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
Nicholas Bowskill
Posts made by Nicholas Bowskill
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
Hi Sylvia, What an interesting idea about accreditation of participation in this kind of thing. I like the idea but it raises tensions as you say doesn't it? For instance I use this space(s) as a place to think and discuss things free of the constraints of meeting some external criteria. If they were in place would I feel it to be more performative? If we have started to assess and benchmark e-portfolios and then MOOCs (that was a new term to me) where are the spaces for free-thinking unjudged?
Setting aside such views I really like the idea. I guess institutions would also have some tensions because on the one hand they would bring new people into their fold but on the other hand can I do a free degree this way? If I participated my head off for 3-4 years would I get a degree from my informal but sustained participation? What becomes of institutional income then?
It would be nice to be able to participate and then bring it to the institution as accredited prior learning though. It does also raise tutoring and support issues unique to such contexts doesn't it?
The only other point I would mention right now is thinking about this in relationship to the work of Alan Tough and his colleagues/descendants at Toronto who surveyed informal learners and their personal projects. They found that rather than being a solitary pursuit this kind of activity was conducted across a variety of conversations and in different places such as libraries etc. Although SCoPE could function as an online space for informal learners and provide conversational opportunities for such people to develop their projects how do you cope (accredit) participation across multiple MOOCs? Can I bring my scattered stuff to you and ask you or another institution to accredit me? I guess I could be invited to make sense of it all in a coherent form and present it to someone for a fee but that changes the footing.
As you say lots of interesting points raised by all of this and interesting to hear the further thoughts of yourself and others too.
It's Friday afternoon here at 4pm so I'll be warming down soon but I'll be following this and thinking about it over the weekend. I wish everyone here a happy one.
Nick
Setting aside such views I really like the idea. I guess institutions would also have some tensions because on the one hand they would bring new people into their fold but on the other hand can I do a free degree this way? If I participated my head off for 3-4 years would I get a degree from my informal but sustained participation? What becomes of institutional income then?
It would be nice to be able to participate and then bring it to the institution as accredited prior learning though. It does also raise tutoring and support issues unique to such contexts doesn't it?
The only other point I would mention right now is thinking about this in relationship to the work of Alan Tough and his colleagues/descendants at Toronto who surveyed informal learners and their personal projects. They found that rather than being a solitary pursuit this kind of activity was conducted across a variety of conversations and in different places such as libraries etc. Although SCoPE could function as an online space for informal learners and provide conversational opportunities for such people to develop their projects how do you cope (accredit) participation across multiple MOOCs? Can I bring my scattered stuff to you and ask you or another institution to accredit me? I guess I could be invited to make sense of it all in a coherent form and present it to someone for a fee but that changes the footing.
As you say lots of interesting points raised by all of this and interesting to hear the further thoughts of yourself and others too.
It's Friday afternoon here at 4pm so I'll be warming down soon but I'll be following this and thinking about it over the weekend. I wish everyone here a happy one.
Nick
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?
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?
Hi Sylvia,
I'm really glad you've provided this opportunity to reflect together on what I think is a fascinating initiative you have here. It raises so many issues and questions in my mind not least about ideas to do with 'open everything' and web 2.0/3.0 and all the rest.
Let me say up front and early on that I think this is an example of wonderful and valuable community - a sense of kinship and shared interests etc. I also want to be critical as a way of trying to understand my own thoughts and those of others here. In that vein then I wonder about the future of other notional and similar initiatives. Is this one working because there are few others provided by institutions for example? Might it be seen for less virtuous goals as a device for marketing to get the name out there and then recruit people or exploit the participants as data? Alternatively, should we each have our own goals and purposes in a spirit of shared data?
I tried to think about this in the context of web 2.0 etc. with inputs here equating to pictures and videos posted online to youtube and flickr etc. I view them as more openly exploitative in that they use a crowd to view the adverts and sell data to others. Despite this people do enjoy those facilities and gain enough from them to be indifferent to the consequences. Again we might say the spirit of shared data and mutual benefit applies.
I think with Scope there is a community of shared feelings and ideas and mutual support in a spirit of enquiry. Web 2.0 on the other hand strikes me as an illusion of community. I tend to view that concept as something akin to leaving my house door open and then everyone else in the street/town/world leaving their doors open. The contents are shared but there is no real sense of knowing each other or caring about each other. Scope does have a feeling of reciprocity and a coming together of people rather than just a coming together of content.
So, from all of this rambling I would say that this is participatory and relational learning and that much of this is conditional upon perception and disposition coupled with power/opportunity to gain something meaningful from it.
Whatever way we view it I *like* Scope. Thanks for the questions, for being here and for the opportunity to discuss this together.
Nick
Faculty of Education,
University of Glasgow
Scotland
http://www.sharedthinking.info
I'm really glad you've provided this opportunity to reflect together on what I think is a fascinating initiative you have here. It raises so many issues and questions in my mind not least about ideas to do with 'open everything' and web 2.0/3.0 and all the rest.
Let me say up front and early on that I think this is an example of wonderful and valuable community - a sense of kinship and shared interests etc. I also want to be critical as a way of trying to understand my own thoughts and those of others here. In that vein then I wonder about the future of other notional and similar initiatives. Is this one working because there are few others provided by institutions for example? Might it be seen for less virtuous goals as a device for marketing to get the name out there and then recruit people or exploit the participants as data? Alternatively, should we each have our own goals and purposes in a spirit of shared data?
I tried to think about this in the context of web 2.0 etc. with inputs here equating to pictures and videos posted online to youtube and flickr etc. I view them as more openly exploitative in that they use a crowd to view the adverts and sell data to others. Despite this people do enjoy those facilities and gain enough from them to be indifferent to the consequences. Again we might say the spirit of shared data and mutual benefit applies.
I think with Scope there is a community of shared feelings and ideas and mutual support in a spirit of enquiry. Web 2.0 on the other hand strikes me as an illusion of community. I tend to view that concept as something akin to leaving my house door open and then everyone else in the street/town/world leaving their doors open. The contents are shared but there is no real sense of knowing each other or caring about each other. Scope does have a feeling of reciprocity and a coming together of people rather than just a coming together of content.
So, from all of this rambling I would say that this is participatory and relational learning and that much of this is conditional upon perception and disposition coupled with power/opportunity to gain something meaningful from it.
Whatever way we view it I *like* Scope. Thanks for the questions, for being here and for the opportunity to discuss this together.
Nick
Faculty of Education,
University of Glasgow
Scotland
http://www.sharedthinking.info