Last week a local principal gave me a copy of Jane Gilbert’s “Progress” in 21st century education? – a New Zealand Council for Educational Research conference paper. In it Gilbert claims that we need to rethink “progress” and think differently about what it is to learn. Apparently schools need to change to better meet the needs of 21st Century Learners and Gilbert postulates this might happen if we;
- build learning capacity,
- develop deeper and richer networks and links for core competencies,
- think together and develop collaborative teams of learners, and
- find ways to ensure that everyone achieves.
It feels kind of strange to be learning about the need to change the way we learn in the 21st Century in a 21st Century conference paper that is accessible only to those prepared to attend the conference or to pay for the print copy of the conference proceedings.
The experience of reading the conference proceedings was in truth a retreat to a past way of learning. The freedom that comes from living outside of the institution in the day job is balanced by relying heavily on accessing my professional learning online rather than from print sources or from officially sanctioned professional reading circles. My ability to interact with content and ideas in Gilbert's paper seemed limited in some way ... In reading the NZCER conference paper I felt like I was practising pedagogical austerity.
So it was ironical to read future focused calls for schools to change “the way they do learning” when the researcher and research organisation calling for change is operating in an environment where;
- content is still centralised,
- communication remains in the form of a monologue with no opportunity provided for online collaborative comment, trackback or conversation,
- learning is all about push over pull, and
- where unlike a wiki document, the learning manuscript is presented in its final form, ensuring that the learning process and editing involved in creating this thinking is not available for scrutiny.
It is a little like the teacher who claims to value discussion and student questioning for learning when talking to other educators but whose educative classroom practice reveals that for their students “learning is listening”.
Our limited access to Jane Gilbert’s paper, “Progress” in 21st Century Education? is worth thinking about.
It is worth challenging why we are so ready to accept espoused values of educational researchers in New Zealand when the integrated or lived values of their institutions are so different. If only Jane Gilbert had a blog.... and NZCER had a wiki.... how different would our learning opportunities be?
My experience working with and in schools in the day job suggests that the ideas in “Progress” in 21st century education?” are dated. Especially the ideas around how to measure the complexity of what a person is able to do in real- world situations. After all Eisner was talking about curriculum connoisseurship over 20 years ago. But I have no easy way of testing these ideas in the context of the paper, and I guess there is often a dislocation between what educational researchers claim is happening in schools and what schools are actually doing...
Many of the educators we work with in the day job would claim that Gilbert’s building learning capacity, developing deeper and richer networks and links for core competencies, thinking together and developing collaborative teams of learners, and finding ways to ensure that everyone achieves, are already with us. And unlike the NZCER conference paper, New Zealand schools are no longer broadcasting their learning outcomes solely through print copies of the school newsletter or at meet the teacher evenings where the teacher shares a paper sample of a student learning outcome with the parent.
A virtual (or face to face) tour of students’, teachers’ and principals’ practice would reveal that primary, intermediate and secondary schools across New Zealand are already building learning capacity, rich networks, collaborative teams, learning through participation and collaboration. And they are using social media with their students, their teachers and their communities to help them do this - including using wikis, blogs, podcasts, vodcasts, social bookmarking, tagging, online photo libraries, Diigo, Google docs, Open notebook, shared online calendars, aggregators, RSS feeds etc.
In fact there are so many of these 21st Century appropriate learning conversations going on that I sometimes worry about the adverse influence of social media on the relevance of the local.
I increasingly want to explore Mejias’ question
Does social media contribute to the irrelevancy of the local?
I want to ask
Does social media create learning networks that discriminate against the student's immediate surroundings?
Or in the context of the Auckland ICTPD Cluster Home Group Meetings
Does social media create learning networks that discriminate against an Auckland ICTPD facilitator’s immediate surroundings?
It doesn’t seem unreasonable to claim that in embracing social media ... in creating our own personal learning networks (all that Twitter, Skyping, blog reading and commenting, wikis, YouTube and TED talks and or podcasts vodcasts etc) we have increased the irrelevancy of the opportunity to meet f2f to learn with/ from our immediate companions in our local surroundings in a Home Group Meeting.
After all if you consider that the learning networks available to those attending the Auckland Home Group Meeting ... they rely largely upon happenstance ... who decides to turn up, for how long on the day .... It seems we cannot even count upon the National team members attending given that “This is not a day where the national team deliver content - this is a day for you all to participate and contribute.”
There is an interesting tension here.... in advocating for the increased use of social media for building learning networks by educators we undermine the relevance of the local ... the opportunity to attend the Auckalnd Home Group Meeting for building learning networks.
This argument holds even when looking at the “loss leader” ... the “outside expertise” attendance enticer.... it seems plausible that the opportunity to learn from/network with the “outside expertise involved in the session” would lose some of its relevance if this same presentation and shared expertise were available online through social media .
All this thinking makes me wonder
How should we re-approach nearness at the Auckland Home Group Meetings?
And this in turn makes me suspect that “Progress” in 21st Century education? will end up being an exploration of:
How should we re-approach nearness in our schools?
References:
“Progress” in 21st Century education? By Jane Gilbert Paper presented at the New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER) Conference: Making progress - measuring progress, Wellington, 13 March 2008. p.63-73
URL: http://www.nzcer.org.nz/default.php?cpath=139_133&products_id=2194
Re–approaching nearness: Online communication and its place in praxis by Ulises A. Mejías
First Monday, volume 10, number 3 (March 2005),
URL: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_3/mejias/index.html
I love the ideas that come with the phrase 'pedagogical austerity'. My first thought was that perhaps you should copyright it and claim it as your own forevermore.
There is an interesting tension here.... in advocating for the increased use of social media for building learning networks by educators we undermine the relevance of the local ... the opportunity to attend the Auckalnd Home Group Meeting for building learning networks.
It's coming up to ten years since I did my online degree (which makes it sound like some sort of Nigerian education outfit - it wasn't). Officially we met up three times a year. Unofficially we created opportunities to meet far more often and stroked those relationships using the social media of the time - ICQ, MediaRing and a website,forum and chat developed by some upstart from Tokoroa.
Interestingly, a year into our programme the powers that be removed the 'cafe' forum from our online system. They said that we didn't need to have a social space inside the network. We said we did. They said that we had the student developed website ... touche ...
On a side note, I have come to the the end of a week dominated by second hand views of an ERO visit. It suddenly occurred to me - what if an ERO review was developed in a wiki?
Posted by: nix | September 05, 2008 at 08:36 AM
Ahh Nix,thanks for this new thinking - I am fan of the Otago Polytech’s page on Wikieducator
But I hadn’t stepped far enough back to consider the use of the wiki as an environment for collaborative authoring of an educational review office report ... is anyone doing this in education or elsewhere?
Just imagine the consequences of opening access and transparency during a formal school review ... enabling contributions from the review officers, staff, students, and the community on a continuous basis during the review period.
How fascinating/ valuable would that be? ... and how much would we learn about the institution under review in terms of Gilbert's
Posted by: Artichoke | September 05, 2008 at 09:31 AM
Does social media create learning networks that discriminate against the student's immediate surroundings?
Of course it does.
Does it matter?
Again, of course it does. In our joy and enthusiasm of sharing an overwhelmingly powerful tool, we forget this.
Still, the kids use their technology locally--I'll arrange for a live interview with a scientist in Antarctica while a good chunk of the class texts a mate down the hall.
It used to annoy me. I'm finally starting to get it.
I was a HUGE proponent of high tech ed not so long ago. (Well, OK, early 90's, not so long ago in my lifespan, eons ago for many alive today.) I still use it. It has a place.
Still, I think the best lesson I had in college science was simply tossing a meter hoop on a field, and cataloging every organism I could find in that tiny area. I never finished. Couldn't. Too much local complexity under my nose.
Centralized content requires loss of local complexity. It's the local complexity that keeps us alive. Literally. Just ask a farmer.
Posted by: Michael Doyle | September 08, 2008 at 02:44 PM
you have another option which I tend to exercise often, dont attend, dont read, dont bother, these brilliant papers are perpetrated all the time and peddled off as research and the uneducated dip teach brigade (me) will sadly follow in complete ignorance. im 20 years since T Coll and still in dip teach mode, no upskilling here and still never read a book. Mind you i have used a web 2 tool or two, and maybe through delicious, blogger, twitter, doodle, diddle, fiddle and any other silly name I am nearing a 21st century learner - how did that happen ... who cares it happened
Posted by: podgorani / luke | September 08, 2008 at 08:51 PM
Luke, I reckon the educational challenge is more about Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will watch the watchmen) than turning our backs on stuff that does not find favour with our thinking ...
You have an insight into how New Zealand students learn that comes from close observation of teachers and students in your own school, NZCER researchers have an insight into how New Zealand students learn that comes from their reading and observation of research projects and global educational trends, and I have yet another insight into how New Zealand students learn that comes from close observation of teachers and students in the 46 plus schools we are working with this year and reading everything I can lay my hands on ...
... it is only through watching what each other is watching, and attempting to understand this watching in the context of our own experience that we are able to tease out meaning ... all else is hubris.
And I reckon the participatory culture of Web2.0 environments facilitates these shared conversations, by removing the distinction between those who are being watched and those doing the watching.
Tempting though it is to claim to be overwhelmed by the glut of information that is intended to inform our practice and in response adopting the behaviours of “educational shunning” I reckon we have an ethical responsibility to keep watching, to keep interrogating the interpretations of the watchmen and watchwomen ...
.... and we should hope that whilst we do this others will return the compliment and interrogate our interpretations .. challenge what we think we are watching in education ..
Posted by: Artichoke | September 09, 2008 at 04:44 PM
Seems like Australia is more "ontoit" than we are in the wobbly isles
Check out the recommendations from the Australian National Innovation Review regards Creative Commons
On 9/09/08 6:21 PM, "elliott bledsoe" wrote:
Those interested in open access to public sector information will be excited to see the results of a recently released Australian Federal Government Review of the National Innovation System, www.innovation.gov.au/innovationreview <http://www.innovation.gov.au/innovationreview> . The final report, titled VenturousAustralia was prepared for Senator Kim Carr, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, by consultants Culter and Co, headed up by industry consultant and strategy adviser Dr Terry Cutler. It places a strong emphasis on open innovation, stating in the introduction:
"Today innovation is understood to involve much more than the transmission of knowledge down the pipeline of production from research to development to application. In the age of the internet, with the opportunities for collaboration which it opens up, open innovation is increasingly important."
Most importantly from an open access point of view, it was Recommendation 7.8 which is most exciting:
"Australian governments should adopt international standards of open publishing as far as possible. Material released for public information by Australian governments should be released under a creative commons licence."
The full report is available at http://www.innovation.gov.au/innovationreview/Documents/NIS-review-web.pdf
Just thought I would let you all know
_elliott
Posted by: Artichoke | September 09, 2008 at 06:50 PM
Ahhh Artichoke, I think I might need a little help in interpreting, “It doesn’t seem unreasonable to claim that in embracing social media…we have increased the irrelevancy of the opportunity to meet f2f to learn with/ from our immediate companions in our local surroundings in a Home Group Meeting.”
As far I was aware the NSSF programme to support cluster leaders was much the same as an individualised cluster programme - whereby a variety of flexible learning opportunities are made available for participants to access if and only if the content/context/ideas/networking mix meets their needs. Historical data collected and ongoing survey analysis asks for cluster feedback and in summary - the request for these opportunities remains high, so it would appear, so does their relevancy.
At least you address the validity of the face-to-face networks before a scheduled meeting. I find it interesting that reflective practice relies on hindsight well after a workshop has been attended. Prior to meetings, participants are invited to submit ideas for agended items/unconference forums and this open/transparent process can be found in the Auckland Home Group wiki. A wiki that also asks for requests in relation to delivery methods, guest speakers (if so desired) etc. In my mind, this promotes the collaborative construction of networking in your immediate environment while communicating in a virtual realm.
So maybe the tension doesn’t exist - if a variety of voluntary opportunities are made available to people either face-to-face or online. I understand why you would write, that the network relies on "happenstance" and pre-determined time frames etc. Start and finish times are a reality when one of the NSSF team is attending from another city. The 5am start and 6.30pm end is not ideal, but does guarantee that you can count on “the National team members to attend”
when the day is designed for collaborative sharing and input.
As we strive to work together in an e-learning environment, it would be an archaic step backwards to believe any NSSF team member is the hierarchical holder of knowledge epitomizing a pyramid type structure of power. I prefer Charles Leadbeater’s birds nest model from, "We Think" … where everyone contributes and "leaves their piece". Where “…you are what you share” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiP79vYsfbo
Perhaps the tension comes when the community you are part of (through common circumstance) is not one you would consider as your preferred network. This becomes another matter and one would need to revert to seeking solace with like-minded individuals through personalised networks via Twitter, Skype, Blogging etc. Having said all of that, I enjoy meeting with the people I work with… must be the human in me.
Posted by: TG | September 11, 2008 at 09:38 AM
Thanks so much for making time to respond TG ... and welcome back to Artichoke I've missed you ...
or in Flores script
TG,thank you for your assessment. I appreciate your sincerity. I would like to have further conversations with you about the topic.
Re: I think I might need a little help in interpreting “It doesn’t seem unreasonable to claim that in embracing social media…we have increased the irrelevancy of the opportunity to meet f2f to learn with/ from our immediate companions in our local surroundings in a Home Group Meeting.”
The argument is simple .... and could be framed this way,
Are the learning opportunities on the agenda for the Auckland Home Group meeting unique to a F2F environment?
Or
Are the learning opportunities on the agenda for the Auckland Home Group meeting available through social media in virtual environments?
If the learning opportunities on offer are not unique to F2F environments then it does not seem unreasonable to claim that in embracing social media we increase the irrelevancy of the opportunity to meet f2f.
In Can you hear me now? Sherry Turkle explains how technology mediates an increasing irrelevancy of the opportunity to meet f2f ... a vignette I just know that you will recognise
I have travelled 36 hours to a conference on robotic technology in central Japan. The grand ballroom is Wi-Fi enabled, and the speaker is using the Web for his presentation. Laptops are open, fingers are flying. But the audience is not listening. Most seem to be doing their email, downloading files, surfing the Web or looking for a cartoon to illustrate an upcoming presentation. Every once in a while audience members give the speaker some attention, lowering their laptop screens in a kind of digital curtsy.
In the hallway outside the plenary session attendees are on their phones or laptops and pdas to check their email. Clusters of people chat with each other, making dinner plans, “networking” in that old sense of the term – the sense that implies sharing a meal. But at this conference it is clear that what most people want from public space is to be alone with their personal networks. It is good to come together physically, but it is more important to stay tethered to the people who define one’s virtual identity, the identity that counts. I think of how Freud believed in the power of communities to control and subvert us, and a psychoanalytic pun comes to mind: “virtuality and its discontents.”
RE: The bit in the middle where you defend the relevance of the f2f meetings on the grounds that in the past, past HG meetings were liked by past HG attendees ...
This claim does not address the claim in the post that “in embracing social media…we have increased the irrelevancy of the opportunity to meet f2f to learn with/ from our immediate companions ...”
Because the survey results you refer to refer to past meetings (which weren’t on wikis) attended by past facilitators (who did not have the same access to social media that we enjoy in 2008).
Re: the other bit in the middle where you claim the agenda for the next meeting is marked by openness, transparency, a collaborative construction of networking and as such ... the tension over its relevance may not exist aka “So maybe the tension doesn’t exist” bit
The question is not how transparent was the construction of the agenda ... (and I would suggest that “transparency” is another of those states that is the eye of the beholder ....but that is a distraction) ... the question is ... is any of the learning promised in the workshops able to be accessed online? ... and a cursory look at the programme suggests that much of what is promised does not depend on the real ... much could be accessed from the virtual ...
Re: the end bit ...“Having said all of that, I enjoy meeting with the people I work with… must be the human in me.”
How much we enjoy the experience of meeting others in a professional learning experience is not being contested here TG ... I am looking at relevance or irrelevance of the experience not attempting to index the enjoyability of a Home Group Meeting ...
If you have read Guskey ... which I believe you have ... you will know that evaluations of participant reactions aka enjoyment after professional learning are neither insightful nor informative in terms of measuring the effectiveness of the experience. They would be categorised as level 1 in Guskey’s five critical levels of professional development evaluation.
Guskey argues that we should probe deeper than “did they like it?” questions after professional learning to ask;
Even the mandated feedback on the Home Group Meetings in the NSSF ictpd cluster milestones neglects to ask whether we enjoyed meeting the people we work with ... preferring that we comment on the relevance, timeliness, accessibility, inclusiveness and responsiveness. of the experience
And I’d just love it if we were asked to ... able to... reflect on what it was to learn how to be human at an Auckland Home Group Meeting TG ... I’d just love it ....
What sort of documentation would capture our evaluation of this learning TG? ..... I reckon it would require some kind of re-mix mash-up fan fictionalisation of the current milestone template ...
...now this would be something I’d enjoy workshopping at the Home Group Meeting ... ......
And what would we call it? ... we’d have to bring Sisyphus in somewhere
Posted by: Artichoke | September 11, 2008 at 09:19 PM
In my Phd studies I am based in one country, my data collect in another. The one gave ethics for the other. A source of discomfort. (one i have worked around with ethics committees from both countries)
I have a child about to spend a year of her schooling in Japan, on checking entry requirements for Uni studies back here in NZ, we were told, pity she's not doing the Cambridge exams. Again discomfort. I dont want a curriculum from the other side of the world made std.
How then to have the value of internationally networked learning without an imposition of homogeneity or to have a tyranny imposed by dominant voices?
i guess the texts and previous educational endeavours have done this too...
Distance provided a small buffer inside of which there was sufficient time to have (some of) the local made relevant?
Posted by: ailsa | September 13, 2008 at 05:20 PM
Ahh a new argument ...what about valuing the local? ... I like it Ailsa ....
I am not suggesting that the local f2f learning experience is made vulnerable by social media because it is easily replaceable with a similar learning experience from far away Ailsa ... though this is certainly true in some instances of what is offered in the f2f ...
I am thinking that the local f2f becomes increasingly irrelevant when it is available through social media ...
For even if the local content/ learning on offer at the f2f is unique it is increasingly available virtually .... for example in the ICTPD clusters local content is available on countless individual ICTPD cluster wikis and reflective blogs
...so reframing the question gives us ... if social media allows us to reference the local and the far away without having to meet in person then is social media making the f2f increasingly irrelevant?
I think the counter to the argument raised in this post (that embracing social media makes the f2f increasingly irrelevant) lies in the design of the f2f learning experiences.
If I was arguing for the other side I'd start making claims about the pedagogical design of the f2f ... something along these lines
It is easy to retain relevance in the presence of social media ... the design of the f2f meeting must require the active sharing of individual expertise ...... and the sharing of this expertise to co-create something different.
You are correct in claiming that if the f2f learning experience on offer simply involves sitting as individuals watching the workshop presenter describe the screen, discussing this with a neighbour and then reporting back then whatever we are observing, thinking and wondering could just as easily be experienced without meeting f2f. For I am sure you have seen some of the numerous Camtasia walk throughs on YouTube where the comment and trackback facilities allow participant reflections.
And I know you are going to counter any claim I make about co-construction in the f2f with reference to the surfaces for online collaboration are available through social media for example Google docs, Google knoll, Google groups, Google calendar even Google Lively ... but let me refine this argument a little
Social media will not make the f2f irrelevant when the f2f builds in the valuing of the local ....experience, people or place
If the f2f experience required an active collaborative exploration or valuing of the local environment/ place and or people, and that the experience of these shared investigations is used in a way to create new thinking ... then this new learning (see local>think local>wonder local) would be unique to the f2f environment ..
Embracing social media would not undermine its relevance.
Regards
The Choke
Posted by: Artichoke | September 13, 2008 at 06:35 PM
Some really interesting points to this discussion and I have enjoyed reading some the clarification around the authenticity of the F2F meetings. There is a fair bit to consider here when thinking about the relevancy of these meetings in the future.
I agree with your alternative self, when you write, "the design of the f2f meeting must require the active sharing of individual expertise". Content delivery and methodologies aside, I think both real and virtual experiences become more enlightening if the levels of engagement, interaction and above all communication are deepened.
In reference to John Powell's Five Levels of Communication, the fifth level "Peak communication" is the coming together with another or others in an extraordinary way. Peak communication is rare but has profound effects on our lives. If we can meet together in synchronous and asynchronous modes while engaging with high levels of communication, then perhaps this is where the value lies.
Posted by: TG | September 14, 2008 at 01:35 PM
Reaching for "Peak Communication" at a Home Group Meeting ... this is a new challenge and framework for me to think about TG ....
Conversation as a Lakoff spatial orientation metaphor ... where high status conversation is “up” ... or peak conversation
I wonder if this is a little like Peak Oil ... the point in time in a conversation when the maximum value is reached, and after which the rate of production enters terminal decline ...
Perhaps when we next meet we could create a Home Group Meeting conversation rubric ? (with online Audacity recorded exemplars of course)
A rubric where the criteria for experiencing “peak conversation” at a Home Group Meeting would lie somewhere between George Bernard Shaw’s quote and the notion of conversation as “a sales and marketing pitch” in The Big Kahuna
And we wouldn't want to forget the role of HG participant silence in conversation in our rubric either
Posted by: Artichoke | September 14, 2008 at 03:56 PM
Gorgeous, I love it!
TG
Posted by: TG | September 15, 2008 at 08:27 AM
This is my second go at this - the first time seems to have vanished into the darkness of cyberspace (which is always irritating after spending a while writing a response!)
My first comment was on the quote from my email that you brought into this post.
"This is not a day where the national team deliver content - this is a day for you all to participate and contribute."
I just wanted to clear up what my intention was when I said this. Basically, I was trying to emphasis that we were not the fount of all knowledge at these events. I wasn't saying that we did not have a role to play. The things that we will be covering in the meeting on Thursday didn't happen by 'happenstance'. I asked people to indicate what they wanted to cover and then shoulder tapped people that I knew were doing things of interest in this area. It is a planned for and managed session. We may not be delivering all day long but we still have a clear role in helping to facilitate the content that is shared.
In terms of the availability of online content eroding the value of ftf sessions (when no value is added in the face to face setting), I think this is a really interesting point. This may seem a banal advantage but one thing in favour of the face to face is that people have put aside the time to be there which many do not seem to do in the online setting. Some of us are happy to spend hours in the online environment but not all do and even those of us who do enjoy working this way would have to admit at times that we do not focus all that well at times. At least at a face to face meeting, there are not as many other distractions. Still, one would hope that working face to face would have other benefits than just a 'captured audience'. One thing that I think is important for me is the way a person standing in front of you can communicate their passion and enthusiasm. This can not easily be replicated in the online environment. I think witnessing passion from another human being is what often leads to level 4 from Guskey - participants applying the new knowledge and skills.
In terms of the actual design of the day's programme adding value, I agree that this could be an area to further explore. With the group meeting infrequently, how can we develop relationships needed to really challenge and debate ideas? Normally this requires a climate of trust and mutual respect. Can this be done when meeting a few times a year?
Anyway - dinner has arrived. I will continue to muse over my peas and fish. I have backed up this comment in case of repeated disaster :-)
Posted by: Suzie Vesper | September 15, 2008 at 06:24 PM
We need more Artichoke.
Soon.
Kay?
Cheers!
Michael
Posted by: Michael Doyle | October 23, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Wow a big dialogue. It was funny that I came to this discussion about f2f vs online from the interface website. It strikes me the f2f only gets one chance an it may be a miss. F2f appears to me more mediated by social media and gives the opportunity to know people to an extent before we meet them. Suzie vesper for example I have f2fed for approx 30 seconds but to an extent we have collaborated outside of this. I have a post looking at f2f from a slighlty different angle. Anyway Pam yours was far better written and more thought provoking. Thanks.
Dave Winter
Posted by: Dave Winter | October 25, 2008 at 04:22 PM
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the nudge to continue talking to Artichoke ... it seems that guarding against the tyranny of the urgent is a task that needs help from friends on the outside.
And I have enjoyed reading Fortey on the British Museum ... the photos and illustrations are disappointing, kind of muted and muddy - they remind me of something from the 1950's ... but the text ... the text is a fabulous read for someone who likes to toy with what it is to be human.
Now to find the time to pick up on my bloglines reading
Posted by: Artichoke | October 29, 2008 at 08:32 AM
It has been interesting to follow the discussion. Our wrestling with either the relevance of F2F or our detachment from the local maybe a new conference topic in our 21st century education dialogue but it echoes with conversations over many a pint re. the demise of live music and the death of the audience. Then, as now, it was/is difficult to argue that the advent of You Tube or Sky or videos or any other media has had a direct impact on people getting off their backsides and fronting up at gigs, but after a pint or two it's pretty easy to believe that one has shaped the other.
But I am not without hope that the relevance of f2f in education will remain. Personally, I still revel in the buzz that a skilled communicator can create: That ability to have an audience engaged, to tell stories, to ask artful questions, to respond to the vibe in the room. In teaching I believe that we still have to nurture our craft as performers, but to date I have read much more about powerpoint and very little about story telling.
Randy Pausch would be a good example of someone who understood the story telling bit. I would have given my right arm to see him in the flesh. That man was a griot really. He knew his stuff, he lived it, those stories were part of him and he couldn't keep his mouth shut, hence 'The Last Lecture'. But ultimately he was the most phenomenal story teller and teacher.
So give me f2f with someone of the calibre of Randy Pausch any day and alongside our social networking lets make some effort, hone our performance skills and tell some stories.
Posted by: chrissiebutler | October 30, 2008 at 08:31 AM
That the blog discussion on Artichoke often refuses to follow any of the expectations I hold when I write the post Chrissie is undoubtedly due to the undisciplined way I introduce ideas
– the idea that fascinated me most in this post was how much we (our educational institutions and researchers) fail to use participatory ICT technologies when we talk about educational futures. And how much richer the educational conversations might be if we could interrogate more than the published copy of any educational thinking coming out of NZCER.
That we might as you suggest have a conference topic framed around the false dichotomy, (Aristotelian excluded middle, bifurcation) that X learners learn more or at a deeper level of abstraction than Y learners – where
... depresses rather than energises me ... . for like you suggest in your comments I find it hard to imagine any argument other than an economic one where the responsiveness of a live performance would not trump all.
The question I would have preferred to engage with is this one ...
How much more would we learn about an academic paper (or a musical performance for that matter) if we could examine page histories (or their musical equivalent) with “every revision to the text date and time stamped and versioned”
My thinking was catalysed by reading Mechanisms New Media and the Forensic Imagination by Matthew Kirschenbaum. In Mechanisms Kirschenbaum explains how new media allows us access to “document histories with a precision transparency, and granularity unprecedented in printed publications ...”
In fairness to Kirschenbaum I note that he develops these ideas much further to include every contact leaves a trace thinking – storage, inscription and computer forensics ... however given the print media in a conference proceedings we are comparing this call for revision history to I reckon it is OK to stick with Wikipedia like analogies here
I wanted to imagine how we might leverage learning in new ways using ICTs rather than simply using them to recreate a more sterile version of how we already learn ...
I wanted to ask ...
If Jane Gilbert or her equivalent NZCER researchers allowed us to read and comment upon the process as well as the end product how different would the thinking/ knowledge building of all of us be.
What would happen if we used ICT technologies to allow the same access to revisions in music making ...
How much more faithful would this be to future focus?
How much more faithful would this be to notions of e learning?
Posted by: Artichoke | October 31, 2008 at 01:27 AM
Hello all, Jane and other researchers at NZCER have started their own blogs, and you can read about their thoughts and make comments here: http://www.shiftingthinking.org/
(:
Posted by: Magdalene | February 25, 2009 at 02:26 PM
Thanks for the update Magdalene ... I have been reading the posts this evening ...I love what you have created at NZCER... It is better than I could imagine - have read widely, commented narrowly, and subscribed to the RSS feed somewhere in the middle.
Posted by: Artichoke | March 02, 2009 at 09:56 PM
In the end, this happened :)
Posted by: resume writers | December 21, 2010 at 12:41 AM