Siemens is a little extreme in my view. There is a time to lurk, and from the point of view of the group it can be useful for participants (especially new ones) to listen and reflect before participating actively. Peripheral participation can also enrich the discussion, bringing in other perspectives than those that are the central focus of the group. Lurking does not necessarily equate with taking, and endless activity, taking up peoples attention with your own views rather than listening to others may equally be construed as a kind of selfishness.
There are also questions related to people's comfort level in relation to participation. Some students post little but post well, and when forced to post more do not necessarily respond with "better" posts. Signal to noise ratio is an important issue.
But equally there is also a time to participate. When you are ready, when it is likely to be a useful contribution.
Nick Kearney
Posts made by Nick Kearney
An extreme interpretation of Pink is that extrinsic motivation doesn't really exist at all. And if it does it is largely irrelevant, as educators we have to find ways to tap into the intrinsic sources of motivation of each individual.
Which in turn means that learning design is impossible without listening first to the learners you are designing for. Which turns learning design into a continuous process of dialogue, a kind of action research...
Which in turn means that learning design is impossible without listening first to the learners you are designing for. Which turns learning design into a continuous process of dialogue, a kind of action research...
"Participation means you help yourself too". Mario Kaplún* writes especially convincingly about the importance of talk, about how comprehension is not complete until you have talked about it, aired it, and how that interaction leads to deeper understanding. But that is perhaps hardly new to the denizens of Scope!!!
*Kaplún, M. (1993) ‘Del educando oyente al educando hablante’. In Diálogos de la comunicación. n. 37. Perú: FELAFACS. for example page 22 “…full knowledge is achieved when the requirement – and the opportunity – exists to communicate this knowledge to others…” (my translation)
*Kaplún, M. (1993) ‘Del educando oyente al educando hablante’. In Diálogos de la comunicación. n. 37. Perú: FELAFACS. for example page 22 “…full knowledge is achieved when the requirement – and the opportunity – exists to communicate this knowledge to others…” (my translation)
I believe learning is a process that involves the development of autonomy in a given area. Education should be about facilitating that development. (not that it always does, many official curricula over the years have appeared to focus more on the development of a work force, but that is a different discussion)
Looked at through this lens, motivation is likely to be promoted by activities in which learners have a sense of autonomy, in which they can relate to each other, and increasingly to the wider community in the field, as equals. Teaching becomes largely a question of scaffolding that process.
Best to all,
Nick (K)
Looked at through this lens, motivation is likely to be promoted by activities in which learners have a sense of autonomy, in which they can relate to each other, and increasingly to the wider community in the field, as equals. Teaching becomes largely a question of scaffolding that process.
Best to all,
Nick (K)
"the most important thing is to go beyond everyone just posting and sharing."
I think this is a vital insight, if there is one criticism I would level at this and other similar spaces it is that often we stay at that stage, we share, we comment, we may even enlighten each other, but we often leave it there, rather than attempting to move further and draw conclusions. The attitude, I would hazard, is that we feel each can and should draw their own conclusions, and we are often diffident and tentative (how we love those modal verbs) and avoid clear declarations, but I wonder if that is not to waste opportunities. The process of trying to draw conclusions might be a positive way of making sense of the rich variety of perspectives most threads on Scope throw up.
The literature on dialogue, and online facilitation, has often emphasized the "weaver" role. This is perhaps statutory in paid courses; the tutorial obligation to make sense (albeit by hook or by crook) and provide answers is often an institutional requirement. In a voluntary context such as this, the idea may be anathema, running counter to the collegiate atmosphere, that warm buzz. But it might be that this kind of activity would be useful. Perhaps Scope could promote critical friendship.
So, a suggestion: each of the Scope seminars is led as usual by the people that proposed it, but we add the role of one (or more) independent weavers, whose role is to periodically summarize the discussion, identify salient ideas, suggest tags etc. This role should be external, in the sense that it is played by people who though part of Scope, have nothing to do with the seminar in question, and perhaps by people with thick skins, as weaving is not an easy task: things get left out, emphases get changed, and this can provoke controversy. However that process might be enriching.
Nick Kearney
I think this is a vital insight, if there is one criticism I would level at this and other similar spaces it is that often we stay at that stage, we share, we comment, we may even enlighten each other, but we often leave it there, rather than attempting to move further and draw conclusions. The attitude, I would hazard, is that we feel each can and should draw their own conclusions, and we are often diffident and tentative (how we love those modal verbs) and avoid clear declarations, but I wonder if that is not to waste opportunities. The process of trying to draw conclusions might be a positive way of making sense of the rich variety of perspectives most threads on Scope throw up.
The literature on dialogue, and online facilitation, has often emphasized the "weaver" role. This is perhaps statutory in paid courses; the tutorial obligation to make sense (albeit by hook or by crook) and provide answers is often an institutional requirement. In a voluntary context such as this, the idea may be anathema, running counter to the collegiate atmosphere, that warm buzz. But it might be that this kind of activity would be useful. Perhaps Scope could promote critical friendship.
So, a suggestion: each of the Scope seminars is led as usual by the people that proposed it, but we add the role of one (or more) independent weavers, whose role is to periodically summarize the discussion, identify salient ideas, suggest tags etc. This role should be external, in the sense that it is played by people who though part of Scope, have nothing to do with the seminar in question, and perhaps by people with thick skins, as weaving is not an easy task: things get left out, emphases get changed, and this can provoke controversy. However that process might be enriching.
Nick Kearney
(Edited by Sylvia Currie - original submission Tuesday, 31 August 2010, 01:35 AM Split this topic from the thread SCoPE & Web 2.0 http://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=15841)