Jay Cross writes: "In a knowledge era, it is irresponsible to disregard the prime means of creating, sharing, and replenishing intellectual capital. Informal learning is effective because it is personal. The individual calls the shots. The learner is responsible. It’s real. It’s self-service. It is the only thing that will work with the digital natives who are now entering the workforce. In the past, learning focused on what was in the in-dividual’s head. The individual took the test, got the degree, or earned the certificate. The new learning focuses on what it takes to do the job right. That includes the business environment, work flow, colleagues, partners, and customers."
Cross has written a manifesto of informal learning as something to formally examine in a corporation. Or rather, the corporation as a knowledge community and informal learning as personalized learning. This is the first place I've seen the term "free-range learning." I like the term--it evokes the independence we strive for in our own home with our own children and our efforts to raise "free-range kids."
A nice, succinct description of curantion competency. I really like how he breaks down the levels of curation:
"There are multiple layers to curation, each of which has benefits when applied to learning and performance:
· Aggregation: Gathering and sharing relevant content. It releases the individual worker from needing to seek out the content.
· Filtering: Instead of simply aggregating content, filtering shares only those resources that are most relevant and valuable.
· Elevation: Recognizing a larger trend in the sea of seemingly less important content.
· Mashups: Merging two or more unrelated pieces of content to form a new message.
· Timelines: Organizing random pieces of content in chronological order to show the evolution of an idea."
The author is right that there still is a human need in this act of knowledge management. As one commentator added, "For me, curation is meaningless unless some value is added by the curator. That takes some time and effort..."
Student achievement scores take off with the implementation of tech-supported writing initiatives that cross curriculum lines. Rosie, I read this and thought of your project. Even though the My Access! Platform starts with 3rd grade writing I thought you might want to read more about some of the research cited in this article and visit the websites mentioned in the comments.
A very basic discussion of what instructional design using Web 2.0 technology means. Again, like pre-Web 2.0, it is about the learning, not the tool! What do you want students/learners to understand? To make it seem fresh and new, the author calls it Instructional Design 2.0.
How one teacher regards "technology integration." Be sure to read the comments: one person aptly points out that technology integration is often discussed as a necessity for "student engagement," implying that technology tools are devices for entertaining students. What does technology integration mean to you?
Dan Meyer is known as being a very innovative math teacher. He recently blogged about his experience using McGraw Hill's Algebra I ibook and has found that it isn't that innovative. It offers what one of my favorite professors, George Brackett, calls "chrome" but it isn't doing anything to change the way math instruction is delivered. Again, it highlights the importance that PEDAGOGY must undergrid the design of any technology tool for education. The sole benefit of ibooks cannot be that they are lighter than print books.
The textbook is now digital but students still encounter it as they always have: wisdom to be received, perhaps highlighted, annotated, and memorized, but not created, constructed, or made sense of. Teachers still interact with students as they always have. The platform doesn't offer them any new insights into the ways their students think about mathematics. As far as I can tell, the iBook doesn't establish any new link between the student and teacher, or strengthen any old ones.
What I'm saying, basically, is that I'd have to modify, adapt, and extend the McGraw-Hill iBook in all the same ways that I modified, adapted, and extended the McGraw-Hill print textbook. We'd pull out the iBook just as infrequently as its printed sibling."
It does seem that rethinking how we teach and learn keeps getting put on the back burner.
The flipped classroom model has had some success in K-12 classrooms, as well. I've heard about it working well in math classes. Video lectures are watched before class. Class time is spent doing the homework together. What can you take away from the flipped classroom model?
I laughed when I first read about "Pechaflickr", given most of our students experience with Pecha Kucha from EDUCE102 and/or EDUCE599. The idea is to go to http://pechaflickr.cogdogblog.com/ and try to "make sense of 20 random flickr photos, each one on screen for 20 seconds" and "make it fun" by doing it over Google Hangouts. I really like the idea Stephen Dowes makes here about possibly leveraging the tool for online language instruction.
Nancy, I am not sure how much you've been exploring the Open Education movement, but nowadays, I almost never hear a conversation about the creation of eBooks without including this parallel discussion. If you haven't already added this topic to your research, I'd encourage you to do so.
In the textbook development and adoption world, five years is not that long. In the world of every changing technology, five years is a long time. Nancy, I'm glad you are keeping us focused on this topic this semester. Very timely!
"But unless traditional teaching practices morph to adapt and fully take advantage of what mobile devices can afford, some fear the promise will go the way of all the technology collecting dust in the corner of the classroom. Worse, it might eventually lead to what everyone unequivocally dreads: the mechanization of teaching.“I’m petrified that we’ll apply new technology to old pedagogy,” Soloway said. “Right now, the iPad craze is using the same content on a different device. Schools must change the pedagogy.”
Precisely! Over the past 18 years, the time I've spent in the educational technology field, each emerging technology has the same story. It can change the way we teach and learn! It will revolutionize education! And then the same people again say, "we have to change our pedagogy. Seriously. We really have to change the pedagogy."
Oh my, what a gift to our Master's candidates! Our program did not hit on all the theorists on this list, nor even a majority of them. What a wonderful way to backfill some of your knowledge in a concise and reflective way. Be sure to read the comments as well as people advocate for theorists not on the list. Such as Friere and his connection to social learning. This is an important part of the "talking the talk" performance, aka "connecting theory to practice."
"Massive Open Online Courses are free, non-degree programs that have been drawing top professors and are seen as a tool for democratizing higher education."
Recently, I tweeted to Jason about researching MOOCs within the context of social learning. I have been intriguted by the concept and even have colleagues here at ESC who launched a MOOC this year. You can check that course out here:
I have been thinking a lot about designing PLEs and the concept of a MOOC for both formal and informal learning environments. The student is clearly in the center of this design and is right in line with what Stacie and I have been conceptualizing and doing for years in our courses. It would be interesting to see what a MOOC for our Exploring Educational Technologies course would be like...
Like photography before it, social media changes the way we perceive the world...
This article was suggested by Vera and I like the term, "Facebook Eye." Do you ever find yourself mentally composing a Facebook posting, even when you aren't at a computer? Or, as the author confessed, have you taken a picture of your beautiful meal before you've even taken a bite? This will have to become part of a standard media literacy curriculum. Soon.
Simon Sinek is the author of the book, Start with Why. This is the book I mentioned in Monday's class that talks about the importance of "why" instead of "what." In this interview, a blogger talked to him about his use of technology. He discusses Twitter and how he uses it to keep track of his "little ideas" throughout the day. This echoes our discussion on Monday--how long do these tweets hang around? Can we use our tweets as an archive of our small thoughts? Can we then look through these small thoughts to build our story, look for patterns, and make meaning?
Jane Hart is one of the people in my PLN--I read her blog and follow her Twitter feeds about social learning. In this blog, she talks about the need for a "Chief Collaboration Officer" in organizations. Yes, absolutely. She asks, "Who would be your CCO?" I wonder, how long will it take for organizations to value collaboration? It is a skill/habit of mind that is valued in K-12 education. Engineering departments at colleges have been among the first in higher ed to embrace collaboration because they understand how important it is for the practice of engineering after school. But what about organizations and even higher ed administration. What will it take for them to get there?
"Pinterest is the cool new social network. Although it’s been around for several months, suddenly bloggers can’t get enough." I've been seeing a lot of chatter about Pinterest and after reading this article I decided it was time to check it out. I just got my invite so I will post my thoughts about where it might be useful within formal/informal education soon.
Here is the G. Siemens blog post from July 2011 I was talking about in class. I've been thinking about what he's said, as well as the comments people made, all week. In the post, he offers that some social media hype is overstated (e.g., a hashtag is the equivalent of a social movement). He argues that "social media is about flow not substance". Some people blasted him for these statements in the comment section, saying that what he was claiming was in the face of his own theory of connectivism. He replied there was "no contradiction at all. Social networks do not equal social media. Connected specialization involves bringing together different information sources or people with different levels of expertise. I replied to Clive Shepherd’s blog addressing this in a bit more detail. Again, as stated in other comments, social media has a role to play. There is nothing in what I wrote in this post that contradicts assertions I and others have made about connectivism. For that matter, the first article I did in 2004 on connectivism was a few years prior to the current “social media” hype. You don’t need Twitter or Facebook to connect with others. That said, tools like Twitter/Facebook can be useful, but don’t mistake the tool as being the point of value, when it’s the connection it enables that is most critical."
I've been thinking a lot about how much I agree with him on this point.
He claimed earlier in the post, "Social media=emotions.
Blogging/writing/transparent scholarship=intellect. Put another way, Twitter/Facebook/G+ are secondary media. They are a means to connect in crisis situations and to quickly disseminate rapidly evolving information. They are also great for staying connected with others on similar interests (Stanley Cup, Olympics). Social media is good for event-based activities. But terrible when people try to make it do more – such as, for example, nonsensically proclaiming that a hashtag is a movement. The substance needs to exist somewhere else (an academic profile, journal articles, blogs, online courses)."
I understand where he is going with his argument and agree there are probably more people that use social media in the way he describes than those that do not. However, I did see an improvement in our EDUCE102 students reflections when we had them use Twitter to "mindcast" about things they were reading and thinking about. We had several students tell us at the end of the course how much they really feel in love with using Twitter as a result of this "new" way of using Twitter–they continue to "mindcast" instead of "lifecasting" on Twitter to this day. While I can agree, some of the value of social media might be overstated I am not sure I agree that social media tools like Twitter, FB, G+ are all simply about flow.
Weinberger offers that we don't have information overload, we have filter failure. Filters are both technical (emerging) and a literacy. This chart provides a graphical look at coping strategies. Who are you?