Monthly Archive for October, 2008

“The classroom is nothing less than an state of the art information dump”

Published
by
Joost Robben
on October 31, 2008
in Uncategorized
. 2 Comments

This weeks topic at the cck08 course is about “Power, control, validity, and authority in distributed environments“, wow thats a whole lot of ground to cover in just one week. Moreover, i believe that the questions and issues that arise from this theme are very important if we want to move forward towards a more open and connected way of learning in (formalized) institutions.

I’ll try to externalize some of the things that i think are related and important to this subject trhough reflecting on some of my readings . One of these is an amazing post by Dr. Michael Wesch which i came upon by a tweet from Grainne Conole. The article is initinally meant to explain Wesch’ new insights on a video about the students perspective he co-produced a while ago. But while reading this i realized that Wesch is actually telling us a lot about power and control in the classroom.

Wesch explains how he felt about the classroom as he walked into it one day and he saw a lot of empty chairs, a large screen and a small stage for him to stand on. Wesch explains:

“The room is nothing less than a state of the art information dump, a physical manifestation of the all too pervasive yet narrow and naïve assumption that to learn is simply to acquire information, built for teachers to effectively carry out the relatively simple task of conveying information. Its sheer size, layout, and technology are testaments to the efficiency and expediency with which we can now provide students with their required credit hours.”

More than 400 students came into the room, and when Wesch started the class he noticed the following

“I started talking and an almost deafening silence greeted my first words”..but..“Somehow I seem to hold their attention for the full hour. I marvel at what a remarkable achievement it is to bring hundreds of otherwise expressive, exuberant, and often rebellious youths into a single room and have them sit quietly in straight rows while they listen to the authority with the microphone. Such an achievement could not be won by an eager teacher armed with technology alone. It has taken years of acclimatizing our youth to stale artificial environments, piles of propaganda convincing them that what goes on inside these environments is of immense importance, and a steady hand of discipline should they ever start to question it. “

But after class Wesch talked to his assistants who were sitting at the back of the class

“Apparently, several students standing in the back cranked up their iPods as I started to lecture and never turned them off, sometimes even breaking out into dance….The students were undoubtedly engaged, just not with me“

Ok….so what happens is that this teacher is pushed in his role as an authority and students have “learned” to play along but are actually engaged with something else. So using power on people and trying to control them doesnt really work…? I like the way Wesch describes the function of the classroom (auditorium like), it is just designed according to a power and control view on learning.

According to Wesch, the solution lies within looking beyond the walls of the classroom and technologies such as laptops, cellphones and i-phones should be welcomed in the classroom “we can use them in ways that empower and engage students in real world problems and activities”. In so, I think,  using technologies to give students the freedom to learn.

The things Welsch is struggling with reminded me of a book i’ve read a couple years ago by Carl Rogers called “Freedom to learn”. In this book (published in 1969!) Rogers tell us that he thinks that all teachers prefer to facilitate meaningful learning, but they are locked into a traditional and conventional approach:

“When we put together in one scheme such elements as a prescribed curriculum, similar assignments for all students, lecturing as almost the only mode of instruction, standard tests by which all students are externally evaluated, and instructor chosen grades as the measure of learning, then we can almost guarantee that meaningful learning will be at an absolute minimum.” (Carl Rogers)

Ain’t that one of the issue we come upon? Many of us would like to change their ways of teaching (and this also applies to management of course) towards a more open and engaging model but other elements are - at the least- not helping with this change.  I think we are in a kind of conflict here. As for example standardized (nationalized) curricula are helping to ensure a level of education among citizens and standardized test are made to have a grip on quality. Which of course is also related to power, or fear.

Difficult…:)

Design of virtual worlds

Published
by
Joost Robben
on October 28, 2008
in Uncategorized
. 0 Comments

I’ve just listened to an intersting interview with Jim Bower of Whyville, a virtual world for kids to chat, play and learn.

Jim argues for more understanding in how to design engaging learning activities. He tells us that engaging experiences in virtual worlds need to build around the combination of three major components:

  • social objects
  • economics
  • creation

A nice example of such a learning experience seems to be the new music maker in Whyville. Kids get the opportunity to create there own music tracks. They are able to listen to their music with friends and they can sell their music for so-called “clams” on the Whyville market.  From the sell records (out-sell of iTunes?) we can tell that there is maximum engagements though its hard to tell or measure what have been learned, I think.

Jim Bower argues that “traditional education is going to have to come to terms with the fact that its methods may no longer be the most effective way for learning to happen.” He’s trying to get schools to use Whyville as a didactic tool but sees a lot of resistance, “its too different from traditional school”. Jim thinks that vitual worlds best fit in the “workforce curriculum” as this is a rather new curriculum and schools are more open for new approaches. An interesting point from a organizational change perspective.

Searching the internet increases brain function

Published
by
Joost Robben
on October 16, 2008
in Uncategorized
. 0 Comments

In many publications on the Net-generation, assumptions were made on the effects that the use of media might have on the structure of our brains. The general claim was roughly that brain structures of todays youngsters have changed as a result of their intensive use of digital media and web technology.  Because of this event, we should change our learning strategies towards those kids. All well, but there were hardly any scientific studies to support those claims.

A recent study led by Dr. Gary Small  gives us some interesting new insights on the effects that the use of the web has on our brains. A press release of the UCLA shows us the main findings of the study that will be published in the next issue of the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. Results are also described in Dr. Small’s new book iBrain (Small & Vorgan, 2008).

The main findings of the study show that “searching the Internet triggers key centers in the brain that control decision-making and complex reasoning …. web search activity may help stimulate and possibly improve brain function.”

“Daily exposure to high technology—computers, smart phones, video games, search engines such as Google and Yahoo—stimulates brain cell alteration and neurotransmitter release, gradually strengthening new neural pathways in our brains while weakening old ones. Because of the current technological revolution, our brains are evolving right now—at a speed like never before” (Small & Vorgan)

The study was conducted with 24 volunteers with the ages between 55 and 76. Half of the group were experienced internet users, the other half were inexperienced.  Participants’ brain activity was measured during two separate activities, reading a book and searching the web. The image below shows us the results of an experienced user. On the left displays brain activity while reading a book, the image on the right displays activity while engaging in an Internet search.

You can see for searching the web, more and different parts of the brain are used that are not used during reading a book. Interesting finding was that this only happened with the more experienced internet users. According to Small, they might have learned to use more strategies to engage in an internet search.

According to an article by Judi Lin, Small argues on the Net-generation that the intensive exposure to the web is “rewiring their brain’s neural circuitry, heightening skills like multi-tasking, complex reasoning and decision-making.” But there’s a important node added to this: “All that tech time diminishes “people” skills, including important emotional aptitudes like empathy.”

On groups and emerging networks

Published
by
Joost Robben
on October 13, 2008
in Uncategorized
. 3 Comments

Last week’s conversation in the cck08 course has been on the distinction between networks and groups. Which is funny, because in his presentation George Siemens starts off by saying this is an unfair distinction as “they are the same”. Siemens tell is this because groups are a type of network. But aren’t we really talking here about the distinction of groups and the concept of “emerging networks” which i discussed in my previous post?

I get started to think that there is an interesting conflict underlying these two concepts and when overlook, often causes failure of designed learning environments. In this movie Stephen Downes elaborates on the differences between groups and networks.

“A lot of what people are presenting as online learning focuses on groups. I believe what online learning brings us looks more like networks” (Downes)

Groups are based on unity, coordination, closeness and are distributive in nature. Networks, according to Downes, are more diverse are  based on autonomy and openness and are connective in nature. So groups are manageable, they can be coordinated by a manager or a teacher. Groups have closed walls and teachers will present knowledge to their groups/ class. Groups will therefore need technologies like learning management systems which allow teachers to offer their class structure and manage their learning in a close environment. Networks cannot be managed. Members (learners) are autonomous and their learning environment is not bounded by (physical) walls. Networks need technology like personal learning environments, blogs, e-portfolio’s.

The mapping of groups and networks with the technology that fits with their charecteristics was a real eye-opener for me. It made me think about organizations wanting to implement portfolio’s in closed learning environments, demanding employees to write a blog post every week and doing this in a shared blog (non autonomous!), etc…..

Thinking about the differences between groups and networks is not a very easy task, but its very worthwile for every educator/ learning designer to be aware of the distinct differences between those. We (or I) certainly need to do a lot more thinking on the matter, make it concrete for deeper understanding. Many web 2.0 tools are gaining loads of attention nowadays for their educational/ learning purposes. We need to question ourselves wether such a tool was designed for a network audience or if it was based group principles and in what sort we would like to use it.