Heli on Connectivism

Something happened in my mind when CCK studies began. I have to reflect myself in order to participate .. I can’t write to colleagues  if I don’t recognize my own perspectives. What am I doing here actually?

I work in teacher education for adults coming from work life. We don’t have fulltime students in classrooms, they are working and they live in different parts of Finland. So we use virtual learning platforms and social media. Our pedagogy has been up-to-date those two decades I have been here. We have been pondering all learning theories all the time and “invented” personal learning plans in the year 1988 and the great impact of networks soon after that. Students are organized (or they organize themselves) to learning circles with peer feedback etc.)

I have developed my online teaching since the year 2002 and I prefer it. I have a blog in Finnish as an online teacher and I take part in Finnish social media community. I participated in CCK08 in order to follow global discussions about connectivism. And I am here again, I cannot stop coming

This time I try to be more conscious about my perspective: I am asking questions about the “best online pedagogy in the world” and I suppose something like that can be found in CCK09. My orientation is practical, theories are not enough.  In my previous post is dealt with conceptions about knowledge and epistemic styles. In practice you must have skills to all epistemic styles and the ability to choose and combine them:

So I intend to use 1) theoretical data, knowing via thought, 2) empirical facts, knowing via senses and 3) metaphorical, experiental, phenomenological data = knowing via intuition and insight. The criteria fo acceptance as knowledge are in same order:

1. Ist it logical? Is it theoretically sound?
2. Can it be experimentally proven?
3. Does it fit to my experience? Does it feel right? Because I am an expert in online pedagogy I can trust my feelings about rightness. (But I had to read that first, I had forgotten it).

I am not studing only connectivism, I am studing all interesting up-to-date theories about learning and networking – and I am not the only one in the course who has this perspective. I added Frances in my blogroll and found Ning and Diigo groups with this broad perspective. So my next problem is to take time, decide where to participate.

Sun is shining just now, I have to go out, it is not allowed to sit all Sunday with my computer when beautiful autumn is outside.

This is my first step in second CCK09-travel. I always try to find my way, not George’s or Stephen’s or others’. I already know some students and I am convinced that I’ll get ideas from them .. so I must have my mind open. But I have to know what there is in my mind that influences me, I cannot be quite open. I have to ask myself about

• my knowledge building, my habits and ways in constructing my mind
• my values, do I have any so important that they direct my thinking and feeling
• what do I already know about human learning and knowledge? What is closed and what is open in my mind?

These are heavy questions, I feel tired at the beginning of the job. Last week I found some good sources that I have studied in 1990’s and I wonder why I have stopped thinking during last years, have I? I believe that basic questions in knowledge acquisition do not change, not all of them, not totally. I read again a Finnish dissertation about “Knowledge in Interactive Practice Disciplines” (A. Sarvimäki, University of Helsinki 1988). I am not interested in all knowledge, only knowledge used in  education or other interpersonal, interactive disciplines (theory-in-practice). Pragmatism is my choice: what is working in practice and why is it effective and so on. Argyris and Schön: Knowledge in Action is in my bookshelf. Knowing in practice is more demanding/difficult that knowing in theory.

Knowledge is divided in “knowing that” = propositional, declarative, language and concepts, models. Knowledge is “knowing how” = procedural, how to do, what are the phases and so on. How about “emergent knowledge”, where does it come, how is it possible? The contextual nature of practical problems … what does it mean? A dynamic aspect is needed:  Skill in reading situations and flexing in interactions…

I am pleased with three epistemic styles: rational, empirical and metaphorical.  When I am rational I conceptualize and think in logical-illogical ways. When I gather empiria, I perceive (and sometimes misperceive). Most interesting is the metaphorical style: that’s why  I have to use pictures, symbols, which are universal or  idiosyncratic. For instance my photo about destabilizing in my previous post, Jenny recognized it at once and Ailsa remembers my images in CCK08. There is silent knowledge (Polanyi) and intuition in expertice.

How in the world we can construct any new theory of human learning? What is a theory actually? If I forget or leave that open how can I define criteria for good practice in my CCK09 studies? Too difficult, I must go out and walk ..

I will destabilize my participating as you can see:

my way

I participated CCK08 a year ago (this blog is made for it) and I have followed research about happenings during the course. Most of them deal with external actions: how many connections, discussions, writings and so on. It is not an easy job, you have to develope new methods for it. We have much framework knowledge about our course. Thanks to Google Alert it has been easy to follow :

• moodle forum discussions in graphical network models are more effective than scanning forums
• presentations about all the vehicles and an example of products given by Mike Bogle slideshare

Mike presents Wendy’s video about networked student, I suppose we all liked it very much. But now I see that it deals only with external actions: student does this and this etc. An interesting attention to me was now the concept American Psychology, I did’nt notice it earlier. Do they really study American Psyche only?

I am waiting for results about the research (questionnaire and interview) made by Jenny M, John and Roy. They are comparing people who chose to use a blog or Moodle forums, what are the factors behind those choices. I liked to answer their questions myself and it was a good opportunity to learn to understand better. It is not simple to say what I was waiting for when I decided to participate in a global course like CCK was .. and what happened to my focus during the course period.

External factors are good to know but they are not enough – I am interested in what happens in human minds, what is  learning actually. I found an dissertation Passion at work: blogging practices of knowledge workers  and it helped me to understand my decisions: what are the needs that make my blog necessary. Blogging means  ‘everyday grounded theory’. The cultural schift is great:

• personal passions have a legitimate place at work ( I love this, I need this)
• transparency is here to stay
• everyday routines matter (it is stupid to say I have no time to write a blog)
• authority becomes fluid (I love this, too)
• visibility can turn into information overload (but this is nice  I suppose and helps to develope further)

This is the way I want to proceed in my research and my thinking. Lilia Efimova who wrote the dissertation, had one workplace and Knowledge Management bloggers community  in her research .. I am perhaps interested in case studies. The entity must be a human being if I want to understand what happens inside human mind.

I appreciate the possibility to global interaction again, CCK09 is beginning and I have to decide how to participate this time…

On a beautiful Saturday I am coming to the end of the European Project EDINET - started here (in this blog) in January 22nd. I had dreams about deep understanding about engineering students and teachers.. I always have dreams .. but what did I learn? I had one excellent discussion with my son, he spoke honestly and I learnt that ICT-students learn many languages for programming. I also had one trip to Bern for further planning, it was good place to learn to me.

But the Edinet project, what did I learn? I have analysed students answers (N=128, from seven universities in seven countries). I am convinced that it is wise to open laboratories to foreign students and it happened. It is great. And more: the implementation and pedagogical principles are OK. For deeper understanding I should work more, and really collaborate with engineering teachers and laboratory workers. I participated only the last part of the project and did what I could (oh, how clever). Pedagogical principles seem very good but they work on a general level.

I was happy to begin  and I am happy to stop. I will return from Europe to global level. I have dreams again…

Young engineering students from Austria, Finland, Czech, Germany and Slovakia have participated in a laboratory course managed by universities in six European countries (Switzerland, too). I have been analyzing the results of student questionnaires. Pedagogical principles are my focus and my inquiry tells only about them. I do not understand anything about routing which was the main subject in labs.

I have answers from 99 university students (only five female). Main results seem very good. Students consider practical work, problem solving,  group work and discory learning most important methods of their learning. Students were very well informed about the course and they were motivated, even enthusiastic to participate. Guidance during the course was given by their own teacher or fellow students in the same university. Learning environment, manuals and guidelines and instructions helped, this is obvious and normal in labs, I suppose. Some technical problems are also normal phenomena, I suppose.

Students assessed themselves to be good listeners, good at task solving, reasoning and explaining. Sometimes they gave advices to fellow students. Other students were described as team work facilitators, knowledge builders and team cohesion builders. Only few were over-riders or lurkers or passive in group working. So they are normal and fine European nerds, aren’t they?

Transnational cooperation happened to some extent. Actually all the project was it, but concrete interaction between students was seen in two universities that I could examine more.

I am wondering what are the possibilities to use different pedagogical methods in remote laboratories environment? Participants have seen that quite similar ideas existed at the partner universities-  only implemented in a slightly different way. In the beginning of the project they had sat together and created a common concept. And now I can see the results.

The pedagogical framework is an important part of the Edinet project. Edinet will create International Semi Virtual campus, which is more complex task comparing to already existing solutions. The most interesting part will be the part regarding Learning in Edinet – Practical suggestions.

Edinet project has workpackages about competencies and so on … pedagogy is only one package. Perhaps we have to collaborate inside the project in order to plan and recommend practical solutions for future. My results from student inquiry seem very appropriate in this phase.

Partners have a meeting in Bremen in June – I would be happy about comments.

I am gathering materials for Edinet project

In Finland we have a  Online Teaching and Learning Quality Project called Vopla with pages in English.

In Europe we have EFQUEL organisation for enhancing th quality of eLearning in Europe: quality papers

ASIIN = accreditation agency for Degree programmes in Engineering, Quality in Higher Education. ASIIN QM Handbook is only in German, but it is OK in Edinet I suppose.

In Finland we have Reflektori symposium of Engineering education, years 2007 and 2005 available. Not all presentations are in English, look at the program please.

Dillenbourg seem to be one of experts concerning pedagogical scripts, perhaps one of creators. I got a copy of his pdf  Over-scripting CSCL The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design.

CSCL= Computer Supported Collaborative Learning

A copy of the abstract (2002)

Free collaboration does not systematically produce learning. One way to enhance the effectiveness of collaborative learning is to structure interactions by engaging students in well-defined scripts.

A collaboration script is a set of instructions prescribing how students should form groups, how they should interact and collaborate and how they should solve the problem. In computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL), the script is reified in the interface of the learning environment. This contribution  dismantles the concept of script. Syntactically, a script is sequence of phases and each phase can be described by five attributes. The grammatical combination of these elements may however produce any kind of pedagogical method, even those that have nothing to do with the idea of collaborative learning.

On the one hand, the definition of scripts constitutes a promising convergence between educational engineering and socio-cultural approaches but, on the other hand, it drifts away from the genuine notion of collaborative learning.

Will the fun and the richness of group interactions survive to this quest for effectiveness? The answer depends on the semantics of collaborative scripts: what is the design rationale, what is the core mechanism in the script through which the script designer expects to foster productive interaction and learning.

Prof. Pierre Dillenbourgh works in Lausanne, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.

My questions:

In adult education, when students are committed to and they have intrinsic motivation, teachers or facilitators only create the circumstances for favourable learning. There is no need for pedagogical scripts?

Young students may have less motivation and they are used to clear rules and certain coercion: what I have to do for getting credits. Wise scripts are neeeded here, I suppose.

I am working with these questions in my way from CCK08 to Edinet. I don’t know  yet how motivates the students are but we need a general structure od learning and pedagogical scripts may help in this modeling.

Just studying the concept SCRIPT and considering if I need it at all. What new does it bring according to online teaching or is it “planning my course well/ planning from learner’s point of view.” I have heard the concept in two dissertations in Jyväskylä (Mäkitalo, Hämäläinen) and now researchers from Oulu University (Minna Pesonen).

A script is a more detailed and more explicit didactic contract between the teacher and the group of students regarding their mode of interaction (Dillenbourg 2004)

There are scripts called macro or micro, external or internal, content oriented (epistemic) or communication oriented (social). I can follow that content oriented scripts = assignments and communication oriented scipts tell about the interaction expected to happen during the course. You need sequencing, too: the order and schedule for happening. And last (or first) you need the group and resources. The script combines this all. That sounds good, I like the concept because it refers to a play or drama in my mind (not only teaching period)

Choosing the appropriate level of coercion is the oldest educational trade-off (Dillenbourgh 2004)

That is very true: every facilitator is studying that question all the time and the solutions need much experience and intuition. Students need guidance and freedom, both in epistemic and social area. How to become a wise fasilitator? Reflection is necessary and feedback and … Over-scripting means too much guidance or too strict assigments and so on – learning becomes boring, I would say. Every teacher can do that, I suppose.

Structuring approaches aim to create favourable conditions for learning by designing and scripting the learning situation before the interaction begins (Jermann 2004)

Oh, I need to say design, not plan. Design reasearch is the right concept nowadays, not action reasearch any more. I tend to be old-fashioned because I have age

This is European research: in Germany Fischer, Koppe, Weinberger, Kollar, in Switzerland Dillenbourg and Jermann and in Finland (names in the beginning). Thanks to Minna Pesonen for this orientation. Finnish researchers travel to Germany, it is our old custom. I don’t remember anybody commented scripts in CCK08?

Script researchers come from educational sciences, psychology and computer sciences – collaboration is needed. I know there is a doctoral study group (educational and computer sciences) in Joensuu Universities too.

Something very interesting in this script theme – I have to continue my studies. I have links but Foxit Reader didn’t open them correctly, so I add them later. And some concept maps or pictures would help.

Thanks to John, we have a great Ning network for developing our ideas about global connectivity. I am just looking forward to Jenny’s ideas about research (see Jenny M). It is so much interesting to do – how to find time for everything?

CCK08 people will meet in Ellumination to assess the course. George and Stephen will have a new course next autumn, too, so take the time for it if you are interested in global networking.

Here comes wrapup recording made by George. I agree with the Norwegian lurker’s comment