Category: knowledge networks

PLE & PLN – it’s us!

On By Margaret SimkinIn Collaborating, Colloquium, Connecting, digital artefacts, digital literacy, discussion, effective teaching, INF537, knowledge networks, peer learning, Reflection2 Comments

Open and Social Learning according to Alec Couros:

An open course entitled Education, Curriculum, and Instruction: Open, Connected, Social using Free Ope Source Software through the University of Regina, was implemented in 2008. (Couros, 2010, p. 109). It was based on personal learning networks, and participants quickly realised the value of sustainable knowledge networks. This led to a context built around a series of events which quickly absorbed participants in an engaged community of participation (Couros, 2010, p. 110).

The theoretical foundations of the course were

The open movement (Couros, 2010, p. 111).

Complementary learning theories – social cognitive, social constructivism, andragogy, connectivism, and open teaching (Couros, 2010, pp. 112-115).

The primary learning environment was established collaboratively in the weeks preceding the course. The tools considered were:

Web CT (now Blackboard) – pros: familiar to students and the university had a strong infrastructure of support; cons: proprietary (modifications needed vendor support); directed learning favoured over constructivist; expensive licensing fees.

Moodle – pros: free; open source; modifiable, strong community support; touts a constructivist and social constructivist approach; available. Cons: needs PHP server infrastructure; requires technical expertise leading to hidden costs; software not as available as hoped; course-centric not student-centric; top-down instructivist approach.

Ning – pros: ease of use; freely available in 2008; familiar functionality similar to Facebook; community and individual privacy levels; user-centric spaces; content aggregation; communication tools. Cons: no wiki feature; awkward to add core content material.

Wikispaces – pros: senior, best-known and most stable of wiki providers; solid technical support; theme modification options; simple user interface – see http://eci831.ca/ (Couros, 2010, pp. 117 – 119).

The course required the establishment of a PLN, and it was mandatory that participants developed a personal blog/digital portfolio, participated in a collaborative wiki resource ( no longer active but was located at  http://t4tl.wikispaces.com; this is what happens when such a site is not paid for!) and completed a major digital project (sound like INF 530!) (Couros, 2010, pp. 119 -120).

The course was based on the following tools and interactions:

Synchronous activities: two events per week of between 1.5 and 2 hours in length; the first based on content knowledge (like our INF 537 colloquiums); the second on teaching skills (Couros, 2010, pp. 120-121).

Asynchronous activities: researching and blogging; shared bookmarking; artefact creation; participation in open professional development opportunities; creating content and uploading it to sites such as YouTube; microblogging; collaborative lesson design and contribution to the course wiki (Couros, 2010, pp. 121-122).

Knowledge networks and digital innovation’s forerunner?? Just like INF 530 and INF 536, students developed authentic, dynamic and fluid interactions both within the designated course spaces and in spaces they chose and shared themselves.

Defining Personal Learning Environments, and comparing them to Personal Learning Networks was an exercise undertaken by Couros through Twitter and recorded at http://educationaltechnology.ca/couros/1156. Key agreement indicated that PLEs are the tools, artefacts, processes, and physical connections that allow learners to control and manage their learning (Couros, 2010, p. 125). PLNs explicitly include the human connections that result in the advancement and enabling of a PLE (Couros, 2010, p. 125).

Couros makes the following recommendations for those wishing to use PLNs for teaching and learning:

  • Immersion by participants
  • Social media literacy
  • Active contributions strengthen your PLN
  • Know your “followers” or “friends”
  • PLNs are central to learning for sustained and long-term growth in both facilitators and students(Couros, 2010, pp. 125 -126).

The participatory learning communities developed by courses such as the one Couros describes continue to exist because they are not based around courses per se, but around communal learning (Couros, 2010, p. 127). Those of us taking the Knowledge Networks and Digital Innovation course can already attest to that in terms of the subjects we have already finished because for many of us the content continues to be shared and discussed. If Couros is correct, this course will never have to end – now there’s a challenge to my PLN!

Reference

Couros, A. (2010). Developing personal learning networks for open and social learning. In Veletsianos, G. (Ed.), Emerging technologies in distance education (109–128). Athabasca University: AU Press.

#4

On By Margaret SimkinIn Colloquium, Connecting, INF537, knowledge networks2 Comments

Tim Klapdor

Online Learning Technology Leader, Charles Sturt University

Tim presented some challenging points in his Colloquium entitled: You Are Not in Control (Klapdor, You Are Not In Control, 2015). The manner in which his introductory slide was set up, with the NOT inserted in a different colour to the rest of the title – almost as an afterthought, was an indication that seat belts would need to be fastened for the journey.

He quickly moved from this somewhat disturbing title to explaining that the strongest networks had the best nodes, and that these nodes comprise of the individuals whose knowledge and wisdom in relation to networking have made them the best. Momentarily lulled into a sense of security, he then went on to explain that the systems in which networking occur do not allow individuals to have autonomy or ownership (Klapdor, You Are Not In Control, 2015).

The challenging question of who owns the data, controls our identities and defines who we are in online spaces was then posed (Klapdor, You Are Not In Control, 2015). Suddenly, networking looked less inviting – are we in control of anything or are the systems controlling us? Who actually connects us to our social groups – the social media we employ, or each of the users within the network?

Within our cohort, few have their own domain registered, although we are all very engaged in such spaces. Should we be worried? And anyone who has engaged with digital space has “lost” access to such spaces. In my case I have invested heavily in Ning when it was new and free, PB wiki (ditto), TakingIT Global (when it was provided at work then not renewed), and Moodle (before the administration at school decided to change to a different LMS). All the work I did in these places is lost to me. I have similar concerns about this blog once I finish this course.

Tim then proceeded to describe the rise of those who would confine us to some defined spaces, while locking us out of others, much in the way that the feudal lords enclosed the commons and made them exclusive (Klapdor, You Are Not In Control, 2015). He raised the roles of copyright and licensing and then offered the solace of the rise of the hackers.

On his blog, he offers some solutions to consider for those who want to mind and manage their own learning. This is summarised here:

A suggested range of solutions?
A suggested range of solutions?

Overall a thought provoking presentation. I guess all we can do is think carefully about what we do online, where we do it, and the longevity or transience of our decisions. If something is special we need to try and future proof it. When we die, we need to consider the disposal, or dispersal of our digital remains and ensure that we define our need to endure on our networks or to be forgotten.

Thanks for the roller coaster ride Tim! You may now unbuckle your seatbelt.

References

Klapdor, T. (2015, June 16). Make Your Own Slogan MYOS. Retrieved from TimKlapdor: https://timklapdor.wordpress.com/2015/06/16/make-your-own-slogan-myos/

Klapdor, T. [Host] (2015, August 13). You Are Not In Control.

#3

On By Margaret SimkinIn Colloquium, Connecting, discussion, Flipped classrooms, INF537, knowledge networks, official blog post, peer learning1 Comment

Blog post for Colloquium 3

What does ‘flat’ learning look like?

Flat connected learning incorporates aspects of Collaboration, Project based learning, Blended learning, Flipped learning, and Inquiry-based learning established within a framework based on a combination of Web 2.0, leadership, pedagogy and learning design (Lindsay, n.d.). In many ways, this sums up the reality of teaching and learning in an era of rapid technological development and pedagogical change.

 

It also encapsulates the five stage taxonomy of online, global learning:

  1. Online interactions
  2. Real encounters
  3. Online learning
  4. Community of practice
  5. Learning collaboratives (Lindsay J., 2015)

 

According to Julie the norms of global collaboration begin with being prepared; depend on having a purpose; require the ability to paraphrase, perceive, and participate; entail a positive mindset and productive nature; and are based on the ability to detect the potential in situations (Lindsay J. , 2015).

Pedagogical change evolves from being able to approach learning design with a flexible attitude, engaging with professional learning in a progressive manner, and adopting the essential elements of conceptual change (Lindsay J., 2015).

In this scenario the teacher is viewed as an activator and the student as an active participant in the process, while the school provides the conduit, and the community is seen as a partner in learning (Lindsay J., 2015).

Once the technological requirements are in place, and teachers have knowledge of new ways of meaningful engagement through TPACK and SAMR, and the belief that such pedagogy is important, flat connections and global learning become realistic options for developing knowledge and wisdom (Lindsay J., 2015). Such an approach leads to cosmogogy: the study of learning through connection to the world through the digital technologies available today. In such a scenario the context lies in learning with, not about, and geo-location is irrelevant (Lindsay J., 2015).

This presentation was a great introduction to the peer presentations relating to selected chapters of Wang’s extensive tome (Wang, 2014). These expositions demonstrated a potential for school adaptation where senior secondary students could lighten the load for each other in collaboratively summarising text. It certainly was of benefit to our cohort in this subject.

Three colloquiums, three very different ways of doing business – and all of them useful and thought provoking.

References

Lindsay, J. [. (2015, August 6). Colloquium 3: Flat Classrooms.

Lindsay, J. (n.d.). Flat Learning. Retrieved August 11, 2015, from Flat Collections: http://www.flatconnections.com/flat-learning.html

Wang, V. (. (2014). Handbook of research on education and technology in a changing society. London: IGI Global.

 

 

 

 

ICT Horizons

On By Margaret SimkinIn blended learning, Connecting, digital literacy, discussion, effective teaching, INF537, knowledge networks, ReflectionLeave a comment

The NMC Horizon Report 2015 K-12 and links to Wang and Weller readings:

The current edition of the Horizon report can be found here and a commentary on what it means for education can be found at the Mind Shift blog. It is always thought provoking to investigate this report and much of the content resonates with the subjects I have taken as part of my course.

This diagram gives a brief overview of this year’s findings:

Challenges

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The report this year sees integrating technology onto teacher education as solvable and cites the Finnish example of using Edukata (a participatory design model):

The more difficult, or wicked, challenge is scaling the models of teaching innovations(Johnson, Adams Becker, Estrada, & Freeman, 2015, p. 1).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#2

On By Margaret SimkinIn Colloquium, digital artefacts, digital literacy, effective teaching, INF537, knowledge networks, official blog post, peer learning, SummationLeave a comment

Learning Analytics: A Traveller’s Guide

Anyone participating in the learning journey that is INF537 would have been intrigued by the title of Colloquium #2 (Welsh, 2015). The content, while very different in delivery from Colloquium #1 (Astbury, 2015), was equally thought provoking. Despite the title, data was not the only aspect covered, and the final comments indicated the incredible potential of learning analytics.

Simon’s opening comments related to his chosen title, as he pointed out that a traveller digs deeper than a tourist. He then commented that the interpretation and mining of data is an aspect of teaching and learning that is still sorting itself out.

For those who share an antipathy to using test scores to predict educational outcomes, Simon’s comments opened a door to improved educational futures. He explained that academic analytics are those used by institutions to aid with student management while learning analytics are interrogated to support learning and teaching for improved outcomes.

Investigating these concepts further indicates that data mining does not occur in a vacuum; it links to power and relationships; the capturing and sharing of data is in itself a development of knowledge capital (Weller, 2011, p. 43). Another aspect of such data is how it is managed and preserved (Weller, 2011, p. 43). Those generating the most data in a digital world are already privileged, and the rapidly expanding body of work is increasing the division between the haves and have-nots.

Simon referred to the example of the ATAR system and its use by schools to target areas that teachers need to improve, compared to its use by the MySchool website, where visitors choose a very different interpretation. This illustrated the importance of context and intent in such data collection and its subsequent use (Welsh, 2015).

There are three aspects of simplistic data use that cause concern:

  1. What does it mean for a student to be monitored in this way – is it profiling or determinism, as Hyacinth posted in the accompanying chat?
  2. The ethics of such use – who actually owns the data?
  3. The fact that teachers are being asked to interpret such data without training in data literacy (Liz Eckert).

It is also important to know how reporting systems are being used and where the data is coming from in order to give appropriate advice based on the conclusions that are being drawn. Much of the data comes from the vendors of Learning Management Systems, who have set up metrics based on ease of use. Algorithms based on the number of clicks or the amount of time spent on any given task are not really a measure of learning and need to be carefully interpreted. There is a big difference between measuring quantities of clicks and measuring the quality of engagement (Welsh, 2015).

The example of using Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) to capture and mine data was very interesting. VLEs are vendor focussed and often simplistic in terms of the data they gather. Once an institution has invested in providing a VLE it can be stuck with that specific product, as migrating to another platform is expensive and time consuming (a point noted and discussed by several classmates). Weller considers that introducing VLEs has led to the educational institution losing control of data to the manufacturer, and cites the example of Blackboard trying to patent many core e-learning concepts (Weller, Digital Resilience, 2011, pp. 170-171). Andrew questioned consideration of other products as a replacement, notably Moodle, which is open source.

An example Simon explored in some detail was the use of subject forums, such as those used within the Charles Sturt Blackboard internet, and, in the case of my workplace SIMON (School Information Management on the Net). If students have to participate in online forums within their VLEs then a tool to measure this must be able to “read” the type of material being entered. In this way, within an hour of the posted comment a scaffold into deeper learning could be generated, problems within comments across the group can be alerted to the educator, and extra reading could be suggested to those requiring additional explanation, or extension.

This type of monitoring could lead to an easy citation mechanism for resources utilised, which, as Greg commented, would be “referencing heaven”. It is in these potentially positive contributions to learning that most teachers can see the real value of data mining, rather than the click counting and number of visits which are so commonly applied. Resulting real time adaptation of learning programs to personalise student learning experience, development of meta-cognitive skills for learners, fast response to learning design and quick adaptation of technical equipment and systems would all be welcomed by educators (Welsh, 2015).

Weller warns of potential risk from using data to analyse and improve results by stating that it could lead to Google replacing human librarians, and user generated “playlists” of information may make teachers irrelevant (Weller, Digital Resilience, 2011, p. 171). This is a very broad allegation which has been somewhat allayed by Simon’s Colloquium session.

As Rochelle commented: the link between educational data mining, decision support systems and expert systems is inextricable; Deborah’s response that the skill lies in using the power for good sums up the feeling of most educators whose primary focus is the overall well-being of people in their classes.

While Simon’s presentation assuaged some fears, it raised other issues of potential concern for teachers and students. Needless to say, we are living in revolutionary times, and, while a revolution may be bloodless, it is rarely painless (Weller, Digital Resilience, 2011, p. 168). The critical thing for scholars and teachers is that they stay involved, because they need to be in a position to determine what goes, what stays and what comes; passitivity is not an option (Weller, Digital Resilience, 2011, p. 184).

References

Astbury, A. [Host]. (2015, July 21). ABC Splash Online Colloquium 1. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Weller, M. (2011). Digital Resilience. In M. Weller, The Digital Scholar: How Technology is Transforming Scholarly Practice (pp. 168-184). London: Bloomsbury Collections. doi:10.5040/978184966275.ch-014

Weller, M. (2011). The Nature of Scholarship. In M. Weller, The Digital Scholar, How Technology is Transforming Scholarly Practice (pp. 41-51). London: Bllomsbury Collections. doi:10.5040/978184966275.ch-014

Welsh, S. [Host]. (2015, July 28). Learning Analytics: A Traveller’s Guide; Online Colloquium 2. Albury, Victoria, Australia.

Acknowledgements:

Fellow travellers’ comments from the Colloquium chat box are acknowledged in blue.

Evaluative report

On By Margaret SimkinIn assessment item, Conclusion, evaluation, INF532, knowledge networks, official blog post, SummationLeave a comment

Evaluative statement (a):

From the commencement of Knowledge Networking for Educators, there was an expectation of relevant learning, encountering new skills and continuing involvement in a networked community of practice. The learning modules delivered valuable and relevant material, providing challenging and practical experiences for exploration, as well as demonstration. This is best exemplified by referring to Assignment One, which required the development of a digital artefact (a new skill) (Simkin, Digital Artefact and References, 2015). The end product was a short film, but the processes of topic and platform selection (Simkin, Survey Results, 2015), and subsequent artefact creation, were where the challenging practical experience was most evident (Simkin, Artefact Design, 2015). Given the assessment mark allocation gave more credit to the exegesis, the time taken to develop the artefact was excessive, but incredibly fulfilling, despite the compromises that had to be made (Simkin, Exegesis, 2015). Significant learning resulted from mistakes, investigating exciting platforms, conquering fears (for example, peers found hearing their own voice confronting), and technical frustration. Conquering the digital product was a wonderful achievement, celebrated on Twitter by most of the cohort through sharing links. Assessing the work of colleagues for this task also provided a significant, networked learning opportunity (Simkin, Collegial Artefact Critiques, 2015). A valuable addition to this process would have arisen from sharing the exegeses, which described the context, intention and restraints behind the artefact, enabling a deeper level of analysis.

During the course of the semester, this subject presented a range of concepts and required the exploration of a range of knowledge networking tools. Starting with the obligatory introduction (Simkin, Knowledge Networking for Educators, 2015), and progressing to the final module (Simkin, The Future, 2015), the Digitalli blog posts of 2015 document a growth in knowledge mastery, leading to increased wisdom, thereby setting the scene for ongoing growth as a connected educator as defined by Gregor Kennedy (Kennedy, 2014).

The course began by investigating information in the digital age, evaluating the different sources of knowledge, identifying innovative platforms, and challenging participants to re-define terminology and apply it to contemporary learning scenarios (Coutas, 2010). Early in the subject, students encountered a range of digital tools, some new to them, and others well used (Simkin, Digital tools, 2015). This suite of new media tools, covered all aspects of knowledge management from content creation, to content curation, and included collaborative work, and connecting with and developing social networks leading to communities of practice (Simkin, Curation, 2015).

Building on knowledge networking to strengthen school-based classroom engagement and learning was a highly valuable aspect of the course, even for those with prior active involvement in a range of digital platforms (Simkin, 1.1 Connected students, 2015). It enabled both consolidation and revisitation of virtual learning spaces, revived forgotten skills while mastering new ones, and increased overall personal understanding of the philosophies of information management (Simkin, K. C in a C. A, 2015). The crucial need to consider pedagogy, andragogy and learning design when designing tasks was incredibly beneficial. The latter was aptly defined by Tolisano, in scaffolding what learning occurs when a class is involved in an activity such as Skype (Tolisano, 2103).

While the verdict on skills and knowledge gained from this course is overwhelmingly positive, there are some aspects which cannot be evaluated with such a high level of affirmation.  The documenting of networked learning experiences through blogging enables reflection, and ideally, feedback.  The processes required by the learning modules and assessment tasks for INF532, in combination with a very small cohort, meant that the capacity to engage in dialogue through blogging (and the discussion forum) was limited. There was a strong connection between the assessment tasks and blogging, but limited direction to blog within the learning modules. Unlike INF530 and INF536, for example, there was no requirement that peers comment on each other’s blog posts, an attribute that was missed. The digital artefacts were peer assessed, but some people were fairly slow to complete this or did not advise their peers where to find their evaluation (Simkin, Collegial Artefact Critiques, 2015). This was an innovative digital process which did not meet its potential standard for peer learning or the networking expectations held by most participants.

Using a blog to reflect on learning enabled powerful personal reflection, meaningful consideration, and publication of ideas. Sharing links through Twitter resulted in some feedback from followers, but no comments on the posts themselves (Simkin, Tweeting, 2015). This scarcity of feedback was disappointing.

Another aspect of knowledge networking that has been the basis of subjects within this Master of Education course has been the use of the discussion forums. This year information was distributed through the new Interact2 interface, based on the Blackboard learning management system (Simkin, New LMS, 2015). This added a new format for students and staff to conquer. Students found the new discussion format less user-friendly, and feedback was inconsistent. Fewer comments were posted on the forum, and retracing items proved tricky. The email alert within the system did not work as well as last year’s.

Despite these issues, overall the value of this subject is acknowledged. Throughout the semester topics ranged from the playful to the very serious and academic (Simkin, Play & Learning, 2015). Participants developed physical classroom and library spaces, and digital venues such as YouTube channels (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaJmkTMf7-74nzRUDW4e9pg ). Concepts such as the flipped classroom, blended classrooms and flexible learning, which are sometimes just contemporary buzz-words, were productively investigated and compared with personal practice, leading to improvement in learning design (Simkin, Types of Learning, 2015).

Reflective statement (b):

In retracing the course of Knowledge Networks for Educators, there are several components from the learning modules that really resonated. The contents of the first module raised some key issues relevant to personal concern and frustration in attempting to teach twenty-first century skills in a school that remains largely “analogue” in focus despite being well-equipped technologically (Simkin, 1.2 New Culture, 2015).   From dialogue with other students of this course, this is, sadly, too common.

Contemplating the development of digital lives, personally, professionally and for the students encountered in participants’ work, it is hard to imagine that a sound philosophy of communities of practice is not a basic guiding principle in this day and age. Yet for many teachers and administrators, the main focus with technology in classrooms is fear of cyber bullying, rather than the crucial need to model the use of technology and development of C21st skills which include protective behaviours (Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills (ATC21S), 2014). The dichotomy between issues of authenticity and authority in the digital age compared to the past is extreme when considering Floridi’s comment: that humanity has experienced information ages since writing began (Floridi, 2009, p. 153). Modern students need to become the Gutenberg or Turing of these times, by seeking wide-ranging input to create new information (Floridi, 2009, p. 154). Teachers should celebrate the fact that information is socially situated, and socially constructed, and, therefore, instruction needs to be designed to empower people, as opposed to overwhelming them (Lindsey, 2014). Infowhelm is a serious issue with many different names (Bawden & Robinson, 2009). Students should be guided to locate and evaluate information, rather than be restricted to the text-book or teacher notes that many educators insist on mandating as the sole source of information (Simkin, 1.1 Connected students, 2015).

All educators have a unique and critical role to play in assisting their students to develop skills that enable them to cope with the flood of information that is now accessible (Brown & Duguid, 2000, p. 14).  The rapidity of information sharing is well demonstrated by the mesmerising animated gif that introduces the Too Big To Know blog post (Simkin, Too Big To Know, 2015). Infoenthusiasts are excited by the amazing amount of knowledge that may result from this, however, students need to be educated to understand, select, and curate, then network and collaborate in order to problem solve within a learning community, something to which is so well suited to digital information sources and sharing (Floridi, 2009, p. 154).

Thomas and Brown define this as a new culture of learning, invisible, non-traditional in structure and operating within a defined environment (Thomas & Brown, 2011, pp. 17-18).  They acknowledge that playing in such a culture leads to the development of passions and ideas, which, in turn, encourages freedom to research (Thomas & Brown, 2011, pp. 17-18).  The necessity for managed freedom is supported in Douch’s recent blog post, where he postulates that the balustrade at the edge of The Pinnacle (in the Grampians) doesn’t restrict people; instead it is liberating them to go further (Douch, 2015)!

Learning within this new culture cultivates global, digital citizenship, generates feedback leading to improvement for students, and establishes the use of rich and highly textured examples of cross-referencing and communication to form a community of practice made up of the teachers and students within the group (Thomas & Brown, 2011, pp. 22-25). There is a serious problem if teachers are not also learners.

Ruminating on digital artefacts led to an investigation of the best-known creator of such learning objects: Salman Khan (Simkin, Khan Academy, 2015).  Interestingly, while Khan has designed artefacts to teach entire subjects, he does not advocate a world without teachers, rather, he proposes a change to teacher deployment. He proposes that teaching become a team sport where numerous students in a large space collaborate with a number of teachers (Khan, 2012, pp. 197-198). The fluencies of C21st learning are well suited to Khan’s model (Crockett, Jukes, & Churches, 2011).

A thought provoking concept is that of filter bubbles (Pariser, 2013). People must be educated in the manner that algorithms work, and what is typically collected and presented to each one of us separately. The speed at which information is being added to the web in combination with these mining algorithms is a critical C21st skill, that should be included in overall education programs (Simkin, Filter Bubbles, 2015). In fact, Australian teachers are mandated through learning standard 4.5 (Simkin, AITSL, 2015) to use ICT (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2014).

Actor Network Theorists postulate that competence is an effect is passed through organisations as a result of minute translations at mundane levels of everyday knowledge flow patterns (Fenwick, 2010, pp. 27-28). They also state that knowledge must be considered as a rhetoric of contentions (Fenwick, 2010, p. 35). The investigations and analyses of educational processes are more important than the logical meaning of concepts and processes typically applied to analyse education (Fenwick, 2010, p. 44). It is vital that educators think about the accessibility and equity of information (Simkin, ANT, 2015).

Stange’s strange video, filmed through Google Glass, utilises a method of recording that is disconcerting and distracting in the extreme (Stange, 2013). It detracts from the valid points Shirky presents on the premise that knowledge networking is based on having a common interest and working with like-minded people (Simkin, Shirky, 2015). Of necessity, the incorporation of finding like-minded people, connecting with them and following their interests, forms part of this process (Simkin, Shirky, 2015).

New vocabulary has been acquired: glocalisation (Simkin, Fis(c)hbowls etc.!, 2015); “filter bubbles” (Simkin, Filter Bubbles, 2015) and fliperentiated, in relation to excellent design for flipped classrooms(Hirsch, 2014). The latter was shared through the Diigo Knowledge Networks group – a wonderful source of co-created information for members.

In contemplating the growth accruing from the study of Knowledge Networks for Educators, the improvement in and consolidation of personal skills and development of a more focused information philosophy is measurable. It has brought all the learning in this course together to strengthen both educational practice and personal learning connections; a pleasing outcome for those involved.

References

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2014). Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. Retrieved from Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership: http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standards-for-teachers/standards/list

Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills (ATC21S). (2014). Retrieved March 4, 2015, from Microsoft Education: http://www.microsoft.com/education/en-au/leadership/Pages/assessment.aspx

Bawden, D., & Robinson, L. (2009). The Dark Side of Information Overload, Anxiety and Other Paraxes and Pathologies. Journal of Information Science, 35(2), 180-191.

Brown, J., & Duguid, P. (2000). Limits to Information. In J. Brown, & P. Duguid, Social Life of Information (pp. 11-33). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Coutas, P. (2010, October 8). New Sources of Information. Retrieved from Slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/pcoutas/new-sources-of-information

Crockett, L., Jukes, I., & Churches, A. (2011). Literacy is Not Enough, 21st-Century Fluencies for the Digital Age. Corwin.

Douch, A. (2015, May 28). Why Your School Needs Clearly Defined Social Media Policies. Retrieved from Douchy’s Blog onICT and Education: https://andrewdouch.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/why-your-school-needs-clearly-defined-social-media-policies/

Fenwick, T. &. (2010). Actor-network Theory in Education. . Knowledge, Innovation and Knowing in Practice , 24-39.

Floridi, L. (2009). The Information Society and Its Philosophy: An Introduction to the Special issue on “The Philosophy of Information, Its Nature, and Future Developments. The Information Society: An International Journal, 25, 153-158. doi:10.1080/01972240902848583

Hirsch, J. (2014, October 21). “Fliperentiated” Instruction: How to Create the Customizable Classroom. Retrieved from Edutopia: http://www.edutopia.org/blog/fliperentiated-instruction-create-customizable-classroom-joe-hirsch

Kennedy, G. (2014, January 30). Official Ascilite Video: 2013 Conference – Understanding our Present. Retrieved from You Tube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnilKymnPmo&feature=youtu.be

Khan, S. (2012). The One World School House: Education Reimagined. London: Hodder and Staughton.

Lindsey, J. (2014). 1.1 Information environments. Retrieved March 4, 2015, from INF532 Knowledge Networking for Educators: https://interact2.csu.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-289790-dt-content-rid-490057_1/courses/S-INF532_201530_W_D/S-INF532_201530_W_D_ImportedContent_20150211062159/module1/1_2_Discover_philosophy_info_digital_environ.html

Pariser, E. (2013, March 22). Beware Online “Filter Bubbles”. Retrieved from YouTube: http://youtu.be/4w48Ip-KPRs

Simkin, M. (2015, March 07). 1.1 Connected students. Retrieved from Digitalli: http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/msimkin/2015/03/07/module-1-1-being-a-student-in-the-connected-world/

Simkin, M. (2015, March 8). 1.2 New Culture. Retrieved from Digitalli: http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/msimkin/2015/03/08/1-2-a-new-culture-of-learning/

Simkin, M. (2015, May 30). AITSL. Retrieved from Digitalli: http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/msimkin/2015/05/30/aitsl/

Simkin, M. (2015, May 20). ANT. Retrieved from Digitalli: http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/msimkin/2015/05/20/ant

Simkin, M. (2015, April 28). Artefact Design. Retrieved from Digitalli: http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/msimkin/2015/04/28/artefact-design/

Simkin, M. (2015, May 19). Collegial Artefact Critiques. Retrieved from Digitalli: http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/msimkin/2015/05/19/collegial-artefact-critiques/

Simkin, M. (2015, May 20). Curation. Retrieved from Digitalli: http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/msimkin/2015/05/20/curation/

Simkin, M. (2015, April 25). Digital Artefact and References. Retrieved from Digitalli: http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/msimkin/2015/04/25/digital-artefact/

Simkin, M. (2015, March 10). Digital tools. Retrieved from Digitalli: http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/msimkin/2015/03/10/the-digital-tools-used-in-inf532/

Simkin, M. (2015, May 27). Exegesis. Retrieved from Digitalli: http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/msimkin/2015/05/27/exegesis/

Simkin, M. (2015, May 19). Filter Bubbles. Retrieved from Digitalli: http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/msimkin/2015/05/19/module-4/

Simkin, M. (2015, May 24). Fis(c)hbowls etc.! Retrieved from Digitalli: http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/msimkin/2015/05/24/fischbowls-etc/

Simkin, M. (2015, May 20). K. C in a C. A. Retrieved from Digitalli: http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/msimkin/2015/05/20/knowledge-construction-in-a-connected-age/

Simkin, M. (2015, May 17). Khan Academy. Retrieved from Digitalli: http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/msimkin/2015/05/17/khan-academy-digital-artefacts-and-the-one-world-schoolhouse/

Simkin, M. (2015, February 16). Knowledge Networking for Educators. Retrieved from Digitalli: http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/msimkin/2015/02/16/knowledge-networking-for-educators /

Simkin, M. (2015, May 26). New LMS. Retrieved from Digitalli: http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/msimkin/2015/05/26/new-lms/

Simkin, M. (2015, May 20). PKM. Retrieved from Digitalli: http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/msimkin/2015/05/20/398/

Simkin, M. (2015, May 22). Play & Learning. Retrieved from Digitalli: http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/msimkin/2015/05/22/play-learning/

Simkin, M. (2015, May 20). Shirky. Retrieved from Digitalli: http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/msimkin/2015/05/20/shirky

Simkin, M. (2015, April 29). Survey Results. Retrieved from Digitalli: http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/msimkin/2015/04/29/survey-results/

Simkin, M. (2015, May 24). The Future. Retrieved from Digitalli: http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/msimkin/2015/05/24/the-future/

Simkin, M. (2015, April 1). Too Big To Know. Retrieved from Digitalli: http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/msimkin/2015/04/01/too-big-to-know/

Simkin, M. (2015, May 25). Tweeting. Retrieved from Digitalli: http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/msimkin/2015/05/25/tweeting/

Simkin, M. (2015, May 24). Types of Learning. Retrieved from Digitalli: http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/msimkin/2015/05/24/types-of-learning/

Stange, M. (2013, July 9). Blackboard World 2013 Opening Keynote #throughglass. Retrieved from YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNyksYKniJY

Thomas, D., & Brown, J. (2011). Arc-of-Life-Learning. A new culture of learning, 17-33.

Tolisano, S. R. (2103, January 27). Learning in the Modern Classroom. Retrieved from Langwitches blog: http://langwitches.org/blog/2013/01/27/learning-in-the-modern-classroom/

 

Exegesis

On By Margaret SimkinIn assessment item, digital artefacts, INF532, knowledge networksLeave a comment

Exegesis:

Below is the text for Assignment 1, which accompanies the Digital Artefact.

This exegesis evaluates the digital artefact: “Social media in your classroom”, a short animation, constructed using Sparkol VideoScribe software (http://www.sparkol.com/)  (Simkin, 2015).  This platform was chosen because it contains copyright free sketches and music, offers effective conversion of text and photograph to hand drawn images, and renders into upload-ready film. Scribing animation has been proven to attract and hold viewers’ attention, an important requirement for the artefact.  (Air, Oakland, & Walters, 2014). Content was developed using appropriate design principles, based on ADDIE (ADDIE Model, n.d.), selected for simplicity, and application to andragogy. A broad application of knowledge networking theory: physical connectivity, and developing collaborative communities of practice, democratising learning, was the intended message  (Price, 2015).

Design commenced with ADDIE’s analysis phase; this clarified instructional objectives, identified the learning environment and acknowledged the audience’s pre-existing knowledge and skills. Informed by the school’s technological vision, the artefact needed to stimulate technology inclusive pedagogy, for 2016.  Its purpose needed to be effective, accessible and developed at minimal cost. Modelling a product that could be re-used, or stimulate creation of new artefacts was important.

 

The form and function needed to engage teachers with the content of the artefact. The selection of VideoScribe over Powtoon, or Office Mix for PowerPoint was made because this style of video is persuasive, and well received (Air, Oakland, & Walters, 2014, p. 3).  A comparison with these other products made it a clear winner (Simkin, Artefact Design, 2015).

 

One of the advantages of scribing is the stimulation of viewer anticipation (Air, Oakland, & Walters, 2014, p. 17). By using drawings to convey meaning, questioning is encouraged, and an element of playfulness produces a positive emotional response (Barrett, 2013, pp. 53-56).

Content was structured to avoid the pathology of Information overload  (Bawden & Robinson, 2009, p. 182).  Being mindful that teachers’ primary focus is facilitation of the learning was critical for selecting the drawings and words included in the animation. The message that the connected world lies at the heart of the curriculum was crucial (Zuckerman, 2013, p. 266).

Technological challenges affected design. Overall length was reduced to enhance rendering to film and reduce upload speeds.  Some desired elements had to be removed, and the spoken narration abbreviated  (Simkin, Artefact Design, 2015). Human resources were stretched in terms of pre-existing skills, time and looming deadlines, which impacted quality of the finished product. Such factors will always affect teachers creating digital artefacts for their learning communities.

The context for any digital artefact is the most critical consideration. The region for which this artefact is intended suffers patchy Internet access, so brevity and file size were critical. The clientele comprises a school community seeking to implement higher order technology skills though incorporation into lesson design. The teachers are academically focussed and technologically competent. For the last eleven years, they have used tablet laptops, s their students from Years 9 upwards since 2012. Next year this will extend from Years 6 to 8 with iPads. Recent meaningful change in technological pedagogy in some classes, has sparked momentum on which to build.

Professional learning has offered limited opportunities for meaningful exploration of twenty-first century fluencies, or consideration of the importance of global digital citizenship, the background of core values and personal identity on which all other fluencies depend (Crockett, Jukes, & Churches, 2011, pp. 79 – 82). Some believe that teaching such skills is not the responsibility of subject teachers, however, the Australian Curriculum defines such skills as cross–curricular capabilities (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, n.d.). A professional learning day focussing on technology in the classroom is planned for the beginning of Term 3.

Artefact design commenced amidst discussion centred on the type of devices, which cannot create student centred learning environments themselves. The value of technology, with its ability to access, store, manipulate and analyse information, comes from creating a student-centred learning environment, and it is this that must be explored (Wong, Hanafi, & Sabudin, 2010, p. 389). Implemented well, social media ensures that students will spend less time gathering information, and more time reflecting on the objectives they have set, and the learning they have achieved  (Wong, Hanafi, & Sabudin, 2010, p. 389).

This artefact, therefore, is aimed at andragogy, which identifies different learning needs to pedagogy (Couros, 2010, p. 113). Motivation for developing new skills is enhanced by adults’ life experiences, so it is vital to consider these needs, and present content of relevance (Couros, 2010, p. 114).

The starting slide was chosen to cause a positive response; smiling before you start recording your voice-over makes you sound upbeat, seeing a smile engenders a degree of optimism (Air, Oakland, & Walters, 2014, p. 46).  With scribing, there is also the anticipation of what will appear next: why is this person smiling at me? The evaluation team has reported that this design element is successful.

Adult learners also draw constructive conclusions from mistakes (Couros, 2010, p. 114). A slight slip up in recording the voice-over remains, partly for this reason, but also because of the impending deadline. In the professional learning workshop this will provide a teachable moment. The effectiveness of this cannot yet be evaluated.

Educators face constantly altering expectations, from authorities rewriting curriculum, to administrators changing expectations, and alterations to school policies that cover every aspect of their working life. Therefore it was important that the message imparted by the artefact introduced a new way of working that was easy to adopt, and which offered a way of fulfilling current programs as outlined by the school’s professional learning policy documents. The recently introduced foci on considerations for successful learning experiences within a positive education framework have been effectively woven through the artefact (Grift & Major, 2013).

The social media focus was chosen for its personal familiarity to many teachers; it offers a range of options and is something that can be supported by current “nodes” of networked educators within the college learning community. Richardson recommends that these impassioned teachers have the capacity to assist others to become part of knowledge networks, a powerful way to deal with the vast quantities of accessible information (Richardson, 2010, pp. 295-296). Trials have proven the artefact’s efficacy in arousing interest.

The development phase reflected the need to justify trying social media rather demonstrating how to use it. Such Instruction will follow the viewing of the artefact, and will be able to unfold as participants require. While blogging is the specific media covered within the artefact, it is presented as an option, thus allowing for the ensuing discussion to lead to other examples. The skills of sharing authentic publications, reflecting on progress, creating positive digital footprints and co-learning through collection, curation and evaluation of information are the skills that matter, and which have been clearly articulated throughout the artefact (Richardson, 2010, pp. 297-301).

Social media has the capacity to be applied to any content, as indicated in the artefact. The specific example of Gail Casey will be raised in the ensuing discussion. She promotes a social and participatory approach within her face-to-face Mathematics classes, and builds on her students’ life experiences  (Casey, 2013, pp. 60-63).  Her work supports the considerations for learning design raised by Grift and Major (Grift & Major, 2013), and the power and multimodality of social media strengthen interdisciplinary literacy (Casey, 2013, p. 60). Brevity constraints precluded the inclusion of such justification for using social media.

Contrary to popular perception, students struggle with interpreting, thinking with, or building multimedia communications and need guidance to develop a multimodal literacy. (Lemke, 2010, pp. 250-251).  Many myths abound in relation to older and younger users of technology; while younger people use social media in many forms, they do not realise the potential for learning and knowledge building that it offers (Higgins, ZhiMin, & Katsipataki, 2012, p. 20). Some wonderful images supporting this point had to be removed to allow successful rendering. The message that platforms are so varied and information access so big that no users can know them all could have been more effectively delivered (Weinberger, 2011).

Several invitees have been approached to review the artefact and give feedback as to its value; their comments support VideoScribe’s claim that scribing attracts and holds viewers’ attention (Air, Oakland, & Walters, 2014, p. 3). The artefact has been described as awesome, but assessing the delivery of the message has been difficult. The most evaluative comment identified the core message, and stated a need for more examples and information on how to get involved (Statt, 2015). This indicates that the intention of raising awareness and arousing interest in further involvement has been achieved for this viewer.

Rheingold identifies three aspects relevant to the power of knowledge networking through social media and thriving in an online environment. Firstly, attention, sometimes referred to as multi-tasking, or hyper-attention (attention splitting) (Rheingold, Netsmart: How To Thrive Online, 2012). This aspect of using digital devices is a concern for many teachers. Rheingold suggests that the solution lies in teachers’ design of learning experiences, which should include training as to when and how to apply the “high-beam light of focussed attention” (Rheingold, Netsmart: How To Thrive Online, 2012). In contrast, Andersson et al. report that students feel that laptops have substantially increased distractions and reduced face-to-face social interaction (Andersson, Hatakka, Gronlund, & Wiklund, 2014, pp. 43-44). The narration within the artefact successfully refers to the importance of social media for teaching students appropriate use and meaningful interaction as part of a range of strategies, thereby offering solutions for such concerns.

Secondly, becoming an active citizen in the online space, not a passive consumer, creates a literacy of participation (Rheingold, Attention, and Other 21st-Century Social Media Literacies, 2010).  Collaboration moves combined efforts from merely co-operating to really working with others; collective learning in a shared domain of human endeavour is referred to as communities of practice (Wenger, 2012, p. 1). It is the potency of this mix of ages, experiences and knowledge seeking that is so attractive within social media options. The artefact presents this concept through images of face-to-face talking, and circles around the globe, supported by the narrative discussing the links to the world beyond the classroom, irrespective of time and location. The link between these processes, and their current use by universities and workplaces, clearly reinforces the importance of such skills (Christozov, 2013, pp. 1-3).

Finally, Rheingold nominates critical consumption, an issue raised by many others  (Rheingold, Netsmart: How To Thrive Online, 2012). Knowing how to use social media to cultivate and utilise networks for learning must be modelled and encouraged by educators. This presents an exciting proposition, offering fulfilment of great hopes while simultaneously challenging many concepts of traditional schooling; the artefact presents this quite well. (Richardson & Mancabelli, Personal Learning Networks: Using the Power of Connections to Transform Education, 2011, pp. 7-8).

Blogging, the example focussed on within the artefact, has developed into a serious means of communication, which for many readers supersedes traditional news media (De Saulles, 2012, p. 15). It offers authentic publication, and a means of quickening the dynamic exchange of ideas, taking teachers from isolated classrooms to virtual spaces where generation of ideas propels innovative ways of becoming involved (Davidson & Goldberg, 2010, p. 176). The potential of connecting with a world-wide network of professionals for support and learning is successfully conveyed by this digital artefact according to viewer feedback (Wheeler, 2015).

Including research findings indicating a correlation between effective technology integration and improved learning outcomes has also resonated  (Picardo, 2015). The artefact’s content inclusion, quality of product and download speed have been successful, however, the educational impact is unknown. The real value will only be observable after the workshop if it results in implementation of social media within this targeted school community.

 

 

References

ADDIE Model. (n.d.). Retrieved March 25, 2015, from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADDIE_Model

Air, J., Oakland, E., & Walters, C. (2014). Video Scribing; How Whiteboard Animation Will Get You Heard. Sparkol Limited.

Andersson, A., Hatakka, M., Gronlund, A., & Wiklund, M. (2014). Reclaiming the Students – Coping With Social Media in 1:1 Schools. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(1), 37-52. doi:10.1080/17439884.2012.756518

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (n.d.). Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Capability. Retrieved from Australian Curriculum: F-10 Curriculum: http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/generalcapabilities/information-and-communication-technology-capability/introduction/ict-capability-across-the-curriculum

Barrett, T. (2013). Can Computers Keep Secrets? How A Six-Year-Olds Curiosity Could Change The World. Edinburgh: No Tosh.

Bawden, D., & Robinson, L. (2009). The Dark Side of Information Overload, Anxiety and Other Paraxes and Pathologies. Journal of Information Science, 35(2), 180-191.

Casey, G. (2013, September). Interdisciplinary Literacy Through Social Media In the Mathematics Classroom: an Action Research Study. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 57(1), 60-67.

Christozov, D. (2013). Knowledge Diffusion via Social Netwroks: The C21st Challenge. International Journal of Digital Literacy and Digital Competence, 4(2, April-June), 1-12.

Couros, A. (2010). Developing Personal Networks for Open and Social Learning. In Emerging Technologies in Distance Education (109–128). Athabasca University: AU Press.  (pp. 109-128). Athabasca University: A U Press.

Crockett, L., Jukes, I., & Churches, A. (2011). Literacy is Not Enough, 21st-Century Fluencies for the Digital Age. Corwin.

Davidson, C. N., & Goldberg, D. T. (2010). The Future of Thinking: Learning Institutions in a Digital Age. Cambridge: MIT Press.

De Saulles, M. (2012). New Models of Information Production. Information 2.0: New Models of Information Production, Distribution and Consumption., 13-35.

Grift, G., & Major, C. (2013). Teachers As Architects Of Learning: Twelve Considerations For Constructing A Successful Learning Experience. Moorabbin: Hawker Brownlow Education.

Higgins, S., ZhiMin, X., & Katsipataki, M. (2012). The Impact of Digital Technologies on Learning. Durham University. Durham: Education Endowment Foundation. Retrieved from Education Endowment Foundation: http://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/uploads/pdf/The_Impact_of_Digital_Technologies_on_Learning_(2012).pdf

Lemke, C. (2010). Innovation Through Technology. In C21st Century Skills: Rethinking How Students Learn (pp. 243-274). Bloomington: Solution Tree.

Pearce, J., & Bass, G. (2008). Technology Toolkits: Introducing You to Web 2.0. South Melbourne: Cengage Learning.

Picardo, J. (2015, March 22). What Impact? 5 Ways to Put Research into Practice in the 1-to-1 Classroom. Retrieved March 23, 2015, from Educate 1 to 1: http://www.educate1to1.org/technology-impact-research-into-practice/

Price, D. (2015, March 23). Six Powerful Motivations Driving Social learning by Teens. Retrieved March 30, 2015, from MindShift: Http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2015/03/six-powerful-motivations-driving-social-learning-by-teens

Rheingold, H. (2010, October 7). Attention, and Other 21st-Century Social Media Literacies. Retrieved March 21, 2015, from Educause: http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/attention-and-other-21st-century-social-media-literacies

Rheingold, H. (2012). Netsmart: How To Thrive Online. London: MIT Press.

Richardson, W. (2010). Navigating Social Networks as Learning Tools. In 21st Century Skills: Rethinking How Students Learn (pp. 285-304). Bloomington: Solution Tree.

Richardson, W., & Mancabelli, R. (2011). Personal Learning Networks: Using the Power of Connections to Transform Education. Bloomington: Solution Tree Press.

Simkin, M. (2015, April 28). Artefact Design. Retrieved from Digitalli: http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/msimkin/2015/04/28/artefact-design/

Simkin, M. (2015, April 27). Social Media in Your Classroom. Hamilton, Victoria, Australia. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YS39JMf6iwA

Simkin, M. (2015, April 29). Survey Results. Retrieved from Digitalli: http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/msimkin/2015/04/29/survey-results/

Statt, T. (2015, May 1). History teacher. (M. Simkin, Interviewer)

Weinberger, D. (2011). Too Big To Know: Rethinking Knowledge Now That The Facts Aren’t Facts, Experts Are Everywhere, And The Smartest Person In The Room Is The Room. New York: Basic Books.

Wenger, E. (2012). Communities of Practice a Brief Introduction. Retrieved from Wenger Traynor: http://wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice/

Wheeler, S. (2015, March 21). Making Connections. Retrieved March 23, 2015, from Learning with ‘e’s My Thoughts About Learning Technology and All Things Digital.: http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.au/2015/03/making-connections.html

Wong, S. L., Hanafi, A., & Sabudin, S. (2010). Exploring Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Pedagogical Role With Computers; a Case Study in Malaysia. Procedia: Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2, pp. 388-391.

Zuckerman, E. (2013). Rewire: Digital Cosmopolitans in the Age of Connection. New York: W.W Norton & Company.

New LMS

On By Margaret SimkinIn Collaborating, Connecting, discussion, evaluation, INF532, knowledge networks, peer learningLeave a comment

Learning Management and Knowledge Networking:

Coming to grips with a new learning management system, based on Blackboard, particularly after the long summer break, was a little confronting. Just when I thought I knew where to find what I needed, I found I had no idea.

Discussion forum
Discussion forum

The topics were all there, but the email notifications for responses did not seem to work all the time, and it became a case of checking in at log on and working out which thread had new messages.

Threads on Interact 2 were a little tricky
Threads on Interact 2 were a little tricky

Yes, there were fewer students in the cohort, but few participated in this type of networked learning in the manner peers had communicated in INF530 and INF536.

A sub-group of the subject became very active in their own PLN, using Twitter for regular question and answer sessions, and touching base with issues and concerns.

Tweeting Example

Tweeting

On By Margaret SimkinIn Collaborating, Connecting, Curation, digital literacy, discussion, evaluation, INF532, knowledge networks, peer learningLeave a comment

Connected Education Through Twitter:

Twitter is a great space for developing and nurturing a PLN.

I have been a member since 2009

My Twitter avatar
My Twitter avatar

I have used Twitter to enhance my personal interests and my professional life with increasing degrees of success. It is quick and easy and seems to work when low Internet connectivity prevents other means of communication.

My Twitter account

My Twitter account

Since commencing the Master of Education (Knowledge Networks and Digital Innovation), I have increased all aspects of my Twitter membership as shown in the above image.

Tweeting a range of topics
Tweeting a range of topics. Twitter offers a range of topics from the amazing to the ridiculous. It enables serendipitous discovery of many gems of wisdom and leads to the development of knowledge.Tweeting connection April

 

 

Tweeting connection April

Connection with past and present study companions makes the learning journey more enjoyable and deepens understanding when links are shared.Tweeting connections

Tweeting connections May

 

Reading over the connections through Twitter this semester is another means of reflecting on the nature and depth of learning it has enabled.

 

Fis(c)hbowls etc.!

On By Margaret SimkinIn blended learning, Connecting, digital literacy, effective teaching, Flipped classrooms, knowledge networks, Reflection1 Comment

Module 6: Curriculum and learning design in a connected world.

The title for this post comes from Julie Lindsay’s blog and her follow up comments in another post. It was, therefore, imperative to find out what fishbowl technique actually is, and whether the concept might be useful for C21st educators to apply to their real or virtual learning experience design.

There is definitely a place for such a tactic in student-focused classrooms and also for adult participation in professional learning experiences. Designers of meaningful lessons based on Mystery Skype or Skype and author use a similar technique – allocating roles to participants to enable the process to unfold smoothly for the connected groups, and sharing the workload in a collaborative fashion. Fishbowl structure presents domination of any one individual during a debate or discussion.

The spelling in the title of this post is based on a pun of Julie’s during the development of her post when she believed that Karl Fisch was the creator of the technique. Knowledge networking resulted from this mistaken belief, with Karl participating in the online debate about the technique – and other connected learning experiences.

Further learning stemmed from this presentation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO9V9xvRPds&feature=youtu.be&t=6m12s

Theory and practice of connectivism in flat, global classrooms, are clearly dealt with real-world examples of different types of activities referenced. At about the 7-minute mark, Julie uses a new word: GLOCALISATION to sum up the type of knowledge networking involved. Cultural sensitivities must be considered when engaging with classes overseas.

At about the 10-minute mark, Julie comments that going global is a mindset, not a plane ticket.

Google I/O 2013 – Building an Online Education Platform using Google Technologies:

This video shows the range of considerations and developments Google has been working on to enable blended or flipped classrooms. The basis for driving this agenda come from the belief that the art of lecture is lost – we now have the ability to go back; lots of things about a book are better than a lecture; video production for supporting learning allow the luxury of rewinding and replaying until the process demonstrated or information presented is fully understood.

Jen Jonson explains what makes learning blended:

These terms are considered further in my next post.