| « edublogs: The importance of creating a network | edublogs: Trying to design the best training event we can » |
SCoPE: Seminars: Knowing Knowledge
Learning, Connectivism, Connected Learning Environment, Change Management, Social Networks, Naace2007 2211 viewsLink: http://scope.lidc.sfu.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=398#2715
I've been involved (on the edges) of a fascinating international seminar around George Siemen's Knowing Knowledge book.
The discussion is moving into more practical/implementation issues. The theories are fine, but thinking about how we actually make use of them is most important to me at the moment.
[The following is a forum posting I made in the seminar - reproduced here for my benefit!]
There are three issues that I see coming to the fore at the moment:
1. How do we design centrally-driven learning experiences that incorporate connectivist principles?
2. How do we make the process of collecting together our personal learning conversations easier.
3. How do we encourage individuals to take responsibility for their place within their own learning network?
When I think about the first question I am considering the centre as any organisation (or even another person) that is setting assessment criteria or objectives. Perhaps the answer is that centrally-driven learning doesn't have a place within a learner-centred learning ecology? But that won't fit well with any organisation that I know... My feeling is that organisations need to treat learning experiences more as marketing opportunities. Marketeers try to change behaviour through a range of mechanisms, which include spreading messages & ideas through networks. I think we (as learning professionals) could learn a lot from that.
Regarding the second question, I think about my own experiences of writing responses to things on my blog, or as comments on other people's blogs, or in forums like this. I also have bookmarks kept in Diigo; three email clients where I keep archives of conversations; as well as various file storage mechanisms. Is the search engine really the only way we can try to keep track of things? What about content and conversations that are hidden behind a login? The concept of the Personal Learning Environment seems beguiling, but for the moment do we need to live with the fact that our online lives are not very easily connected? What happens then to those people who find working online difficult to start with?
Which leads on to the third question... which is the critical one. All the time individuals treat learning as something external; the responsibility of the organisation to which they belong, then it will be next to impossible to implement connectivist ideas. As someone said somewhere (I've a terrible memory for quotes!) you only realise the benefit of networked learning ideas when you experience it for yourself. So do we wait for the idea to spread organically, or is there a way of pump-priming networked learning. (I've a vested interest in the answer to this... as it's the subject of my Masters dissertation!)
1 comment
Mark
I have several thoughts on your question 3. Anything that is intrinsically valuable (in the eye of the beholder, in the context of the customer) sells itself without a sales pitch. All the “viral marketing” successes speak to the ease with which new web tools, bands, movies etc catch on by word of mouth and buzz. So slow adoption and a tough sell can be a sign of insufficient intrinsic value. No amount of marketing expense can change the intrinsic value, perceived benefit, or use in the customers’ world.
The cost to the consumer also enters into this. “Very valuable, but very pricey” may slow down adoption. High “bang for the buck” catches on easily. The cost consideration is not only out-of-pocket expense - it can be the time it takes, the energy it uses up or the stress involved.
Some people are more open to adoption of new experiences, resources and commitments. These “early adopters” may be less fearful and more creative than slow adopters who may need a marketing campaign to sell them on connectivism and networked learning experiences. The early adopters may have a higher tolerance for ambiguity and a greater appetite for variety. They may be more inner directed and free of the effects of other people’s put downs, guilt trips and disapproval.
Early adopters are more likely to be free agents, consultants and writers. Their temperament would not find many compatible “slots” in corporate hierarchies. Their penchant for self expression, personal exploration and continual learning would make routine employment within “command and control” systems seem stifling and antagonistic.
This suggests that large corporations are havens for slow adopters. Collectively, they would respond slowly to external changes and simply “try harder” to do what has been done before. Thus they are more likely to not explore “networked learning” and to miss out on the benefits. In open markets and industry structures where new entrants can: show up out of nowhere, redefine the industry and defeat rivals without a battle - the slow adopters will lose market share or be put out of business by their proclivities.
