Acting upon the theory
Some Friday afternoon thoughts …
Although there is some original thinking in the edublogs - George Siemens, Stephen Downes - the vast majority of edublogging is derivative. That is to be expected, I guess. It helps to flesh out and disseminate ideas into the broader conversation, though it can lead to conventions that quickly form around ideas, perhaps before they should.
This is partly because activity in the space is still (necessarily) at the level of theory/debate, and less, perhaps, at the level of application. It shouldn’t be so surprising as the blogosphere is ultimately a conversational medium. And of course there is also much to discuss about how pedagogy works on the web. It’s all kind of new and emerging.
But even though the phenomenal rate of change that technology is bringing about isn’t going to slow down, there’s always some reason why social and institutional change takes so long. The same is true in business: Jenna Sweeney talks about mobile learning’s ten year gestation here. Meanwhile, Donald Clark recently posted on how deeply the old teacher/institution centric philosophy is embedded into our language.
So, I think it’s worth asking how we are dealing with all of this. It’s easy to get overwhelmed or lost in the details. Somehow it seems we are hoping to discuss or research our way out of it. I’m looking at a pdf on learning from a recent and influential learning conference, where 40 researchers gathered. 40 researchers? I’m not saying that those findings were wrong, just that if its only about research, then you probably have a bias for theory over application.
Applying it
I guess I see a need for application. This is the only way we are going to test the theory and move on. I am actually an obsessive reader of a pedagogic theory, but I guess my work is about applying ideas. My instinct, then, is to look to the market for validation: to get products into the market and see what people actually want.
Nor would I want to get embroiled in the near impossible efforts to reform education. I think we need instead, to try to look at the problem in another way. Let me offer two facts I heard from Gary Hamel this week:
1. Over 10% of all we know, we learned in the last 5 years.
2. IBM will soon release a supercomputer that performs a quadrillion operations per second.
Our school system is a lost cause (helped along through politics) and absurdly out of step with change in the real world. We will spend years arguing over it, and trying to reform these 19th century institutions, but I’m wondering what the point is. I’m not being flippant. I have a daughter entering 4th grade in September and it pains me to think of the needless but nauseating rigmarole of what she will have to go through.
If I were not tied up with other things, I think I’d be tempted to look for investment to fund a school of New Learning and drop every pretense of the ancient formulas. It’d need a year or two to raise the funding, and get it up and running - faculty, location, connectivist ‘curriculum’ and so on. Any such ’school’ that focused on the reality of digital learning and embraced the unprecedented change that is surrounding us, would have to be more relevant than what now exists. It could even make business sense - to begin it would have to be a private school - but it could simply set the bar for alternatives and that has to be a good thing. (Obviously you’d need to appeal to some progressive parents but it could be done.)
During the recent brouhaha it became clear to me that both DIY and edupunk can mean different things in different contexts. So I guess I’m making a case for DIY (in the positive sense), though by that rate, all entrepreneurship is a kind of DIY.
This just in: As I write I see that the new York Times blogged about ChinesePod today.
Ken Carroll
August 8th, 2008 at 3:57 am
Like you, I focus on implementation and try to figure out how we can actually do something with what we know. I use your *pod business as an example of a great new way of helping people learn. It will take a while for new models to emerge, but I’m optimistic that the pace of development is picking up.
The new school sounds like a good idea. Why not create a virtual one and let local groups of parents/learners connect to it and hack it for their needs? Sort of like open source DNA.
August 8th, 2008 at 9:24 am
We seem to be on the cusp of very rapid change. What we will do with schools not built around learning, I have no idea.
Even the best universities are going to have trouble rethinking their processes. Indeed the figures that I have seen is that knowledge is being replaced within 2 years - half the duration of a normal degree!
BTW, isn’t language one of the only languages where you say I teach. Germanic language speakers often say in English : please learn me.
August 8th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Harold,
I actually beleive that a brick and mortar school would be perfectly OK, as long as it dropped the old ways. Physical proximity to people, teachers, other learners has immense benefits when we’re talking about children. For life long learners I think virtual is oftetn the way to go.
Jo,
I guess the whole definition of learning is changing.
As far as I know, plenty of other languages have the equivalent of ‘teach’.
Ken
August 8th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Bravo! Bravo!
August 8th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
I admit, it can become a hobby to contradict
Let me challenge you “change”-rationale. First of all how do you quantify “5%” of what you know? What is the unit of knowledge?
I have always loved statements like “on the Internet each day there is more knowledge transfered than has been published in the last x-hundret years”. How measured? Usually in the unit “Bit”. But no one can deny that there is (sometimes) redundancy in the adult movies exchanged over peer-to-peer networks which make up the largest chunk of all those bits. Are those really constituing “Knowledge”?
In the swamp land of knowledge management there is a thicket of definitions for knowledge but none of them has ever convinced me. Not really clear-cut.
Now let me zero in further here: There are indeed dramatic changes. On the *instance level*. It gets slower on the layer of *models*, the type level. The data models behind our world. And it nearly comes to a grinding halt when looking at the *paradigmatic layer*.
Object orientation in software development was a paradigmatic change. Introduced quite a few decades ago. The Internet itsself? All core TCP/IP protocpls became MIL STDs in 1983. OK, XML. That is indeed only about 10 years old. Young.
The layer differentiation is fundamental, as it defines good teaching. Commercial software companies have a habit of offering certifications for their products. If you look at how and what they teach you very soon realize why this is a gold mine: “In menu x you find function y. Now click at button z.” type of courses teach instance level knowledge that will become obsolete with the next .01 software patch. The rate of change is indeed dramatic. But how often do the way of thinking (model level) or even the fundamental principles of let’s say an ERP or office software really change?
This also holds true for language. There is a reason why at some point students tend to gravitate towards classics when learning Chinese. No denial that it is fun to learn the Chinese equivalent for “text mining”, but that does not bring you ahead. The mechanics of the language are left untouched by a new piece of vocab.
True teaching focuses on the paradigmatic layer, discusses and practices the knowledge on the model layer, and examplifies on the instance layer.
And this is where the schools and universities come into play. Traditional teaching has its place. It is the engine behind the maddingly pace of change we witness every day.
August 9th, 2008 at 2:11 am
I think that learning is a process that depends on the resources, the learner, time, surroundings and so many other circumstances you don´t even notice and it is one consistent thing happening.
Learning a language is taking place all the time, with and without noticing this, so a system as a vehicle for learning is just a circumstance the learner is recognising and taking advantage of.
At the end applying the knowledge is just another part of the learning process.
So Henning the unit for learning is “x” and it´s exponential to “k” wich is the knowledge the learner has.
So the cpod communities learning ability is xall= x1 exponential to K exponential to “P” (persons)
After all learning is what you make out of it and true knowledge doesn´t need stress but it gratefully takes every single effort of everyone. ^_^
August 10th, 2008 at 7:16 am
[…] look forward to Ken Carroll’s posts about language learning, in part because he’s actively experimenting. As he says, he […]
August 11th, 2008 at 7:02 am
In certain education / training circles, “teach” is practically a shibboleth. The kernel of truth is that you can’t make anyone learn (except perhaps in the most Skinnerian way).
“Teach” comes from an Old English word meaning “to show,” and that points to a more nuanced understanding: the teacher shows or guides; the learner does the learning.
So of course you can teach yourself — choose a path and work your way along it. In complex domains, you may do just fine by starting with something specific and working your way along based on your interest, needs, and the unexpected things you discover along the way.
Or you may choose to find an experience guide whose methods suit you (whether in terms of personality, process, or results).
Maybe the best self-directed learners are like the clerk of whom Chaucer said, “Gladly wolde he lerne, and gladly teche.”
August 15th, 2008 at 8:33 am
It is fun to think about the possibilities for ‘real’ schools organized around a *Pod-like infrastructure. While there are many technological and pedagogical issues, I think the most important question relates to who such schools would serve and why. I’ve talked with some Chinese parents here in the States who are starting their own Chinese language school (a full time, immersive school; they already have an established weekend school). With respect to the curriculum I’d say their primary concern is addressing ‘affluenza’. They are worried about the cultural cocoon of US schools… In particular I think they are concerned about Western ignorance about economic/cultural realities in the developing world. Certainly if I were to seek out educational alternatives (or supplements) for my children I would want to focus on ‘affluenza-related’ issues related to the balance between moral imperatives and economic/social reality.
With respect to ‘reform’ of educational institutions, I think it is the responsibility of any educator to point out when reputable educational institutions fall short. The best institutions should be expected to continually push forward and adjust to changing circumstances–after all, they have the resources to lead the way. Really, I think if anyone is to go to the trouble to start a new school (or develop any innovative educational product), this is implicitly a criticism of what else is being offered. I suppose I’ve finally latched on here to the point of your post–creating a new school would be a much more effective means of driving educational change than just theorizing. But, I have to say, I’ve heard many reports of educational experiments and pilot programs. It is no secret that there are better ways to do things. The limiting step is adoption, not innovation.
If I were to create a blank sheet ‘New Learning’ school, an explicit part of the mission would be to invite comparison to current practices. If possible I might go so far as to invite students from other reputable institutions to come for a couple semesters to sample our wares and write, publicly, about their experiences. Unfortunately, in most countries today I get the feeling that the most reputable universities are held as being above reproach, and I think this is quite unhealthy. I’ve talked to students at my current employer who say ‘Man, I had better teachers in high school’. That’s pretty weak for a place that is billed as a contender for ‘Best University in the Whole Wide World’. I’ve talked to graduates of fine Chinese and European universities, and they have plenty of thoughtful complaints, too.
To me, the really exciting aspect of ‘New Learning’ is the potential to bring good teaching out into the light of day. For a real education this needs to be backed up by good tutelage in ‘meatspace’, but ideally some of the ‘New Learning’ Tools will invite challenges to the educational status quo.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
This discussion reminded me of an experience from a few years ago. To be brief, at the beginning of a semester I handed my students a blank piece of paper and told them that it was their “course syllabus.” We then spent about two weeks creating what the students wanted to do for the course. At first they couldn’t believe that I was serious, but in the end we had a great experience together. Our basic approach was, “You enrolled in this class to learn X. If you didn’t have an organized course and teacher to learn X, what would you do?”
So, although “the school system may be a lost cause,” that experience gave me a lot of confidence in what we can do when students are given a little more freedom to shape their education. Keep up on your application of things!
August 25th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Hello. As usual, Ken Carroll has asked very valid, profound questions.
So far, much of the discussion has been about a notion referred to as “mobile learning”. I am very curious to know whether our host Ken thinks there is any important difference between “mobile learning” and “mobile TEACHING”. I’m asking this question because I can’t help thinking that the human mind does somehow wrap itself around the challenge of “mobile-X” in different ways.
Eg. Does being a good teacher — in a “mobile” environment — perhaps require some insights into “mobile learning”, which the student may not necessarily be aware of?
I am saying this from the viewpoint of a lifetime foreign language learner, and occasional (unqualified) language teacher, who has come to believe that a good teacher is one who is brave enough to give the student maximum autonomy, but who nevertheless knows when to step in and help to bridge some knowledge gap which the student may not even be aware of.
Hope this makes some kind of sense to somebody! CPOD do a very good job of teaching, I was just wondering whether Ken had any thoughts to share on this.
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:07 am
As an ESL teacher for many years, I’ve discovered that the practical issue is the one that stands. The possibilities are endless, but if they make no practical sense they go to waste. So, after all questions have been answered, the fact that remains is that it will be of use only if it need be applied. Here 2 options come about: you facilitate the learning experience through the choices the learner may have or know, or you guide application towards previously proven mobile channels for facilitation (which the learner may or not be familiar or aware of). Both take a lot of planning, guidance and flexible leadership in order to get the best results. However, it best not- be done lone ranger style; as a learning facilitator, opening yourself to collaborative teaching, will guide you and your students to new and very practical learning experiences. So to teach, as best as one can, one must a student always be. The gaining of insight into mobile learning is to be brought about by learners’ practical applications and by working collaboratively at all levels towards a common goal, which makes the most of the resources at hand, opening new awareness, and making it a learning experience for everyone involved. I’ve found that the richest learning experiences happen this way and, that where mobile learning is concerned, the answers come about in such practical ways, you often forget what it was that sparked the idea. Usually the answer rides upon the collaborative fuel of trying to get the most out the available resources.
Having said this, I have found myself already at the crossroads that Ken Carrol points out. I can see what’s ailing education and still can’t find the means to save my child from it. I agree that it looks like it can take years for the changes to happen, but feel the solutions could be simpler that they seem to us. I sincerely believe that if we can manage to understand that it’s not only through improved individual teaching practice that change will be achieved, but in the overall collective awareness that schools are learning and breathing organizations, alive and well as long as teachers and administrators work collectively towards common goals that have them learning and achieving change, it is that we will have gained a major step towards taking education into the 21st century. Too many times I have found schools dying and totally out of oxygen because things are done as they have always been done, teachers are left to their own means, and there’s no sense of being a team, so much that it seems almost a miracle they acknowledge being part of the same school. How can there be any successful learning in these institutions if while we live in a globalized world, these institutions can’t even connect within themselves?