Tag: community of practice

elearningeuropa.info

• “PLEs are more a methodology or an approach to technology enhanced learning than an application.”
• the introduction of e-learning led to a reverse in pedagogic innovation
• I tend to think that knowledge is best shared and developed through communities of practice. Communities of practice as Etienne Wenger says are based on a shared repertoire of communal resources (routines, sensibilities, artefacts, vocabulary, styles, etc.) that members have developed over time.

Connectivism & Connective Knowledge » Where does the learning occur??

• One of the challenges faced by traditional education is found in the very goal of its existence (second only to its role as providing value statements through accreditation): to present bounded structures of knowledge in order for others to learn a discipline. Or put another way, schools and universities help students make sense of a discipline.

• There are two elements under consideration:
• 1. The curriculum itself
• This is what learners must learrn.
• Curriculum/content is created and disseminated through research and publication. This content then forms the basis of instruction. Nothing new here, with the exception of the argument that the scholarly publication process is too slow.
• It’s this content that most people see as the important part of education.
• We make learners do all sorts of fun things to get this to happen: cases, problem-based learning, games/simulations, lectures, podcasts, tests, eportfolios, and so on.
• 2. The framework of sensemaking
• Should the educator provide a formed narrative of coherence? Or should learners be tasked with this? Should the educator create a fully bounded content structure? Or should the content interaction opportunities be more fluid? And what about interaction? Should it be under the control of educators? Or should learners self-organanize as they deem worthwhile? This is where education truly begins to change. Tweaking content creating and delivery models is perhaps a start. But it’s not transformative.
• It means the conversation is more chaotic. It means that we’re always missing something. Everyone is. Some important conversation, somewhere, is being overlooked. Why is that so discomforting?
• We expect the academy to be a place that provide clarity, a path forward

• When we then step into a course and discover the conversation is distributed and that the expected frameworks for telling us what to think don’t exist, we get disoriented.

  But isnt’ that life?

• Isn’t that how real learning occurs? In business? In our personal lives? Who actually possesses a framework fo sensemaking in advance of encountering novel problems? Or who can rely on the “narrative of coherence” provided in advance of becoming a parent?
• We can’t manage it all. We must choose. As we move through this course, we’ll focus more on what it means to choose – i.e. what types of networks we want and need to build. For now, realizing that our ability to make sense is under our control.
• Where is the learning in this? The learning exists in the process of forming and navigating networks. Some sources we filter. Some thinkers we value greatly. Others we ignore.

Half an Hour: New Technology Supporting Informal Learning

• This paper described experimentation in the development of distributed online courses and in software – particularly, the personal learning environment – that support the formation of connections between the far-flung pieces of such courses
• suggests a pedagogy of participation rather than retention, and even suggests distributed and locally-based forms of evaluation and assessment
• The intent of such systems is to to facilitate the conversation and interaction around episodic learning events in a distributed environment, transforming them from elements in a linear flow-based design to free-floating objects in an environment
• In addition to providing an engaging and immersive environment for student learning, substantially improving motivation and interaction with the learning material, games and simulations are able to support learning in complex environments, offering a subtlety simple instruction-based or lecture-based learning cannot offer. (Squire, 2005)
• games and simulations fall into a category similar to lectures and presentations in that they involve statically designed learning objectives and strategies. (Amory & Seagram, 2003)
• we often do not know what it is we want to teach the student. (Caine & Caine, 1997) Today’s environment is variable, which means situations – and hence, fact – change fluidly. One day Pluto is a planet, the next day it is not. One day Czechoslovakia is a country, the next day it is not. One day capitalism is the unassailable foundation for our economic system, the next day, following a market collapse, it is not. Moreover, today’s environment is complex. The relations between variables cannot be described or even predicted.
• learners themselves are changing
• It has even been suggested that our interactions with modern communication technologies change the way we think. Even if we reject such descriptions as students as overly broad and inaccurate generalizations – and there is good reason for doing so – it is nonetheless the case that the needs, capabilities and interests of the target audience is rapidly shifting and changing
• It is not merely to create a network into which to situate episodic learning, but rather, to create a network that learns and thus adapts and reshapes itself based on those conversations and interactions. (Downes, 2007)
• the best we can manage is to teach students how to learn, and to encourage them to manage their own learning thereafter
• how we learn itself is something that changes, and cannot be precisely taught
• For this reason, we need to see the educational system itself as adaptive rather than merely prescriptive
• knowledge exists in the minds of the members or participants, and this knowledge is derived from their direct (and recent) experience in the field
• In addition, the need for content and support emerges from conversations among the participants. These interactions are able to reveal not only what company commanders know, but also what they don’t know (and need to know). The interaction, in other words, meets and addresses an objection often put of self-directed learners, that they don’t know what they need to know. (Clayson, 2005)
• The core of a social networking technology is the capacity to create links between members in a community – to create, in other words, social networks
• Topics, for example, are not assigned centrally, but are instead created by individuals ‘tagging’ certain content with terms or categories they choose themselves. (Barsky & Purdon, 2006) Each person’s social network on a social networking site, moreover, is unique; there is no definitive grouping of people, only a clustering of people with more or less similar interests.
• users jump from service to service, creating (and discarding) new identities as needed. A typical web user may have multiple ‘home pages’ – their personal blog, their photo page on Flickr or Picassa, their Google Reader account, shared documents through Zoho, their video page on YouTube, their Twitter account, their profiles, on Facebook, MySpace and LinkedIn, their Wikipedia login, their email accounts, and (often least) their university LMS login. While real friendships and communities develop through this mélange, loyalty to online sites and services is limited and fleeting. (O’Brien, 2007)
• The idea of the personal learning environment is that it performs many of the functions of a content management system and of a social network system but from the perspective of the individual rather than the community or the institution. (Attwell, 2006) Hence, the PLE may be understood as the intersection of the multiple home pages employed by any given individual. In the first instance, the PLE is a concept, rather than an application – it is the idea that a person’s web presence can be distributed. (Attwell, Graham Attwell: “Knowledge is best shared and developed through communities of practice”, 2007)
• Because there were so many people contributing to the course, and because the content of the course actually shifted and varied according to participation and input into the course, it was necessary to emphasize to students that their role in the course was not to attempt to assimilate all course content. This was neither possible nor desirable. Rather, students were told that their role was to select and sample course content, pursuing areas of interest, reading related material from both within and outside the course, and then to contribute their unique perspective based on this reading. (Siemens, Where does the learning occur??, 2008)
• we are currently seeing experimentation in the development of distributed online courses and in software – particularly, the personal learning environment – that support the formation of connections between the far-flung pieces of such courses
• In the PLE project being undertaken by the National Research Council, the functionality of the PLE is depicted in four major stages: to aggregate, that is, to collect content from the individual’s and other online content service providers, where aggregation includes elements of recommendation, data mining and automated metadata extraction ; to remix, or to organize content from several different sources in different ways, including through automated clustering; to repurpose, or edit, localize, or otherwise modify or create new content; and to feed forward, or send the content to subscribers and other web services, either via RSS syndication, email, Twitter, or other relevant services. (Downes, Theory of Learning Networks, 2004)
• the PLE is not a recreation of the capabilities of the learning management system, but rather, a learning network