I read Nick's post many times and it is so jam-packed with interesting observations that it's hard to know where to begin. As usual, Nick has a way digging below the surface and making us think hard about what we are doing here, as educators, online.
The comment about Web 2.0 as "illusion of community" really got me thinking: "The contents are shared but there is no real sense of knowing each other or caring about each other". So much is shared, we all benefit, but I wonder how often we register WHO an interesting tidbit came from. And do we feel an obligation to reciprocate?
On the other hand, at SCoPE I think that there is that willingness to give back because we have a common goal to learn. There's incentive to facilitate and take on different roles for individual practice and learning. Also, it's an opportunity to share research, work in progress, publications, and accomplishments. But I agree, it's different from a desire to self-promote, get noticed, show how many "friends" you have, etc.
Having said all that, I guess one question is what is the place for Web 2.0 in the SCoPE community?
Web 2.0 is like an elephant perceived by blind people. For one thing, the people poking at the beast can't see one another, nor can they very readily envision the beast itself. Web 2.0 is amorphous yet when encountered, there is definitely something significant and substantial there. All of us can perceive that from our various blind vantage points.
In fact, I would turn this question on its head: what is the place for SCoPE in the Web 2.0 community? Because, yes, Web 2.0 might create an illusion of community, but IMHO that's because it's in fact there, more than just an illusion.
For one thing, all of us are lurkers. I lurk a lot in this community, the SCoPE one. I'm active in other communities, where you wouldn't call me a lurker. In some communities I lurk, and then suddenly, I show that I've been listening with more attention than I'd been getting credit for. At such moments, I suddenly contribute, as do we all.
So if you aggregated all those contributions, you'd see that from a Web 2.0 perspective, I'm an overall contributor, but from the perspective of SCoPE or any number of communities which I consider make up my Web 2.0 world, call that a PLN if you wish, I might not be all that strong a contributor. And there are many in this PLN like me, whose contributions are significant somewhere, though not necessarily apparent when viewed through a particular vantage on that composite webscape.
So that's why I see the Web 2.0 as the over-riding entity, not SCoPE (nor Webheads, one of the communities where you'd see me more often). You might think that SCoPE or Webheads (or EdTechTalk, or Classroom 2.0, or Worldbridges, or K12 Online, or ARCALL, etc. etc.) are the communities here, but I would say that the PLN, or the network, places us in defacto larger communities, which can be seen when names you know from one set of interactions crop up in other contexts on the network, and you start getting to know people better, through their Twitter feeds and Facebook updates, for example.
I realize we'd be pushing our definition of 'community' to consider all of Web 2.0 to be one. SCoPE is a community, as is Webheads and many other such spaces on the Internet, which can be readily understood to exhibit community behaviors. But Web 2.0 allows these communities to overlap with one another, so that the intersections of our individual PLNs create community superspaces, where certain people crop up frequently, where our PLNs intersect, in spaces which are also communal but unnamed.
And in these spaces I think we get to know each other better than if interaction were in just one space. You might think that this is an illusion until you actually meet someone from such a space face to face, and then you realize that you do already know that person.
Thoughts brought to you from my position somewhere on the elephant,
Vance
In fact, I would turn this question on its head: what is the place for SCoPE in the Web 2.0 community? Because, yes, Web 2.0 might create an illusion of community, but IMHO that's because it's in fact there, more than just an illusion.
For one thing, all of us are lurkers. I lurk a lot in this community, the SCoPE one. I'm active in other communities, where you wouldn't call me a lurker. In some communities I lurk, and then suddenly, I show that I've been listening with more attention than I'd been getting credit for. At such moments, I suddenly contribute, as do we all.
So if you aggregated all those contributions, you'd see that from a Web 2.0 perspective, I'm an overall contributor, but from the perspective of SCoPE or any number of communities which I consider make up my Web 2.0 world, call that a PLN if you wish, I might not be all that strong a contributor. And there are many in this PLN like me, whose contributions are significant somewhere, though not necessarily apparent when viewed through a particular vantage on that composite webscape.
So that's why I see the Web 2.0 as the over-riding entity, not SCoPE (nor Webheads, one of the communities where you'd see me more often). You might think that SCoPE or Webheads (or EdTechTalk, or Classroom 2.0, or Worldbridges, or K12 Online, or ARCALL, etc. etc.) are the communities here, but I would say that the PLN, or the network, places us in defacto larger communities, which can be seen when names you know from one set of interactions crop up in other contexts on the network, and you start getting to know people better, through their Twitter feeds and Facebook updates, for example.
I realize we'd be pushing our definition of 'community' to consider all of Web 2.0 to be one. SCoPE is a community, as is Webheads and many other such spaces on the Internet, which can be readily understood to exhibit community behaviors. But Web 2.0 allows these communities to overlap with one another, so that the intersections of our individual PLNs create community superspaces, where certain people crop up frequently, where our PLNs intersect, in spaces which are also communal but unnamed.
And in these spaces I think we get to know each other better than if interaction were in just one space. You might think that this is an illusion until you actually meet someone from such a space face to face, and then you realize that you do already know that person.
Thoughts brought to you from my position somewhere on the elephant,
Vance
Hi Vance,
I think what you say is interesting - the reference to personal learning networks as the anchor for your argument particularly so. My possibly fragile interpretation of PLNs is my perception of people in such contexts as active agents defining their own agenda for learning and addressing it across multiple sites.
This in turn implies that there is a clear sense of the affordances of each site in order to know where to look and what might be obtained from any or all of them. It does not however imply a relationship with the people there at those different sites other than a client-server kind of interaction. It is a view that says what do I need and where do I go to get it.
I am really thinking about communities as those interested and active in developing a culture of learning in which people bring and discuss issues relating to their practices and through which they obtain emotional and practical support (this is a paraphrasing of David McConnell's work on online learning communities). Relationships and a social life of re-negotiated understanding. Culture, identity and depth of relationships are defining characteristics and these go beyond the course itself.
When I think about web 2.0 I think of 'users' or a 'culture of sharing' at best. I see this as distinct from an intention to learn together and therefore something more functional than relational. There's nothing wrong with either but I see them as very distinct from each other in some senses and I tend to value a learning community far more than I do flickr and all the rest.
PLNs then for me relate to social capital but not always in a *mutually* respectful and supportive culture of learning. I would say they can be exploitative of others. Web 2.0 to me are just the materials being shared or sold or etc. Learning communities are the mutually supportive context in which there is an intention to develop a culture of learning - something that continues and deepens over time. That's my take on these things (i think).
This does however highlight the need perhaps for us to clarify terms. Do we need to establish what we each understand by the term online community. Is it distinct from a learning community, a community of practice or a knowledge-building community as 3 flavours of community often mentioned (to quote McConnell, 2006)? What do we mean by community?
Cheers,
Nick
I think what you say is interesting - the reference to personal learning networks as the anchor for your argument particularly so. My possibly fragile interpretation of PLNs is my perception of people in such contexts as active agents defining their own agenda for learning and addressing it across multiple sites.
This in turn implies that there is a clear sense of the affordances of each site in order to know where to look and what might be obtained from any or all of them. It does not however imply a relationship with the people there at those different sites other than a client-server kind of interaction. It is a view that says what do I need and where do I go to get it.
I am really thinking about communities as those interested and active in developing a culture of learning in which people bring and discuss issues relating to their practices and through which they obtain emotional and practical support (this is a paraphrasing of David McConnell's work on online learning communities). Relationships and a social life of re-negotiated understanding. Culture, identity and depth of relationships are defining characteristics and these go beyond the course itself.
When I think about web 2.0 I think of 'users' or a 'culture of sharing' at best. I see this as distinct from an intention to learn together and therefore something more functional than relational. There's nothing wrong with either but I see them as very distinct from each other in some senses and I tend to value a learning community far more than I do flickr and all the rest.
PLNs then for me relate to social capital but not always in a *mutually* respectful and supportive culture of learning. I would say they can be exploitative of others. Web 2.0 to me are just the materials being shared or sold or etc. Learning communities are the mutually supportive context in which there is an intention to develop a culture of learning - something that continues and deepens over time. That's my take on these things (i think).
This does however highlight the need perhaps for us to clarify terms. Do we need to establish what we each understand by the term online community. Is it distinct from a learning community, a community of practice or a knowledge-building community as 3 flavours of community often mentioned (to quote McConnell, 2006)? What do we mean by community?
Cheers,
Nick
Hello:
Vance makes some interesting and useful observations.
What is participation? As an experienced lurker in SCoPE, I can say that I am still an active participant because I read every posting and I take on the role of a little sponge sucking up knowledge and ideas from more knowledgeable and experienced colleagues. If you count "thinking and reflecting time" then I'm very active.
I'm getting to explore ideas and tools I might not have/make the time to do if left to myself.
and so, for me, SCoPE works.
Thanks, Christine (Chris) Horgan, SAIT Polytechnic, Calgary
I love the way interesting topics all related to technology enhanced learning are discussed in this community and when I have time I can join in or just lurk. I am also immensely grateful for the sharing of experiences and constant updating of knowledge. I feel there is a friendship and trust that develops over time with support when questions are asked, answered or discussed.
Web 2.0 appears to me to be a huge amorphous mass of loosely linked interactive services that come and go with the odd one that catches on and seems to act rather like an octopus with tentacles extending into a range of other groups e.g. FaceBook and Linkedin with their APIs. If you choose to make the leap into subject specific groups you can cross boundaries and make use of the different types of services to keep up to date etc but it is much more pot luck and usually participation comes without strings attached.
Hope this makes sense!
Best wishes E.A.
Web 2.0 appears to me to be a huge amorphous mass of loosely linked interactive services that come and go with the odd one that catches on and seems to act rather like an octopus with tentacles extending into a range of other groups e.g. FaceBook and Linkedin with their APIs. If you choose to make the leap into subject specific groups you can cross boundaries and make use of the different types of services to keep up to date etc but it is much more pot luck and usually participation comes without strings attached.
Hope this makes sense!
Best wishes E.A.
Vance Stevens wrote,
For one thing, all of us are lurkers. I lurk a lot in this community, the SCoPE one. I'm active in other communities, where you wouldn't call me a lurker. In some communities I lurk, and then suddenly, I show that I've been listening with more attention than I'd been getting credit for. At such moments, I suddenly contribute, as do we all.
and then
Christine Horgan wrote,
What is participation? As an experienced lurker in SCoPE, I can say that I am still an active participant because I read every posting and I take on the role of a little sponge sucking up knowledge and ideas from more knowledgeable and experienced colleagues. If you count "thinking and reflecting time" then I'm very active.
I've mentioned before, in SCoPE I think, but maybe not, that many years ago, on an email list (non-work related, as it happens) a friend noted that where 'lurker' has negative connotations & thus people seem to want to reform them, 'listener' implies something much more active - as Christine wrote.
In this session, I've very much been a listener (speed listener, if that's possible!) due other commitment - & have found what I've had time to read, useful.
What I find most interesting about SCoPE is a willingness to take this "virtual learning environment" and share ideas about how each of us has experienced or applied the ideas and/or tools. It is not done in a dry way, but in a way rich in meaning.
From my perspective, we have been generating content for global learning networks. Sylvia and others have also tried to create ways to master all the contributions into some kind of accessible pool of content.
SCoPE is a knowledge network grown from a virtual learning environment over time. What we miss is an ever-evolving, improved organising system with a clear framework and methodology for capturing the true value of this content and the processes and people.
All I have to do is look back on...
...the inter-cultural and inter-disciplinary learning,
...the range of experiences,
...the variety of open seminars where engagement sets the stage
...the experimentation and application of ideas and tools and the shared results from that,
...the lessons learned
...the network of ideas shared
...the shared learning from our many micro environments into this global SCoPE one and then the selection of ideas and tools that are taken back into those micro environments
...and let's not forget the MEANING and worth of all of this
SCoPE provides a real and meaningful, non-judgmental, constructive virtual learning environment that has generated a very meaningful knowledge network.
My question is...
...How can we continue to evolve SCoPE so that learning and knowledge can continue to emerge in meaningful ways - using these very same tools we discuss and experiment with and have brought into regular use?
...How can we help build an organising system with a framework and methodology that makes it easier for each of us to continue to contribute - and make the findings more accessible. This is a knowledge network that has created a lot of worth for its participants. This requires Web 3.0 thinking - functional, philosophical and semantic, technologically relevant - while remaining affordable and Open Source!
...How can we make this more visual so that we can have some overview of the many relevant hubs and what connects it all?
Many thanks, Sylvia, to you and to everyone else who has contributed to this gem called SCoPE. And thank you for the wealth of knowledge and learning we have all gained from it.
From my perspective, we have been generating content for global learning networks. Sylvia and others have also tried to create ways to master all the contributions into some kind of accessible pool of content.
SCoPE is a knowledge network grown from a virtual learning environment over time. What we miss is an ever-evolving, improved organising system with a clear framework and methodology for capturing the true value of this content and the processes and people.
All I have to do is look back on...
...the inter-cultural and inter-disciplinary learning,
...the range of experiences,
...the variety of open seminars where engagement sets the stage
...the experimentation and application of ideas and tools and the shared results from that,
...the lessons learned
...the network of ideas shared
...the shared learning from our many micro environments into this global SCoPE one and then the selection of ideas and tools that are taken back into those micro environments
...and let's not forget the MEANING and worth of all of this
SCoPE provides a real and meaningful, non-judgmental, constructive virtual learning environment that has generated a very meaningful knowledge network.
My question is...
...How can we continue to evolve SCoPE so that learning and knowledge can continue to emerge in meaningful ways - using these very same tools we discuss and experiment with and have brought into regular use?
...How can we help build an organising system with a framework and methodology that makes it easier for each of us to continue to contribute - and make the findings more accessible. This is a knowledge network that has created a lot of worth for its participants. This requires Web 3.0 thinking - functional, philosophical and semantic, technologically relevant - while remaining affordable and Open Source!
...How can we make this more visual so that we can have some overview of the many relevant hubs and what connects it all?
Many thanks, Sylvia, to you and to everyone else who has contributed to this gem called SCoPE. And thank you for the wealth of knowledge and learning we have all gained from it.
So far I've voiced my anti-web 2.0 view that such initiatives are relationships with sites/content rather than with people. However, it's a poor learner that doesn't at least entertain different ideas so here's my go at a pro-web 2.0 view.
1. If we are going to think about learning in a participatory form (a sociocultural take on learning) then it makes sense to understand and be able to operate and learn from such interactive environments. Support for participation and understanding of web 2.0 as a current and important idea would be on the table as an emerging practice.
2. If SCoPE was going to adopt such an approach as a way of supporting and exploring such ideas then it might do a bit of crowdsourcing to do with education. That could take the form of an invitation to share lesson plans for example. It might go beyond this and ask for participants to share what they think is the most innovative idea/site that *adopts* web 2.0 for learning and to add tags and reasons etc.
3. The role of the tutor is an issue in such a context. I would suggest that the typical role of the online tutor is to facilitate thought, focus and dialogue in an effort to help people make sense of social chaos. This being the case, then it is the tutor role to help highlight emergent themes or host a discussion in which the pool of ideas can be explored. I think it could include further audience participation with people voting for the best learning design with an explanation. That then allows the tutor to support the outcomes with their own views and to bring in any related theory etc.
I think that would be quite stimulating for everyone and it would radically different to using moodle forums or it would add additional interactivity to these spaces. A tutor could look at some of the tags as a basis for discussion too. So, for me the most important thing is to go beyond everyone just posting and sharing. It needs some sense made of it as well and it needs to support relationships with people as well as with sites. What do you think?
I've effectively done this with the Shared Thinking approach in the classroom where students have posted ideas/concerns and the technology pulls it all together. That synthesis facilitates a dialogue and tutor support for the inputs from the learners. I guess Shared Thinking is in many respects Induction 2.0 Learning 2.0 or Reflection 2.0. Reflecting on web2.0 here made me realize this.
Nick
--------------------------------------------
Nicholas Bowskill
Faculty of Education
University of Glasgow
http://www.sharedthinking.info
1. If we are going to think about learning in a participatory form (a sociocultural take on learning) then it makes sense to understand and be able to operate and learn from such interactive environments. Support for participation and understanding of web 2.0 as a current and important idea would be on the table as an emerging practice.
2. If SCoPE was going to adopt such an approach as a way of supporting and exploring such ideas then it might do a bit of crowdsourcing to do with education. That could take the form of an invitation to share lesson plans for example. It might go beyond this and ask for participants to share what they think is the most innovative idea/site that *adopts* web 2.0 for learning and to add tags and reasons etc.
3. The role of the tutor is an issue in such a context. I would suggest that the typical role of the online tutor is to facilitate thought, focus and dialogue in an effort to help people make sense of social chaos. This being the case, then it is the tutor role to help highlight emergent themes or host a discussion in which the pool of ideas can be explored. I think it could include further audience participation with people voting for the best learning design with an explanation. That then allows the tutor to support the outcomes with their own views and to bring in any related theory etc.
I think that would be quite stimulating for everyone and it would radically different to using moodle forums or it would add additional interactivity to these spaces. A tutor could look at some of the tags as a basis for discussion too. So, for me the most important thing is to go beyond everyone just posting and sharing. It needs some sense made of it as well and it needs to support relationships with people as well as with sites. What do you think?
I've effectively done this with the Shared Thinking approach in the classroom where students have posted ideas/concerns and the technology pulls it all together. That synthesis facilitates a dialogue and tutor support for the inputs from the learners. I guess Shared Thinking is in many respects Induction 2.0 Learning 2.0 or Reflection 2.0. Reflecting on web2.0 here made me realize this.
Nick
--------------------------------------------
Nicholas Bowskill
Faculty of Education
University of Glasgow
http://www.sharedthinking.info