 | where have all the people gone? |
If I take cck09 as a basis for demonstrating a part of my the ple then the network would be a bit restricted if i assume evidence based on the number of contributors in the moodle forum this week. A rough count of 10?  |
 | Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
Hi Ailsa. There is not much activity in the forums, no question. I don't think there are many active blogs either, if the Daily is any indication. About 30 on average are attending the conference sessions this week. I think this is a SOOC, not a MOOC course. The NIng has some activity, more than the forums. I wonder if connectivism is not holding the same interest any more? |
 | Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
Hi Ken - you state, "I think this is a SOOC, not a MOOC course". What does scale contribute? (I am, of course, overlooking the participants that are lurking, not contributing - a group whose size is very difficult to ascertain. We could only have the 30 people participating that you suggest...or it could be larger. I don't know.) |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
Hi George. I am not really sure what you mean by scale. However, activity, and crowds, and diversity seem to promote higher interest and more perspectives. I value both, while placing a high value on the discussions the '10' active participants are holding in the forums currently. While I am cognizant of the science of 'lurking', I think the participators provide 'free' entertainment for them, and I have difficulty defending or admiring the lurker position. What do they contribute? |
 | Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
Hi, I think all people in CCK09 have a genuine interest in learning and understanding connectivism, many of us are newbies or we do not have much time to follow your discussions and contribute, but I'm sure all of us are learning something, this is posible in open spaces, like a Conference. In classrooms there are lurkers (always), but it doesn't mean they will not contribute; learning and understanding is a first step to gain skills and confidence. We are all intrigued about the future of teaching and learning in a connective era, how to innovate education, our daily work as teachers and learners. And follow relevant ideas and researchers, it would not be a great idea if you ban our lurker accounts. |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
Hi Edgar,
I am more than happy for lurkers to lurk as I have no doubt that listening or watching might be of benefit. At the same time, the conversation is harder to advance without intersections occurring Something odd is happening to the fullstops here but i will try to persevere using new paragraphs I was getting a bit nervous that either the course had imploded, or that i was overwhelming others to silence, or the conversation had gone elsewhere without me Personally the exercise on PLE hasnt added anything for me It was in making a representation of how my own PLE of ant meets connectivism that i was struck by the absence of connections in CCK09 I enjoy the conversations i have had However, a Latourian or Ant take on power and success of networks is that this is only evidenced by the extension of the network,by the actors enrolled, and this one as evidenced by the small number of those posting in the moodle is shrinking |
 | Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
I am still "here", but have been somewhat under-the-weather for awhile, hence the lack of contribution. I have everyone's posts routed to my institutional Inbox where they are filtered and stored. I have read them all and typically only reply when something that crosses my screen, catches my attention. I seldom say anything unless I have something to say and when you are grappling with so, many new concepts, it is sometimes difficult to ruminate and formulate a considered response before the conversation moves on. Family life, work life and social life take up the bulk of my time, often leaving too little for more formal learning, much to my dismay. I audited CCK08 and read everything then, too, but was determined to be more participatory in CCK09. I found the volume of messaging and tone a bit off-putting in CCK08 and I thought, having been exposed to the ideas previously and a year having passed, that things would have gelled, both in my mind and in the programme. For me, that has not happened, yet. I have not reached that threshold of acceptance or understanding (like a new term in a population's vocabulary or the catalysis of a synapse). I find myself continually being diverted by other ideas. Perhaps the essence that originally captured my attention has been somewhat diluted, but I find the harder I try to grasp things, the more slippery they get.  /RJ |
 | Re: where have all the people gone? |
| Hi Ken - based on what I have understood so far - lurking in one area does not mean lack of active participation in another - I have found that 'the conversation' is distributed - e.g. I would say so far I have on average about 30+ conversations p/wk with work /other colleagues but they are email, f2f, IM - if we are going to talk stats do they 'count'? |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
Hi Nicola I think you are right. A point of the course is distributed learning/participation, so everything should 'count', if counting is important. How to capture those 'stats' you talk about? Is it important or desirable to capture them, even? Can a course claim to be a MOOC if most participation occurs through email, f2f, IM formats rather than in the course structured formats - moodle, blogs, elluminate etc? |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
| Hi Ken great question - I've been wondering about value to those who registered for this if I can't represent that as visualization - I could blog about but this would not provide the context in a really meaningful way. We do go away with different ideas so in that sense a network widens - they may see things in a different way - maybe join in later to this course or |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
| the next one. To be honest I find it difficult to define the difference between distributed conversations & this as a course - as a course it has constraints such as a timed program & in most education its similar but we find flexibility here. As with economics I'm unsure about value of stats, but having to make decisions in uncertainty is very useful learning for work& life ? |
 | Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
I wonder if what participants are looking for are signs of visible activity in the context of stigmergy rather than scale? |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
| Yes this is interesting - like social proof - some of the research by Robert Cialdini - conscious or semi/un conscious signalling or mirroring or herding or all (I don't know enough to have more than tiny opinion yet -how much it happens in networks also BJ Fogg's research mass participation - http://www.influenceatwork.com/index.html , http://www.bjfogg.com - |
 | Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
"All that counts cannot be counted." (Einstein) Lurkers? Workers? Shirkers? In a network... Who knows for sure who are the lurkers and who are the workers? Who knows for sure whether or not the lurkers are novices? novices of what? Silence is hard to interpret. Miscommunication creates misunderstanding. I wonder... Are those participants who have questions more intelligent, informed, and thoughtful than those who do not? Who contributes to the theorizing--those who compose? those who receive? those who represent? those who respond? those who conduct experiments? those who provide encouragement? those who provide critique? Are participants with the more connections more connected than those who have only a few? Are those who are at the center of the network more influential than those who are at the margins? |
 | Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
Mary, great post! 1. The best stuff is at the margins. 2. Those at the centre end up unable to move (its too crowded &/or too comfortable). 3. The absences are generally more informative and interesting. 4. And I go with Clint Eastwood: less is more (see his wonderfully rich Gran Tourino movie) |
 | Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
It does seem that we do not have a large number of participant in the moodle. For myself at times I am finding it overwhelming to keep up with the reading materials and then spending time on my own searching additional information that I tend to forget about the moodle forum. |
 | Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
I've been busy listening to some of the Elluminate audio recordings. Maybe there will be some more contributions once people have finished listening to them all...... I haven't finished listening to all the audios yet. If you are a novice e-Learner, it is a challenge to deal with a large amount of readings on theory while learning the basics. At the same time, it's very good that this course provides very clear and coherent information concerning the theoretical approach. It's very good that Stephen and George are prepared to say 'I have a theory' as opposed to some other methodologies that are being trialled. Even though I much prefer this course than another e-Learning course I attempted - I want to get a better idea of the specific approaches that are currently being adopted by universities across the world or even perhaps within my own country. I feel that the 'tension' between the 'individual' and the 'social' is salient. I was strongly discouraged from advocating the 'individual' within a university course that I have been doing. I was doing a basic e-learning course and I was told by the lecturer that if I wanted to focus on the Individual then I should enrol in another subject titled 'Self Directed Learning' - there are such subjects whereby a person can pursue their own learning under supervision in that Masters Program. So I had to comply with Bandura's theory of Modelling (I note his observations and concerns about aggressive behaviour, in the first instance). Frankly, I don't agree with Bandura's theory. Alternatively, on the issue of 'aggressive behaviours' - health professionals usually adopt an individualized approach when dealing with people who are unwell with behavioural disturbances, for example. Learned behaviours are relevant - but the essence of successful responses to these problems lies with the Individual and their unique journey and experiences in life. So I think that a focus on PLEs and PLNs is correct. I appreciate that Stephen mentioned nothing is 'wrong'! As long as people provide a few escape hatches from Moodles and Nings nothing will be wrong! In fact getting away from a situation that you find annoying or disagree with is often an effective intervention in health settings. |
 | Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
Hi Ailsa, you want to take care of peer students, fine. I have been very busy in my work and now I am listening Elluminate sessions. PLE is very common to me, we have used them ten years or so and I only check if experiences are same in different countries. So I haven't stopped my studies but not written anything, I need a break sometimes We had an intesive discussion in Finnish about twitter giggling, does it develop teaching or not and why? I like Jarmo's analysis Thanks for asking Heli |
| Re: where have all the people gone? | ||
|
Hi Classmates, It appears that the CCK09 Moodle forums is showing the same distribution of participants and postings as CCK08, at a much lower starting number of participants.
 woohoo! object embedding is on, we can share videos, slides etc.)The table above shows the distribution of participants in the CCK08 Moodle forums. By Forum 5 there were 42 participants or 7.82% of 537 registered CCK08 Moodle users. If anyone is interested the other descriptive data is here: http://paaralan.blogspot.com/2009/07/union-of-all-cck08-moodle-forums-social.html As for lurking, I still believe in the value of vicarious learning. Roel |
 | Re: where have all the people gone? |
My analysis of forum 'leavers' (done in Feb 2009) shows a similar pattern to yours with a blip in Week 8 when Stephen Downes conducted the Power and auto-subscribe experiment. It will be interesting to compare the patterns between CCK08 and CCK09. I interpreted the high numbers of early leavers as people who came to try it and then did not come back. I haven't been in the forums much this year myself but I notice that they and Twitter are getting quieter. That's regrettable because at least the asynchronous channels bridge the globe more easily. Also, maybe the lower numbers affect the sustainability of the conversation on the forums. In the few Elluminate sessions I have caught have been very much parallel backchannel chat and broadcast conversation. The session last year that managed to transcend that model was the one from Nancy White but then she really knows how to work a 'group' as well as being a consummate networker. I have a couple of topics to blog but have been snowed under with work. |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
Francis: Could you explain more what happened in Week 8? thanks. |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
| Take a look for yourself. |
 | Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
Hi, Roel and Frances. I don´t want to be repetitive here but I´ve also been drowning in work and following the course mainly through emails, dailies and readings, trying to catch up with the videos and feeling a little self-conscious, which made it harder to get back on track. Since you both offer descriptive data I´d like to ask you about the tools you use to create these graphics. Maybe you could recommend me a guideline on data reading and description, and the best tools to use? Data analysis and organization is something I have a hard time with. Thanks! |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
Hi Leila, I can't recommend tools at this time because I am doing two things in the wip study above, I can only tell you my experience with some free network analysis tools. What I am doing is: First is a social analysis of CCK08 and hopefully CCK09; and second is exploring software tools and methodology I've only been aware of recently. You could say I'm using CCK08 as an excuse to try out network analysis tools and datasets. My impression of available free Social Network Analysis (SNA) tools is that they are neither intuitive nor user friendly. Pajek, Netdraw, and ORA were built by researchers for specific research purposes. One would have a feature that the other does not have. It will depend on your query, what tools to use. I use them all, because I also need to validate one with the other since I can't do the computation by hand. File format conversion had been very difficult from one to the other as well. In my experience I needed to read SNA books, manuals, and even courses to understand the method. There does not seem to be a single place or resource to answer all newbie questions of mine. I found Pajek to be the best for a newbie like me, not because it's easy to use but because it has an excellent tutorial written by De Nooy et. al. But sometimes, a step is missed here and there in the exercises. Another problem is interpretation. I feel that manuals like these are similar to standard statistics textbooks. It has lots of how to compute this and that but not enough, how to interpret in terms of this context or that. I found Netdraw excellent for ego network study. And ORA for summary analysis, despite the fact that it is focused on organizational analysis (the underlying computations/algorithms appear to be the same with the others). NWB is the only tool that has the pfnet algorithm. For semantic network analysis, I found Automap to have a good collection of preprocessing tools. It is also well documented. Unfortunately, I don't have enough theoretical background on semantic networks, and it also appears that a deep understanding of the language being analyzed is necessary. Text processing looks to my untrained eye as an art rather than a science. For the graph above and its descriptive statistics, I used R. A free number crunching program similar to MatLab and SPSS. R is a tool that only a coder would love. It also has social network analysis tools like SNA. Looking at Frances and my data, I think there is a need to do content analysis to explain what happened in CCK08's week 8. Something that I am not up to yet, because I haven't read enough literature on asynchronous cmc and power. What I'm really hoping for is a federated network analysis, somethng similar to what Zacarias et.al is recommending for simulation tools. Roel |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
My data for the chart was taken from the equivalent page to this one http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/moodle/user/index.php?contextid=6767 using the last access date and recorded after the end of the course. I simply used Excel to organise last access dates by weeks and presented as shown. This is very imperfect data since lurker could be following the forums by RSS or guest access. Roel's data is much more extensive and descriptive and can really enhance our understanding. Roy, Jenni and John's study give valuable insights into attitudes but there is a richer picture waiting to be painted and the canvas may be beyond our scope. As Roel says, we would need complementary techniques (content analysis and interviews) to gene to get a qualitative analysis. I could also envisage a form of connectivism social and artefact network analysis that analyses connections between nodes whther human or non-human. Even if this were restricted to computer-mediated connection it would be a mammoth task beyond the semi-open web. For example, exchanges about CCK09 on Twitter that used the #CCK09 hash tag but direct messages and exchanges where participants knew they were talking about connectivism would be excluded. It would be possible to count the connections to a resource on the connectivism wiki, but that wouldn't tell you if the people accessing the resources, read it, understood it, printed it out and photocopied for 20 of their colleagues. Try to imagine the multiple and complex ways in which people and things could connect in the context of this course, and you can see what a challenge it would be to analyse it. Since people also moderate their utterances in relation to their perceived audiences, it would also be useful to solicit private responses. I still think such studies of connectivism in use are vital to its development use though as I said here. This needs funding IMHO. |
 | Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
I just chalk these things up to the natural ebb and flow of the semester when I am involved in classes either as a student or a teacher. For example, we are in mid-term season here in Wisconsin and although I am not teaching right now, things are relatively quiet and subdued here. The libraries are busy! Universities seem to me to function more like organisms (there is a new book out called Super Organism that discusses ant colonies, same idea maybe?) than anything else, that there is an organic cycle that they have. I try and keep attentive to the cycle when I am teaching and I can always tell when my students are making the trade off to invest in my class or not invest in it. It isn't malicious, they just can't invest time for our class in the week they have three math midterms and paper I assigned isn't due in another week. We all do this in our family and work lives, I get frustrated when my colleagues talk about students "blowing off the homework" or "don't care" when they don't pass in a homework on time. A vast majority of students at our university work more than 20+ hours a week to pay for rent and food, they make complicated decisions about what time and effort to invest where. Ok, that was a little long winded and rambly, but I imagine that online courses will (and do) function with the same organic cycle that their traditional counterparts do. If you are interested in reading more about the complicated choices students make, I recommend My Freshman Year, written by an anthropology professor at Arizona State who decided to use her training to become a participant-observer at her own university. It is a very light and enjoyable read, nothing super academic. |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
| In my case it was the same as living in residence in lst year of university as opposed to returning to residence for 2nd year. In lst year, I was connecting with everyone but in 2nd year, there wasn't the same drive to form new connections. Maybe I should watch that Drew Barrymore movie, "Fifty First Dates" until I figure out the secret of beginner's mind. I know the first level of making connections but I haven't learned how to move beyond whatever number of connections meets my personal comfort zone. |
 | Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
In CCK08 I conducted what I called demi-lurk & have continued this approach into 09 BUT 09 is being conducted, within the Moodle, in a much more academic ambiance & I can follow but participation is more strenuous. My skills are simply unequal to the task. My theoretical substrate is structurally sparse. For those who see lurkers, (demi or otherwise , as some sort of freeloaders, what, pray tell should I do? Drop in non sequiturs willy nilly? I participated up to the point where it became a very strenuous stretch and now I am observing. If you run a MOOC without any lurkers the network is sparser, connections ... lie fallow? are lonely? are trapped in potentia? wavze to the lurkers |
| Hug a lurker today |
|
Minh, there is research which points out that lurkers are self-defined novices, who want to see what's going on before joining the conversations. So, power to the lurkers. It was Vygotsky (if I remember correctly) also used a lovely term for what people do when they are learning to be part of an academic conversation, i.e. 'ventriloquizing' - or 'talking with someone else's voice'. This resonates with what we know of langauge learning, as some of the most interesting research on infant langauge learners (Devilliers & Devilliers, about 1978), showed in detail that children first learn 'the tune' and only put words to it later on. I must also confess that I learned to play chess fairly well, just by lurking at age 4, much to everyone else's surprise - they asked me 'where' I learnt to play chess, which I thought was a really odd question. Best advice to lurkers: just ask naive questions - the 'experts' seldom know the answers. |
 | Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
Something else to add to this lurker-academic-lonely-scale-08vs09 discussion: is not easy to speak your mind in a second or third language. I dont know the numbers but I suppose that many of us are not native english speakers and having to speak -and try to make sense- in a second language takes more time for us. Then, think about the academic topics + newbies (what i think when I can´t participate is: i´ll come back next year more prepared, as many of you did with cck09). I´m a newbie but so far I understood (experienced) that there is no outcome to look for, no prestablished way of connection but distributed knowledge and learning so...why worried about? Is disturbing been in an enviorement without (so little) control, isnt it? |
 | Re: where have all the people gone? |
| Luz - I agree. I have found adjusting to an open environment like this has been difficult. English is my first language, I am a graduate student and I am still finding it difficult to digest some of the terminology/definitions used in the discussions. Hang in there! |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
Hi Ryan, yes is disturbing. I like that!! Otherwise is boring. But again yes, happens to me the same, when topics and terminology I´m not familiar with arise, I need to study them, I´m an obsesive student so...one week for each new topic is not enough for getting insights, reflection, participating, posting, etc. I want to study more but I don´t have the time. I will keep studying once the course finishes, i like the idea of having time to get in here and pick from the start threads, links, terminology to search on etc. All this that happens to me makes me think that there may be many of us. We haven´t gone anywhere! Our contribution may appear...follow us! |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
Well I agree too, Luz and Ryan. Having to put my English vocab. together is an extra pressure (I don´t want to make "funny" mistakes in front of so many people . At the same time, I find it an extra incentive, every time we write a post or a comment we´re improving our language skills while producing content, right? |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
Hola Leila! Would you like to join the wiki? Is a good place for making mistakes! |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
Luz, one of the things I find most valuable and fascinating about the MOOC is that (as Stephen hinted early on), 08 and 09 are starting to function as a poly-MOOC (to coin a phrase) it's a single network, with busy times (the courses) and slack times (the between bits, where some people turn to other things, some people - like me and Jenny and John - and Rita - reflect on the process and write up research papers on it). So, I dont know how long this is going to continue, but I suspect for another cycle in '10. In which case, you can take your time. It can be disturbing, CCK08 was very disturbing in parts, many people (including me) very nearly just left and banged the door behind us, and some people surely did. CCK09 is much calmer (so far!). But how are you finding it disturbing, and can you create your own space (in a language of your choice - there is no reason as far as I can see that you cant start a forum, right here, in another language), or is that something you would rather leave till another time? And ...what a wonderful opportunity you have to create your own e-learning course for your own Spanish school! How are you approaching the design process? |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
Hola Roy! It´s very interesting what is hapening in CCk09 between people that came back for more and the ones who start from scratch. I have a nice experience of this "poli MOOC "since a cck08 participant (emapey) helps me with advice and introducing or pointing me friends he made on CCK08 or from his network. I´m learning a lot from his experience and the experience all the cck08 show here. I hope to have a third round. All this worring about the differences between this edition and 08 makes me think that we may be now experiencing the antitesis of what happened on cck08 and cck10 will come with the sintesis to complete the triad? Emapey and Jennifer invited me to join to a wiki in spanish. Is not like this forum, is more of a place to think and then come to the forum. I haven´t contributed much on the wiki yet, i think I need more time as you say. And you ask about my e-learning spanish project!!! Ohhhh!!! I can´t count the times i´ve change the design now. Working on the spanish e-learning project lead me to this course. And then, everything changed again! What i want is to use social media for learning spanish. The same way I send students and teachers from the school to the street (get out from the class please!) I want to send students to the web. We work on a comunicative approach, social media is the natural enviroment for communicating...on all this I´m working. And since I´ve started this course I´ve stopped designing and I´m taking some time to work on my learning process (as stephen suggested) rather than thinking how to teach. Thanks for asking. You´ve made me think. chau! |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
Hi Luz, great that you can get your students out onto the streets. That reminds me: 1. A Russian linguists did some great work with her first graders, and got them to be linguistic researchers on the streets and in the home. 2. The one laptop per child project is attempting to turn school kids into mobile researchers (on the environment, not language). If it works, its probably well designed! |
 | Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
Luz, you have stopped designing and took some time to work on your learning process... would changing design be part of the learning process? You mentioned about wiki in Spanish. I don't know any Spanish, and so it is a new language for me. When I visited the wiki in Spanish, I have to guess what those words mean, and my sensemaking is like going through a maze. But it is a stepping stone towards further understanding and learning. I know that I don't know, and I don't know what I still don't know. Such could be the experience with many of our fellow educators/learners navigating a new network, where "translators" and "connectors" could play an important role - under connectivism. That's why peripheral legitimate participation is important, so people could pause, observe, and understand the new language and interpret the meaning. Would we be like building our houses when we learning via the networks with our own PLN? How did we research during the design stages? We started with the connections - internet (Google), (Web 2.0) , Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Flickr, Delicious, by learning the language, the building design with professional designers (fellow educators and learners) and the sharing of experiences. Have I responded to the questions posted by D'Arcy Norman on How do you connect online? George responded his here Here is the metaphor of learning that I wrote.
 |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
| John, you can add a google translate toolbar to your webpage, and when I used it (for the first time) earlier today, it translates whatever is on your page. Try it. |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
Hi John and everybody, Great thread! Yes John, changing the design of ther course I´m working on is part of my learning process. What I meant by "stop the design" was taking a time for brainstorming and not trying to put it in practice because I wanted to live the chaos fully, not trying to put things in order. I answer your questions in this thread: "If you are new to CCK09, what would you expect from CCK09? " I had read George´s connectivism paper before and I felt the theory was written for me I was working on designing an e-learning course (for learning Spanish as a second language) and came to the idea that an online course should work over social media, so I started the research on that (as you says, I starting connecting) . I read that the 09 course was about to start, I remembered that Inés Cambiasso had told me about this course (she participated of CCK08). I started the cck09 expecting mind-blowing. So far, I´ve obtanined so and more. As something that would be expected on a course about connectivism what happened to me was that I started making so many connections that 24 hours is not enough. I passed through the feeling of being lost (about the middle of the course) and then I started to feel confident on creating my own course, at my own pace. The anxiety for not been able to read and do and write about everything were not very productive. When i realised that doing what i wanted was still part of the course, i started enjoying in a different way: really empowered. To your research question "Why would you like to join/not join the forum?" my answer: I dont leave the forum, when i´m out of time i lurked here, at least reading the forum makes me feel i´m not out of the course even i´m not producing anything at all. Sometimes i want to participate but i take the time to think -like i did with this message you wrote- and sometimes as days go by fast I get loose with new threads and finally dont write nothing for not been out of topic. That´s all. Thanks to all for all the information and ideas you put hear, I´m having fun!! Bye! |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
I wrote a post on my struggle through the course for the past weeks and how listening to other participants talk about their struggling to keep up was really helpful. I didn´t find it on the Daily, maybe I missed it, if I need to resend my feed please let me know. |
 | Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
One of the things that I have noticed is that there are many different avenues for discussion, some of which are not being captured by this MOODLE. Of course there is the NING CCK09 site and the Twitter hash that has been mentioned several times before - but today I found one more - in the site called "Cloudworks". The CCK09 site on Cloudworks has a similar effect as the MOODLE, but it has a different layout. Are there any other sites like these that I've missed? So, as a participant, it is easy to change from the MOODLE to the NING then to the CLOUDWORKS.... and there is apparently not an easy way to inter-relate / integrate the discussions in the three different platforms....(not sure if you can accomplish this with URL links....). Maybe the CCK09 course administrators can track the NING and the CLOUDWORKS discussions in a summary way -- the same way they do the in the DAILY for Twitter. |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
Here is the ConnectivismEducationLearning Ning that was formed after the CCK08. All CCK09 participants and any one interested in connectivism, education, learning and research are welcomed. It requires approval for membership though, to avoid spamming. Others include: Blogs on CCK09 Tag, Twitter on #CCK09 Tag, the Facebook.... John |
 | Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
Hi there, all of you, I am still alive after some week of heavy workload outside this network. Surfing the forums I have the impression this CCK09 is like an amoeba ready for splitting into twitter, ning, googlewave, lots of blogs,... Is this how connectivism works. Attracting particles and contracting for some idea to expand in different threads and strings to form new networks? Barbara |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
Amoeba might right! Or hydra head. Today I had a look at my blog from CCK08, and found this recent reference to it: http://blogs.netedu.info/?p=439 Maybe my blog still lives.... |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
Ken, LOL, reminds me of my favourite explanation of post-modernism: "Dont believe in post-modernism, because post-modernism doesn't believe in you!" And you might like to try ...
(complete in sonnet structure and hand in as an un-assignment to a random platform of your choice, its all connected, just add the tag "#William"). Note: One extra point if you can write it in sonnet structure, and still fit it into a tweet. |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
Hi Barbara, interesting point. There are a variety of design and management options, but there is actually no such thing as a non-designed, non-managed network. So the options are: Mode 0. Build it and leave And hope they 'come'. If it forks (as in OS software) into multiple split networks, OK. If the nodes and networks cross-connect, OK. If not, also OK. Also known as 'the network is the network is the network' approach(apologies to roses). Mode 1. Backchannel aggregator The current structure of CCK09 has a backchannnel aggregator, (Stephen) who does a link-threading thing (much like the way early computers processed cards in card readers?). Very innovative way, for instance, of threading blogs back into the weave of forums and other media - see:
Mode 2. Threading and Weaving More conventional facilitating or moderating, which can be combined with option 1. This typically probes, asks further questions, draws out emergent lines of inquiry. Mode 3. Complexity facilitating This is a more explicity complex approach to facilitiating or moderating, and generally does a lot of complexity-faciliating stuff. (See:
(See: Ideals and Reality of participating in MOOC paper - In General Forums for more details). Mode 4. Revert to Classroom/ Conference Delivery mode This is a variant on mode 0, in the the network/s are cut free to do what they do, and the designers revert to an online version of classroom/conference mode, with the delivery of set pieces. Mode 5. Open Conference /unconference mode This is a variant on mode 4, taking into account the innovations in 'un-conferences'. It does, ironically, require a lot more design, time and energy, as I found out in setting up the Visitors and Residents conference, which was great, but which slipped back from what might have been a Mode 5 event into something much more like Mode 4. |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
Wow Roy, a great summary. I could see Mode 4 still a popular one in most online versions of classroom/conferences. May be people still like it. What is the role of the "teacher" in such online classroom/conference mode? Facilitator? Teacher? Broadcaster? Curator? As we move towards maturing in networked learning, would mode 5 be a preferred mode? Or would mode 3 or 4 still be the preferred mode? Which mode appeals to you most? |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
John, thanks. There will always be a role for a teacher, although the role surely changes with context. I think the point is that you learn by doing, and you learn by formulating your own views, perspectives, trying them out, and getting feedback. There are brilliant mode 4 teachers, but they are few and far between. At Oxford, lecturers are required to give one (!) public lecture per term (or year, I forget which), which means lecturing is something special. If they want to disseminate information, they dont have to do it through a lecture. The trick is to find ways to interact with your learners, in a peer group, in which the teacher is one of the peers (albeit better informed, generally), and to get them to interact with each other, and to monitor that interaction. It is quite possible (see the video on physics teaching, linked elsewhere in the forums) to get students to respond to ideas even in a large class, and in the physics video, students had to come to a mini-consensus on issues during class (in groups of three). Very few of us can sustain an interesting monologue for long. Interaction requires planning, design, and thinking on your feet, as I'm sure you already know. So the 'classroom' (virtual or material) is not the issue, the issue is how you design it so that it's a wonderful range of affordances for interaction - as in the multi-platform approach to MOOCs, with, hopefully, an affordance for everyone. My own preference is for mode 3, and if I'm stuck in a classroom, I just have to work that much harder to achieve it. |
 | Re: where have all the people gone? |
| Mode 3 seems a little tyrannical.... |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
What would you prefer? Or your suggestion.. |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
| I prefer Stephen's idea of modelling.... |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
| Would you like to elaborate? |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
Sure, but Stephen articulates it best: 'Such behaviour is not created by power, regulation or force, it is taught, and such behaviour is not taught by telling, it is taught by modeling and demonstrating ethical (read: 'reasonable') behaviour. Regulations are a short-term mechanism intended to cope with a failure of teaching. Regulations are effective only for the perpetuation of a status quo while alternative teaching can effect long-term and substantial change.' |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
"This implies a pedagogy that (a) seeks to describe 'successful' networks (as identified by their properties, which I have characterized as diversity, autonomy, openness, and connectivity) and (b) seeks to describe the practices that lead to such networks, both in the individual and in society (which I have characterized as modeling and demonstration (on the part of a teacher) and practice and reflection (on the part of a learner))." |
| Re: where have all the people gone? | ||
|
"If the network theory applies to individual minds as well as to societies, then the network pedagogy I am proposing may be summarized as follows (and I know it’s not original, or even substantial enough to be a theory properly So Called):
While this may not appear to amount to much on the theoretical side, it – in combination with the four elements of the semantic condition – amounts to a robust pedagogy." |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
Roy, I had a closer look on your paper you posted in general discussion. Excellent work! Concerning the modes you defined I think it depends on the level the learners have. Learning from peers could imply one taking the lead for some time/idea and than hand it back to the network for someone else to take over. |
| Re: where did all the people go in CCK08? |
|
Barbara, thanks. Taking and passing the lead is what its about. And asking good questions. The best lecturer I ever had gave no answers at all. I cant match that, but in my online workshops, I try. Ulop, I would hope mode three is the least tyrannical, but lets have a look at the issues. The key issue for me is that emergence requires constraint. Substantial degrees of freedom, with negative constraint, not positive prescription (see above). That's a formal premise of complexity theory, not an optional extra. The application of this principle was, unfortunately, vividly illustrated in CCK08, see (Blogs and Forums paper):
As pointed out in the other research paper (Ideals and Reality), the balance between the elements of a CODA learning network design - (Comm, Open., Diversity, Aut.) - is difficult to achieve. This is entirely in line with complexity theory. Unfortunately the substantial shifts out of forums by the majority of the people in the sample, which at the end of the day compromises autonomy and personal initiative, are also entirely in line with complexity theory, particularly the link between the possibility for emergence on the one hand, and constraints on the other hand - albeit constaints that remain in the background, until circumstances require them.
Based on what was reported in the research on CCK08, you cant have your CODA cake and eat it, if Trolls come to your party. |
| Re: invisible hands? |
| The alternative theory is the 'invisible hand of the network' (c.f. market) no? |
| Re: where did all the people go in CCK08? |
|
@Roy I guess I prefer to dream, even in the face of preliminary research that suggests that the dream may not be achievable. That said, there is no troll in CCK09 and people have left the forums. For what reason(s), this time? I wonder if the 'students' who found the troll so offensive might benefit from learning coping mechanisms as modeled by a facilitator, rather than shutting down the troll? I didn't find the trolls' input offensive, rather I found some of the ideas expressed to be very insightful and presenting of another perspective, even though some might have found that presentation rather forceful. |
| Re: where did all the people go in CCK08? |
|
Ulop, sure. I found the Troll very irritating, although also very insightful at times. But there were times when I was sufficiently irritated that I just opted out, and I could have left at at least one stage. Whether novice online learners had the same levels of tolerance I dont know. I suspect not. The majority of the respondents didnt stay, they left the forums. Options (see: openness, diversity, autonomy) were all compromised. There is a African proverb: "when the bulls are fighting, the grass gets trampled underneath" which comes to mind. Managing a MOOC, or any online learning event, poses challenges on an ongoing basis, and no two online events are ever the same - I always insists on calling the ones I run 'workshops', not courses, for that reason. Mode 0, Build it and leave, is a strange option, and I cant see that it worked in 08 or 09, in the forums, and in both cases I think the forums succeeded, if at all, because of proxy faciliatators, not the absence of facilitators, and because of aggregator-threading (a new and interesting type of faciliator threading and weaving). If you take the view that it doesnt matter if the majority of people leave the forums, then I suppose you also take the view that it doesnt matter if the majority leave the course, and go off an study on their own. Why would you do that? Isnt the whole point about getting connected, and networked learning that it is interactive, or have I completely missed the point? Although I participate in forums a lot, I do not, either personally, or as a designer or researcher, hold the view that everyone has to be a forum enthusiast. What the CCK's, and the research on CCK08, has demonstrated is that multi-platform events add something to online learning, not just because they add the 'expected' affordances, but because they also add new, innovative, cross-platform affordances, and affordances that exploit unusual and unexpected platforms in new ways. I dont know why people have left the forums this time, but from the involvement that I have had in forums, traditional forum faciliation (by proxy faciliators) has yielded good participation, and where it has been absent, this has not worked, so its looks to me like faciliation is a requirement. That raises a completely different issue, which is whether a forum needs either a faciliator or a proxy one (or more as is the case here). in the Knowledege in the Public Intereste Global Jam (a MOONetwork), there were about 12 faciliators, who changed hats from faciliator to participant at various stages - all upfront and disucussed before hand. In CCK08 there were (if I remember right) about 4 or 5 proxy faciliators at various times. The issue is not only a course management (or network faciliation) issue, but an issue of what learning affordances one makes available. My view is that learning by writing (see elsewhere in the forums) or talking (in an online tutorial, if it turns out like that, rather than as a 'presentation') is a crucial affordance for many (not necessarily all) and a very powerful and unique one, whether in blog or forum format. Its an essential part of 'moderated peer learning' or 'complex adaptive learning ecologies', no? |
| Re: where did all the people go in CCK08? |
|
>If you take the view that it doesnt matter if the majority of people leave the forums, then I suppose you also take the view that it doesnt matter if the majority leave the course, and go off an study on their own. Why would you do that? Isnt the whole point about getting connected, and networked learning that it is interactive, or have I completely missed the point? I agree. It doesn't matter if people leave the course, and go off and study on their own. That would be their option, and the connections will re-form and the networks will form elsewhere, if the 'course' is not serving the needs of the people. Otherwise, are we forcing people to take and remain in the course? "Build it, and they will come And stay for awhile if they choose But leave on their own, in their time For by this, there is naught to lose." |
| Re: where did all the people go in CCK08? |
|
"It doesn't matter if people leave the course, and go off and study on their own. That would be their option, and the connections will re-form and the networks will form elsewhere, if the 'course' is not serving the needs of the people. Otherwise, are we forcing people to take and remain in the course?" Would this be of great interests from an educational authority or administration point of view? What are the roles of educators and learners in a course? What happens if the course is not serving the needs of the people in an education institution? What happens if the network is not serving the people it is supposed to serve? Yes, people have a choice. We can't force people to remain in a course. So, what are we going to do? What should we do as an educator? How could we improve our support to our learners? How could we ensure the course is run more effectively and efficiently (on a learning and cost basis)? How could we achieve the institution goals and individual goals? These are the sort of questions typically asked by educational leaders and educators. In a corporate world of education, there are intense competition between different education providers, so which is more important for surviving or thriving? Teaching? Learning? Education? or Customers first? |
| Re: where did all the people go in CCK08? |
|
Ulop and John, I dont think I am unusual in saying that I learnt, largely, despite my teachers. Certainly at school, and to some extent less so at university. And many people I have talked to have endorsed that. So for people to 'go off' and learn on their own is viable and legitimate, and as an educators (on the other side of the learning fence for a moment) I must acknowledge this, and work with it, not against it. However ... In the other research I have been doing, on narratives of learning, what we have found are wonderfully rich accounts of learning by interaction - with people, resources, things, ideas, mistakes, fun, etc, the majority of which is sited outside the institution. What has been confirmed for me is that interaction with individual events, and negotiating and creating an identity as a participant in a whole range of communities, is what learning is all about. And solitude plays a role too, often at key points. So ... 1. Create a learning ecology with a rich range of affordances, and the potential for more, unknown and unexpected affordances. 2. Facilitate where possible, and leave alone if in doubt. But celebrate the moments of solitude (difficult one that), and celebrate the unexpected, emergent events, 'frozen accidents, and new attractors. |
| Re: where did all the people go in CCK08? |
|
Hi Sui Fai John Mak I would suspect that educational authority etc. might be a little worried about losing market share, if viable, cheaper competition for learning is provided elsewhere. The link provided by Gus below seems to support this thought. In my circles, there is more emphasis on the learner and their characteristics and wants/needs, but the organizations providing the learning are driven by the bottom-line. I would guess then that said organizations will do their best to meet the wants of the learners. It may become (or already is) a buyers market for education in some jurisdictions, with too much product on the shelves. But the desired product may be in short supply? An entrepreneurial spirit may be able to take advantage of the dis-equilibrium state in educational offerings and carve out some niche, as is being done by some schools. I suppose an institution must decide on its target market, and provide education to suit. That's part of the big picture, I think. From a similar perspective, maybe education is what it is, and no more: an institution for certification/accreditation so that people can get jobs. Other learning occurs outside this institution. Informal learning may become formalized, and supplant what is now taken for granted as formal learning? |
| Re: where did all the people go in CCK08? |
|
Ulop says "That said, there is no troll in CCK09 and people have left the forums. For what reason(s), this time?" I would like to know too! People have left the forums for various reasons. Some participants (especially new to CCK09) have already indicated the reasons at the start (introduction): they felt overwhelmed with information, and have since then moved to other media such as cck2009 Ning. But was that the only reason? And why didn't they join back to the forum? Some (especially the new CCK09 participants) might have expected the instructors (George and Stephen) to facilitate or moderate the forum discussion, as in a typical on-line course. However, they might have noticed that George and Stephen would more likely meet them in the Elluminate session instead. Others might have used other media such as twitters, facebook, their own blogs, their own PLE/N to interact, learn and reflect, rather than using the forum. Many might still like to lurk though. Does this fall into a similar pattern to CCK08? May be in a much smaller scale in the forum, but their involvement or interaction may be spreaded all over with a much wider arrays of networks, media and tools. This time, a lot of past CCK08 participants rejoining CCK09 might have already experienced "enough" forum discussion, and so they would like to consider other "new" or emergent personalised learning network or media. This leaves a few CCK08 participants remaining active in the forum. Roy, Frances, Ailsa, Ulop, Ken, Dolores, Geoff, Roel, Mary, Nicola, Edgar together with other CCK09 (new?) participants - Gus, Luz, Leila, Maijann, Dean, James and Roland, and some others. Another possible reason is that: Connectivism is about new and emergent learning, not just (online) teaching. A lot of educators might be expecting to learn "how to teach or moderate" or the teaching or net pedagogy in an online course using forum or virtual learning Environment (i.e. using Moodle etc.). However, as Stephen (and George) has mentioned in the past forum, connectivism is a theory about learning at this digital age, and so the emphasis is on learning. For some of the educators/learners who might have used to instuctivism, constructivism or social constructivism as a teaching/learning theory or pedagogy, they might have expected a similar approach to be adopted under connectivism in online teaching/learning. What are their reactions? Are they convinced of the connectivist approach? Does connectivism as a learning theory resonate with their teaching practice? Are these educators/learners joining the course for their own reasons which we have all assumed? That they would join the forum to discuss, to interact, to teach or to learn? Or they would set up their PLN/E? Or they would just like to lurk? In summary, it all comes back to the choice of learning amongst participants (with learners and some educators). And whether they would resonate with the theory of Connectivism as espoused by Stephen and George. Again this leaves us with more questions. 1. If you are coming from CCK08, what would you expect from CCK09? What are you needs? How are your needs fulfilled? Are these needs fulfilled in the forum? What sort of "new and emergent concepts, knowledge, connections" would you expect from the forum? 2. If you are new to CCK09, what would you expect from CCK09? What are you needs? How are your needs fulfilled? Are these needs fulfilled in the forum? What sort of "new and emergent concepts, knowledge, connections" would you expect from the forum? Do the concepts and theory of Connectivism resonate with you? Why/Why not? May be the research question is: Why would you like to join/not join the forum?  |
 | Re: where did all the people go in CCK08? |
|
John, I am still here. This year I decided to try a Wiki, in Spanish, to write my reflections. "Some participants (especially new to CCK09) have already indicated the reasons at the start (introduction): they felt overwhelmed with information, and have since then moved to other media such as cck2009 Ning." I don't understand yet why would they feel overwhelmed here, in this forum, and not overwhelmed in the Ning forum. I was the only one to complain, CCK09: Overwhelmed without any support from others. "This time, a lot of past CCK08 participants rejoining CCK09 might have already experienced "enough" forum discussion, and so they would like to consider other "new" or emergent personalised learning network or media." I didn't have yet too much forum discussion or blog posts in CCK08 but I decided to try also another personalised media, a Wiki, in Spanish, Our connectivism journey / Weekly Activities with 2 friends. I was active in the Forum threads and Elluminated sessions that resonated with me. I found great references about the topics that I was more interested Network Theory and Emotions in Social Theory (still waiting for your feedback!) and posted them George Siemens wrote, CCK09: Overwhelmed : "Learners in this forum are actively making decisions that would normally be expected of an instructor. YOU are deciding how you will handle abundance. YOU are making decisions that meet your needs. As the instructor, I set up the basic forum and discussion topics. As learners, you decide how to filter and manage...how to connect with others, etc. That is what we are saying in this course. And that's what is happening. And that's how it should be". I wrote to my friends who worked with me in the wiki to follow only the conversations they found more useful so they don't get overwhelmed (follow their own CCK09 course) I showed them your research about differences between forum and blog and when to use the forum, their blog or the wiki. I explained to my friends the need to post in their blogs all their CCK09 "user generated content" The wiki, in Spanish, was a great media to share my reflections with only a few participants, before replying in the Forum or posting in my blog. As Luz wrote about our wiki , "it is a good place for making mistakes!" I am proud of her!! |
| Re: where did all the people go in CCK08? |
|
I like Luz's slogan, a good place to make mistakes! To answer the Qs 1. coming from CCK08, what would you expect from CCK09? Im more familiar now with connectivism than last year when i came in unknowing. Ive had longer to contemplate its shape, uses, foibles and I'm also more familiar now with ANT. This time round I'm therefore braver in entering into discussion on where these two theories meet. My needs are about expanding my own thinking on this...Id like to think I could expand the theorising on connectivism too. My needs are about having an academic community inside of which to test ideas, hence my absolute approval of Luz's slogan. I get enough of this met so i keep coming back Do the concepts and theory of Connectivism resonate with you? Why/Why not? Yes, BUT I am absolutely sure it would be a better theory if it moved away from cause effect behaviourism, and only used neurones firing as a metaphor...and learnt from ANT regarding i.networks and ii.human and non human symmetry, that cators can be both human and otherwise....then it would be able to explore how the internet or moodle or other technologies impact on the learning. I dont bother with the sessions, the time zone is not friendly down here, and the important content gets pointed to again through the forums anyway. I would like to know if i am bugging anyone...I think when people contract in to a course for a specific intent it is a bit rude of others to appropriate such a course to their own end. But that is also a part of the joy of connectivism... |
| Re: where did all the people go in CCK08? |
|
I would love to have some forum (say next week) where we can discuss this (I even have a paper recently submitted that I could bring to the party) and we could do this in the Moodle forums but how about trying an Elluminate? How would 8.00 a.m. GMT work for you? or 2200 GMT? If we could find a time, we could request a slot from George. I was thinking about a series of mini-presentations where each presenter had one slide for presentation and one to capture responses so each person could cover one favourite idea/connection/adaptation related to connectivism, Does this float anyone's boat? |
| Re: where did all the people go in CCK08? |
|
Francis, great idea, put my boat on the list. And I am sure John and Jenny will join in too, if they can make it. 20h00 or 22h00 GMT are both fine for me. Can't do Monday, and Thursday would have to be 22h00. Let's do it. When we set up Dave White's session, George said Wednesdays are usually free. It would be useful to ask a non-presenter to facilitate. Any volunteers? |
| Re: where did all the people go in CCK08? |
|
Hi Roy, I have no audio and will not have by then & a dodgy internet connection - it might be fine for a session or it might repeatedly drop - so I would offer as a non-speaking co-facilitator in case I drop out at a vital moment. Can kind of remember what doing with Elluminate but would need quick refresh. Would be a great opportunity for someone who hasn't yet experimented with virtual classrooms with a nice, safe group ? Will ask on the Ning too 2200pm - 07.00am ok for me except next Wednesday but if someone else facilitates then happy to contribute here in forums instead or wherever, if Wed good for everyone else. |
| Re: where did all the people go in CCK08? |
| I would help facilitate. I am available the times being discussed. |
| Re: where did all the people go in CCK08? |
|
Nicola and Ulop, great. Thanks. [Could either or both of you make the next Wed. if that is available?] I am taking a few days out, till Tuesday, so I am not in a position to organise this session. However ... Francis, if you could set it up, I suggest the following: 0. Decide on this Wednesday or the next one. 1. Email George and ask him for the Elluminate permissions: for you, Ulop and me, I would think. You or I could set up a trial for Ulop to test the system on Tuesday, if you need to test it, Ulop. 2. Get the announcements done in OLDaily, Twitter #cck09, John and Jenny may be able to set up Ning announcements. 3. Do the invites: Francis Roy, John, Jenny Anyone else from this forum, starting with Ailsa, who kicked this idea off You have different time frame requirements, Ailsa, as you said, so let us know what options would suit you. ? request for others ? I dont know the details of what you had in mind, Francis, but there are a lot of research ideas floating round, in terms of proposals or abstracts too (not only papers or drafts), and there is the recent one in IRDOL (sp?) that might be useful to link in as well. Any thoughts? |
| Re: where did all the people go in CCK08? |
|
Hi Roy, due to a work event I don't know yet if I will have a suitable laptop& internet connection, and I will be making polite conversation until very late / early so think this would be an appropriate moment to declare myself out. However, if anyone needs assistance with organising or wants to practice, very happy to do Tues before 7am or after 10pm GMT |
| Re: where did all the people go in CCK08? |
|
@Roy, Francis et.al. I am good on Wednesdays, time slot is mostly flexible. I would like to test the system as suggested, on a Tuesday would be fine. |
| Re: where did all the people go in CCK08? |
|
This is all sounding great buy we still haven't heard from Ailsa and the times were planned to include Oz/NZ. I have DMed her so let's pencil in Wed for now. |
| Re: where did all the people go in CCK08? |
|
I really would like to include Ailsa. I have heard from Ailsa and she is travelling just now. I suggest I get some dates/times from her and get back to you - How does that sound to you? It's the Oz/NZ people who have missed out on Elluminate I think. Regarding format, I suggest that we have brief slots for each presenter (length determined once we know how many). If we had 5 contributors that could be 10 minute slot per contributor plus 10 minute wrap up. People could use their slot how they wanted but I was thinking one slide would help focus. I used the Dave Cormier approach recently (that George links to a blog post about in this thread) where you present a blank slide for participants to record their reaction, and I found it worked well for maximising participation. Traditional research presentations wouldn't work here so I would suggest that each presenter picks one (controversial?) idea from their own research or other's on connectivism, present it in 3 minutes and invite audience reaction. Anyone wanting to participate (have some offers already in this thread) should send to me: 1. Their idea expressed in one sentence 2. Single slide (could be image , text ) - I'll add the blank and make one slide show out of all 3. Their name, affiliation (if wished) and web site/Twitter id/or any contact Links don't work in Elluminate so you'd have to be ready to drop those in the chat. If someone doesn't have good audio access, that needn't matter. We could let them take the lead in the chat, where they could drop prepared statements in the chat and facilitate the responses. After the event, I will paste in images of participant slides to make an integrated slide show , here's the one I did - look towards the end at the slides with the blue headerswhere the participants typed in |
| Where did all the people go in CCK08? |
|
Hi Franses and Roy, That's a wonderful idea. Let's have fun and share an "informal" conversation which adds more life to this forum discussion. As I have a heavy load in the coming weeks, I could only participate in the Elluminate session this Wednesday evening. But I would post your response on our Connectivism Education and Research Ning so people are aware of this event. What would be the topics of interests in the Elluminate session? May I suggest to be a summary of what we might each post in this forum here? How about some brainstorming of ideas here in the forum first by each of us? This would allow people to have fun interacting with others in this forum. How about? A one or few sentences on what have interested you most in CCK09 - about connectivism? It could be a picture, an audio, a video, a poet, a short story, an anecdote, one of your most interesting blog post with link, or your favourite tweet, Youtube video, a connection of people or idea with a comment. May I start with this? The social ecology that we are all part of. Let's share our interests in connectivism.  |
| Re: Where did all the people go in CCK08? |
|
Hi all, Thanks to your contribution to the post, especially Ailsa for raising this important question. Ailsa, Kerry, Edgar, Richard, L Tsu, Nicola, Roel, Mary, Roy, Michelle, Maijann, Heli, Frances, Leila, Joel, Kerry, Ruth, Minh, Luz, Ryan, Gus, Barbara, Ulop, Eduardo, George all provided valuable insights into learning in this forum post, and each of us have added our perspectives into why we engage or interact in the forums, as well as the challenges we all face when learning online in forum. Sorry that I haven't listed all the others here, but surely there are many others who have linked or interacted in the forums during the past weeks. What would be the better alternatives in learning and interaction in forum? Blogs? Twitter? Ning? Would an integration of forum with some of these PLE/N (like blog) as mentioned by Frances and many others be helpful? Would an extension of discussion based on or linked to Elluminate discussion help? Thanks again to George and Stephen for mentioning this post in the OLDaily and supporting us in this journey together. Cheers. |
| Re: Where did all the people go in CCK08? |
|
Hi, am interested, but have restricted internet access before i get home again on sunday. NZ is, i think, 13 hours ahead of GMT, wed night would suit me well...assuming i have worked this out correctly that's a Thursday morning for me, by then i hope to have played wth some of the toys and developed some ideas to share, ailsa |
| Re: Where did all the people go in CCK08? |
|
Sounds like Wednesday 2000 GMT will be best then (900 Thursday morning for Ailsa). We can certainly weave in other channels (blogs, Moodle, etc.) but let's try to schedule this in Elluminate . I will email George to check for availability. Title: Responses to connectivism Place Elluminate: Date/time Wed 25 Nov, 2000 GMT each presenter picks one (controversial or not ) idea from their own research or just a response to connectivism, present it in 3 minutes and invite audience reaction. Anyone wanting to participate should post as a reply to this forum 1. Their idea expressed in one sentence They should also send to me (Tuesday at the latest) at f.bell@salford.ac.uk 2. Single slide (could be image , text ) - I'll add the blank and make one slide show out of all of them Links don't work in Elluminate so you'd have to be ready to drop those in the chat. If someone doesn't have good audio access, that needn't matter. We could let them take the lead in the chat, where they could drop prepared statements in the chat and facilitate the responses. After the event, I will paste in images of participant slides to make an integrated slide show. I am a bit distracted with family issues just now so if this isn't the direction the participants want to go just let me know what we should do and I'll go along with that. BTW, I think that the Voicethread thing sounds great to and as it's asynchronous can work alongside Elluminate. |
| Re: Where did all the people go in CCK08? |
| It sounds great, I´ll check how the time works for me (2000 GMT is 21.00 for Spain, right?) and let you know by Sunday night. If I participate, I think I already have my question, it´s something I´ve already tried to raise but I´m not fully satisfied with the answers ;) |
| Re: Where did all the people go in CCK08? |
| Great Leila. You will have the wonderful participants to help you with the answers. Time conversion here http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html |
| Re: Where did all the people go in CCK08? |
| It sounds great, I´ll check how the time works for me (2000 GMT is 21.00 for Spain, right?) and let you know by Sunday night. If I participate, I think I already have my question, it´s something I´ve already tried to raise but I´m not fully satisfied with the answers ;) |
| Re: where did all the people go in CCK08? |
|
Hi John, I fall under the heading of question 2: 2. If you are new to CCK09, what would you expect from CCK09? What are you needs? How are your needs fulfilled? Are these needs fulfilled in the forum? What sort of "new and emergent concepts, knowledge, connections" would you expect from the forum? I wasn't sure what to expect from CCK09, but as I am enrolled in the class, my needs are pretty basic: 1) a certificate that makes me a more attractive candidate on the job market and 2) the information and tools that I need to use technology in my own classrooms (if I succeed in part 1, of course). I would say at this point in the course things are getting too diffuse "geographically" and too far into theory I'm not familiar with. Sure, there is something to said for hanging on for a wild ride in terms of going into territory you are not used to and I'm doing that as best I can. But the other reality is time management. As the discussion become more diffuse, I can't devote the time and resources to track them in their new locations at the expense of two other Manitoba classes, my thesis, and my job search. Two things are useful to me with the project for me at this stage. The first is that I think educators should always remember that every student they have is making time management decisions that the student feels are valid. There are the frivolous ones: "I stayed up to late playing video games and now don't want to get up for class" and there are the more valid ones: "This paper is going to have to be late because my manager won't give me the day off and I need to pay rent, so can't risk this job." Essentially, to couch it is terms of the class, educators can sometimes think they are the only hub on a student's network, but we all know this isn't true. Networks demand as much as they offer. The second is that it is healthy to feel lost, because when you get into the advanced stages of education you do one thing and one thing only. It is really easy to feel like the big fish in a small pond. I can bore everyone with expansive discussion of English history, but if someone put a chemistry book in my hand I would be lost. It has been 15 years since I did stoichiometry and I wasn't very good at it then. I think my largest question at this stage in the class is at what point Connectivism stops being descriptive and starts being prescriptive. What is the desired outcome of Connectivism? Is it simply a new means to an old end? Being a good human being and having a life long love of learning are already goals of liberal arts and humanistic education. Petrarch was arguing for this in the 14th century. I'll be the first to admit I have a hard time seeing refinements in argument, so might be missing a lot. Famously, I remember a professor railing about how American students were taught the terrible idea of the "triangle trade" that connected Africa, the Caribbean, and the British American Colonies and then expounded on the new "trans-Atlantic connection" theories that sounded suspiciously like....the triangle trade. It could very well be a matter of depth of knowledge. Speaking of triangles, I can tell you that the European fuedal pyramid that we learned in school probably never really worked that. But I was in fifth grade when I learned that drawing on the blackboard, hardly an appropriate age to have socage and villeinage explained to you. Maybe I am still at the "feudalism is a pyramid" level of Connectivism? |
| Re: where did all the people go in CCK08? |
|
Hi Kerry, Thanks for your response. "What is the desired outcome of Connectivism?" Great question! I think each of us has our own answer, especially when it comes to informal learning. What are your passions? What interests you most? What makes you feel more confident, more competent, and more rewarding when learning in the network(s)? Could Connectivism help you in fulfilling your goals? Most of us have been involved in our formal education for decades, and at times after graduation, we often found the skills that we have acquired are often not be good enough in tackling the challenges at work or in our daily life, especially at this time of great changes. So this new era of informal learning could stimulate us to be more connected to the networks, through our PLE/N or the Virtual Learning Environment, and the tools and media, that would help us to learn more effectively and efficiently as an individual or as a network, through sensemaking, wayfinding, skills building, and mutual sharing. We could harvest our fruits of learning through such navigation, recognising of patterns of "knowledge" and thus develop a diverse area of interests that fulfill our curiosity to learn, and learning to be "a life long learner"- as part of our vision. We could also engage more deeply with the weak ties in this network, and broaden our perspectives as we reflect personally and together in the network in an open, autonomous manner. We could also be inspired by each other's enthusiasm in networking, to become our leaders of the future, to solve problems both individually and in the network, to support each other with the use of tools and media, and be more connected in this world of networks. This will also help us in adding value to ourselves, our network(s), community and the social capital. A win-win to all. John  |
| Re: where did all the people go in CCK08? |
|
Hi John, Sorry if this may be making a mountain of out of a very small molehill but I would like to just make it clear. I was not really 'in' cck08. When it was announced last July, due to some difficult work and personal circumstances that are completely unrelated to anyone in learning technologies, I made a decision which I totally hated making at the time, but not to take part and hope there was a cck09 that I could join the following year. I honestly can't remember if I signed up or not before making the decision, which may have caused any confusion. When Nellie started Connecting Online ning, I felt guilty for not joining in, so did a 10 day blog in September and responded to one Connectivism post she had made there. After that didn't get involved. I still briefly interacted with some lovely people in Connecting Online ning but I was unable to keep up with that. I did know some people in the learning technologies space so when we did cck09 introductions, I said hi to them, which I guess may have given the impression that I was here last time round but that is not the case. As for cck09 I don't consider that I have left, just after a very busy month and chest infection which got worse but now cleared up, I decided to reduce my participation in the forums. I have a semi-functioning laptop & a very poor internet connection, but the couple of weeks (which felt like a lifetime) when I was without one means that I am about to start listening / catching up with week 5 in terms of 'content' if you like, but I am trying to still follow the forums, daily, blogs for week 10. In some ways, I still feel like I am trying to grasp some of the core elements from week 1 & 2. I guess after following Stephen / George's work for 8 years I should be flying through but what can I say, I'm just dumber than I thought I was, taking a long time to process everything. There is some interaction in the cck09 ning, have been putting out some feelers elsewhere too.I would be interested in exploring research also with anyone here, but I wanted to contact some others too. As per earlier comment in this thread, I'm still having the odd conversation with others about Connectivism. E.g. last night contacted a few people asking about a possible interest in research and received the following reaction from someone who I have never discussed it with before, based on the sentence I provided which was "Connectivism is the application of network principles to define both knowledge and the process of learning. Knowledge is defined as a particular pattern of relationships and learning is defined as the creation of new connections and patterns as well as the ability to maneuver around existing networks/patterns.”1 I got this reply: "Some notes: In 1945, Bush (Vannevar, not those war-mongering types) published As We May Think in Atlantic Monthly. A collective memory machine was part of this. Worth reading. What is being labeled Connectivism here may be a mere difference in label to Connectionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectionism) which has a relatively long history in AI (i.e. not a new theory). There is also the transactive memory (I rely on others to give me the information when I need it rather than storing it for myself). You may also like to dig out presentations by Noshir Contractor such things as cognitive social networks (you know somebody who knows …). A short criticism based on the one sentence given below: the definition of knowledge might work in a system, e.g. general knowledge about a topic, but would not fit with the knowledge of an individual: if knowledge is a pattern of relationships in a network, then my knowledge is some weighted average of my connections – this might suggest that I could not have my own knowledge. By implication, nobody could have any knowledge since everybody relies on everybody else. Learning is …. what? The act of adding links, irrespective of any “content” at the end of the links? This could reduce knowledge to a popularity contest (as opposed to a talent contest which should consider the intrinsic qualities of the competitor)." I have to go and jump on a train now so can't respond in any more detail, but will try later tonight if I can. 1. Siemens G (2008), What is the Unique Idea in Connectivism, available at http://www.connectivism.ca/?p=116 |
| Re: The X factor is in the network? |
|
Nicola and Ailsa, I too want to clean out the residual odours of behaviourism and technicism from whatever it is I use as a learning theory. Cognitivism too, but the aversion to cognitivism seems to be widely shared here, so that's not an issue. I think the X-factor competition is instructive. Its not even a matter of the wisdom of crowds, versus the wisdom of fools. Its just the wisdom of what will emerge within the complex structure that has been set up, with a few simple rules, and a miriad of self-organising agents, many of whom talk to many others, but none of whom 'know' the full picture. There's a huge amount of multi-platform connectivism out there. So what? If you're interested, the underlying structure for the X-factor comes from getting audience 'participation' to pay for the show (and the prizes, and generate a profit on top of that), pioneered by Endemol in Holland more than 10 years ago, who 'connected' mobile phone surcharged calls to really bad 'reality quiz shows'. After that, its all in the tweaking. Ring any bells? |
| Re: The X factor is in the network? |
|
Hi Roy, If ok, will answer backwards and take the bottom part of your question first. Re X-Factor & Endemol - that is fascinating. I've never forgotten Jon Dron saying at a session once in Southampton, "wisdom of fools vs stupidity of mobs" - some people in my workplace are very passionate about JEdward so I'll reserve judgement Its a very interesting comparison.I like the idea of learning as spacehopping (spacehopper)maybe between domains, spaces, technologies. Speaking of multi-platform, one of the things I would have liked to have done but not, is look at SMS, have put out a feeler to someone and currently awaiting their thoughts. For example, John Traxler and Inge de Waard's expertise would be great to draw on in this area and the mobile learning programs / research they have been involved with leading - they have also done some stuff with the more 'supercool' / recent technologies such as media on smartphones etc Re 1st part of question In terms of learning theories, I'm not quite sure what I am averse to as yet, but I'm getting there. I'm narrowing it down to 4 arguments which relate to possible research areas, that I seem to be having with myself but have not managed to communicate with another human or machine about, yet 1. Connectivism and Connectionism - I don't feel that I've understood enough about the non-typing, non-text forms of connecting to say that we are not constructing knowledge but I don't think we are transferring it. Ethics aside for a moment, I did ask someone back in July this year about the possibility of having an artificial participant - knowing that we had some limited experience at Surrey with Sloodle, but unfortunately they did not have the time, so I don't know if we do have any artificial intelligent contributors at this moment, as in contributors who have identified themselves with a name. That would be an interesting area to explore 2. Related to research possibilities, an interesting area to explore would be connectivism and learning without typing! Or another way of putting it, connecting with words vs connecting without (moving beyond language barriers and looking at cultural associations in relation to say - art) 3. Traditional instruction as in traditional martial arts training which has definite strong behaviourist elements vs open networked learning with connectivist principles - again this is another area that I would like to have looked at in more depth but not had the time, but connecting beyond online. If I draw a straight comparison with martial arts training vs connecting online, then for me its martial arts training please, blended with a small bit of online - but that only explores a tiny part of what I understand connectivism to be about. |
| Re: The X factor is in the network? |
| @roy - just found this actually: http://athenslearning.org/blog/2006/12/hopping-robots-spheres-and-haptic-review-of-robotic-space-concepts/ |
| Re: The X factor is in the network? |
|
Nicola, ditto. The second part is great. I am not up on swarming, but I did come across this article on text eagles which incorporates some of the best parts of complexity design, and the wisdom of crowds (as opposed to the wisdom of money, which is Simon Cowell's way of weaseling out of judging the singing in the X-factor). It would be great to include an online 'Turing test' with an artificial avatar (as you say, we might already have one!). I am doing research on developing story telling in what we have at times called 'beyond text', which first of all means foreground the audio, and marginalise text, and then means bring in ways to enable 'sensemaking' on learning and identity through graphics, collage, etc. It would be possible, and very interesting, to take one of the stories (told in audio, for particular reasons), add graphics, and see whether it is possible to marginalise or eliminate the audio too, as we have already done with much of the text. mmmm. Food for thought. One could say "text is soooo last season!" Have you looked at the recent links in the forums on voice-thread? Its a free platform that could be used to set up, for instance, a posting (with no written text) that went something like this: (audio added in voice thread): "This struck me, while thinking about the dark side of connectivism [or memes/ or temes - pick one]: What comes to mind when you look at this? Feel free to use the audio comment facility to record your thoughts, comments, responses, feelings, or to add a picture, graphic or other multimedia [NO cats puleeeeease]".  |
| Re: The X factor is in the network? |
|
OK - let's experiment. I've created a voicethread. Here is the link: http://voicethread.com/share/747538/. Go ahead and login to voicethread (www.voicethread.com) and register. Then search for this voicethread (I've tagged it with "CCK09"). I have purchased the "Pro Account" - so we have unlimited access / we can post as may comments/voicethreads as we want. We can "Collect the voices of an entire group on a single page" (voicetread "propaganda") by computer microphone, telephone, text, audio file (MP3/WAV), and webcam. Have at it and let me know if you have any questions. |
| Re: The X factor is in the network? |
|
Gus, you're a *. I'll join the experiment later today. Roy |
| Re: The X factor is in the network? |
|
Thanks for your contribution.... even if it was "a little quiet".... Here is the link to the experiment - just in case.... http://voicethread.com/groups/subscribe/11612/623ec7bf2/ |
| Re: The X factor is in the network? |
|
And ... Martial arts: you learn to connect with ....? Presence? (I'm guessing, from Zen meditation, I only know martial arts from the 'outside') Martial arts training might (?) connect with Kumon mathematics teaching, which teaches maths by speed and accuracy, up to quite advanced levels, i.e. none of that 'constructivist' nonsense - base 10 is artificial, dont try to understand it, do it first - fast and at at least 95% accuracy. And then you start to build understanding, no? See the wonderful documentary on Anish Kapoor that just ended at 12 this evening - here . Check out the programme by Alan Yentob, and if you can, the exhibition at the Royal Academy till Dec 11, which looks interesting. It has lots to say about connections, and radical ideas of emergence, but you'll have to watch part of the programme to get it. |
| Re: where did all the people go in CCK08? |
|
Hi Nicola - a few quick points on the response you received to your post: 1. yes, Bush's article (as we may think) is well worth the read. His view of "associative trails" largely anticipated the internet 2. Connectionism is a term that has its roots in behaviorism - well before AI. Thorndike first used the connectionism to refer to learning...(you may find this page worth a skim: http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/wiki/Situating_Connectivism 3. Noshir Contractor is an individual that comes up fairly frequently in network/social systems...and communication. You will likely find his work relevant to broad concepts of connectivism. 4. I don't agree with the assertion that a network view of learning renders personal knowledge unattainable. Our understanding of a subject is a function of how we have weighted and connected various pieces of information. I can have personal knowledge because the same phenomena that we experience on a macro scale (social system) are evident on a personal scale (within our heads - see Olaf Sporns for discussions of neural small worlds). The statement that you quoted - "everybody relies on everybody else" - was intended as a critique of connectivism...but I think it's supportive. Because we do rely on others, always. Even when a lone genius has a brilliant moment of insight, she is still relying on the history of thinkers before. And when her ideas are validated, she is relying on her peers or a group of researchers that scrutinize her work. 5. Final point - learning is not solely the act of adding links - deletion of links is an option as well. Knowledge requires content...but the knowledge is generated by connections between content (more accurately, information). Red, White, and Blue are nothing more than colours...but in a certain context, and for a certain nation, these terms take on some level of meaning that is found only in their relatedness. |
| Re: where did all the people go in CCK08? |
|
Hi George, Thank you for your really helpful and informative reply, I will try and find a way to bring the relevant person into this discussion so that he can respond directly, Nicola |
| Re: where did all the people go in CCK08? |
|
Presence... where are the people in the network? In Digital Habitats, Eric Wenger, Nancy White, and John Smith maintain that people operate in various networks. People are key. Participation.... Wenger, White, and Smith not that participants contributed to various networks, maintaining peripheral participation in some and active participation in others. People are key Locating and dislocating the learning: CCK08 Presence and Participation...anywhere, everywhere, anytime... CCK09 Presence and Participation...distributed, complex, cosmic... ACTUAL Presence and Participation......centered, situated, and real time Shift of focus from CCK08-CCK09... from informal learning and tacit knowledge to formal learning and reflexive knowledge... play to serious play... |
| Re: where did all the people go in CCK08? |
|
Great analysis, Sui, I´m enjoying the "metareflections" (can we use this word?) It seems we´re spending some serious time and energy analyzing how and why we interact (or not), even justifying ourselves at times, I find it an interesting kind of introspection. |
| Re: where did all the people go in CCK08? |
|
My interpretation of reasons for people leaving forums (see here for some additional data from me and Roel) would be:
Also quite a lot of people (myself included) experimented with dual postings in forums and on blogs. |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
| In what "Mode" do you think this tool would be most useful ? There are many other examples of this tool at their webpage http://voicethread.com |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
| We definitely invite Michelle Pacansky-Brock to this discussion - check out her presentation: http://vimeo.com/5284810 as well as her blog: http://mpbreflections.blogspot.com/ |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
| Gus, see my stolen goods example in my reply to Nicola, above. |
| Re: where have all the people gone? |
|
yep - sure did notice.... No problem - it's called "creative commons license"... I got it from someone else's blog/posting..... The moment that I saw the voice-thread website (www.voicethread.com), I thought: "voice and text based MOODLE!" |