Showing posts with label mogelijkTopic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mogelijkTopic. Show all posts

Wednesday, 3 December 2008

OEB08 informal learning and social media workshop by Jay Cross and guides


Jay is a wise man using humor to spice up any workshop and at this occasion he was wearing a yellow tie and suspenders. The audience was very diverse but all with an eLearning perspective and their social media background as well.

The workshop is taken a complete day, but unfortunately I had a deadline to meet in the afternoon, so what follows is only on the first part of the day (before lunch). Jay Cross had asked me to be one of the 'guides' during the workshop. A guide is someone who is into informal learning and/or using social media and willing to share information on it. I am always willing to share, so I rushed to the occasion! Thanks for asking Jay!

Where can you find all of what Jay Cross is talking about:
internet time page;
Jay Cross homepage;

Interesting links:
The cluetrain manifesto: for handling intellectual property in the open internet age.
Web2.0 framework by Ross Dawson;
unconferencing
as a conference format;
barcamp
as an example of an unconference.

fish bowl format in conferences
idea: for people to be able to have a conversation in a little group but which is aired to the complete group (concentric circles for interaction).
sometimes it works, other times it falls flat. It is important to have a common purpose and to have a format that supports that, otherwise participants might not be that pleased with the issues that will be raised.

Jay mentions he is a bit dubious towards books: a publisher takes a year before publishing it. A book freezes the content for always. The author does not need to get into conversation with the readers. So how do we go about in opening books and make them updateable? He tries it:
Un-book from Jay Cross: Learnscaping

The workshop flow:
We started to know each other (= the participants) by introducing the person on each of our right, building some connections in our heads. And after the intro the workshop was a mix of informal information giving by 'guides' and more didactical as well as informal parts given by Jay.

My two cents that I shared during the workshop:
  • kids learn naturally and by doing.... there is no framework, no structure, they just do it: Web2.0 allows this kind of learning. It enables you to explore the knowledge that is out there and to connect with people with similar or related interests.
  • Informal learning allows you to connect with people you might otherwise not know off, or in different fields, but by connecting you can see other ways of working to come to the same results and maybe ... these new ways are more (cost)-effective.
  • Informal learning is about making choices: you know which knowledge you need, you select, you connect and you put it out there the way you want it for other people to find.
  • Informal learning is about forgetting pride: you will never know it all, so be humble and open for learning each day. Titles no longer matter, it is what you effectively know and exchange and collaborate on (what you are really doing) that matters.
  • Informal learning makes you critical: you just do not swallow everything that is send to you, you choose, decipher and take what you need because it seems a better fit.
  • Social media allows you to let go of rules and explore new possibilities.
  • Social media is global, it is everywhere, also in low resource areas: they are using it: mobile journalism, farmers learn through blogging, the whole world is exchanging and discussing knowledge.
  • Social media is personal: you make it to fit your interests, yet building on all of our knowledge and insights.

What I jotted down in the course of the workshop:
The world is in an economical crisis, but this is happening at any major cultural/socio-economic shift the industrial age is ending, the knowledge age is here. Informal learning is all about knowledge.

How people learn:
  • natural learning
  • spontaneous
  • informal
  • unbounded
  • adaptive
  • fun
  • self-service
what is natural learning?
You learn from mistakes (because it is discussed, because you get a first hand experience of what works and what is not = practical experience),
conversation results in learning (because it is all about communication, argumenting why yes or why not, critical thinking...)
collaboration is learning (one person never again will know it all, not even the largest chunk of anything, the world is a rhizome = everyone is connected and the connections are not always visible).

informal learning is typically
  • no curriculum;
  • no constraint time frame;
  • push (formal which pushes the content to you) versus pull (informal and what you need you can and do find - or build);
  • openness and curiosity.

the world is changing at warp speed
some management and supervision have not taken account these changes: firewall restrictions, company rules... But as we look at new learners (not necessarily young but the learner explorers) we find that control is out of date. So it is time to give workers trust and giving them credit for their own way of knowledge gathering.
Discussing on ROI are no longer completely valid as it comes to the growing amount of intangibles that companies have, because ROI focuses on tangibles only. In the business world virtuality is a fact, intangibles are a fact, think of google and its assets.

But social media is about sharing, and openness sometimes gives a strange feeling
openness is a starting point, semantic web which tells you all about private things, but who do you want to give access to what of your private life).
Openness is a starting off point, but which will demand more access rules.
So how can we share things? And to what extend are we willing to change? And to what extend does management allow us to change?

One of the reasons for not opening up is because you want to keep out the people that want to burn the house down. This is something we want to get pinned down.

Questions that were raised (will go into these in later blogposts):
  • how do you measure informal learning outcomes?
  • how do we cope with intellectual property in an open access environment?
  • how do you convince people of using new technologies within an institute or company?

A slideshow on the future of books:
The unbook
View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: books book)

Wednesday, 20 August 2008

Wikipedia is not for highly specialized content – the Illustrated lecture on Tropical Medicine of ITM


Okay so the group is always right and knowledge should be free for all. BUT what if the content you want to deliver for free through TELearning (technology enabled learning) kind of site is so specialized that only a couple of people know about the latest scientific developments? You could not put it onto a freely editable wikipedia? Or could you? Lets look at the Illustrated Lecture on Tropical Medicine that is published on a website by ITM.

It would look like interesting content to share in wikipedia, the only problem is that Tropical Medicine is discussed by many for many reasons (think about the imagined solutions for AIDS that are promoted by some African politicians for dubious reasons). So at ITM we are discussing whether or not content that is so specialised can be shared with an editor’s community like wikipedia. At this point the verdict is still no, but we do put the content out there for people to see because we feel it could help physicians in the field with extra diagnostic material. Would you deliver highly specialized content in an open environment where others could change it and risk the scientific data being disrupted or being pointed in another direction?

A bit of background on the Tropical Medicine content: at ITM we have a lot of renowned professors in Tropical Medicine and one of the really amazing ones is Dr Erwin Van den Enden who is renowned for his insightful diagnosis and knowledge. The knowledge in Tropical Diseases is really specific and its research is constantly changing so a book would soon be redundant. At ITM Dr Erwin Van den Enden and San-Ho Correwyn have been working on a website that features an encyclopedia on Tropical Diseases which can be updated by them daily if necessary. This encyclopedia was build with content-e (a Dutch software) that enables single source manipulation (changes only have to be made in one location, like a wiki, but it does not keep an online history of the changes made). The content is updated as soon as new research has conclusive evidence to change earlier findings. It is a huge job that has helped health workers throughout the globe, so that is worthwhile on its own.

Thursday, 29 November 2007

Sugata Mitra versus Andrew Keen at OEB

Andrew Keen

the next big thing will be curation.
He mentions Mahalo
The only way to take the digital technology is to take the serious content back AND to pay for content and knowledge providers/supervisors.

not give away ones labour for free => open source movement = free labour = free hippie = liberatarians
succesfully merging human intelligence with exiting digital new tools
Technology can free us, but only if we focus on humans.


Sugata Mitra
What my work is about is not technology but about children, humans, as a self-organizing mechanism (like economics...) The collected effect of all stock brookers who think about economics, makes the economy.
Nature is self-organising. Sometimes it is a disaster (storm...) but it happens. So the future is unclear. There is no mathematics of how self-organising works. Take the 'oersoep' that eventually gave birth to humans. So, self-organisation has always been there. So far it has created a terrible world with self-distructive characteristics sometimes.
Google says it is a brain. So I agree with Andrew that we are unclear about the outcomes of google's growth, I disagree because it might happen that Google will become human and more.
I do not care that all this free tools are available and they might take away money, especially off American based companies because people can communicate and learn for free all over the world.
So we can not predict the outcomes of self-organising systems and so we cannot predict human outcomes and internet and so on.
If the net has to have a curator, so do we as humans.
Humans need a curator for SO much: food, peace, ozon layer ...
all of this assumes that humans will be the top of the food chain and that we have to stay as we are, without evolving.
I think we must evolve and let self-organisation take its course.

Andrew
respons:
skype: also an american company. There is no such thing as free, there has to be a way for moneytizing.
Media should not be about writing social wrongs. Web2.0 will not change the world, politics will.
second life: the founder's background is an evangelical christian. Also does Kevin Kelly (wrote on digital library may 2005) is also a born again christian. So second life is the digital version of christian heaven. My objection to that (Andrew is a Marxist) is that second life is the opium of a new type of person. They are so stressed with their own life, they flee into another world.
While digital life is anarchic, real life is not. Read Hobbes Leviathan or other social contract theorists. Hobbes: there must have been a moment where people will have gone from no rules to rules.
If we want to make the internet habitable, what we need is not only a bill of rights but also a bill of responsibilities.
Many internet users only think they have rights, not responsibilities and this is wrecking pedagogy and destroys the (digital) world (my comment: this sounds very extreme right in Belgium where extreme right says immigrants (new humans) invade the old culture and wreck the old world)
In my opinion anonymity is the biggest problem. Anonimity has wrecked discussion boards etcetera. So it would have to be encouraged to take an identity. (my comment: free identity helps in hierarchical cultures)
Anarchy never works! and it is corroding culture and the people in it.


question
a person has used mahalo in his company, but the teachers turned it down in favour of google.
reason: more resources via google, but not mahalo


sugata
searching and getting from one place to another. Two examples, the best application for searching is gps to get from one point to another. In India it takes a lot longer to find places. But one thing stuck in my mind. In the desert even with a map is impossible to get somewhere. The desert people use camels as vehicles, the camels can always find a way back. The latest is a self-organising application which works.
Google is the most powerfull learning company, but they are not here (congres) because it is a fenomenal company in just a couple of years time. It has created a new business knowledge economy. They grow sooo big, they are too huge.
What you have to do is think about google can help you.


question
globalisation and curation
curation is a value judgement. In 20 century the west had control about history, economy... Media is not neutral (Murdoch). Knowledge is value based. Curation makes a value judgement on what is the 'right' knowledge. (HOURAY for Daxa Patel!)
Mathy Van Buel (not sure name from ATIt) supports and adds.

Andrew Keen does NOT understand this question. He must definitely take a course on either gender studies or other critical studies that look at the impact of kolonial structures that affect everyone.

question
where do we stand if some students feel better in the virtual world, than in the real world?

Some topics are easier to discuss in a virtual environment, and others better in the real world. The best stands somewhere in between. (answer Sugata)

Question
What about open communities of practice of academics? They might engage students more to learn about a topic than in any other way?
Andrew: no it decreases the academic value.


Andrew Keen definitely likes to rant AND he contradicts himself.
Sugata Mitra is very intelligent, humouristic and full of nuance.

Andrew Keen at OEB

While he is kind of a pedant speaker (I hope for his karma he only plays it), he makes some good points.

- Kids are running the show, look at wikipedia, facebook...;
- economy of today is a Web2.0 economy;
- everyone is an autority;
=> so the challenge is to implement media literacy, so all kids would get to know what content is interesting and so on.

He also wrote a book (of which he is no doubt very proud to a strange extend): 'the cult of the amateur, he really does not trust the fact that everybody can create knowledge => the infinite monkey theory (give enough monkeys a typewriter and one of them will eventually publish a shakespeare).
the kids are in control, so the monkeys lead the world => he is not pro new media lets say.

What would be interesting would be to look at the discussions in the French revolution on education (Rousseau...). Maybe those discussions would parallel the ideas he is talking about now.

He is going on on Pamela Anderson and why she is not as important as Marie Curie, though the wikipedia has equally long sentences on these two characters.
But I think, each time has its soap opera players and soap characters have always been discussed and used in stories and knowledge.
The characters of Greek mythology were soap opera characters... so do we say Greec mythology is not historically interesting and lets erase it because it was not scientific enough?
It would be interesting also to see whether there are historical waves that have a focus on science and then again on cultural ... etcetera with moral differences that are related to this.