Posts Tagged ‘Learning’

New book on Web 2.0 and Social Informatics for Tertiary Learning

Thursday, August 19th, 2010

Together with Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld and Chris Jones I had the pleasure of being invited to contribute with a chapter to a recently published book titled “Web 2.0 Based e-Learning: Applying Social Informatics for Tertiary Learning“:

Lee, M. and McCoughlin, C. (2010) Web 2.0 Based e-Learning: Applying Social Informatics for Tertiary Learning Hershey PA: IGI Global, 415 pp, US$180 hardback

It is edited by Mark Lee and Catherine McCoughlin and I think it is a really interesting collection with a lot of promising chapters. I was actually going to write up a short description etc. but luckily Tony Bates has beaten me to it – so for more information about the book and the individual chapters I kindly refer to his excellent post.

I have been allowed to share a link to the chapter we have written – so if you’re interested in reading our chapter here’s your chance :-) – the title is: “Catering to the Needs of the “Digital Natives” or Educating the “Net Generation”?

Paper out in Educational Media Journal

Monday, September 15th, 2008

I am happy to say that a paper I and Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld have been working on as a further development of a paper presented at the LYICT conference is now out in the Educational Media Journal. It is work which build on my PhD project about understanding learning as a process of patchworking, but it also takes a critical look at notions such as digital natives, power users etc. Below is an abstract:

This paper sets out to problematise generational categories such as “Power Users” or “New Millennium Learners” by discussing these in the light of recent research on youth and information and communication technology. We then suggest analytic and conceptual pathways to engage in more critical and empirically founded studies of young people’s learning in technology and media-rich settings. Based on a study of a group of young “Power Users”, it is argued that conceptualising and analysing learning as a process of patchworking can enhance our knowledge of young people’s learning in such settings. We argue that the analytical approach gives us ways of critically investigating young people’s learning in technology and media-rich settings, and study if these are processes of critical, reflexive enquiry where resources are creatively re-appropriated. With departure in an analytical example, the paper presents the proposed metaphor of understanding learning as a process of patchworking and discusses how we might use this to understand young people’s learning with digital media.

For those interested the paper can be found here:

Ryberg, Thomas & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, Lone (2008). Power Users and patchworking – An analytical approach to critical studies of young people’s learning with digital media. Educational Media International, 45 (3), 143-156. Retrieved September 15, 2008, from http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/09523980802283608

We need hype cycles and peaks of inflated expectations!

Wednesday, June 4th, 2008

Recently I have been working on articles about ‘web 2.0′ technologies and practices in relation to education and also been engaging in discussions of youth and their use of ICT (where terms such as the Net Generation, Digital Natives, The New Millennium Learners, Power Users etc. are prevalent in the debate).

In relation to the latter, I have just read the article “The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence” by Sue Bennett, Karl Maton and Lisa Kervin (which I would recommend). The authors criticise the ideas of stark generational discontinuities between a group of IT-savvy, young ‘digital natives’ and ‘digital immigrants’ who lack the technological fluency of the ‘digital natives’. The distinction has been heralded by e.g. Mark Prensky who has argued that the ‘language’ and cultural gap between the two generations is one of the biggest challenges the educational sector faces to today:

“[...] the single biggest problem facing education today is that our Digital Immigrant instructors, who speak an outdated language (that of the pre-digital age), are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language.” (Prensky, 2001, p. 2)

Similar claims have been made in relation to some of the other broad generational labels mentioned above and Bennett, Maton & Kervin elegantly summarise these claims:

“1. Young people of the digital native generation possess sophisticated knowledge of and skills with information technologies.
2. As a result of their upbringing and experiences with technology, digital natives have particular learning preferences or styles that differ from earlier generations of students.”

In general they argue that the claims and assumptions are based on ‘limited empirical evidence‘ and basically ‘supported by anecdotes and appeals to common-sense beliefs‘. On basis of a review of existing research on youth and their use of technology they conclude:

(more…)

Social Networking for Justice – Flat worlds, ‘access’ and Online Activism

Thursday, May 15th, 2008

As mentioned in my previous post I have recently returned from lovely Greece and the Networked Learning Conference, so now it is time to return to some of the issues and presentations that I found thought-provoking and interesting.

The conference actually started off with a very interesting keynote delivered by Charalambos Vrasidas with the title ‘Social Networking for Social Justice: Challenges and Possibilities‘ (Grainne Conole has already posted a good summary and discussion of the keynote on her excellent blog where she has also commented on other presentations from the conference).

The keynote was a thought provoking reminder of the unequal access to education in the world (and the general inequality in terms of the economical and social distribution of power and goods) – something we should really keep in mind every time we talk about “open education”, “digital generations” or the “world wide web” which is really not that “world wide” in terms of access and the capacity to utilise the online resources (a good point I shall return to).

Charalambos Vrasidas argued against the notion that ‘the world is flat’ (adopted from Friedman) and drawing on Richard Florida he suggested instead that the world is ‘spiky’ – meaning that even though we are indeed seeing new power centers and super economies emerge (e.g. in Asia) there are still billions of people around the world (in both developing and developed countries) living in (extreme) poverty not benefiting from the apparently ‘flat world’.

The notion of a ‘flat world’ also seems to include the idea that more people have been given access to information through the ‘world wide web’, which to some extent is also true. Here, however, I think that Charalambos made a great point! While initiatives like MIT Opencourseware and OER Commons (open educational resources) give people free access to wonderful resources for teaching and learning two questions should be asked: whom are they actually open to – or rather what languages are they available in? But actually more important – where are the infrastructures (e.g. teachers, context and networks, accreditation systems etc.) to make sense and use of these resources? While having access to material is of course a great thing it may not be enough in and off itself.

If we assume that learning arises, not only from reading/internalising information, but equally through participation, dialogue and students’ active self-governed, problem-based and collaborative activities, then we might need to think about how we can leverage the access to active networks, dialogues and spaces of meaning making – just as much as access to materials and resources.

One other point (out of many others) mentioned in Charalambos’ presentation was the idea of how social networking and ‘Online Activism’ might be a way to promote and strengthen social justice. He used a video from Amnesty International and mentioned the power of networks in (virally) distributing the video, thereby raising awareness about Human Rights and that ‘your signature counts‘. Distributing videos and utilising the power of networks certainly help in getting messages across to a broader public, and Charalambos also gave other examples of how technology and social networks can be used to promote social justice (e.g. games such as food-force or the empowerment experienced by peasants being able to check crop prices on the net).

However, I have come to think of if certain forms of ‘Online Activism’ may actually lead to a sort of ‘laid back’ or even ‘lazy activism’. For instance it is great that just by using Facebook I can (apparently) help reduce C02 emission, give rice to poor people and save the rain forest by nursing my (Lil) Green Patch…but on the other hand – do they actually engage me or disengage me (one is helping while maybe not being particularly aware of or reflexive about it)? A lot of great work is going on within the field of ‘motivating design’ or persuasive design’ (for instance I would recommend the blog Architectures of Control? Design with Intent that is maintained by Dan Lockton). Here one of the ideas is to embed ‘good, sustainable practices’ into the design and function of various technologies causing people to automatically save water, electricity and so forth. Like many of the Facebook-application this is a really great idea (assuming that they actually do work), but I do have one concern! While such ‘persuasive or motivational’ designs surely can change people’s behaviour, do they also raise awareness and engagement – do they change our minds and not only our behaviour?

Likewise, it is great that I can easily sign petitions at Avaaz.org and hope that politicians will listen and take action correspondingly – also it is wonderful that I can quickly send an sms to the Danish Red Cross to donate money for the victims in Myanmar. But do such initiatives and ‘the easiness’ also eschew our collective focus from long-term, difficult efforts of capacity building, sustainability onto ’causes’ and ‘immediate solutions’. Not that these two are mutually exclusive, but some Danish charity and developmental organisations have pointed out that while people are willing to donate a lot of money for specific ’causes’ and ‘events’ it is harder to promote and ensure support for more long-term and slow-moving projects which may take decades to succeed. With ‘direct’ support and aid we can see the value and results (or imagine the impact) quickly (people get rice, blankets, water or the popular ‘donate a goat’ presents etc.), whereas with an ‘indirect’ support (building up public administration, training teachers, collaborating on building up capacity on Universities or in other sectors) it is somewhat more difficult to see immediate and concrete results.

Of course this is not to argue that we should not engage with motivating or persuasive design and embedding good practices into technology; that we should not easily be able to donate money, school books, goats etc. to poor people needing the help – or raising awareness by distributing widely videos like the one from Amnesty International. However, what would be very interesting to study is how and if such initiatives and technologies affect or transform our ways of engaging with the world and our ways of taking action?

Connectivism or Collectivism – relations between the ‘individual’ and the ‘social’

Saturday, April 26th, 2008

Through a post on Christian Dalsgaard’s blog I came across a discussion opened by George Siemens on the notions of Collectivism and Connectivism – a post which Terry Anderson then responded to. In the post ‘Collective Intelligence? Nah. Connective Intelligence’ George Siemens writes about his discomfort with the notion of ‘Collective intelligence’ – a term which appears in the 2008 Horizon Report – he writes:

“For reasons of motivation, self-confidence, and satisfaction, it is critical that we can retain ourselves and our ideas in our collaboration with others. Connective intelligences permits this. Collective intelligence results in an over-writing of individual identity”

In the post “Collectivism and Connectivism” Terry Anderson comments on this by presenting his understanding of ‘collective intelligence’ and presents four different social constellations related to learning (what Terry Anderson and John Dron have called the ‘taxonomy of the many’) – here Terry Anderson present four/three aggregations of the many (individual, group, network and collective. The notion of ‘collective’ he interprets in the following way:

“Collectives – These are non personal aggregations of the Many. They allow us to compare ourselves to the many, collectively predict and make decisions, ask questions of all, vote and visualize our aggregated opinions and ideas, match our interests and find networks, groups and individuals and in many other emerging ways help us understand and control our collective worlds.”

In another post “Networks Versus Groups in Higher education” (which is well worth reading I might add!) Anderson expands a bit on the notion of the collective or collectives:

“Collectives are machine-aggregated representations of the activities of large number of individuals. They achieve value by extracting information from the individual, group, and network activities of large numbers of networked users.”

As an example Anderson mentions recommendation systems (e.g. Amazon) and also ‘tag clouds’ and clusters (e.g. at Flickr) seem to fall under this category (where order or ‘intelligence’ emerge out of chaotically structured and large amounts of data, through the actions carried out and content provided by the individual users and (re)-represented through machine-aggregation and complex algorithms).

However, as I also argued in a comment to Christian’s post, I think the discussion of collective or connective has deeper roots which can be traced (at least) back to differences between a Vygotskian and Piagetian view of learning – as Christian very nicely summarised my comment:

“I think you have an important point, when you state that the theories differ in their approach to the relationship between individual and group or the individual and the social. One approach has the individual and individual cognition as a starting point (Piaget) and views the social as “connected” individuals; in other words, social connections can strengthen individual cognition. The other approach has social practice as a starting point (Vygotsky) and holds that individual cognition is dependent on a social practice.”

In the Piagetian view (or socio-cognitive view if we use the distinctions made by Dillenbourg, Baker, Blaye and O’Malley in the article: “The evolution of research on collaborative learning” [Google Scholar link]) individual cognition is strengthened, facilitated, matured or catalysed by social interaction – but the cognitive development (e.g. development of schemas) remains tied to the mental operations of the individual and has its own logic relative to the existing mental apparatus of the individual (the schemas) – a point taken to its extreme in e.g. radical constructivism known from Glaserfeld. In the Vygotskian view, as Christian says, the point of departure is a social practice and individual cognition is dependent on social practice – or to say in another way – our cognitive structures and processes are formed by the social, cultural world (ways of structuring our thoughts are derived from the socio-cultural world e.g. mnemonic techniques, language and ‘methods’ of approaching a problem) – in this sense our cognition is inherently social or cultural. As it is phrased by Cole & Wertsch in the article “Beyond the Individual-Social Antimony in Discussions of Piaget and Vygotsky”:

“Higher mental functions are, by definition, culturally mediated; they involve not a ‘direct’ action on the world, but an indirect action, one that takes a bit of material matter used previously and incorporates it as an aspect of action. In so far as that matter has itself been shaped by prior human practice (e.g., it is an artifact), current action benefits from the mental work that produced the particular form of that matter. [...] In such a view artifacts clearly do not serve simply to facilitate mental processes that would otherwise exist. Instead, they fundamentally shape and transform them”

Such ideas of the social shaping of cognition has a also lead to the critique that we must then be mere ‘puppets and marionettes of the culturally given’ – a critique which seems to be echoed in Siemens statement “Collective intelligence results in an over-writing of individual identity” or differently put and taken to an extreme – the individual becomes a mere reflection of socio-cultural forces and our cognition would then be uniformly structured or determined by the social. While this might be a valid critique of the argument, socio-cultural researchers (Cole, Wertsch, Engeström), however, also stress how individuals and collectives continuously produce new, surprising behaviour and knowledge- and no less – artifacts (ideal or material)…but this is a longer discussion and well worth a follow-up post!

With this I just wanted to stress that the discussions seem to have deeper theoretical roots and represent different ways of conceptualising and understanding the foundations of human cognition.

But such differences (in underlying assumptions and understandings) often pop-up during discussions of socio-cultural learning theory or social theories of learning – for instance when I discuss Wenger’s notion of communities of practice and his social theory of learning with students, a question that often arises is “but is it not possible to learn by one-self – do you mean that I can’t learn by myself by reading a book or reflecting on an issue”. This interestingly relates to what Anderson writes in his post about ‘individual learning’:

“Individual learning – Most of my learning takes places as I read, watch and listen with no desire or expectation for human interaction, connecting or networking.”

Now, my contention to such an argument (which I think Anderson himself also addresses in a follow-up comment) is that the activities of reading, watching or listening never actually take place in a social vacuum. This is not to say that individuals don’t read, learn, listen etc. by themselves but that this always take place in relation to, in anticipation of or in the light of other social activities – one is reading to prepare a lecture, for writing an article etc. In this sense such an activity might be individual, but it is simultaneously also always social. And, I think both proponents of collectivism and connectivism would actually agree on that; even though they might view the foundations of human cognition differently.

A blog on Learning, technology and new media

Friday, April 25th, 2008

In this blog I will post some thoughts on issues within learning, technology and new media on a somewhat regular basis. The content will probably vary between more theoretical and methodological discussions and more playful posts about gadgets, services and tools that I stumble upon when experimenting with ‘new’ technologies and media in relation to learning. As such the topic is certainly not unique, as many other people interested in learning and technology are blogging about similar issues. But it will give me a chance to plug into debates going on in the blogosphere and comment on those from my perspective.

Also, I will post some thoughts related to my PhD dissertation which I successfully defended in November 2007. The title of the dissertation is “Patchworking as a Metaphor for Learning – Understanding Youth, Learning and Technology” and it can be freely downloaded (and further distributed) from the ‘e-Learning Lab Publication Series – site’. Also, I have created a page with some more background on the PhD-project and some related articles and materials. In a not too distant future, I will integrate this material in this blog as well. For now, I will not say too much about the dissertation, as I this is something I will get back to in future postings.

This is not really my first time trying to initiate and maintain a blog. Actually, I already have another blog which, however, is not as flexible and powerful as the WordPress software (for instance people had to register to leave comments due to spam). Also, I found it difficult to find the time to post on a regular basis which was somewhat reinforced by the lack of comments and dialogue on the blog – this will hopefully improve with the ‘new’ platform…at least I believe my motivation to blog will improve :-)

Now, comes a lot of work on installing widgets, designing the page and figuring out the mechanics of the WordPress software :-D