I'm going to let the web 2.0 thread sit for a while to allow others to come in on that. I was essentially trying to draw out the distinctive nature of SCoPE as an open online community and this is an interesting opportunity to just consider this in more detail. I've taught in a number of online courses based on the model or principle of online communities. These were based upon a learner-constructed agenda but located within a closed online space with a set number of known participants who mostly travelled through the courses together.
SCoPE, as an example of an open online community has different features. Not least amongst these is that the audience is more generally defined and their location may very well be international. Participants may or may not post and there's no obligation for participation to take that particular form. Participants may come and go at any point along the planned journey. Participants may come from anywhere and from quite distinct practices and cultures.
Tutoring does not involve assessment of what are essentially informal learners in a semi-formal and open structure. Tutoring is about being supportive and understanding of different contributions but cannot exert pressure or offer rewards - or can it? Perhaps rather than filling up e-portfolios alone participation here might be recognised and certificated?
It is also interesting to think about the relationship between online communities as emerging and inter-cultural phenomenon. How should a community like SCoPE work with other similar communities (- if they should)? What would professional development look like for working in intercultural online communities if this is an emerging form of practice?
The underlying issue is the recognition of these open communities as inter-cultural with different pedagogical heritage and practices coming together here. Are we working to a particular - perhaps western model - of working online? How do we work together with difference in such open environments?
I'm evaluating SCoPE not in isolation but as an example of an emerging practice that highlights a huge new field of research to be explored - within and between online inter-cultural communities. Such communities support local institutional practices but at the same time constitute a unique form of practice themselves. From that perspective if I was to propose a what next topic I might go for 'the research and practice of online inter-cultural open communities.'
As an early contribution towards such thoughts it would be interesting to hear how tutoring is conceptualised within SCoPE and how this has changed since its inception. Also what do we as participants in SCoPE 'expect' in such contexts - from tutors, from each other and as learning outcomes?
Nicholas Bowskill
Discussions started by Nicholas Bowskill
I would like to leave one key point at the end of this online discussion. I left it until the end to see if anything came out on it - the notion of diversity and learning.
The pie-charts (or other data-display formats of which there are quite a few) show the *diversity* of thinking in the room. This is a resource for learning rather than a starting point for correction.
The goal of Shared Thinking is not to seek consensus or any form of agreement. We are not trying to see how many got the right answer. In this new approach we are seeking to leverage and display the variety of perspectives in the room on a given topic.
I believe this is a big big difference - not least to the standard use of clickers- but also to the idea of teaching. In Shared Thinking the goal is to pool the diverse thinking in the group (and can be a group of 400 we've done it with). Then the goal is to make that visible or 'public.'
This has several effects including letting everyone know that here are the range of issues held by members of this group and that we therefore have something in common that defines as a group. It also puts the discussion into a communicable form for further thought and discussion. And it shapes and supports the response of others.
It is interesting to see how often clickers are held up as valuable and the goal is consensus around a correct answer. That allows the tutor to carry on their prepared story. More importantly we see the most popular learning designs for the use of clickers praising the value of discussion as a way of increasing the level of consensus. In other words the more you talk about it the more you'll fall in or agree or believe or understand the correct story.
It is a qualitatively different thing to seek to avoid consensus and instead to show multiple perspectives. Then to make the diversity the basis of the discussion. This student generated diversity is a rich resource that raises a sense of ownership and makes it feel more authentic as a conversation shaped by the students.
So my final point in closing is to invite you to think about the goal of generating and then displaying the diversity of thoughts in the whole-group as a different way of supporting a student-driven agenda and a rich approach to communal reflection and learning.
Many thanks for this opportunity. Thanks also for your contributions, time and encouragement.
Best wishes,
Nick
Nicholas Bowskill
Faculty of Education
University of Glasgow
Scotland
email: n.bowskill.1@research.gla.ac.uk
The pie-charts (or other data-display formats of which there are quite a few) show the *diversity* of thinking in the room. This is a resource for learning rather than a starting point for correction.
The goal of Shared Thinking is not to seek consensus or any form of agreement. We are not trying to see how many got the right answer. In this new approach we are seeking to leverage and display the variety of perspectives in the room on a given topic.
I believe this is a big big difference - not least to the standard use of clickers- but also to the idea of teaching. In Shared Thinking the goal is to pool the diverse thinking in the group (and can be a group of 400 we've done it with). Then the goal is to make that visible or 'public.'
This has several effects including letting everyone know that here are the range of issues held by members of this group and that we therefore have something in common that defines as a group. It also puts the discussion into a communicable form for further thought and discussion. And it shapes and supports the response of others.
It is interesting to see how often clickers are held up as valuable and the goal is consensus around a correct answer. That allows the tutor to carry on their prepared story. More importantly we see the most popular learning designs for the use of clickers praising the value of discussion as a way of increasing the level of consensus. In other words the more you talk about it the more you'll fall in or agree or believe or understand the correct story.
It is a qualitatively different thing to seek to avoid consensus and instead to show multiple perspectives. Then to make the diversity the basis of the discussion. This student generated diversity is a rich resource that raises a sense of ownership and makes it feel more authentic as a conversation shaped by the students.
So my final point in closing is to invite you to think about the goal of generating and then displaying the diversity of thoughts in the whole-group as a different way of supporting a student-driven agenda and a rich approach to communal reflection and learning.
Many thanks for this opportunity. Thanks also for your contributions, time and encouragement.
Best wishes,
Nick
Nicholas Bowskill
Faculty of Education
University of Glasgow
Scotland
email: n.bowskill.1@research.gla.ac.uk