 | Skeptic |
|
My name is Prokofy, I'm active in Second Life, and have a blog often critical of new media and Web 2.0 here: http://secondthoughts.typepad.com I'm here because I don't believe in "Connectivity" which sounds like a new religion. I think skepticism about a lot of the medicine-show shilling around new media is more than in order -- it's necessary to combat technocrats who want to weld their world views into new technology to take over in undemocratic fashion, waving the "legitimacy" of a flash mob or an "wise crowd" to put themselves in power. I can work all the dials in Second Life or any number of services like Twitter, but I haven't used Moodle about which I've heard mixed reviews. What can you have with 1,600? Well, authoritarianism and unthinking followers, for one thing. Rock stars and fans for another. There's a reason for all the Moore's laws and such, and why a meeting with more than 12 people becomes unproductive -- because 12 people would each have only 5 minutes to talk, and be heard if on live voice. Having typed scrolling text or "backchat" as in SL, or multiple IMs and email and such also going on, and asynchronicity might boost all that, but not significantly. What I've found in SL with numerous "digital arts" and "web 2.0" classes and seminars is that they are not about studying new technology in some kind of open-minded and critical manner, willing to accept any outcome. Instead, they are social vehicles, devices for spreading various rewarmed Marxist thought or old 1970s educational theories dressed up in cyber clothing. They are intended to socialize people to accepting various maxims of the California Ideology or the Geek Religion -- i.e. that code is law; that technologists rule in any area because every area is attached to the Internet, so that tekkies believe they are experts on everything from health to economics; that copyleftism rather than copyright has to be installed; inordinate praise and privileging of open source code, etc. etc. I'm suspicious of "educational activities" that are merely a Trojan horse for inserting full-blown hardleft or extremist ideologies like Extropianism, and there's an awful lot of this going on now under the guise of "learning". Where is the Socratic method? Where is the discipline in grappling with a set of ideas from an author in a book or text, and being required to understand it, rather than simply to be indoctrinated? |
 | Re: Skeptic |
| This may lead to an interesting experience reading your work over the next few months. Nothing like rocking the boat or challenging assumptions to increase learning opportunities! |
 | Re: Skeptic |
|
Hi Catherine, I've come across your blog by way of Second Life, I'm Sojourna Alexandre, and have always enjoyed reading your take on things...and here, I like your conclusion. Hope to catch up more. Best, Kathryn. |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
I don't see that networks have a feedback component -- as Carl noted, it is precisely their unilateralism and echo-chamber faculties that resist feedback. The hostility of which you speak on forums isn't just human nature exposed in more raw fashion with new tools, it is the tyranny of the meme and the ideologue resisting dissent. Each time a network, learning group, forum on a topic or club or whatever is formed, we get Clay Shirky's "The Group is Its Own Worst Enemy" phenomena (and I've critiqued his concept by pointing out that the Group is all of our enemies). A few ringleaders take charge with the ideology and promulgate it, usually brooking no dissent; if dissent is encountered, the leaders usually tell the critic he is a troll, or use the typical forums "forced migration policy" -- "if you don't like it, leave." Where can the feedback come in a network? You can see powerful forces shape around any skeptic with a huge raft of New Age warmed over Zen sort of reactions -- oh, you need to take up mindful mediation and breathe and not be critical; oh, you need to take more notice of creativity and ingenuity and not think of commodification; oh you should do this or that or think this or believe that. It is a vast and deep Puritanism, this Web 2.0. |
 | Re: Skeptic |
| Observing a "natural" feedback mechanism at work in a social network is probably the one thing I am most interested in out of all of this. For me it is one of the major missing components required to take social networking to the point beyond a pleasant social activity. Some Twitter exchanges among individuals come pretty close and may be examples of the formation of small networks that have developed a type of feedback, but it is hard to observe. I am hoping that in a group this large some small subnets will form where the interaction does feedback positively. |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
Hi Prokofy (admirer of Prokofiev, perhaps?), Scepticism is entirely healthy in a media environment of excess and entirely in the spirit of Neil Postman in 'Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology' ( see http://www.ibiblio.org/cmc/mag/1995/mar/hyper/npcontexts_119.html ) and 'Informing Ourselves to Death' ( http://www.frostbytes.com/~jimf/informing.html ). However, I can assure you that the Socratic method is alive and well and practiced in entirely online courses like my own, where imporant ideas are explored - humanistic as well as technocratic - all the while reading some great books. And "indoctrination" is abhored and shunned. Techno-scepticism is a healthy approach, up to a point, but ultimately as limiting as techno-optimism, and equally agenda promoting. About a decade ago I embraced techno-realism - http://www.technorealism.org/ - which I think provides a more balanced perspective.........Alex <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} pre {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Courier New"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Courier New"; color:black; mso-ansi-language:EN-CA;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> "It is not technologies themselves but our thoughts under technologies that change and move the world." - Kyoo-Lak Cho
|
| Re: Skeptic |
|
Well, I'll add "Technorealism" as a subject and doctrine to read up on some day after I'm done with "Connectivity," but I have to say that I don't think there is any "technological revolution". As George said, people don't change. The tools reveal the same human nature which isn't as mutable through technology as people imagine - technology remains a human artifact, not perfectable, and not perfecting. Any ideology privileging technology and technologists above others as "revolutionary" or "advanced" or "special" is already a doctrine. |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
Catherine, regarding technorealism, there isn’t that much to read up on. The link I provided pretty much defines this attitude of mind that exists somewhere between the techno-visionaries-optimists and the neo-Luddites. It’s a healthy middle ground that avoids the exaggerated self-serving claims of the former, while acknowledging that the impact of technology is real and pervasive. It is not a theory. There’s no question that “human nature” evolves slowly, if at all. But what does change is human consciousness and cognition, such change often precipitated over time by the technologies, especially media technologies, that our minds are exposed to. In ‘Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word’ (1982) Father Walter Ong, SJ demonstrates how the invention of writing restructured human consciousness: Many of the features we have taken for granted in thought and expression in literature, philosophy, and science, and even in oral discourse among literates, are not directly native to human existence as such but have come into being because of the resources which the technology of writing makes available to human consciousness. We have had to revise our understanding of human identity (Ong, 1982, p.1) Likewise, Neil Postman has catalogued the profound changes in human affairs caused by the advent of TV in ‘Amusing Ourselves to Death: “Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business’ (1985). He doesn’t deal with human consciousness much, but others have done that in relation to TV. No, I have to disagree with you. Our media technologies change us over time, as Marshall McLuhan observed back in the 1960s: “We become what we behold. We shape our tools and then our tools shape us.” Likewise the Internet will change those who use it over time. A recent article in The Atlantic (which I take issue with) documents one writer’s perception of some of the negatives aspects of those changes – http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200807/google Does the way that the Internet delivers information to us destroy our attention spans? What the Internet is doing to our brains
by Nicholas Carr Is Google Making Us Stupid? As for your comment about privileging technologists, we can go back to Sir Francis Bacon’s comment in 1597 that: “knowledge is power”………..Alex Kuskis |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
Alex, if you use a contrived phrase like "neo-Luddites," that already lets me know that you are not in some putative "middle ground". First of all, as you may know, the historical Luddites aren't even the Luddites everyone imagines as the FUDites of their day. They didn't break machines because they hated or feared machines. They broke machines *because they stole their livlihood*. They had a kind of cartel or guild price-fixing for their business that set prices -- they were skilled workers. They were actually no different than web designers or computer programmers who want to snag $50 or more an hour from you merely to run Spyware Blaster. They set prices -- because they needed to make a living. Factory workers undercut them. It was an economic war -- and a reasonable one. Their breaking of machines was a tactic in this war -- it's often overlooked. Even those who are scornfully called "Luddites" (i.e. in the SL setting where each time some hastily-prepared patch is thrown at a long-suffering and unsuspecting public, there are inevitable growns) aren't really anything of the sort, as they are *in the technology* (in SL you *live inside the technology* and feel it right on your skin, as it were). The arguments about "Luddites" play out on an Internet to which everyone has easily logged on and become comfortable. So it's not exactly what tekkies imagine when they fling around the phrase. It is quite possible to use all the new Web 2.0 tools to criticize the thing itself as it is often vacuous and content-free and as I keep saying, horridly self-referential. One of the grave fallacies of the whole Darwinian obsession in our particular historical period is that scientific Darwinism, that may be easily proven in different ways, has crept into every aspect of human life, and become a "social Darwinism". This sets up various er...intelligences to imagine that they can see entire segments of human history in a crystal-clear manner, and best of all, determine whether their neighbour is *not* evolving, but they are. It's really quite laughable to watch, as this or that forums-dweller tells you to evolve or die and inflicts Darwinian concepts on you and your business model, let's say, that he'd never impose upon himself; it seems to be a truism of those flinging around the Darwinist meme to assume they're evolved, and everybody else isn't. Oh, I think you're taking McLuhan far too literally. We didn't become anything so different. Do we really live in a global village? Of course we don't. You care no more about the South Ossetians than you did 30 years ago when no news of them ever reached you -- it is so much noise. Father Ong, SJ though he may be, will surely find some stern debate on his theory that suddenly, this imperfectable human being had his consciousness permanently altered merely due to writing. This strikes me as untested fantasy. One peculiar faculty of all these folks writing these days on Web 2.0 is that they suddenly dredge up these historical analogies where they prove either rapid progress or intense resistance or accelerating revolutionary capacity to every other stage of history with every other technological device. So we're told there was a lot of resistance to the telephone, without a lot of documented evidence, mere anecdotal essays, because somebody needs a facile analogy to dredge up to explain why there is resistance to blogs or email or "new media". It's fake. It's like Clay Shirky claiming the Industrial Revolution was all about people pushing gin carts around and drinking gin to "adapt". Makes you wonder how they could keep a steady hand on the lathe to even bring about the Industrial Revolution itself! There is no question that Google is making us stupid, but...it's not as if "material affects consciousness" in quite so literalist a Marxian manner. It's that the facile choice becomes easier to chose on the path of least resistance. There are no teachers to say, "No, don't read the dimestore novel, read this great literature and think about it." Instead, there are only network facilitators... |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
Hi Prokofy, Like yourself, and those who have replied so far, I fully endorse a skeptical view of any position, old or new. Personally, I see a lot of sense in the idea of connectivism, but I do have to question the value of some other new media in education. I have yet to see, for example, Second Life produce beneficial results, even if we discount the overhead required to get many people up and running in it, and I strongly challenge the perception that synchronous communication is preferable to asynchronous which I hear a lot of the time. I do think we are naturally social creatures though, and that learning happens best in communities, or networks. And I think this is because they are social vehicles, but the potential problem, of course, is that a single dominant voice will proselytize the participants - something I have seen throughout my school and higher education from time to time. Put someone up in front of a group willing to listen to them, and the critical thinking has a bad habit of going out of the window. To be honest, a lot of the time as a student I deliberately dozed off so that I could dis-engage my inner critic and take on board the material I was supposed to know for assessment purposes. I decided there was time enough to criticise it after I had graduated. Somehow, I suspect that this course will not require the same treatment - the huge benefit of a large number of participants coupled with the slight level of dissociation people tend to feel when using the internet is likely to mean there are some sound critical debates. I hope so anyway! |
 | Re: Skeptic |
|
Hi Prokofy Thanks for facilitating a questionning stance. I'm also looking for the added value in the concept. I guess I see myself engaged in what John Dewey would call 'productive enquiry' trying to find out about the things I need to know in order to do the things I need to do.. often without knowing clearly what I need to do.. but experience has shown me that simply participating in a social learning process, often of my own making, enables me to see what I need to do..so I trust the process over an over again and mostly it moves me on.Trying to learn in the way that George is facilitating is new to me but intuitively I trust the process when so many people come together to share their thoughts learning just has to emerge. Our individual roles is to recognise it when it happens. Please keep sharing your thoughts. norman |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
SL is hyped the wrong way. For $25 US a month, you can have a spot there that is plenty for the needs of one class of 25 -- you don't need to spend $15,000 making an island with fancy buildings and a sandbox. You can leverage the existing world already created by lots of people on 28,000 servers. It's also in fact perfect for asynchronous collaboration and learning. Most of what I get done there is done in the asynchronous mode because I can't get on during the day to go to all the seminars and whatnot. I don't think learning happens in communities as you imagine. Let's say I have to learn Russian, as I did. I have to spend a LOT of time as an individual reading, drilling, going to the language lab, writing. There's no substitute for the engagement. Listening to a teacher teach is also vital. Sure, then there is another component, interactivity, practicing with others, going to the real country and hearing how people speak and trying to speak to them to accomplish things yourself. I've done all that. But I don't then conclude that because that last bit of community learning is so important that the solo hours with the books should be thrown out the window. And yet that's what a lot of modern education does. I really do not have a problem with a single dominant credentialed voice -- a Russian linguist -- being the voice that teaches me. It's truly ok. I don't want 12 people of uneven quality merely connecting and learning with me. I see little critical debate here; I see the same massive amounts of conformism -- it's scary. The digital Maoists and Bolsheviks have done their job well. |
| Re: Skeptic |
My friends and colleagues would be entertained to see me described as conformist  Different people have different learning styles, and different capacities for dealing with a dominant voice, I believe. I know that I am at least as cautious of someone professing to know all the answers as you seem to be of allowing oneself to be informed by a community. I also know that I learn a lot more from observing others' mistakes, and working out how to avoid them myself, than by listening to someone telling me the right way of doing something. In the process, I am also able to help others by explaining how to get out of a hole caused by a misunderstanding of the single voice. However, I know others who prefer the single voice. Some things are right for some people, but nothing is right for everyone (not in my experience so far, anyway) |
 | Re: Skeptic |
|
Hi Catherine I can't tell you how much I agree with this point. As an ex language learner (German) an ex-language teacher (English), I totally agree that there is no substitute in language learning for motivation, hard work and many hours of study, whether it be through books, online resources or face-to-face lessons etc. I studied German by correspondence course some 25 odd years ago. I used to wait patiently for the postman to arrive with my course books, work alone on activities (having no knowledge of who else was studying the same subjects and under strict instructions not to exceed the alloted time I had with my tutor on the phone.) I got through and passed my exams but only through a great deal of motivation and a lot of individual hard work. Nowadays, I'm sure doing the same course would be an entirely different experience - technology would offer so many benefits to me as a self-study language learner: podcasts for listening practice, online communities to meet up with others studying the same subjects, Skype for speaking practice. Great! Really, great. But I also think there would be a big problem - the danger of prevaricating!! I doubt whether I would get the same amount of 'head down' focussed study done as I'd be too busy connecting! I now run a business and use some of these tools both as an instructor and for networking but often have to remind myself to get down to work and leave Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Podomatic alone for a while. As a student I'm sure I'd be even more likely to wander. I do think language learners and teachers now have a huge choice of tools available that enhance/benefit the language learning process. If I was doing the correspondence course again I'd go for the 2008 version over the 1982 model anytime. But I think I'd actually need even MORE motivation and focus to get through the course thanks to the opportunities/distraction of social-networking technology. And as more and more tools get created, the less time I'd spend on the serious stuff! Pete |
 | Re: Skeptic |
| I agree about the distractions connectivism can bring. To poke a little fun at Barry Welman's article in the assigned reading, occasionally you have to "de-network" and "re-group" with your immediate friends and family, other the technology can become consuming and your connected network takes over. |
 | Re: Skeptic |
|
Am also interested in what you've said, though I wouldn't give the Marxists et al too hard a time - the snake oil population you refer to also contains people who gave the world words like "eyeball", "incentivize" and "monetize", don't forget... As for whether we are a group or a network, I still don't understand the finer points. This to me looks like a group. If it was a network it seems to me that we wouldn't all be enrolling together and talking in threaded streams, but hey, it isn't even day 1 yet, so I'll wait and learn. Cheers  rose |
 | Re: Skeptic |
|
Hey Prokofy always good to see unbelievers in the crowd. Not too sure about Socratic method as the best defence against authoritarianism (considering the Greek idea of democracy was just a little skewed), but I too am underwhelmed by the thrust towards technocentrism over a questioning approach. Should be fun... |
 | Re: Skeptic |
|
Hi Andrea I'd be interested to hear your understanding/ definition of technocentrism and whether you think that technocentrism and a questioning approach cannot work together? cheers Steve |
 | Re: Skeptic |
|
Good to see another skeptic Prokofy! Keep it up. One should always have the right to question other points of view when you think it is justified. I was also studying the FOC08 course out of New Zealand but had some issues with the philosophy of the participants and in part the facilitators style (don't get me wrong the course is good and he is good too) however the discussion went around and around and was always lacking in true critique. When I critiqued the proposed models and theories of facilitation espoused and demonstrated, I largely got ignored. Unfortunately scepticism is often seen as negativity when it is simply a valid questioning or reasoning process that some people use to think deeply about a topic. Sad as they were missing the points of my critique (which were not intended to be critical, instead simply to show how things could be improved) and showed themselves as not open to true discussion. It will be interesting to see how this "mob" accepts alternative viewpoints! (of which I am expecting there to be many). Good luck in the course. Hope you get good things out of it. Andrew from Sydney (but originally from NZ)... |
 | Re: Skeptic |
|
George Being new to the topic I am not familiar with the vocabulary, but as I will explain on my blog (unless this is the more appropriate place) I think what you call "ecology" I call context. This idea of context for connoction, networks, knowledge and learning is a fascinating one to me. I hope to learn much more about them through the living laboratory of this course's diverse company of participants. Paul / Arieliondotcom |
 | Re: Skeptic |
|
I am a newbie when it comes to 'connective learning.' I've worked in secondary and post-secondary environments since the late 80s and studied the future of distance vs. mortar-and-brick learning as a graduate student. I have a background in 'traditional' learning theories (B.Ed 1989), and experience using photography and video to challenge perceptions that 'the medium is the message' (read: art student in the 1980s). It appears that the questions at the heart of the connectivism debate are no more than a teched-up version of an age-old educational debate: How do we create valuable learning environments? Does the environment influence the outcome? Who decides what should be learned? What skills do students need to be effective learners? Mediated environments are sexy, without a doubt. My preteen/teen sons would spend half their lives online if we allowed it. There is so much that appeals to them - complex RPGs, music videos, social networking, distant friends, forbidden images.... We've had to carefully, and given the rapid pace of change, continuously educate them about both the benefits and dangers of the cyberworld. Both would get a gold star when it comes to the mechanics of manipulating around in a mediated world, but are still novices when it comes to thinking critically about the environment. Right now I believe the greatest weakness of mediated learning environments is its sexiness...it is so easy to create a 'fun' environment that educators may lose sight of the primary goals of learning. As mediated environments progress and move into the mainstream (as is inevitable) I hope educators can keep critical thinking a key part of the debate. |
 | Re: Skeptic |
|
Kathleen, Can't learning be "fun" and still focus on learning objectives? Losing sight of the goals of learning and being critical is wonderful if you know what and how to focus on your learning objectives. I would like to share some of my recent experiences and ideas on focusing and having fun. I have been practicing mindfulness meditation which focuses on the breathing in order to become more conscious of the present moment. Life has been making it more and more difficult for me to focus as my mind constantly races from one idea to the next. How can I expect my students to focus on learning objectives or anything for that matter when I am not focused myself. My students minds are racing all over the place. I decided to teach myself to stop before attempting to teach others. I concluded that I needed to stop in order to understand what it means to focus my mind on the present whatever it happened to be and having some control of my mind. So, since I spend most of my time multi-tasking, I decided to learn about stopping and focusing on the present while running. People can now see me laughing my head off as I run with my i-Pod and listen to Gil Fronsdal and Tolle Eckhart. They are so funny!!! Nellie http://connecting-online.ning.com |
 | Re: Skeptic |
|
Thanks for giving the group so much material for thoughts. I Agree with Nellie Skeptic, while I understand your point of view. I have observed, in myself and my students and patients, that If I engage people's playful nature the learning process runs smoothly and in most cases they learn faster. The subject, objectives and required attitude changes are accepted, encouraged and shared with others. Behavioral and mental changes are usually my goals as a teacher, regardless the subject I am teaching, I encourage and set them as requirements to "pass " the course I am facilitating. The best way I can be completelly sure that my participants are learning is by observing, listening and paying attention to changes in their behaviour and way of thinking. Nellie, thanks for sharing about Mindfulness Meditation, I practice Vippassana meditation for the same reasons you mention also with great results. Love: Maru |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
Hi Maru, I used to be very cautious about sharing what works for me for fear of offending those who have different ideas. After all, I do not want to sway people to do what I do since what works for me, may no work for others. However, I now share because my ways may help others, too. Thank you. Nellie |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
Hi Nellie! I read you, sometimes I have the same fear, I do not intend to sway others and as you I found that sharing my ways may be useful to others, even when they disagree I get them thinking about issues that are important for them. I usually end discussions with someone with opposite views with a nice phrase I borrowed from someone: Do you agree on that we disagree? In that way we can continue in disagreement felling comfortable. Your welcome Nellie, thanks for your reply. Besos. Maru |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
My name is Catherine. I don't smoke, but whenever someone talks about practicing mindfulness meditation and focusing on their breathing, I think they might have a cigarette...these practices ripped from the context of ancient religions that have much more about them than this or that little practice always engender disbelief in me. I also find that most people who claim to be multi-tasking are merely not finding time for you or the subject they really need to be attending to. |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
Catherine, You may be right in your observations. But, if mindfulness helps some, does it really matter? Nellie |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
Hi Catherine! I enjoyed very much your answer, thanks for your reply. I had a great laugh! You are right, why do you think I meditate? ha, ha, ha. Thanks God you do not smoke and do not need use meditation to stop your mind or calm you down. Congrats! I am not a multitasker, I wish I were! I spend a lot of time doing things, I cannot talk and write at the same time, let alone do all the things that Webheads do. Have a nice day! Besos. Maru. |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
No, George. No. We don't need networks and groups in debates. We need individuals. Individuals. Do you still remember them? Apparently like Shirky and Noveck and other enthusiasts of Web 2.0 you have this contrived notion that an individual automatically ceases to be an individual when he logs on to the Internet. He then becomes part of Hive Mind because he is assigned a role or automatically has to collaborate. But that's baloney. An individual remains with all the integrity and autonomy that he possesses offline. He can chose to associate -- or not. Why do we need networks to hold to certain ideals? I thought you were selling endless connections here, each as relevant as the next. Why would I have to sign up for your ideals? I won't. Your distinctions between networks and groups merely seems to be an overly scholarly obsession. Groups might be more personal or networks less personal but the important thing is that you have left the ideology out of the equation if you can't conceptualize debates as something that occurs because individuals will have different ideas and experiences. |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
Hi Andrew, I am with you in FOC08 and respect you for questioning and critiquing things. However, critiquing is useful when there is mutual agreement. I don't think many people like their work, ideas, or lifestyle etc. to be critiqued without having asked for it. People often identify with their ideas and it may be difficult to have someone else criticize those ideas. You may want to poll who would like to be critiqued in this course and then go for it. Andrew, you are more than welcome to critique my ideas or anything else that you fancy.  I'm looking forward to learning with and from you. Warm wishes, Nellie http://connecting-online.blogspot.com http://nelliemuller.blogspot.com |
 | Re: Skeptic |
|
Hi Nellie, Thanks for bringing up the "feelings" in the midst of this skeptic conversation -- as I think they can be important if we all want to stay open to considering diverse opinions, and not just forming camps for or against connectivism. That said, I think there is always a place for both "process" and "critiquing". I liked this particular skeptic's upfront approach and "reason-to-be"; there is a energizing sense to the many participants who responded. The "oppositional" leader is an important voice in any group (MacKenzie, R, 1992) and a group I attended with the Canadian Group Psychotherapy association -- group leaders --vulnerability leader, task leader, emotionality leader and oppositional leader. As this massive e-learning class proceeds, in this postmodern -- or sometimes referred to as post-postmodern time (other labels are tentatively in the literature -- but I like this one), there will be a need for many kinds of leadership and responses to the work -- as Anderson Cooper often says "Keeping them honest". The them is us, collectively. I also like intellectual diversity to be recognized. I think a skeptical approach is there to some extent in the midst of us -- but there are other parts in this post-postmodern mix. I like Andrew's ideas -- just posted before your's Nellie). I think Andrew has found his way to the "balanced bridging post-post modern" quest (my words) -- not the leanings of the critical side of postmodern criticism of everything modern. The pot- postmodern is still developing with a vulnerable but perhaps a more optimistic lean. I find connectivity about bridging -- the action, more than the result. I like connectivism as it feels neurological to me -- gets me to embody the sense of connecting to others while getting my brain to turn on. To me, that feels good, but there is an edge of whether it is okay to do this -- to communicate with so many others. I like the edgy feeling to it and I will have to see where that goes -- if anywhere. So far -- seems very exciting and intellectually stimulating. Jo Ann K. Roy MacKenzie, Ed. Classics in group psychotherapy. NY: The Guilford Press, 1992. 356 pp. (Reviewed by Norman D. Sundberg and Saul Toobert) |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
Sorry, Jo Anne, but I'm not required to "stay open to considering diverse opinionis" and drop my own because that isn't freedom. One can study and listen to various diverse opinions. One is not required to "stay open" to them. It's more than fine to carve out and stick to your own opinion. One need not dissolve into some sort of Internet plasma. The objective isn't to make everyone hold hands and sing Kumbayah and all harmonize their perceptions. At least, that is goofy, or worse, totalitarianism, and I don't see why we have to sign up for it. I'm putting a stake in the ground and most emphatically forming a camp to expose the follies of Connectivism. They abound and are visible everywhere. So denounce it if you like, but I won't be recanting : ) |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
What I've found in SL with numerous "digital arts" and "web 2.0" classes and seminars is that they are not about studying new technology in some kind of open-minded and critical manner, willing to accept any outcome. Instead, they are social vehicles, devices for spreading various rewarmed Marxist thought or old 1970s educational theories dressed up in cyber clothing. I confess I find it rather vexing that you are not required to stay open to diverse opinions, but it appears that others are. Could you, perhaps, explain the difference in position for me? |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
Sure, glad to, sorry I didn't see this before in the noise. I don't require that anyone change, or depart from, or modify their opinion. Indeed, I'm happy when they can refine and articulate it and become more themselves. That's what I do, after all, and hope others do as well. I can't think of anything less sincere than adjusting your heartfelt belief because some Internet being told you to. The problem with the non-open way in which people study this new material is that they never criticize. They just imbibe. They are like little sponges. I find it pretty scary. There isn't a real debate. Real debate can happen when people stick to their own opinions and keep refining them and articulating them, not all harmonizing and collectivizing each other. But I often find that with the conservative Web 2.0 gurus on the Internet today that they cannot bear for someone to keep their opinion. Their notion of "being open to diversity" doesn't mean, as it does for me, showing up, listening, reading, and responding honestly and critically. Oh, no. It means showing up, echoing, grooming, adjusting, mimicing, meming. As you do about many of your views be it about America, the mainstream media, or net neutrality. You cut and paste. I, on the other, keeping an open mind, take your idea, that the media is "biased" and I go out, think about it, and find 10 stories that I think will illustrate to you that no, it's not biased. And all you can do is answer in the most predictable, kneejerk way: that there shouldn't be shareholders seeking profit in the first place. Taken straight out of the Communist Manifesto. Why? Your university has shares and earns profit from them to pay you. Why can't it?! |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
Their notion of "being open to diversity" doesn't mean, as it does for me, showing up, listening, reading, and responding honestly and critically. Oh, no. It means showing up, echoing, grooming, adjusting, mimicing, meming. As you do about many of your views be it about America, the mainstream media, or net neutrality. You cut and paste. I, on the other, keeping an open mind, take your idea, that the media is "biased" and I go out, think about it, and find 10 stories that I think will illustrate to you that no, it's not biased. And all you can do is answer in the most predictable, kneejerk way: that there shouldn't be shareholders seeking profit in the first place. Taken straight out of the Communist Manifesto. Why? Your university has shares and earns profit from them to pay you. Why can't it?! I was with you up until the bit I have quoted. I can assure you I do not cut and paste my views from anywhere. I apply critical reason based on my experience (much to the horror of some academics I know, who don't seem to think personal experience should come in to it) - the reason, I suspect, that you think my reponses are somehow the same as other peoples' in some way is that other people probably share some similar experiences to me and analyse things in a similar way. I seldom take a blind bit of notice of what other people express except to think about it and try and work out why their world view could be so different to the one I have built up through life. I didn't, by the way, say there shouldn't be share holders seeking profit. You read that in to what I wrote because, I assume, you have matched (incorrectly) a pattern of "European" to "Socialist" and continued on with misassumptions from there. I said that they shouldn't expect to always profit - investing is a risk, and they should not be able to expect handouts to compensate them when things go pear shaped. Markets have risk - if you cannot afford to spare the capital, you invest in something with much lower risk (I would suggest a bank, but thanks to US banking practices it appears those are not as safe as they once were - perhaps a piggy bank would be better). Hand outs to compensate those with money they can afford to risk is a rather corrupt form of social welfare only for the rich. My university funds me from the income I bring in by doing research - from grants which come from, far enough back in the chain, taxation - as you are normally complaining about. As far as I am aware they do not have share holdings - but even if they do, if the markets go bad and the university loses money and as a result I don't get paid (despite being funded by external grants) then would be, fundamentally, due to me picking an employer with more money than sense. Fortunately, this is not the case, of course. |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
I'm glad you come by your Marxism honestly. I would much, much rather deal with an honest socialist, and have a lot of respect for certain socialists who have been friends and colleagues, than deal with an unexamined inchoate socialist who bristles at the association with the word. It's good if you are not a cut-'n-paster. Perhaps you just haven't had the experience of witnessing the mass atrocities, the mass graves, the masive destruction of socialism of the communist type -- or perhaps you reserve socialism as a special strain never tainted by communism, etc. Actually, I find the "Europian=socialist" meme not to be true for ordinary people that I encounter in my travels in real European countries. Germany produces the highest income in the world due to what? Its industries, its capitalism, its recovery after the war. Especially new EU members aren't kneejerk socialists but enthusiastic capitalists. But there's no question that the new social media is chock-full of leftists of every type particularly from the UK, France, and Germany. They have had a tremendous influence on the media, and weld their views into the tools. Here's what you said: "Shareholders invest - it is a risk, anyone who thinks they should do nothing but profit has a broken concept of the way the markets work." Sorry, but your concept is the one that is broken. You seem to imply that th world is awash with the sort of venture communists like Joi Ito or Pierre Omidyar who are always about Building a Better World with their wealth (the left never accepts Bill Gates into those ranks of course) who are first and foremost about "social responsibility" and only seconarily interested in profit. That's nuts -- they should do nothing but profit. That's what they *have* to do. Otherwise, they aren't capitalists engaged in shareholding in a business; they are philanthropists, and that's something different. These aren't idealistic venture capitalists funding Twitter because they think it will save the planet by, oh, connecting all the best minds to put spimes everywhere and stop global warming or something. Shareholders are shareholders; they buy and sell stock and look to the bottom line. As for "they shouldn't expect to always profit" -- they have to expect that, because without that expectation, they have no discliplinary edge over the CEO and the company. That's normal. If they run begging to the Fed to bail them out now, that's not because good advisors who always told Asian governments to do this are now blind about their own situation in the U.S.; the same good advisors are wringing the hands and the government is merely lurching out of a crisis. I realize there are many lurid headlines now and we may all be carrying bushels of dollars around in shopping carts to buy bread next week, but we still put our money in banks, they still pay out interest at the moment and still offer insurance. Um, you always have me confused with some figurative right-wing Republican nutter who drives around in an SUV thumping bibles and looking the other way as her own teen gets pregnant while preaching abstinence. Sorry, wrong pew. I'm not "against taxation". I don't have a problem with taxation; I pay taxes and benefit from them. Who doesn't? There can be more participation in how they are spent, i.e. not spending them on an illconceived war in Iraq. I'm not sure that my tax dollars are best spent, say, propping up an institute of Connectivists to sit on Moodle and Twitter all day, it's debatable. |
| Re: Skeptic |
| I think people are awfully thin-skinned if they insist on blasting their opinions and lifestyles and beliefs all over the Internet and its many forums, and yet can't take a critique of all their self-expression. |
 | Re: Skeptic |
|
Hi Andrew. What caught my eye in your post was "When I critiqued the proposed models and theories of facilitation espoused and demonstrated, I largely got ignored." There are many different places to read and discuss on this course, and I am sure that we'll all be doing a lot of ignoring, or communication management. I am imagining lots of little flurries of discussion (some of it back-channel). Hopefully some of those at least will be true dialogue where people are at least open to changing their minds, and ideas can grow. I am looking forward to seeing how the variety of points of view can be accommodated. |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
Hi Frances: Well stated! Much of what is written, not only in classes of 1600 student but EVERYWHERE in our information-laden world, will pass sadly into oblivion without much fanfare. In my experience, sorting, prioritizing, and identifying key points in a mediated environment is the trickiest part of a 'democratic' learning. The measures for determining success are much different than in a traditional, outcome-based environment. They are led by 'facilitators' rather than teachers, and much of the learning outcomes are determined by the learners rather than previously-established goals. Many of us haven't changed our way of thinking about learning environments. During my first online course a significant portion of the mark was determined by participation in on-line discussions. I was aghast that the professor merely counted the QUANTITY of posts each student contributed rather than the QUALITY of information, so the student who posted emoticons for the whole term received a higher grade than I did for what I believed were thoughtful contributions. Over the coming weeks I'd like to hear how other learners extract value out of this environment. For me, much of the value will no doubt be in mastering the technology and utilizing some of the methods in my work with university students. Others are obviously leaps and bounds ahead of me, and focussed in other fields. Obviously, their experience will be very different from mine.... |
| Re: Skeptic |
| Good points, Kathleen. Here's the crux of the issue for me. When we can go into a virtual world and get quality learning without sitting an avatar in a virtual classroom watching virtual slides in a virtual building so they can be as virtually bored and unstimulated as we and our students are in the real world, we will finally "get it.". It's about serving the knowledge in the best way it can be received not as is most comfortable to us because it's all we've known and are comfortable with. |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
I think that it's hard to expect to learn, or to obtain outcomes, for a course for which you have not paid real money. It is a kind of hobby; neither you nor the "facilitators" are paying or being paid, and that does matter. |
 | Re: Skeptic |
|
Hi Catherine, I take your point, but I am not sure I share the same opinion... well, maybe because I have a different expereince. As far as my experience goes I have learned far more in "unofficial courses" (not sure if this is the right term) than in any other course which I had to apply for, go through the selection process [ being judged if I was fit for that learning experience, even though I wanted to be there], and then having my learning being measured by a group of people according to a set of standard criteria which would let them know if I met their learning objectives or not. I don't want to say paid courses are better or worse than free courses, but I think there are space for both and both can have high quality as they can also be quite bad. I can give you a practical example (and that's the only thing I can do - to relate to my own experience) - When I started my Mphil in Educational Technologies, it was also the time I started to participate actively in online discussions/communities and take part in free online course for and by educators, who generously volunteered to give some of their time to others in exchange of nothing material. The deal was, and is, learning together, although there is an intensive preparation process in the background by the moderators. And I must say that while I was doing that in parallel with my "official" studies, I felt, and feel, I got more from what I learned from these free learning opportunities, and with the people who were there with the same intent, than from that certified course. Maybe because I was there free-willing, and so were others; maybe because I learned how nice it is to learn at my own pace; maybe because there was no pressure to pass any course or get that score - officially it wouldn't have any impact on my job (no certificate!), but it actually did and a lot... it improved my practice and widened my perspective as a teacher. Such initiatives have opened so many doors and learning opportunities to so many people who otherwise would have been left out. I am one of these people. In Portugal (where I am originally from), education budgets are very "thin", scholarships are almost an "oasis in a desert", formal education is expensive... if it hadn't been for the free online learning opportunities and the generosity of those who open their learning environments to others, I would definitely not be at my current job! There are great ways to pursue learning for free and with quality. Hobbies also require a lot of dedication...if one sets his/her mind and heart to it. And they are also good fun. |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
You raise an interesting point -- how many here in this big enchalada online with 1,900 people are in the fields of education, or computer science, or digital arts, so will have pre-set attitudes about these theories? And how many, like myself, are from completely other fields, so we don't feel any call whatsoever to genuflect? Raise your hand. I'll bet we'll find enormous numbers of educators interested in nouveau theories and kids interested in computer/digital arts stuff and not, oh, experts on 19th century English literature. Just a test. In the old days, before we had to describe every style of learning as connective or not, you could just "audit a course". That course might stick with you much longer than the courses you had to take for credit and pass an exam in. And sure, hobbies are great, and I myself love to read up on new media etc etc and think about the issues but -- it's just a hobby. I could have taken up stamp-collecting, and might have in another era; instead, I collect friends on social media services. The point is, thin educational budget or not, school systems need to identify the basics that prepare people for real jobs in the real world. They can't all be IT guys working for big IT companies or professors living off university grants. What is that set of facts and sources of knowledge that the modern child must learn? He doesn't want to learn math or the history of the American revolution; it's more fun to play WoW and learn the farm more complex skills of ancient MMORGP lore and the wonky game panel with all the skills and spells and auction house sales. So, can you convert normal math and history to a game? Why do such serious games end up being boring? Can you somehow "apply" WoW knowledge to anything but, oh, fighting the war in Iraq? These are the questions that bear pondering. |
 | Re: Skeptic |
|
mmm so people are learning and teaching just because they want to, and thats a problem? I'm doing a PhD without fees. I had an education that was free/ state funded. I totally agree, this matters, but I suspect we are on different sides of a political fence on this one. Back to connectivism ... |
| Re: Skeptic |
| Alisa, I suggest you think about who pays. Someone always pays. It if all came out of taxes, or it came out of the state essentially confiscating everyone's wages -- someone is always working, someone is always paying for what you get "for free". |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
I do not agree with you, I have learned from free courses. I invite you to take one of the free EVO 09 sessions next year and see for yourself. As I am paying for this one, do you think that the exchange of money will warranty that I learn? Besos. Maru |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
Catherine may have a point about payment, in that it tends to help people continue to feel motivated to continue with a course. On the other hand, I, and many others I have known, have taught people who haven't paid, and have had to continue to make the content and presentation sufficiently engaging to retain the learners. On many paid for courses I have been on, this is not the case, because the motivational aspect of it being paid for has been used as a lazy approach to maintaining a level of commitment. Compelling courses can exist in either free or paid-for environments, but the poor examples do not seem to be weeded out of the ecology as quickly in the latter. |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
Catherine Fitzpatrick said "I think that it's hard to expect to learn, or to obtain outcomes, for a course for which you have not paid real money. I can see that it is important to observe outcomes and feel that we have learned when we have paid for a learning experience. On the other hand, some of my most valued learning has been outside of formal education. Trying to link this to connectivism (about which I am open-minded), I think that knowing who to ask, and where to find out are very useful skills that most likely come out of being an aware social being, rather than a student on a formal (paid-for) course. One thing that fascinates me is the reaction of the (15?) people who paid to be on this course, and can/will get accreditation. Of course there is no need to tell me, but I am wondering if you, Catherine, are one of the paying customers, and if not, why you are here. |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
Hi, I'm not Catherine--but I'm not paying "real money" but I am already getting alot out of this course. However, all of us are paying in and with our 'time'. That is worth quite a bit. Not to mention - our energy. our brains. thoughts. How odd that 'real money' would be what would motivate someone to learn... In fact, even in the life-long learning field, there are lots of studies to show that not paying 'real money' does NOT mean that a person will or will not be more committed to learning the topic. (that is a 'belief' which typically says more about the person saying it than anything else...) But, then again--I work for a public library and we put on thousands of programs a year--and though people pay their library taxes to support the library system--they all seem so so surprised and excited to know they do NOT have to pay anything additionally to attend a program. anyway-- Just reading and knowing a little about the people who have found their way to this spot - from all over the world - is a wonder to me. Best, Marlena in Missouri |
| Public Libraries and personal investment |
|
That's a really good point about our personal investments of time. That's why I think that there will be little side spaces of discussion, as people try to manage the noise. And how great that someone from a public library system should answer. I have just returned from ALT-C 2008, and in our workshop 'Learning Across the Digital Divide', Josie Fraser (just awarded ALT Learning Technologist of the year) spoke of her love for the public library system and we should fight to preserve it - hear hear! |
 | Re: Skeptic |
|
What I've found in SL with numerous "digital arts" and "web 2.0" classes and seminars is that they are not about studying new technology in some kind of open-minded and critical manner, willing to accept any outcome. Instead, they are social vehicles, devices for spreading various rewarmed Marxist thought or old 1970s educational theories dressed up in cyber clothing. They are intended to socialize people to accepting various maxims of the California Ideology or the Geek Religion -- i.e. that code is law; that technologists rule in any area because every area is attached to the Internet, so that tekkies believe they are experts on everything from health to economics; that copyleftism rather than copyright has to be installed; inordinate praise and privileging of open source code, etc. etc. I'm suspicious of "educational activities" that are merely a Trojan horse for inserting full-blown hardleft or extremist ideologies like Extropianism, and there's an awful lot of this going on now under the guise of "learning". First off I'm only superficially aware of Second Life as I don't have a chance to use it as an educational tool, nor as a participant. I guess I'm skeptical of a second life when I don't have time for my first. In my experience with the web (pre-2.0! old and with nostalgia!) I've had the polar opposite of your experiences and criticisms of web 2.0, and connected networks in general. There's a few places online that I frequent that pool their collective knowledge for no other reason than to learn from each other. Now granted, most of my (daily) interactions were/are in informal educational settings; but the fewer formal settings were not doctrine driven at all. Perhaps the disproportionate representation of left and right are because the right hasn't figured out how to make money off of it yet?  As for copyright and all that, in my opinion, the paradigm has shifted and it's time for ingenuity and thought to come back and figure out a way for intellectual property to be recognized. I believe it will, just in a different way that hasn't been envisioned yet. Anyways, skeptics always ask good questions, just thought I'd throw in my virtual two cents. Jon |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
As in much of normal life, there is in most cases neither left nor right but necessity. People need to get paid to live. If they live in SL and spend time there, they create or perform services and they want to get paid, so they can make a living. There is nothing wrong with getting paid. This idea of people forming communes online and just learning together often neglects the harsh reality that people *need to get paid to live*. Innovation and ingenuity are worthless *if people cannot get paid from them*. These "8 generatives* are useful only to a very tiny handful of technically skilled who might be able to provide consulting on top of OS coding -- it's not an accessible and free economy. SL has actually proved to be rather accessible and open and enabled lots and lots of people of all kinds of skills to get paid, with a wide variety of concepts ranging from mundane or vulgar to brilliant. Intellectual property is property. Rights to it must be recognized and this is very much wedded to commerce -- the whole point of placing rights. I'm afraid that these concepts of getting online and "learning together" often prove to be very self-referential. You learn about...how to get online and learn together. You discuss various tools and get excited about various Web 2.0 stuff. But...what is the content? |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
Catherine said: I'm afraid that these concepts of getting online and "learning together" often prove to be very self-referential. You learn about...how to get online and learn together. You discuss various tools and get excited about various Web 2.0 stuff. But...what is the content? I've often wondered this myself. Maybe this is inevitable whatever the innovation. I'm told it took people ages, after movie cameras were invented, to move beyond filming trains moving on a track. Was this wasted time part of the learning? a necessary step into what film has become today? Many years ago when I was cruising online communities to try understand what they were I was struck by the distance between experts (who talked authoratively about the various stages, user characteristics, design considerations) and the most active communities at the time. The latter were often dog-ugly, had an interface that forced the user to work out how things worked (rather than being inviting and cosy) and broke all the rules I'd been reading about however the membership was usually large, boisterous, anarchic and palpably real. Popular online communities today are somewhere between the two. I'm not sure why I'm recounting the story except that your comments remind me of it. Several minutes ago I came across this article in Wired mag Games without frontiers which describes how a bunch of kids online developed sophisticated skills in strategy, databases, etc while pursuing other goals. It's a good read and again, I'm just sharing impressions rather than any specific thought or conclusion. I know what you're saying about the true believers and the whole evangelical thing and how it can be lampooned. But I get the sense that the wasted time is important anyway. cheers rose |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
Rose, I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time accepting this concept of people spending all their time filming moving trains when they first got cameras moving. That doesn't seem to track, if you'll forgive the pun. This sounds like Clay Shirky and the gin carts again, fetching false parallels out of history to make some point about new media. I'm not sure that kids will find paying jobs after learning all those skillz online. |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
Catherine said: You learn about...how to get online and learn together. You discuss various tools and get excited about various Web 2.0 stuff. But...what is the content? Catherine, I may be completely off here, so I apologize in advance. Yes, people get excited about new technological tools like kids with new toys. For some, the process may provide more excitement than the actual content. However, what is great for one, may be dull for another. The content varies according to the individual. Life and people may not be that simple. I think variation is the key. Online connections are about learning with others about various topics. However the process may be just as important as the subject area or content. Let me ask you this: What do you expect to gain from learning and do you learn from the final outcome (content) or do you also learn from the process? I respect the fact that you may find the process of learning together online useless, but I also respect those who find online learning useful. I would like to know whether skeptics are here to understand or dissuade others? Warm wishes, Nellie http://connecting-online.blogspot.com |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
I don't believe I stated that there was something wrong with getting paid, you may be reading into what was said. Online learning communities are going to be flavoured by the people who created them, so the leftist or rightist bent is coming from the creator (who in my opinion has perceived power, as they are seen as the leader). As for innovation and ingenuity, they are not worthless if people can't get paid from them, they just aren't worth money. There are lots of things in this world that are worth something and are not valued in money. Yes, we need money to exist; to do the things we want to do. Money is a (the?) driving force behind society. When you talk about SL being able to get people paid, is this is virtual currency or real currency? Self-referential? Well, I'll disagree. I think a lot of people are past the discovery phase and are starting to use the tools that are available for some use. A lot of the online spaces are for ideas that we might not see any sort of end result. Sure it would be nice to see more substantial gains, but I expect that like most things, new frontiers are broached slowly and carefully. |
 | Re: Skeptic |
|
I'm reminded of Ben Franklin's response to a skeptic who was present at an early balloon ascent. As they watched the giant paper bag filled with hot smoke rise slowly above the ground, the fellow said, "What earthly use is THAT?" Wise old Ben replied, "Of what use, Sir, is a newborn baby?" |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
The typical backhanded comment about people who feel themselves superior to Second Life is that "they don't even have time for a first one," as if they live such rich and superior first lives, that having a second life would be not even a luxury, but merely a sign of dysfunction -- the need to "get a life" and the cliche of someone being a 300 lb truck driver in a basement. But Second Life is just a normal tool like any other tool, a service, an Internet with pictures, that you can use as little or as much as you like, and it blends into first life, and wouldn't become a substitute for first life, unless somehow you wished it to be -- and that might not then doom you to becoming a dysfunctional dweeb, but merely mean you found a living as a graphic artist or instructor or sales person online. We already spend enormous amounts of our waking time online, and even cut into our sleeping time to say online, reading or writing blogs, reading and answering mail, studying news sites. So your rich first life is already in fact...spent online. So what if some of that online time is in a virtual world, while you have 10 other tabs open doing 12 other things? It's hardly that different than Skype. You can't really conceptualize it as "right or left" as it it's more about "have a business or a non-profit". Plenty of people even with goofy extreme copyleftist ideals in fact have little businesses where they make money scripting things or selling gadgets like little capitalists, they would be shocked if they actually studied what they are doing. But they do it because it's "fun" or challenging. |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
Hi Catherine! I just sent a reply but I addessed it to Skeptic instead of Catherine or Prokofy, I hope you do not mind. Thanks for posting this kind of posts, as you can see by the number of replies it gave the group a lot of thought material. Thanks also for pointing out that Connectivism could be taken as a new religion. For someone new to e-learning, like me, your thoughts help to balance my ideas and conceptions about Connectivism. Love: Maru |
 | Re: Skeptic |
| This whole discussion makes me think of all the posts I have read in the blogs I follow that describe or critique the EdTech blogosphere as being an echo chamber for just the reasons you describe. I believe the reason for this echo chamber effect (and also the reason Andrew's critiques seemed to fall on deaf ears) has to do with the intense personalization of a network. People tend to include in their network voices that they can relate to or voices that reinforce their own way of thinking. I for one know that I have been guilty of this. It is probably human nature. My fear is that if taken to an extreme and this concept is applied in the future to greater circles of influence that some day everyone will simply interact only with other like minded people. What would that world look like? Self segregation along ideological lines? |
| Re: Skeptic |
| Carl, this is already happening and that's why far from enhancing the open society, networking and new learning and all the Web 2.0 jazz tends to make only posses and echo chambers that are supremely hostile to criticism or even differences. |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
And surely, this is exactly what happens in the paper based world of academic endeavour and published journals? How many times, one wonders, has a correct analysis or insight not made it past a hostile peer-review because it does not fit in to the current way of thinking? How long have various fields of study been held back as a result? The problem there is not to do with connectivism per se, but human nature. People, by and large, seek validation of their ideas, and in general are uncomfortable with being challenged. This is probably one of the reasons that different schools of thought emerge on topics, and, I would argue, as long as there is the opportunity for interplay between those schools, this is a good thing. The barriers between them allow for ideas to reach a level of maturity before they are quashed by those who hold a differing opinion, for whatever reason. The advantage, surely, of clarifying the nature of the connections and making things more open is that it actually decreases the chance of the dissenting voice being ignored? |
 | Re: Skeptic |
|
hi Catherine <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:21.0cm 842.0pt; margin:72.0pt 89.85pt 72.0pt 89.85pt; mso-header-margin:35.45pt; mso-footer-margin:35.45pt; mso-paper-source:15;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> Agreeing with your remark on the lack of critical thinking and with the risk of creating like-minded circles that do not grow. But this type of discussion is part of history and evolution itself. cheers |
| Re: Skeptic |
| "Skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found." [Miguel de Unamuno, "Essays and Soliloquies," 1924] |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
Naah, it's ok to question and ok to assert another point of view in resistance to a doctrine, education and the search for knowledge in fact depend on such actions, it is only in a narrow-minded conformist world that you would insist that the skeptic only investigate and never voice a contrary opinion. Where do you guys pick up all this conformism? Don't you debate things in college any more? |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
Nothing like a forceful contrarian viewpoint to kick things off! A couple of years ago I went a couple rounds with George on the notion of connections versus nodes. Point being, connections are useless if the things they connect aren't of value. That said, sometimes the point of a new learning experience is simply to learn a new way of learning. |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
What is so interesting about this idea of having such a large, open, online course is that it really explores the idea of collective learning in practice. Connectivism, as I see it, is a framework within which to analyse and examine concepts in ways which help us think. What will be fascinating for George Siemens and others, is engaging with the perspectives of hundreds of people - I doubt very much that this has been before. So critical thinking seems an intrinsic part of this whole project - is the concept robust and meaningful from multiple perspectives? V- I guess you have to start by believing that others have something intellectually valuable to add - and also that there are many who have the generosity to help progress thinking on such an interesting and relevant theory. I think the enrolment numbers are evidence of interest and a willingness to participate in thoughtful debate. This project is brilliant in my view: exciting, interesting, even brave - and the amount of work put into designing this course is already evident. Critical thinking is only possible if knowledge and understanding is deployed to interpret and analyse - enquiry that is informed by fact essentially .... Without that in-depth understanding, questions and enquiry have the potential to stand out simply as 'critical'. Deferring judgements until later in the course gives us a chance to hear from multiple perspectives and participate in the learning process as it develops. Can't wait. . |
 | Re: Skeptic |
|
Way to go Tessy, This forum raises many issues that mainstream education will need to come to grips with in the very very near future. You are right in stating that it is still 'early days' & that we should all do an impact evaluation on whether participating in this course has changed us in someway. 'Listening' to many diverse opinions on whether constructivism as a theory of learning is viable, reading critical / sceptical posts on the concept, experiencing your own learning in the course. All of these things contribute to how the almost 2000 participants on this course engage with the course content, networks & structures. No doubt the conversations will also continue long after this course officially concludes. This course has already (IMHO) met one of it's objectives. Which is to allow a discourse to take place amongst many people interested in teaching and learning about how the 'read - write web' can be utilised to enhance individual's access to learning opportunities. Look forward to reading more posts on this topic |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
>This course has already (IMHO) met one of it's objectives. Which is to allow a discourse to take place amongst many people interested in teaching and learning about how the 'read - write web' can be utilised to enhance individual's access to learning opportunities. Well, actually no, I don't think that's good enough whatsoever. It hasn't met the objective. Just having a big gabfest on the party line about some Web 2.0 gossip isn't learning, and it isn't proof that this ideology will work to teach children. Nothing whatsoever of the kind. Until you have really practical examples of real knowledge that people really aquire and then utilize in some meaningful way could you test this. But so far, we have no content in the system. We have "only connect" and no context. Context is thrown out the window. I simply think we don't need to giddily rush to look for "outcomes" when they aren't there just because a lot of people had an online hootenanny. |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
Presumably you are saying that the statement of one of the objectives is incorrect, as there would appear to be prima facie evidence that the objective as stated here has been, and is still in the process of being, met. Your rejoinder says that it hasn't been met because there isn't any evidence of learning (although I would debate that point) - but that is not part of the objective which you are saying has not been met - unless I am missing something? So far I have learned several things. One of them is that some people have a hostile reaction to the idea of sharing things without remuneration. I have also learned about some technologies which are useful to me in terms of being able to better organise resources and discuss them with others (diigo, for example) and that some people consider there to be a noteworthy difference between groups and networks (which I am still to be fully convinced of, probably because of different personal interpretations of the words). I have also discovered that the 'network' is able to draw my attention to things in the area of eLearning which I was previously unaware, despite spending a reasonable amount of time researching the area. And that most people do not seem to include the people as part of the technology - to me they are part and parcel of the same thing, and I think the set up of Moodle here is an example of that. I also do not think that this will ever be proof that this 'ideology' will work to teach children - it has the wrong participants to be able to do that, and I am not at all convinced that it was ever intended to. It may (or may not) provide evidence to suggest that it could be worth a trial in the arena of child education, however. |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
1. No, it's not "hostile" to say that sharing things without rumeration isn't a valid basis for Web 2.0, or at least, not the ONLY basis as so many radicals and opensourceniks want to be. It isn't about "hostility" but about pluralism and diversity -- about freedom. People also need to get paid. I was so glad to hear a fellow interviewed by Scoble today at www.scobleizer.com on Open Mesh talk about the need to "bake in monetarization". We need to make money. That is ok. 2. If you have heard that some people, studying a kind of doctrine, find that there is a difference between "networks" and "groups," what does that matter except as a kind of cocktail convo or scholarly debate after hours, so to speak? The people you see physicalyl before you either in a classroom or online in some kind of interface are a group. They don't hook up even to each other; they came to hear YOU. And that's ok. Pretend for working purposes that there isn't a difference between a group and a network that matters, anyway. 3. I'm glad you talked about "including people as part of technology". That is what the Second Life experience will convince you. The new social software in a virtual world or interactive social media setting means we must now start talking about a third thing -- hardware, software, and socialware. Socialware always impacts its user, let's say, as a hypothesis, and the user's use of it becomes integrated with the user's sense of himself in such a total and immersive way that you cannot talk about tool and hand anymore, let's say. So accordingly, the user has to be far, far more democratically and usefully involved in making that software which is now socialware. It is no longer "mere code" but "code that always has a social context that must influence the code always and everywhere". That last bit gets the tekkies' backs up, as they are used to thinking of code as merely their domain, what they work on, that causes action and reaction on others using the software -- that's why interfaces, usability are often of no interest to them because they are making it, not using it. In the socialware scene, the coder is integrated into the product and unfortunately, is welding his worldview into it. That's why it matters if his worldview is a Bolshevik or an Extroprian or a Ron Paul view, because it will be something I'll feel on my hide in a minute. It will affect choices of how I experience relationships in a meaningful way, or even an immersive world, not merely how I edit a document. |
 | Re: Skeptic |
|
Catherine, It is great that you are contributing your thoughts on this debate and it is important to not follow a purely Utopian view of Web 2.0 and it's associative uses. I think Andrew Keen makes some very salient points in his book on this subject as does Chris Anderson in his. By exploring both viewpoints I think we all find the middle ground and find our own truths. I do think your point 3 about "tekkies" to fairly uninformed though, to assert that they believe code is purely their domain and have no interest in interface and usability is widely unfair. Software, social or otherwise generally does not get accepted by society unless these issues have been addressed in the design, also then flushed out with beta testing. As with all product design, people will only use things that work for them. Every software developer I know (and I know a fair few) spends exceptional amounts of time on user interface design and usability. Technology Acceptance Models teach us that people are only willing to use technology on a mass scale if it actually benefits them or assists them in some way. You can't assert that early adopters are the only people keeping social software alive. That aside I find a number of your other assertions interesting and with some validity, particularly the concerns over the democratisation of learning and media, where is the sustainable business model for this democratisation and what is the wisdom of the crowd? We haven't yet found the middle ground to have that dialogue properly. |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
If my critique is "widely unfair," why doesn't everybody have a Linux machine on their desk? I rest my case. I agree that no middle ground has been found and part of that process is challenging the sordid little orthodoxies of the extreme leftism and extreme rightism that creeps into technical ideologies. |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
I don't see how you rest your case. You haven't proven your point, you've merely made an assertion of opinion unrelated to your original assertion, which was that programmers do not think about user interface, which I believe to be "widely unfair". Explain how everybody having a Linux machine on their desk would prove that programmers don't concern themselves with user interface? I have watched the forums over the last week get more and more immersed in your fight to challenge the ideologies of this course, at times you have made very valid points, others not so and the more people have disagreed with you, the less effective you have become in challenging their ideas and opinions. The reason people dis-connect from your viewpoint, is not whether you are right or wrong, it's your presentation of it that falters. You certainly lost my ability to follow your discourse a number of days ago as your language seemed to get more vitriolic and spiteful. This isn't a case of thin-skin, it is a case of time and not wanting to waste it on defensive posturing. So now I have a tendency to delete the e-mail notifiers of your posts because they've lost their point. That is a great shame as you started off with some thoughtful and meaningful viewpoints, but rapidly descended into defensive posturing and attack. So in your attempt to disprove connectivism, you've merely proved your own disconnected ideology. |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
You're obviously entitled to your beliefs, Jon, but most people who are outside the tekkie magic circle don't believe as you do, and do believe that IT people are overly controlling, lacking in intuition about normal user needs for interface, and overly sensitive to criticism about these two issues. The Internet and IT field is young; the feedback is still rather invisible to you, evidently, but with the power of social media tools, you'll be hearing more from us : ) I don't worry about being "more" or "less" effective because I'm not in some sort of calculated plot here. I'm merely providing my critique to the ideas of this course, one that is sorely needed, from my perspective, which is outside the Ivy Tower and the Magic Circle as I've indicated, and what sticks, sticks. I think you'll find that the people who are "vitriolic and spiteful" are people trying to silence me, and reacting with fury at the very idea of any criticism, and completely outraged at the idea that anyone could criticize this very special caste in our modern society, the geek, and its subset, the educational technologist. As I noted to my own and other's general hilarity on Twitter, if you put the term "thin-skinned geek" into Google, unfortunately, you only find about 6 returns, one of them from me lol. Ah, but the Internet is young. More is coming! I imagine you think you are very clever for having pointed out that the problem isn't my ideas or my critique, but my presentation. You are about the 1,098,027 person to say that, and it makes absolutely no dent on me. Like Dolores Claiborne, "I ain't doin' no beauty contests today". If you are able to discern the "wrongfulness" and "ineffectiveness" of my mere "delivery style," then bully for you, you are now free to focus on my ideas, which you claim you had no problem with. So...do so, and stop pretending that your unsupported critique of style isn't a stalking horse for your real attack on substance : ) I think it's more than fine to be defensive and to engage in counterattacks when you have such a concerted assault on yourself as I do, but so what? I continue to engage with the ideas and post my thoughts here and on my blog, undeterred. If you have this thread on e-mail delivery, uncheck it. If I am now proven to have a "disconnected ideology," that's great, as I don't want to be part of Hive Mind. |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
Catherine, I too find IT types to be incredibly thin skinned. I attribute it to the fact that organizations expect miracles from them at the same time cutting their budgets, not allowing time for training etc, or expecting user-friendly devices to come out without time for consultations with users. I myself have been a bit domineering, abrasive, and a bit demanding with my vision for a user-centered environment in my company. I have on times "shot the messenger" who was trying to fill a need but was given no resources (My time) to figure out what people wanted. The person was at version 1.0 and I was already at 2.0 in my head so my comments came out as a heavy handed critique when my ideas should have been "that's a good start" but I think we need a 2.0 requirements list." My boss advised me that we need to work with these people and it really is about change management and convincing others that the change is for the good and should be planned for sooner rather than later. Unfortunately, organizations work on budget cycles so miracles can't happen overnight. I have changed my approach and instead of people avoiding me at meetings or not inviting me for fear of what I will ahve to say about their software or Intranet site, they are now inviting me back again. Food for thought. |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
Catherine, Just to tackle a few of your points: "most people who are outside the tekkie magic circle don't believe as you do" - the argument of "most people" is an argument used when somebody can't actually validate their position, I think you'll find it a common tactic of Fox News when unable to substantiate a "news" item. Besides the people you're trying to attack there with your assumptions (I call them assumptions as you are clearly not informed) do not actually work in IT, they are interaction designers, a different field somewhat. "The feedback is invisible to you" - it couldn't be more visible actually, in a multitude of ways, some of which are down to Web 2.0 principles. "thin-skinned geek" isn't out there much because it's just not a good enough label, geeks need more venom. I'd actually like to see your definition of geek, from some of the articles about you, a non-geek would definitely label you one, so why the identity crisis? "I imagine you think you are very clever for having pointed out that the problem isn't my ideas or my critique, but my presentation" - There's nothing clever about pointing out the obvious and it is so obvious over a million people have pointed this out, it's a shame you don't believe in the wisdom of the crowds on this one, ideas only stick when presented or articulated well, it's the first rule of advocacy. What are your thoughts on William Farish who invented the grading system that lead to modern industrialised teaching? Much of your ideology seems to hark back to this great system. |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
"I guess you have to start by believing that others have something intellectually valuable to add". Well, actually, no, I don't. Why would I have to do that? Again, is the purpose to hold hands and sing Kumbayah, or study? Examine? Analyze? If I'm supposed to merely suck in these prefabricated ideas that these two guys cooked up while hanging out in their state-sponsored universities, then where's the learning? What's the education in that? I could go to church and Bible study and just imbibe that, and at least get some virtue out of it. I see a terrible shill going on with the entire Web 2.0 hocus and pocus. It's very important to keep demanding that it prove itself and explain itself. George merely has some pipe-and-plumbing stuff he's tacked up and I don't see the need to genuflect. There aren't any "facts" to be first absorbed here; there is only doctrines in a belief system. You can't possible claim that this is "science" or that there are accepted "facts" -- there aren't. It's neo-science, looking for validity. I don't see why knowledge and understanding have to chloriform themselves, and hold off interpreting and judging what common sense can tell any sincere investigator: there's a lot of hokum here. |
 | Re: Skeptic |
|
Hi George and participants I've been following this thread, inevitably, when your inbox is filled with an e-mail every minute or so from the same sender Sonia |
 | Re: Skeptic |
|
I'm a little out of synch here because I read this yesterday but real life hit with a vengeance and it's only now I've had a chance to sit down and say something. Trying to couch my thoughts in some kind of parameter I guess I'll start with process and product. The desired product is to get some pearls from the discussion but to attain that you've got to go through the process of trolling a lot of seabed. Put more palatably, in order to learn from someone, you've got to get to know the person and establish what each of you wants to learn from one another. Kind of hard when there are almost 2000 people who've suddenly landed in an online space, but let's negate that and say that these 2000 people had no contact whatsoever with one another. Clearly in that case they would learn nothing (from one another). It seems to me that what connectivism describes is how important it is that the connections be made in the first place and from that, assuming these are intelligent people with something to contribute to the discussion, someone's gonna learn somethin'. It's up to each of us to decide how much energy to devote to this means of learning as opposed to switching off the computer and reading a good book, say. But to me it's not just whether each message contains some information I can use, what's of value is to see how the organism flows in synch, how pearls in the mix might be aggregated and made to surface. And of course to reflect on what's happening. I'm not sure this posting will help YOU to understand what you are gaining from this course but writing it has helped ME to couch what I might learn in my own personal framework, and if we juxtapose a lot of such frameworks, what would we have? A scaffold?? Vance |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
1. You can unsubscribe to threads. 2. I believe you can mute people, or just delete them. 3. "Let's move on" is merely a grooming activity trying to suppress skepticism, which is something that you need to keep along for the entire ride. So, participate in skepticism or this thread or not, but stop the grooming behaviour, it's not necessary. |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
No, I don't think I need to move beyond grand, politically-based statements, George, as long as you are still purveying doctrine and with grand, politically-based implications. I don't fear the appearance of any belief of mine to be "fragile". Perhaps you do, I don't know. If the ideas are so complex, why would you make an introductory online free course be about digesting only one doctrine? It would really be more just and decentralized and fair and appropriate to say, "There are 10 points of view about cognition and learning and the pedagogical models you would infer from that knowledge. There are different schools of thought. We favour one of them, but here's how it is all outlined." Instead, you say, "There is only one way to truth through the power of the connection." |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
Catherine (can I call you Catherine? because it feels odd doing that), thank you for showing up here and saying this. One of the things that I find when running into online education is just how isolated various fields are from each other. Each department is hermetically sealed, with its own canon (and canon fodder of grad students) and each one teaches its own ideology of how the world is made and how that knowledge came about. A useful perspective on this may be then to say that these ideas are not really new, but that they have been seen before in some other form. I don't know if I'd call them "Marxist" (as you have), but there is bound to be more than one old dead credentially authority who can be invoked here. |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
Edward, you can call me by my name here. I don't think fields of study are as isolated as you think. In my own field of Eurasian studies I saw the professors and institutions scramble even 15 years ago to try to make more cross-disciplinary studies due to globalization and complexity of modern issues like health or finance. I myself have taught as a guest lecturer at courses where they combined three different departments to try to capture all the modern complex issues of the day. Perhaps it depends on the field. One of the ways in which Marxism has weaved its way back into the general discourage is that precisely because it was discredited with the fall of the USSR and the changes in Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Africa, the actual terminology of "Marxism" or its various concepts about property or society or governance were all remodelled, so as to avoid invoking charges of being "cold war" or "McCarthyite". And the concepts of communalism and such all migrated into a new set of terms, like "civil society" or "social media" or "learning". |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
Greetings fellow educators/facillitators/life coaches/what have you in today's 'wolf clothing' terms, I'm new(bie) here, but the 'skeptic' moniker piqued my interest being a tad of a 'contrarian' in the training game myself (so I have been told/accused), probably because i have no formal qualifications beyond 21 years in it.: Well, what do I want to say besides 'hi'?; not much, as preferring to sit back and watch/read the sparks fly (at which stage, all new developments occur, huh?) But on an idiomatic level, are you sure this 'new fangled' stuff really is 'wolves clothing' (i.e. the enemy within); or is it more the skepticism/contrarianism of 'old wine in new bottles', which is what I have been grappling with in training and the filip of so called new tech? My small concern is that a recognition of a concept of 'connectivism' appears to discourage personal interaction, thereby perhaps its corollary, 'disconnectivism', in what is still acknowledged as the constructivist's real world, becomes increasingly detrimental. (or what, second lifers?) At least that is the problem I have had when trying to train IT personnel! 'Thought you'd like to know'. |
| Re: Skeptic |
|
Well, how we all doing here today? Everybody become a believer already after some articles and tapes, or do you still need to buy the health shake for a mere $89.95 or attend the special training which will be a discounted $695 this week for early-birds, register now to connect to Connectivism at its source which is...always being revised and distributed! Paul, it's interesting that you would see Connectivism as something that appears to "discourage personal interaction". I wouldn't have thought to say that about it. If anything, it's personal interaction on steroids, no? But at another level, I feel what you are saying has some truth, because distributing networks, busily trying to extract knowledge units out of every encounter probably means that the interactions flatten and become utilitarian. I was made the subject of a discussion in another thread here about those posters who are "useful" and those who are "too harshly critical" blah blah -- there's always a schoolmarm to wag the finger at these sorts of gatherings. On the other hand, is the enormous amoung of extraneous social information you gather drinking tea and sitting at the oriental bazaar to make the deal on the rug and perhaps to marry off your daughter really...necessary? Worth all that time? Couldn't somebody have an occidental flea market and put the rug up for sale with a price tag and go do something else? And let the daughter go on Craigslist? |