PORT MACQUARIE
(download)
(NB: The following post is an initial attempt to organize my thoughts on a presentation for local staff on the importance of online learning and holistic design. It's written partially in a speaking voice, as if I were saying it loud; because ultimately that's the point. I'll expand on it as I can but wanted to post the first section as-is. Expect it to change, but comments are welcome.)
------------------------- Too frequently, and for too long, online learning has been little more than a footnote to the "real" learning that occurs in the classroom. As a result, the way online learning was - and is - approached is little more than a supporting text for what happens elsewhere, rather than a holistic cycle in itself. People upload PDFs and PPTs into learning management systems, doing little more than softly echoing the same one-directional lectures that take place offline. What if we looked at online learning as something more that the mere replication of what has already taken place and started thinking about what can be done that isn't possible offline. What if we started thinking about a holistic cycle of online learning as a process. What would it look like? Take Chris Hughes' diagram of the learning process for example. Many of you will know more about this process than I do, of course; but just consider what this process might look like online. - introduce itThere seems to be a neverending debate in educational technology when it comes to use of free online services. Particularly when it comes to web developers and IT folks, the common reaction is that free services, such as those offered by Google, are bad, not to be trusted and institutions and instructors must always keep activities in-house.The argument goes that we have no control over what happens in external services in terms of outages, security, and preservation (or access to) data, not to mention the equally significant reality that most users don't even glance at the terms of use and tend to adopt sites without the slightest clue what they've just agreed to. There's also the fact that at least some people will try to seek out local support for any service they use - even those the institution may never have heard of.In some regards I see where they're coming from in this, but really my perspective is that we need to examine all options and possibilities in educational technology, because in diversity lay opportunity. The reality is that the scale of the internet, and all the providers in it, offers far more opportunity and choice than a single institution could ever hope to replicate. There are solutions to suit virtually any use-case or need, from the most mammoth to the most specific. In this respect asking people not to use these services in favour of far less personalised local solutions is limiting the potential learning opportunities that might exist, and in many regards creating artificial or arbitrary delineations between life and learning in the classroom from that outside of it.That said though, the themes of security, data preservation, privacy, and legal obligations are significant ones to contend with. Yet it seems to me that these are topics that the average person should be familiar with - not sheltered from. Living and working in an era in which information and interaction with others is increasingly occuring online requires at least a basic awareness of the implications and safe working practices. If we do not leave opportunities open for people to explore and develop these skills in a safe environment, then we are in fact doing them a disservice.There is a whole lot more to this train of thought than I've included here - from both persectives. My point is that I don't agree that ruling out use of free services is a particularly sensible option - or even a practical one. What's needed, really, is more informed use of free services.
This morning during one of the rare instances when I actually get to browse through my neglected list of RSS feeds I saw a passing call for predictions and commentary on the future of education in preparation for a short course that (I believe) David Cormier and George Siemens are facilitating. Not being one to shy away from the opportunity to criticise the establishment, I wanted to offer up a few thoughts of my own on the matter.Perhaps I'm in a pessimistic state of mind, or my years in the uni system have made me jaded, but I expect that traditional institutions won't change much at all in the future. I think that change in the current formal educational landscape is so inherently avoided and feared that its entire structure and being has developed and evolved to combat and undermine anything and anyone innovative or remotely avante garde. As if the system has developed a sense of self-preservation in which retaining existing social, heirarchical and authority structures are the ultimate priority, and the only people allowed to thrive and advance are those who align or comply with the status quo.We will not see much recognisable difference in these educational institutions in 50 years.What I think we will see though is the emergence or strengthening of an educational counter-culture outside of the stagnating walls of traditional institutions, inspired by the exodus of of the innovators, dissidents, and people generally unsatisfied with the unrelenting constraints of the traditional model.Homeschooling is one distinct area I think will continue to expand, but by no means the only one. I think we will see more and more charter schools, open universities, learning cooperatives, open educational networks, and other self-supporting bodies, each of which adopts a model that empowers and supports their learning styles, philosophies and preferences.This in turn, I believe, will inspire reactive policy measures in state and federal government that seek to undermine the counter-culture and pull them back into the fold of existing formal institutions. Whether this takes the form of reduced financial affordances, grants or allowances, increased establishment procedures, or unreasonable reporting requirements, the ultimate objective will be to try and forceably inject as much of the traditional model, philosophy and pedagogy into the emerging educational counter-sector as possible.To me the future of education is very much a political one, characterised by the battle between those who strive to pursue and protect the freedom to learn what we want, how we want, when we want in whatever manner we choose and those who believe we must learn in a certain way, under certain conditions, and always under the watchful eyes of The State and The Expert.
I'm going to have to unpack this considerably to properly interpret the meaning of what happened this afternoon - or more appropriately what didn't happen - because the information session I just finished presenting for the entire faculty attracted a total of 3 people. Three people, that is, including the guy from central IT who wanted to see what people thought of the service. I don't take this personally by any means. I think the realities of the situation are more complex than that. In fact the two people from the faculty who did attend seemed to get something out of it, and I hope what was captured on the recording (assuming it worked) will be of use to people in the future.Just because they didn't attend today doesn't mean they won't want to listen to what took place later - or that what occurred was useless. In that respect I'm quite grateful to the staff who did attend because they helped raise some important questions and topics I might have overlooked otherwise.No, my interest in picking this outcome apart is far more pragmatic and forward thinking. I want to find out why people didn't come so I can avoid making the same mistakes next time - if they were in fact mistakes. I want to try and identify what should have happened or should have been done differently, or perhaps what perspectives should have been addressed or circumstances considered.I overlooked something fundamental here that I need to identify and resolve.The first possible cause was the time of year. Session has only just begun, and in all likelihood people may have just been too busy. My logic had been that I'd be discussing things that were relevant to them right now, however being innundated by start of session logistics and load has a habit of drowning out most everything else.The second possible cause was lack of awareness that the session was even taking place. I opted not to use the faculty explode list, instead asking the TELT Administrators if they could forward my invitation along to anyone I thought would be interested. It's possible that this message was forgotten or over looked; that it got lost in people's inboxes, or they just didn't get around to sending it. It's also possible that it was sent and people just didn't read it.In any case I think using the explode next time is a better idea. The third and equaly likely possibility is that people just didn't care and didn't want to hear about it. This is perhaps the most complicated possibility to contend with because it's the most difficult to resolve. Bad time of year? Just schedule it in a slow period next time. Didn't get the email? Ensure many different communication channels are pursued. Don't care about the technology and/or the potential learning and teaching benefts that might emerge from it? That's a much different story.At this point it's unclear which of the above possible causes might have contributed to the negligible attendance. I'm inclined to think they all did. But I need to find all this out for certain, because faculty outreach can only really work when the faculty is open to the possibility.
Following on my post yesterday on individuality and diversity, there is a flip side of the discussion that needs to be covered too. A common argument in the face of innovation or new systems - which I explored here just the other day in fact - is the lack of resourcing. Resourcing for support, for maintainance, for training and documentation. Basically the issue of how the system is to be effectively translated to a sustainable service.This is a significant crux in the issue. When we view systems as "services" that others will support we heap an entirely new set of demands and requirements into the equation - far broader than the initial prospect of setting up or accessing the system in the first place, far broader than the aim we initially set out to achieve. In my view there is a form of learned powerlessness or learned helplessness in the view of educational technology as a service, because we grow to assume and expect that others will be there to answer our technical questions, protect our data, and generally be there whenever we need them. We take on the role of the "customer" and IT as the role of the "vendor."In this culture, the realities of resourcing are profound. Central units cannot know everything, support everything and maintain everything - so we are instead allocated a small set of options that they can support. If they do not meet our needs, that's unfortunate - there just isn't the budget for anything else.The demand for autonomy, diversity and increased flexibility in online learning must therefore - by necessity and practicality - incorporate the notions of personal responsibility and self-sufficiency.There's more to it than that though. The perhaps most significant elements in the DIY Edtech, edupunk, and open education movements relate to how we work with others, eliminate barriers to connect, contribute to the broader good, and engage within a dynamic participatory landscape.Essentially, it's the view that technologies are media through which we engage, connect and participate with others in a deep, meaningful and dynamic sort of way. We need to recognise that viewing technology as merely a space or place we go to, or a "thing" we use to do something is too narrow and too superficial.There is indeed a critical importance in fostering individuality and diversity, but it's up to all of us to make this happen, and to sustain it in the long term.
There is a unfortunate tendency within organisations and central units to undermine innovation on the fringe by virtue of preferences to central infrastructure and systems. "Supported systems" are seen as better than those that might exist off-site, and obsessions about web presence and branding are such that individuality and uniqueness are seen as undesirable - as if learning is a package to be purchased in a neatly wrapped box.Well, learning is not a neatly wrapped box. It is a complex, chaotic unpredictable process characterised by extraordinary uniqueness and individuality. It is bigger than the classes we take or teach, and more significant than the degrees we seek.It makes no sense whatsoever then that blanket, arguably arbitrary policies and procedures be implemented that dictate what systems people must use, while discouraging or preventing them from seeking alternatives elsewhere. This applies to everyone - learners, teachers, and professional staff. We either act with learning as the priority or we don't. If learning is indeed the priority, we need to be willing to recognise that uniqueness and individuality are characteristics to be valued, cherished and encouraged - lest we start to place the needs of the institution, the faculty or the school over those of the people within it.
Ignore this, I just heard you could include tags in posts you email into Posterous and I thought I'd test it.
