Continuing attempt to destabilize courses
George Siemens on Jul 29th 2009
CCK08 was an attempt to destabilize the concept of a course.
A course does not need to be confined to a particular set of students, with one (or even two) instructors. A course is essentially a path through a particular area of information. The path is generally formed before learners arrive, which means many learners will find parts redundant or irrelevant. A learner’s existing knowledge and motivation are the two biggest factors in determining their success. When we prepackage curriculum as a course, we largely overlook this vital aspect.
But a problem arises: how can an educator adjust a course to reflect the individual needs of 10, 15, 50, or 300 learners? Obviously, she can’t. That leaves two options:
1) Use software to assess learner’s existing knowledge (which is a flawed process because our capacity for recall is influenced by context – i.e. situated cognition and learning)
or
2) Involve other learners to serve as wayfinding guides – a network of learners sharing resources, offering comments, exchanging views. Learners are then able to contextualize their interests by forming personal learning networks. The networks of fellow learners serves to personalize the learning experience.
To get to the second stage – where learners self-organize – we need to destabilize courses. We need to question the value of single perspective course formations. We need to increase information flow so a breadth exists that allows the full range of learners to find areas (and personalities) of interest.
A significant barrier exists: the desire for learners to master and make sense of all the information. Based on CCK08 (and numerous other online courses I’ve taught) I’m convinced that the mindset formed from years and decades of taking courses is the key problem. A course suggests we can master relevant information. That what the instructor presents to us is what’s important. If we want to be knowledgeable in a field, we then need to master the content of a course.
This simply is not possible anymore.
In CCK08 Stephen Downes and I planned to distribute the conversation and learning resources in as wide a format as possible – making it impossible for anyone (instructors included) to participate in all forums and master the full range of content. The mindset adjustment required, from my observations, is a difficult one for most people to make. I find it difficult, too. When tackling a new subject, my goal is to try and capture all the important aspects. I miss seeing the patterns that emerge because I’m too busy trying to consume what I think is relevant content.
This is why it’s important to destabilize the notion of courses.
Here’s what we are planning this year in CCK09: the introduction of Conferences within Courses.
Stephen and I have tentatively planned for online conferences to run during CCK09:
- Personal Learning Environments (end of Sept)
- Net Pedagogy (Nov)
- Systemic Change (mid-Nov)
- Policy Level Implications (early Dec, timed with a UNESCO event we are both attending in Barcelona)
Each conference will run 2-3 days with numerous guest speakers and will form part of the weekly dialogue. Conferences will stand alone for those that are not interested in taking the course. If you’re interested in helping to organize any of those conferences, please let me know.
In terms of numbers – we are just under 400 registered for The Daily. This is less than we had last year at this time, but still good response.
Filed in Uncategorized | 8 responses so far
Mike Bogle Jul 29th 2009 at 06:53 pm 1
I’m really liking the plan for Conferences within Courses! What a fantastic idea
Roland Legrand Jul 31st 2009 at 02:03 pm 2
I like the idea very much. My own interest is about how the changing information technology contributes to disruptive change in the economy and in society at large, I guess a conference about systemic change could discuss these issues.
Personal Learning Environments are another cool subject, I am very interested in virtual environments such as Second Life and Metaplace (browser based!) as learning platforms.
What will the format of those conferences be? Online, mixed reality…? More like barcamps or more traditional?
Prokofy Neva Aug 1st 2009 at 07:44 pm 3
Hi, George!
Mastery of a subject! gosh, what an evil concept! I do hope you’re willing to let doctors master basic stuff like how to perform heart surgery, and not get too prescriptive with this “disruptive” idea which is merely disruption for disruption’s sake in order to nihilistically destroy all knowledge systems in order to forceably establish (by peer pressure, then by “police implication discussions”) a collectivized “network” in a few cadres impose ideas but get away with not looking like they aren’t doing that by directing everyone to disperse into shattered PLE’s — which they then subtly or not-so-subtly control anyway.
You might also try this method used in the science fiction work of Vernor Vinges — take all the books, shred all their pages, throw them up in the air and blow a fan on them, and then when the little bits land, glue them together, any which way. Anything to get rid of all that evil desire to have “mastery” of information!
George Siemens Aug 2nd 2009 at 10:47 am 4
Hi Prokofy,
I see you’ve moderated your views as much as I have over the last year
.
“Mastery” of information is not an “evil desire”. It’s just impossible. What’s more dangerous: someone who knows they don’t have all the answers and is exploring? or someone who feels they have the answers and is not considering alternatives?
At the point of action, individuals need to make decisions (doctors, in your example). Before they make those decisions, however, I would hope they have a broad understanding of the field and have kept current with advancements through ongoing education.
I’m not trying to fragment and disrupt knowledge for the sake of disruption. In reality, knowledge (information is a better word, but I use knowledge to align with your line of reasoning) is already fragmented. A book captures a narrative path through a field or area of knowledge. So does a course. Learners should be aware that the coherent object they are interacting with (book/course) was subject to selection by someone (faculty, designers). More exists outside of the box…
George
Irmeli Aro Aug 3rd 2009 at 05:23 am 5
I just returned to CCK blogging – before reading this post. You sure managed to destabilize my learning. Happy and grateful for that experience. With full speed forward
)))
Prokofy Neva Aug 9th 2009 at 12:23 pm 6
Hi, George, I tried to sign up, and it says I’m already registered, so it looks like you automatically re-registered last year’s students?
Say, I’m here to destabilize the notion of a course! : )
Mastery of information works pretty well when you have to learn how to perform open heart surgery and perform it to save lives.
Fortunately, civilization hasn’t adopted your evil notions yet : )
Open heart surgeons who are certified by accredited institutions don’t feel they have nothing more to learn, because they spend the rest of their lives reading medical journals, talking to colleagues, even taking courses. But there is the basics. And there is mastery. And you cannot impugn that.
Yet you do, confusing the need to keep an open ended curious inquiry in one’s life and the need not to close off options with the need them to destabilize and undermine the notion of any basic set of precepts and principles. And that’s why your ideas are so extreme and destructive.
Who gets to decide that “keeping current” means? You? There are certain things like riding a bicycle you learn and don’t forget the rest of your life, even without brushup courses. Or things like “the alphabet” and “the times tables” which are still good to each as rote learning and singsong. Imagine the horror, that kids should know the alphabet and the times tables by rote and by singsong! Gosh, better let the little darlings just explore, create personal learning environments, and shake a box of Alphabets over their heads and see what sticks.
You say you aren’t fragmenting for the sake of fragmenting like the Vernor Vinges library, and yet…you leave it then to reputational moral devices as yet not devised (and thank God for it!) to let us be assured of that. “I’m good, guys, so don’t worry, when I call on everyone to adopt my doctrine of ‘non-mastery’ I don’t mean that anyone should get to perform open heart surgery, and you can trust *me* not to perform open heart surgery”.
Learners “should” be aware? But wait, where’s the disruption, the freedom. Why MUST they be conked over the head and informed of suppoesd agendas and someones who have imposed evil learning templates on them? They’re grown-ups, they can figure it out.
How to participate in CCK09? | Heli on Connectivism Sep 15th 2009 at 02:56 am 7
[...] will destabilize my participating as you can see: my way Create a free edublog to get your own comment [...]
GURMIT Sep 20th 2009 at 09:30 am 8
Hi George,
Sure more exists outside the box, but the role of the book – or the teacher for that matter- is to guide that learning journey.
Now, I am not sure ‘how’ a personal learning network can play this role. The mechanisms and effects would need to be hypothesised and investigated, and compared to books and teachers.
Don’t get me wrong, everyone at work finds me the creative ideas guy and I am always seeing patterns rather than absorbing content, but as a facilitator, I’m still wondering what my role is. Learning ecologist? Unless you wish to introduce something like reciprocal peer online mentoring to induce certain nodes, and keep certain learning conversations going to advance a certain field…or do you think it’ll self-organise through the connectivism?
Gurmit