Stephen Downes Seminars in ACT - Highlights
New Students, New Learning
Thursday 16 September 2004
1.30 - 4.30
Australian Defence Force Academy
Techno Frontier
Friday 17 September 2004
10.30 - 12.00
Australian Defence Force Academy
As expected from Stephen Downes, visiting Canadian philosopher and technologist, both sessions were mind expanding experiences. In entertaining style, Downes challenged our more conventional ideas and approaches to teaching and learning, especially online learning as we know it. Some examples:
- Learning is a social activity. Learning is conversation.
- Structured, linear forms of learning are "anathema" to the new digital generation.
- You cannot separate the issue of quality of learning from profound changes in the learning landscape, the characteristics and expectations of the new emerging student. Quality has to do with learner satisfaction, their evaluation of the outcomes, not with the delivery system or content.
- Expensive Learning Management Systems are not necessary - free, open source software can do the job just as well, if not better. LMSs are too rigid and therefore pedagogically not as effective.
The student, the learning environment, the educational paradigms are changing. A new "language of thought" and a "new grammar of learning" are evolving. In the changing landscape the MTV generation is developing new cognitive modes, their mindset focussing on the visual, the spatial, and where multi tasking, parallel processing or multi threading are becoming second nature for them. This of course has radical implications on how we structure, or rather not structure, our teaching and learning, how we design the content, and how we evaluate the outcomes and meet learner expectations.
Conventional learning, whether f2f or online, is synchronous, time based, offered in structured, linear forms. It is content based. The digital generation is looking for something different. Operating on "twitch speed" they expect instant random access and they want it now. To a question from the audience, Downes did concede that random does not need to exclude linear - within the randomness you can have the linear. An example of a good technology for the new learning environment is in use of games. For example, a recent video game from Melbourne called Street Survivor is grounded in reality, enabling discovery, for example, of real bus stop locations - types of learning objects in fact.
The clear message is that teachers must immerse themselves in the cyber world as much as the new learners are already doing, or soon will be.
Some of the cutting edge tools now available for educational application, effective tools for teachers and ideal for the digital generation of learners:
Wiki
The "epitome of subversive technology". Simply a simple website that anyone can change/edit (but may have provision for restoring to original version). Very easy to install, some not requiring any database installation. For example, Downes' own wiki. Wikipedia is more popular than the Encyclopaedia Brittanica!
Open Source (free) Content Management System
Scoop: a collaborative media application, a combination of CMS, bulletin board and weblog. Visitors can contribute news, stories and discussion.
PostNuke: easy to install, customise, provides links, pictures, discussion etc.
Blogging software
Blogs are very simplified CMSs. There are about 4 million bloggers! One of the most popular software is Blogger (owned by Google) - a hosted software, not requiring a dedicated server. One strong feature of Blogger is that it automatically creates an RSS feed, so that others can link to it. Some applications can be set up as group blogs, and can have password protection (eg Movable Type).
Difference between Blogs and Discussion Forums
Discussion forums are organised by topic or threads, unlike blogs. I can own a blog. Blogs empower the individual (or group). The other downside of discussion forums is that they are "divergent" forms of communication, due to the branching structure. Someone has yet to develop a more useful "convergent" form. By the way, contary to Gillian Salmon's view ("all things in moderation"), moderation is not necessary in the open sharing, democratic blogosphere.
RSS (Rich Site Summary)
An XML file, easily created by tagging descriptions of items on a website, for example a blog site. This enables you to connect to other blogs or other website content that has RSS feeds. RSS connects distributed content (eg learning objects). RSS is a "pull" technology - I can choose the content I want. In contrast, email is a "push" technology - I have no control over incoming content (spam!).
See Downes' article "How to create an RSS file" on his website.
Bloglines
An RSS reader. This software can receive or "harvest" other RSS feeds, eg blogs, email lists, news etc. Its a powerful content distribution mechanism.
Technorati
Become a member and you can monitor content of other blogs on any selected topic or name. You can reply as well and join the global conversation.
Edu RSS
Harvest RSS feeds from selected blogs.
Learning objects
These are in effect equivalent to blogs.
DLORN (Distributed Learning Object Repository Network): stores learning object repositories from across the web - a one-stop shop for eg MERLOT, EdNA, Maricopa Learning eXchange etc.
The distributed learning networks of blogs, learning object repositories, RSS feeds etc are starting to resemble our own brain neuro networks - "neuro nets", self organising with vast potential.
On reflection, Stephen Downes' views and approaches are compelling and certainly challenge the orthodox pedagogy. He should generate a lot of questions, not so much about the technology, but more about the soundness and applicability of the strategies - do they have universal application across cognitive levels, or only in certain categories or discipline areas?
LInks to the powerpoint used, as well as resources, applications, websites mentioned in the presentations, can be found on Stephen Downes' website (including his own wiki and blog).
The seminars were presented by ODLAA, in collaboration with UNSW @ ADFA, UC, ANU, ACU (Signadou) and CIT.
Even leaving aside his rambling, muttering, mumbling style, his unabashed arrogance and self interest, his obvious neglect in targeting his message to his audience, just what did he have to say on the e-learning front?
Yes learning is social - we knew that. Delivery systems and content are not paramount - does anyone think that they are?? Learning Mangement Systems are not necessary - but they certainly do have their place, open source is not the panacea to all ills as Stephen suggests - just because something is open source it is not necessarily "good" or even - dare I say it - a suitable technology for the task at hand.
A little more concentration on presenting his open source "solutions" as methods to enhance e-learning within the VET environment, some advice on the applicability and suitability of learning situations within our sector that may benefit or be enhanced by these products would have been constructive.
But what I severely object to is his claims that we do not need standards in e-learning, that learning objects are reinforcing the linear, sequential paradigm he seems to so abhore, that metadata is forcing a single taxonomy upon us in order to make us conform to the bureaucratic power structure existant in education. Stephen's comments in this regard reveal such an ignorance of the current state of play in these areas that it is laughable that this man commands the attention he is getting a propo a national tour organised by Flexible Learning Leaders.
The poor unsuspecting teachers who attended in the hope of getting some good e-learning advice left largely bewildered by the almost incoherent self indulgent ramble which spent more time bagging microsoft, our bandwidth and promoting Stephen Downes, than presenting us with the informative presentation we had been led to expect.
Stephen left most of us with the overwhelming impression that talking to us is what he had to do the day after his visit to Steve Irwin's zoo, and the day before his visit to the Great Barrier Reef ... we were just the suckers who paid for it!
Here are some of the things I gained.
1. Adjusting our lifestyles & work patterns to collaboration through e-technologies means we have to develop:
- new habits in that we’ll have to regularly log into & contribute to online collaboration sites
_ new attitudes in that we’ll have to be prepared to look for & experiment with new software to see if it could be useful for our professional practice &/or personal lives.
I can see these additions taking quite a lot of time & effort & I’m thinking “How can I fit this in my 24 hour day & the lifestyle balance I’ve built to keep me functioning & happy?” Something would have to give – & what this will be? If the need/demand was not strong, I’d be reluctant to give up any of my current activities.
2. We talked about some tools & software that are proving useful & alternatives to learning management systems- blogs, Moodle, Wikis etc. I didn’t take offense to the criticisms of LMSs - I’ve heard plenty of similar complaints but they still have a place & a purpose.
But to be aware of alternatives & know how to use them – doesn’t that offer us a broader range of options? It’s certainly a great resource for community learning & small organisations who could never afford an LMS & it could allow us to spontaneously set up sites that our organisation may not allow us have on the LMS.
3. I did have concerns about the effect of concentrating our communication too much on e-communication. Stephen spoke about not using the telephone any more now & doing almost all his communication online. I believe ICT is just another tool (albeit powerful) & shouldn’t completely take over from the other ways of communicating, otherwise we run the risk of becoming very narrow - despite the advantages of being able to communicate world wide. If we talked to artists, musicians, dancers & great face to face communicators I’m sure they’d agree, as they recognise the power of communicating through their particular preferred sensory mediums.
4. Getting people to work in a very unstructured way when they’re used to very clear structure is also a challenge. The degree of discomfort with Stephen’s session may reflect the fact that he did what we are not used to – he ran a highly unstructured session & let it evolve.
People were asking “What ARE you on about?” That’s because we’re used to a presenter …well… ‘presenting’. We had to work pretty hard at defining what we were wanting to collaborate on & how we might do it – but you know, we were ACTIVELY trying to process what was happening in that session & we were forming views eg “No, no, no I disagree with that” OR “Yes - I can accept part of that but what about…” OR “No way – that’s ridiculous.” So in that room there was a lot of processing of information & emotional reactions happening – Isn’t that a learning process?
What Stephen did not do & what would have helped us I think is to create a framework for the unstructured discussion. We are meaning-making creatures & despite the increasing level of chaos in our world we need structures that will help us extract meaning & make sense of things, otherwise we’ll go nuts!
In a TAFE course, structures are needed as there are constraints of time and curricula and people are paying for particular content and outcomes. Our challenge is to create the right sort of structures for the particular need.
There is a tendency for structured learning to be regarded pegoratively as conservative and ‘behind the times’ and for there to be ‘big hoorays’ for chaotic unstructured learning situations. However without some useful functional structures the whole event for many learners will be just that – totally chaotic and confusing. Structures can be good if they help learners sort, explore, analyse and make meaning.
That’s it from me.
I believe he is heading for WA and I was going to attend... I think I gained more through your comments which were much more useful than sitting through this session, I guess that is one of the many benefits of this forum.
Maureen