Virtual Learning Environments

Teaching and Learning in Public: An Open Learning Concept for a New Age

Social networks are creating distributed platforms of sharing and deliberation, and these networks, fueled by online social media, are redefining the nature of knowledge and what it means to be educated in the 21^st century.

 

The Network and New Conceptions of Knowledge

Educational reformer John Dewey wrote at length in the early 1900’s about social reform and transparency in knowledge and education. In his book, “Democracy and Education” he writes, “Society not only continues to exist by transmission, by communication, but it may fairly be said to exist in transmission, in communication. There is more than a verbal tie between the words common, community, and communication”. TLP’s philosophy and work follows this very perspective. We are working to open up the boundaries between those individuals who posses knowledge and the global community: all of us working together, socially, collaboratively, in sharing and building upon the knowledge we individually possess. Our project TLP’s model for education is one in which we expanded on the old predetermined boundaries of teaching within a closed system/network (teacher to student) to one in which the teacher and the student are working together as well as working within a larger collaborative system, whereby opening up the knowledge base to a larger community/network. “The Cartesian perspective views knowledge as material that is constructed and transferred in linear deductive presentation, while the network perspective emphasizes the human interactions around which content is situated” (Brown, 2008). TLP’s hands on work has been to experiment with creating a central educational home base in an LMS called Moodle (a closed system), and then, opening up this closed network of information to the collective, collaborative, open forms available through online social media. Within this model, the teacher is also the student, and potentially, hopefully, the student is also the teacher. Moodle gives the teacher the availability to provide to the students enrolled within the closed educational/learning system:

• Assignments of different types
• Track ability and reports
• Controllability on when students access what organization
• Journals
• Quizzes
• Upload files to give to students
• Students can upload files
• Glossaries
• Databases
• Control over enrollment (even payment through paypal)
• Exporting options to open social platforms
• Importing option from other social platforms

The Social Media Catalyst

The catalyst for the development of networked knowledge construction is social media. Social Media tools such as Facebook, Twitter and Google+ are connecting people and information, and creating new forms of knowledge construction by eliminating the transaction costs for the acquisition of information (Shirky, 2008). Free and open sources and social media platforms online provide the ability bridge the gap between the knowledge producers and the knowledge consumers. We used the above mentioned forms of free social media within TLP, as well as the additional, cost free social collaborative tools; Blogs, Wiki’s, Voicethread, Youtube and Storify. These tools were chosen by TLP because they facilitate one of the most critical contributions of social media to knowledge construction: weak-tie networks of communities of practice working and blending together with strong tie networks Sociologist Brian Uzzi found that networks with a mix of strong and weak ties foster greater innovation and discovery than weak- or strong-tie networks alone. This is because social media tools, which are predicated on finding and following others, make it easier for individuals in smaller communities of interest to connect with others in different communities of similar interest. These “small world” or weak-tie networks optimize knowledge creation. Social Media tools provide:

• Communication with small tie networks
• Collaboration and sharing
• Authority building knowledge bases
• Distribution
• Multi media venues
• Community building potentials
• Global engagement

Social Learning

Networked knowledge construction and social media are expanding traditional notions of learning to include social learning. Social learning is learning that is shaped, influenced, and directed by how we are connected to others. In this context, mastering a field of knowledge involves not only learning the subject matter but also how to participant in the construction of the knowledge of the given field. Within the TLP model, we have created the Moodle as the home base, the instigator if you will, for teacher to student transference of knowledge and insight, as well as incorporated into the model social outlets for the students to use, research, explore and expand the knowledge they have gained into a larger, global community of knowledge and work, whereby opening up knowledge and education from a closed circuit to the open current on the WWW.

Toward a Civic Intelligence

In social networks, knowledge is constructed from the interaction of people, information and ideas in a participatory culture. The ability to derive knowledge from this context requires an intelligence in addition to IQ intelligence and emotional intelligence that can be characterized as civic intelligence. Civic Intelligence connects what we know about how people learn and maintain knowledge in a network environment, and provides a framework for developing and assessing intelligence. Intelligence in a participatory culture is the recognition that individual intelligence is based on a person’s connection and contribution to the whole. It’s the ability to engage in multimedia discourse across multifaceted networks, and to construct knowledge from the interactions of people and ideas. These are the skills of the 21^st century and our education systems should promote and engage within them.

Conclusion

To teach and learn in the open is to make one’s intellectual projects and processes digitally visible. It also means to invite others to collaborate and to share all or parts of your work in the collective pursuit of knowledge. In this context, the emphasis of education changes from individual pursuit to social collaboration. TLP’s focus is not only for the current education of a particular class within this Moodle site, but also to incorporate a long-term goal: a Blog and Wiki. These sites will remain accessible, to the students and the public, after each class has ended. They are the social framework for an ongoing record of progress, contributions, participatory collaboration and the expansion of integrated knowledge.

 

I have an experience of working with Blackboard as both a student and as a TA. Honestly, I never really thought of either advantages or disadvantages of this platform as a learning tool but rather took it the way it is. Now, after exploring and experiencing (most of the time just with the purpose of checking the platform out), I can see why more and more academics (both students and professors) are turning away from Blackboard. It’s too “not engaging” and too standard platform, which makes students feel alienated from the educational process. I think that the major drawback of the LMS such as Blackboard is contained in its structure and users’ opportunities.  You can not share video or audio information there, customize your personal pages, engage other platforms such  as social media, for instance.

In terms of other LMS versions, I’ve found Canvas more attractive than Blackboard, and it gives you an opportunity to use images, video and other types of files as well as allows to embed facebook, twitter, delicious, blog and some other social media platforms in it. I think initially, it might be a bit complicated for educators without computer / technical skills to figure out how the Canvas works and how to set up the pages and use all of it options. But with a well structured and easy written guide, Canvas might become a good alternative to Blackboard. Unfortunately, for some reason mySakai couldn’t be installed (I tried twice, but it didn’t read my login and password), but I’ve watched the introduction video, and it seems like mySakai is a very nice and convenient  software. I’m not sure if you can share video information there, but if yes – I would go for it instead of Blackboard for sure.   Now, Moodle. Although I’m not a fan of yellow color , I liked some of the Moodle sites (yes, u can change the theme with another color combinations). It’s hard to see the advantages/disadvantages of either one of the platforms without using them, just by first sight. But it’s a good thing that there are different options for using LMS. I would focus on choosing a LMS platform that allows for interactivity and is user-friendly.

I absolutely agree with both Josephine and Margaux about the potential of Google+ as a learning platform. The advantages of Google+ against Facebook (which are very well articulated in the article that Josephine emailed to us) plus the high level of interactivity that is allowed within this platform make Google + a very strong alternative to standard LMS. I say “yes” to it

 

Presence, to me, has two major aspects. First, its a physical essence that consists of a space and subject that occupies this space; second, and, probably, more important, presence implies mental/social influence between objects. Presence of an object has a necessary impact on another object/subject. Briefly saying, presence has two elements: a physical and a social one. I’m not sure which one is more significant in virtual environment, but both of them have to be taken in consideration when on-line collaboration is being planned. I found Legget’s text too abstractive and would love if anybody could clarify his major points in relations to virtual collaboration.

 

Highsmith, on the other hand, was very concrete in his argumentation. The ideas that have appealled to me most of all are the following:

- collaboration occurs through groaning (which is true, although people don’t usually realize it in the process of collaboration, but rather when they see certain results or when the project is finished.

- duality of context vs. content (where context in virtual environment has a significant impact on the content); information sharing vs. presentation of information (which presupposes different context, settings, tools and process of collaboration); stability vs. change (which means a balancing between structural patterns and self-organization of collaboration); firm vs. fixed (awareness of boundaries of a team/group/organization as a tool for development and change, not as limitations).

- the idea of democratization from the bottom: self-organization, networked structure of a team/group, flexible hierarchy, etc. allows for organic, free (almost) of bureaucracy, more effective interactions on-line.

 

 

 

 

This is a post I put together based on a reading a few weeks back. Thought I’d cross-post here.

I’m in the middle of taking a course on Virtual Learning Environments (syllabus here), and reading a few chapters from Adaptive Software Development by Highsmith. It approaches the team-building and collaboration process from the perspective of complex adaptive systems theory, and contains some interesting insights in evolutionary development and creating environments where emergence can occur. I’ve created a summary of a chapter that I’d like to share, as I think it can be valuable for many of us, and specifically for the community of practitioners around the junto concept.

Collaboration is an act of shared creation or discovery. (schrage89)

As a distributed group of individuals (agents) within a network, we form a complex adaptive system.  The key to our success is in creating the environment where emergent, innovative results can occur.

Barriers to Collaboration

1. A top down Command+Control management style

This style works well for organizations that operate effectively by regarding their people as interchangeable cogs in a machine – following specific rules in a predictable environment which is structured hierarchically. An emergent, adaptive group does not exude these characteristics.

2. An over-reliance on the culture of individualism & attitude of “every man for himself”

It is a challenge to collaborate effectively, when many of our current organizational models still reward individual rather than group performance. BUT, collaboration is about mutual creation.

As we design new systems, it will be important to frame the experience in a way that values and rewards productive participation and contribution.

(This relates well to the component mentioned in yesterday’s junto post on creating an opportunity for rating/evaluating each other’s participation in dialogues…. and structured in a way that is generative and encouraging of paths to improvement, not putting people down for lack of experience or technique.)

The Essence of Great Groups

A team consists of…

… a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and [a common] approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable. (J. Katzenbach & D.Smith)

Successful, innovative teams are all about the relationships and the right blend of skills – technical, business, problem-solving, decision-making, and interpersonal. They all work towards a common goal, but are alo committed to a deeper purpose. Through the process of building trust, each individual assumes a level of risk that is associated with assuming personal responsibility and mutual accountability.

Four types of teams and the environment in which they work best:

Traditional hierarchical: territory is familiar & predictable, requirements well-known

Breakthrough: project must develop major new innovation. environment chaotic & random, project structures become very unstable as they grow larger

Synchronized: project success dependent on shared vision and common values. effectiveness requires full commitment by all members to a sufficiently complex vision of mission and methods of group

Open: territory is turbulent & fluid, success requires an open-ended, flexible apporach. “Adaptive collaboration is tailored for technical problem-solving… What is important in this view of projects and progress is the adaptive fit between how the team is working and what it is they are working on” (op.cit. p.72)

“While a breakthrough team structure would work for a small adaptive project, my view is that open teams are the most appropriate for adaptive projects in general – for two reasons. First, adaptive development requires the ability to scale up to larger, more complex projects – and open teams can do this. Breakthrough organizations work bet with a small, collocated team. Second, a breakthrough organization is an excellent choice for creative inventions (in science, for example), but less suitable for the work of turning a creation into a complete product, such as in engineering. So, while there are exceptions to every rule, an open organization seems best for adaptive projects. Collegiality flourishes in open environments.”

Using Complexity Concepts to Improve Collaboration

In complex adaptive systems theory, the focus is on the concept of emergence. Ralph Stacy has identified five control parameters characteristic of networks that determine whether the group/organization is on the edge of chaos:

1. Rate of Information Flow

Restriction of the speed of information flow can be detrimental to a team in a rapidly changing environment. There are two fundamental kinds of interactions the team must differentiate between – shared creation and information transfer.

Shared Creation – These are meetings focused on brainstorming, problem-solving, decision-making, or reacting & evaluating (feedback). This type of process creates value through active collaboration.

Information Transfer – The purpose of these meetings is to inform. The format is reporting and presentation, and the information is not intended to be modified or updated.

2. Degree of Diversity

A diversity of technical skills and experience, cultural and racial backgrounds, personality types and temperaments, business skills and experience, all contribute to a healthy mix in the creative process. Too much diversity can create issues in creating collaborative environments and facilitating convergence in order to produce results.

3. Richness of Connectivity

This refers to both the number of connections between people in a group (“network weaving”) as well as the type of data flow (text, imagery, sound). Increasing the number of interconnected groups increases diversity of information exchanged in problem solving.

4. Level of Contained Anxiety

“Complexity theory supports the view that anxiety is a cauldron for creativity.” Innovative groups are able to strike the balance and ride the edge of chaos, existing between high tension/anxiety and stagnantion/inertia.

5. Degree of Power Differentials

While open collaboration encourages participation and empowerment, it also must find a balance between a Command-Control management style and no leadership at all.

Building Collaborative Groups

Cooperation in networked environments isn’t about learning how to use “collaboration tools,” it’s about learning how to communicate effectively and resolve interpersonal issues.

The beginnings of a conversation may start with everyone wanting to express their own opinions and be heard. As the conversation progresses, individuals make an effort to understand each others’ perspectives, reasons, assumptions, and mental models. Adaptive cycles require teams to make this transition from divergent to convergent thinking in order to form “sustainable agreement” and move forward with deliverables.

Core Values

Successful collaboration in a self-organizing team is facilitated when core values are embraced and demonstrated in daily encounters. The core values are mutual trust, mutual respect, and mutual participation, and mutual commitment.

Mutual Trust

There are three components of trust:

• Honesty: telling the truth
• Safety: an ability to voice ideas an opinions without fear of ridicule or rejection
• Dependability: knowing others will accomplish the tasks assigned to them

Trust levels are always in flux, but are built up by “showing respect to others, doing what we commit ourselves to do, being honest and forthright in our dealing, and by not playing politics.” Trust is not a replacement for accountability – others must still be held accountable in order to protect against miscommunication or flawed expectations.

Mututal Respect

It’s easy to full tuned to the people in our group that think like us. The challenge is to value others for their unique contributions, despite our understanding of their area of expertise.

Mutual Participation

Every team member should have the freedom to express themselves, and the commitment of the team to understand that particular perspective. Though every member will not contribute equally, each must have the ability to contribute in key ways.

Mutual Commitment

Everyone in the group is committed to achieving the purpose and goals of the project, shares responsibility for making it happen, and owns the result.

Joint Application Development (JAD) Sessions

JADs are:

“a facilitated workshop that brings together cross-functional groups to build collaborative relationships capable of producing high-quality deliverables during the life of a project.”

These sessions are feed-forward rather than feedback, meaning they are intended to solve problems, plan later work, and make decisions. There are four key roles in a JAD session: project manager, participants, facilitator, and scribe. Project managers are responsible for group administration. Facilitators plan the session with the project manager, orchestrate interactions during the meeting, assist in preparing documentation, and expedite follow-up after the session. Participants are responsible for the contents of the agreed-upon deliverable. The scribe documents the session – gathering, organizing, and distributing the results.

Assuming roles also enhances collaboration, helps team members evaluate mission components, and allows them to experiment with different identity constructs. Role-playing is both fun and sparks creativity. Three sample roles are visionary, realist, and critic. A visionary can switch between many roles and see the big picture, a realist can break things down to their components and form plans of action, and a critic anticipates problems and risks.

Techniques for Successful JADs

Prepare

Each session must have a solid objective and an agenda following that objective, so that participants come prepared to meet the expectations. An example of a contructive JAD session is to explore and define the project’s mission. Another necessary objective is relationship-building, which is crucial for forming emergent environments. More important than any single deliverable is understanding everyone’s mental models. For instance, if the topic is about a product’s “quality,” sufficient time must be spent uncovering and analyzing each person’s view of what that word means.

Conducting the Session

This is a matter of deciding who talks when, and keeping the discussion focused.

Produce the Documents

There must be a “product” at the end of the session that can be archived and available for future reference.

Stable Change

“Collaboration is the best tool for dealing with high-change environments.”

The characteristics that enable individuals and organizations to embrace change can be defined as “resilience.” Three keys are:

1. Establish respect and trust for leaders

Unlike the emphasis positional power common in hierarchical organizations, trust and respect are the glue of an adaptive system.

2. Build strong relationships

In a self-organizing environment, strong relationships are essential for collaboration.

3. Instill confidence in technical skills

Though the tools may change, confidence in one’s capabilities will carry them through rough spots and challenges.

Summary

I really enjoyed this overview, and found that we have already come to many of these conclusions through our experimentation and intuition. I’ve been writing for months about the trust-building and relationship-building process in networked environments, and the need to dissolve illusions of the ego and become more open-hearted and open-minded. Much of the information from this chapter affirmed those ideas. I found the section about the 5 “levers” that push teams to the creative edge fascinating, and those control parameters definitely personally resonated with my experience. As we’ve discussed the two tracks for junto discussions – freeform and structured – I saw a lot of parallels between what they called feed-forward and feedback JAD sessions. The suggestion for role-playing in discussions was also aligned with our thoughts on creating roles for discussions, what we defined as host/facilitator, participants, and mapper. I’m really interested now to explore self-definition and roles in this process, and experiment with different combinations of personalities and strengths to see what kind of creativity emerges.

I found this week’s readings to be particularly relevant for me, as I have been engaging in an open collaboration process online to develop an (…wait for it) open collaboration platform. (Junto) We’ve been looking a lot into creating 3D environments with livestreaming video in order for people to be able to engage in dialogue on a global scale, and have patiently been awaiting Cisco to release their multi-billion dollar telepresence system open-source later this month.

As I’ve been embedding myself into a networked environment more and more, the points brought up in the presence article rang very true for me. In fact, I’ve actually had a paradigm shift in how I understand human networks and our connectedness as humanity from a meta-systems perspective, based on my usage and research into the power of the Web. One of the big shifts was a shattering of the illusion of ego.. ok, sounds kind of esoteric, but in becoming hyperconnected and really LIVING in this space, in constant communication with a group of globally distributed humans, I really have lost the sense of self. I am a part of a greater whole, and that has changed my perceptions about personal identitiy, and increased my levels of empathy and compassion. Speaking of empathy, I recommend watching this video based on Jeremy Rifkin’s new book, The Empathic Civilization – it rocks!

In terms of the other readings on collaboration and play, I found that I’ve come to many of those conclusions through our experimentation online and through intuition. Keeping excitement and passion and energy sustained online is a challenge, and there is so much that gets diffused through various individual networks, that it is impossible to track, but keeping it FUN is definitely key. I found the 5 ‘control parameters’ in the Highsmith chapter about keeping teams on the edge of chaos very insightful. Without having identified them in words, we have definitely been practicing those behaviors. The suggestions about role-playing and creating personas/archetypes also very much resonated.

Though what we’re doing isn’t “school,” it is VERY much an online public learning environment – I suppose you could call it a community of practice. I engage with people from all disciplines, from design to knowledge management to business and so on, but the common thread is that we are all trying to learn from each other and grow.

When it comes to transferring these insights to answering the question of how to engage students online… I really think a big part of it has to do with everyone being willing to put themselves out there without fear, and also to remove the silos between the individuals and the rest of the world. I don’t think it is enough for students to only engage with each other (though in many cases this is ideal). I see the Web as being a huge opportunity to express oneself out into the ether, and then see what comes back. There are so many people out there with similar interests and a willingness to share their perspectives and experiences, that choosing not to engage is a wasted potential. I know that there is still a lot of fear with the web as a communication medium, but that can be overcome when an individual takes personal responsibility and accountability for their actions and behaviors online. It is public. If you wouldn’t say/do/show whatever you are doing online in the middle of the town square, just think twice before doing it online, because it will be seen, and unlike “in real life,” the archive lasts forever.