide a vehicle for a community to form around where participants produce and add to blogs for the benefit of other members of the community. Secondly as a tool for academia they provide a means of getting work published immediately, of significant advantage when writing on subject matter that is ever evolving. Finally, as is the case with this subject blogs can be used as a means of producing a portfolio. With the implementation of ‘tags’ this tool becomes more effective.

Of the other tools audio conferencing builds on previous use of teleconferencing and the use of the telephone as a tutoring tool. One problem encountered in this course was technical difficulties. It also raises issues such as etiquette as it still allows only one person to speak at a time, Weller, Pegler & Mason suggest the implementation of ground rules by the group in order to navigate any such issues. Primarily this was used more for informal discussions and as a tool for one-to-one and small group tasks. The production of minutes for such conversations allowed those students not involved to be kept abreast of what had taken place.

The rotisserie allowed for group participation in a more structured framework, allowing all students to have a say a put forth ideas on postings rather than commenting on the responses of the first few members of the class. Weller, Pegler & Mason note ‘This allows for far more structured and controlled dialogue.’ IM claimed to have and build a much stronger sense of community. Most students were already familiar with it in one form or another.

The feedback gleaned from the use of these 4 technologies found that the major benefit was in learning how to and gaining experience in the use of the various technologies.

Regarding implementation the course showed a need for technologies to be built around learning objects. By assigning a technology to an object and an object or activity to a subject the maximum benefits could be reaped. By isolating objects and tasks it avoids potential knock-on effects of technological breakdown. It provides greater flexibility and makes the updating of course content far easier than having all objects embedded in one area. This also allows the integration of new technologies as they become available and the elimination of redundant technologies.

The findings show a push here for ‘multi-channeled communication’ rather than asynchronous bulletin board style conversations.

Building a collaborative workplace – Callahan, Shenk & White. Anecdote collaboration

Collaboration is essential in the pursuit of success. Callahan, Shenk & White state ‘Innovation demands collaboration. So does production’ As no one person can know everything there is to know on a subject collaboration is necessary. It is based on personalities and comes far easier to some than to others. Equally some work environments are established and contain a culture that encourages collaboration whilst others have a negative and stifling approach to it. Also it is not something that can just be bought, ‘they only need to purchase collaboration software to foster collaboration’ this myth has been encouraged by technology providers.

‘Technology makes things possible, people collaborating makes it happen.’ Technology allows us to reach a wider audience by putting our queries online. It allows for the creation of alliances and possible communities outside of an individual organization. Collaboration is the process by which different viewpoints can be brought together in order to explore different aspects of a problem or issue and to develop solutions that would be impossible for an individual to devise.

There are 3 types of collaboration according to Callahan, Shenk & White, Team, Community and  Network. The first involves clear interdependencies and expected reciprocity, the second typically involves open or ongoing time periods and are exemplified by communities of practice, and the third is wider reaching still in which the individual seeks to gain something form the network and its members who they may or may not know.

The success factors outlined in this paper provide an excellent reference point to our own group task and the success of the team process. It also provides a means of testing the effectiveness of communities and on a larger scale networks of collaboration. The need for priorities, targets, learning and explicit team process are all seen as vital to developing a team culture that nurtures and promotes collaboration.

Finally it reinforces that those members who are most likely to lead and collaborate are the ones with a strong passion. As with all members of a community of practice their will be some degree of passion (if not an interest) in the community. The leader will gain the support of members or be rejected in favour or another. There is a need for rewards and acknowledgement for those who collaborate, not just more work.

Mr. Wenger – CoP

We have spent much time discussing the need for and indeed the importance in participation in communities of practice to enhance learning. Wenger proposes that those that can grasp the ‘informal yet structured’ nature of these communities will be the architects of the future learning. Initially this was quite empowering to think that this could be me, however the difficulty in comprehending the informal yet structured nature of communities of practice seem to put this idea further out of reach than first suspected.

The need to understand ones background in context to their position within the community is raised as it is in Brown, Saunders and Brown & Adler. In the framework of designing these CoP’s it is important to understand the way we learn and the actions of potential members. Wenger points out ‘we often learn without having any intention of becoming full members’, often participants simply access the information they require and then move on.

Wenger puts forth many principles on the social perspectives on learning. The importance of ones own experience and in turn the way ones learning affect these experiences. Wenger refers to it as a realignment of experience and competence. There needs to be sufficient tension between these 2 in order for learning to occur, if they are too close or too far apart it will not take place.

The principle of engagement for learning is of interest, that participants need the opportunities to contribute within these communities namely ones which participants value and feel valued by.

OF these CoP’s we can divide them into potential, active and latent. The first being a community that could possibly emerge and would be beneficial to those who could share experiences. The second being a functioning CoP, and finally a community of people with a shared past history that may provide a resource of some value. The key point about these CoP’s is that they can’t be legislated or defined by decree.

‘Learning cannot be designed: it can only be designed for – that is facilitated or frustrated.’ p.229

Conceptual  architecture allows designers a tool that may be helpful in the design of these communities. The tool helps craft the questions, choices and trade-off’s, they help ‘define the dimension of the design “space”’. They also assist with the shape of the design, the What, With and How. What needs to be achieved, With which components will it happen, and How are facilities going to be provided in order to do so.

‘Practice is not the result of design, but rather a response to it’ p.233

How does the use of a site or a community adapt to the community rather than the other way around? The community is involved in the continuing design, as the community decides what it wants to learn, rules for participation etc. the paradox of design then surfaces

‘No community can fully design the learning of another’

and

‘No community can fully design its own learning’

Ultimately if the community does not evolve and respond to the needs of the members it will fold. Engagement is the key and in that as Saunders points feedback and self disclosure are important. Wenger sees this expansion of this to include within engagement, evaluation reflection and exploration.

Social Psychology of Adult Learning – Sue Saunders

So far we have looked at the benefits of social constructivist learning, and the benefits associated with participation in communities of practice. Whilst these can be extremely productive in developing deep understanding and learning Saunders notes they have the potential to be ‘disappointing and unproductive’. She looks at how others affect learning in an adult context. She notes the importance of belonging to and participating in these communities of practice. Even those tasks which are individual will be affected if the task is to be viewed or even perceived to be viewed by other members of the community.

We must always take into account the goals and resources of the learner in human learning theory otherwise we may be overlooking an individuals ability to perform to expectations. Saunders notes that these goals and resources, or rather ability to organize various resources and the way in which the individual makes decisions around their learning are framed within a social context. The attitudes held by the learner are the basis to which their development, learning and performance can take place and these are driven by personal motives.

There is then reference made to cognitive theory in which we must know how a person perceives the world in order to understand that persons behavior and means of learning. Mention of the shift to 1990’s approaches of social psychology in which psychologists try to take into account the ‘whole person – who thinks, desires and feels’ (Brehm & Kassin, 1993, p.10)

The final aspect of this reading that appealed to me was learning through self-disclosure and feedback. Saunders says ‘Humanistic feedback guidelines are based on the precepts of mutual respect and the acceptance so that the goal of accurate understanding of self and others may be sought through genuine communications’. This notion that an individual within a community of practice or in another framework can develop learning through self-disclosure and feedback requires participation and a degree of safety and acceptance within the context of the community.  

Minds Fire by J. Brown & R. Adler – Minds fire

Following on from Brown discussion paper on learning in the digital age, he and Adler are looking at the need for Open universities and the need for in an ever increasingly globalised world a ‘well-educated workforce with the requisite competitive skills’. The need today, and indeed one I am totally aware of in my own circumstances, is that it is not enough to be given the necessary skills in order to compete in the changing world and workforce, but also the need to be able to constantly update these skills as new ideas and concepts are developed.

The other focus of the paper is the development of Web 2.0. Brown and Adler see it ‘has blurred the line between producers and consumers of content and has shifted attention form access to information toward access to other people’. These developments support social learning theories that ones learning and understanding is constructed socially through interactions and conversations based on the information. The shift from ‘WHAT’ to ‘HOW’ we learn.

They site R.Light of The Harvard Graduate School of Education who found that students involved in group studies even just once a week were far more engaged in their studies, were more prepared and as such learnt more than there counterparts who studied alone.

The social viewpoint of learning states “We participate. Therefore we are”.

Students can be engaged by joining a community of practice. The process of learning occurs as new members are able to be engaged even whilst they are learning content. Dewey called this ‘productive inquiry’ and this allows the student to seek the knowledge as it is required in order to carry out particular tasks.

Brown and Adler use the example of Decameron as a community of practice. It advocates communal and collaborative learning. The aim being to provide a space where ‘students can acculturate into a particular scholarly practice, can be seen as a virtual “spike”: a highly specialized site that can serve as a global resource for its field’. This serves to allow others to access this resource at a later date even if they have not participated in it at the time.

John Seely Brown – Learning, Working & Playing in the Digital age

This is my first introduction to the concept of learning ecologies. Brown talks about his interest coming from the ‘systemic perspectives’. This is due to the large number of factors and components that need to be taken into account when viewing education from an area, zone or regional level.

Brown asks the question ‘how might we better capture and leverage naturally occurring knowledge assets?’ The knowledge exists throughout these zones or regions. How do we, or what is the best tool for assembling this knowledge. The transformation of technology as he sees it has us shifting from using computers solely as a network, but using the web/internet as a medium with which to perform the afore mentioned task.

The web is something that ‘could truly honour multiple forms of intelligence’. It lends itself to visual, textual, musical, social and even the kinesthetic learner. This means we have a tool that will cater the learning style of every student.

As a medium of exchange and reciprocity the web allows (with relative ease) the small efforts of many combined with the large efforts of the few to be utilized. Those that have more to say, and feel more comfortable saying it can place more information on their whilst ‘lurkers’ can add if and when they feel comfortable, however all have access to the information all the time.

It is interesting to see what changes have taken place and what action on this front has taken place in the almost decade that has passed since this speech was delivered. Brown says ‘Social practices don’t change overnight, nor do capital assets.’ Has there been change?

As with the Horizon Report findings that shifting through information is becoming a major issue, Brown talks of the need for individuals to become ‘personal reference librarians’ in order to account for and navigate the masses of information. The need for students to be able to bricolage, find pieces of information or tools and adapt and use them in a new context.

The need to be involved whether actively or inactively in a community of practice is vital in the development of learning, particularly learning to learn. This also acknowledges that individuals will be members of multiple communities of practice.

The Horizon Report  - Horizon Wiki  

The sense that this Report was taken ‘into the field’ gives the importance of the Sandbox area as well as the collection of a variety of other activities. The importance of using RSS feeds and continued collaboration is advocated in the wiki. The desire for continued comments is obviously the basis for growing and updating the information on this wiki.

Looking forward to what the report sees as being future adopted practices Geotagging was of interest to me. In the One year or less category we have collaborative workspaces which will be a feature of this course at a later date. Also community tagging not only through sites such as delicious but within these collaborative workspaces is already being seen.

As for the trends the one that stood out for me most of all, and one that applies to  both a study and professional context is ‘as the amount and variety of content increases, it is becoming more difficult to filter the noise and find the signal’. This appears to be an ongoing challenge and will require constant work in order to use limited time more efficiently.

Of the challenges put forth, the ‘growing need for formal instruction in 21^st century literacies, including information literacy, visual literacy, and technological literacy’. Combined with my role as an educator and an expectation to deliver learning through a variety of methods, there is a real worry and need for me to increase my own literacy in order to do this.

I currently feel like the deer caught in the headlights and this is an attempt to get the ball re-rolling. I am working on the group wiki at the moment and have realised that my attendance in this realm of my coursework has been less than active. What has become apparent is that more focus needs to be directed at getting the work from the readings from my notes and to this space. I sure could use another strike day.