Discussions started by Sarah Haavind

Cindy, Syl and I have been around this virtual block long enough -- as have so many of you! -- to know that all the learning afforded by our presence in this seminar is not evident here in the pages of our brief, albeit engaging discussion. For myself, I will say that agreeing to collaborate on this event was a great way  to gain a deeper understanding of Cindy's challenging critique of a framework that has helped so many of us, including myself, to "see" the patterns of dialogue in asynchronous learning networks, and to draw useful conclusions about effective practice. I hope our forum was beneficial for others as well, beyond those who actively participated.

That said, a major thank you to Curt, Nick, Barbara and David for jumping in, and to Cindy for crafting such a thoughtful article that clearly advances our collective understanding of how to foster high quality communities of inquiry.

Sylvia mentioned some messages she received from others who sent their regrets -- thank you to those thoughtful colleagues as well! And most of all, thank you Sylvia, our unfailing Scope Coordinator, for organizing this opportunity.

Warmest regards to all,

Sarah

I have kept my ear to the ground these last eleven days, listening with anticipation for which directions this richly pre-loaded dialogue might point us in this open environment.

David jump-started us with his observation: our students expect more and would already be yawning in a discussion environment like this. Curt followed up with a plethora of stimulating ideas for situating asynchronous, text-based dialogue within a larger, more widely orchestrated course arena with his 30+ ideas and counting. Fabulous!

Nick mulled over the inherent concepts of community, openness and the goal of fostering a disposition towards learning and each other questioning the concepts and wondering out loud whether we have or have not yet found a cultural format for thinking together globally and indicating an intended disposition towards each other (as much as towards any particular content). He asks: Does social media point us to other 'dispositional' and 'design' alternatives?

In my current work I believe I am building on that helpful question by combining a social (ning) network platform with more formal professional development for teachers. They do their own PD independently, using the collaborative social environment to support and scaffold their personal professional learning. It is sort of a closed Classroom 2.0 with specific learning targets for improving teaching effectiveness – but open design, as far as participants deciding what to do and how to do it. We still include asynchronous discussion forums among other synchronous, video, links to resources, etc. for pursuing deepened knowledge co-construction. The jury is still out, I think, on whether social media can support real work getting done more fruitfully and effectively (and engagingly) than academic papers and discussion forums (David quietly yawns in my ear).

At my first read of Cindy’s critique, I resonated with her insight about the difference between identifying presences broadly and more specifically considering multiple “communicative functions” in order to “examine the dynamics of the dialogue in terms of how it engages the participants at each moment and develops the subject matter over time (page 4, printerFriendly Xin). Clearly the attention CoI has drawn since it was first presented alludes to its usefulness for seeing learning dynamics in broad terms. As Cindy notes: The CoI encourages one to think about what a successful conference would entail, it does not adequately account for how to get there or make it happen (p. 5). The “what” indeed helped, but now for the “how.” As Barbara notes, It’s a deep dive! and then she wonders, “how does the CoI help me to understand and explain my own behaviours in online discussion?”

That made me think of parallel processing, right? Syl suggested we try using the Marginalia to code our own experience in this seminar. Any takers? In the spirit of Gadamer’s (p. 6) insight noted by Cindy that ‘play’ lies at the heart of every conversation…(and that the) aim is not so much winning as improving one’s game (and that movement) is not tied to any goal that would bring it to an end” I want to add a term. Cindy tells us that all dialogue is inherently social. Nick points to the open disposition towards learning and each other that keeps the dialogue “ball” in play. When communicative functions (CFs) include weaving, recognition, prompting, these seem to me to indicate the “hows” of collaborative presence, or continuous improvement by playing in a way that builds, extends, mulls over, queries, refers – everyone facilitating everyone’s learning all the time. Our remaining days together are just a few; I am hopeful that just a few more balls cross our cognitive court. Thanks for so many rich insights here already…

~Sarah

So I am perhaps jumping ahead a bit, but the Semantic Web ideas REALLY got my mind networks shimmering 8-) and THEN I discovered these two fascinating visualization sites, thanks to a LinkedIn colleague of mine whom some of you may know, Elizabeth Dorland. She pointed me to:

Map of Science home: http://scimaps.org/
(Try the BROWSE MAPS and have fun getting lost in amazing analytics visualizations toward semantic webbing, seems to me.)

And also, http://www.visualizing.org/
Scroll down and enjoy another "forest" of visualization adventures! Take your pick!!

...and so then, as seems to happen sometimes -- all at once new patterns emerge all over the place once you have the right glasses on, I discovered Linked In's new visualizing your network tool, have you seen it and/or tried it? I think this wil take you there...

I was struck by how much research is going to shift (morph?) once more of this is readily in place. WOW!
Sarah

Hello!
Hudson is near Boston on the East Coast of the US. It is wintery, but not as much snow as I would like. As a winter sports enthusiast, I love the snow!

I am interested in this course because of the quality and focus of the content, and course design. I appreciate the opportunity to engage with such a wide and thoughtful community of online learning and practice and I look forward to doing the work and helping to co-construct something challenging and interesting on the bleeding edge of formalized-informal learning with such a diversity of erudite co-discussants and co-explorers.

In my mind, the course is already a success, I have learned so much just by downloading and exploring some of the Session 1 materials and content! Its ultimate success will unfold in the personal conversation I have with the weekly content and exchanges of ideas with other discussants. With so much potential (between the excellent content and ease of accessing it all and the variety and number of discussants/participants already signed up), it seems success will largely depend on my regulating my own engagement so as not to become overwhelmed, but to continue finding entry points throughout the duration of the live sequence of events and challenges (assignments).

I have been teaching (and learning!) as a construtivist/constructionist facilitator of online courses for adults since the 1990s, first at Concord Consortium, and now at Lesley University, both in Massachusetts, US.
Okay, related topic, and then I will go back to sitting on my hands ;-) (aka my favorite strategy for facilitating online learning -- although it is not unlike playing poker -- you have to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em -- but I digress!) AND I just want to remind you that just because my posts are long and numerous this morning, does not mean you have to read them! I will never know. :-D

So my dad is a (poker and) stock trading buff. I grew concerned about the Flash "problem" with ipads and potentially other future apple products in the early days of our seminar here and wrote him (having apple stock) about whether it might be a good time to sell some apple -- aka. cut and run, right? :). I feel so guilty now.

I thought this group might be intrigued, or at least entertained by his response. He wrote:

Before I answer, there is some history with Steve Jobs' inclination not to make Apple products open systems. When Cary Lu was working on the first Macintosh book, he spent time with the development group. He felt that Steve was too intent on making the Apple product a closed system (use only Apple devices, such as their own printers even!). I later wrote about this in an editorial. Much of the technology of the Mac seemed to be borrowed from Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, where a lot of the original work on PC design was done (after Doug Engelbart's group moved there from SRI).
I received a lengthy response from one of the Mac developers. He said that the PARC ideas had really been co-developed by the Mac group (a lot of technology gets moved around by engineers talking to each other in the Valley, actually). And he said that the reason that Apple did not make their products more open is that their peripherals were so far superior to any others around that they felt it would be redundant technology. I think that was actually an expression of Steve Jobs attitude.
So this is not a new problem. But if Jobs wants to take Java out of the iPad, that could be a big mistake. Note that this is just a rumor at this point. Also, note that several other competitive pads will be coming out (or have already). One of them will run all the regular Windows programs, so it can be used like a computer, not just for playing with apps. That makes it more suitable for business users. Microsoft has come out with an iPhone competitor that the press actually likes. Microsoft is desperate to compete in the mobile sphere, so it is going to pour resources into doing this (they are already calling for Ballmer's firing, because the stock has done so poorly, and the technology seems to be shifting away from the familiar Wintel (Windows with Intel chips) computers. So I think Apple will face increasing competition.
But Jobs is very good at staying a step ahead in spite of all this. The link between the computer and TV is the next target, and I suspect that they will do very well (fighting against Google as well there).
So now to answer your question. The penetration of the iPhone and iPad technologies around the world is so far pretty small. So they have an opportunity to build up tremendous sales overseas as the dollar weakens -- increasing their profits. So Apple has a ways to run yet. There will definitely be ups and downs (not just up, as it has been recently). But I think it can go a little farther before the competition threat makes the stock go down. If anything happens with Jobs, that is another story. That would make the stock drop like a rock. So taking a little off the table soon might not be a bad idea. He looks pretty thin and frail.
Steve Jobs has a history of making design mistakes because he envisions computers more as a home device than a business tool. The Apple II was supposed to be for storing recipes and a few other things that never happened. Then Visicalc came along and made it a great tool for small businesses. The first Mac was supposed to be a home computer and didn't have enough memory. Quickly it became clear that users wanted to be able to work interchangeable between their home and office PCs. So the Mac group did an full out redesign project to add more memory to the Mac and make it more business-oriented. I met Steve at a meeting (in Napa Valley) where he gave a talk and told about their full-out effort to upgrade the Mac. He told me he was a big fan of Cary Lu, who wrote a number of editions of the Mac book (but unfortunately died of cancer a few years ago).
So now Steve's at it again! Business users want Java (as does everybody -- and especially the educational community and graphics designers, big Apple supporters). He may think you only need to play around with the Apple-approved apps on the iPad (because they are so superior to anything else), so he may be back to going the closed system route again. He always has been very stubborn, but maybe someone will talk him out of it this time.

Okay, back to work.
~Sarah