[Options] [The Daily Archives] [Feeds] [Posts] [Places]
CCK08: Who owns the knowledge?
If my experiences in open courses like 'Facilitating Online Communities' and 'Connectivism and Connective Knowledge' are anything to go by, I could be forgiven for saying that online open access education had well and truly arrived. Indeed, educators such as Graham Attwell, who has talked about the 'explosion of open learning' in his latest blog post, appear to agree. And my own boss, Phil Ker has recently announced that my institution, Otago Polytechnic, will be anchoring an International Centre for Open Access Educational Resources.
But I am wondering if we are deluding ourselves about open access in the formal education context?
Concerns about open access courses
Over the last few weeks I have heard a number of comments about open access courses.
There are what I considered to be superficial concerns like students being overloaded with information if the course gets too big eg too many emails. That is an issue that can be managed which in itself is part of the learning experience. Another concern is about the extra work that having an increased number of students, formal or otherwise, may place on the teacher.
More significant are the concerns about privacy and confidentiality in health education. I have talked a number of times on this blog about the issues we face as health professionals, and how the legal and professional requirements for confidentiality between practitioner and patient reduces what we can do in an open environment. How safe would our undergraduate midwifery students feel to explore their beliefs and attitudes, knowledge and experiences if they knew they were exposing themselves to people other than their classmates? Those very personal learning experiences that student midwives have in the clinical setting are miles apart from the undergraduate English student who is exploring his understanding of a written text.
Impact on fee-paying students
But the biggest resistance to open access courses has come from people who are concerned about the impact on fee-paying students. I think the concern is that fee-paying students will feel disadvantaged compared to the people who are receiving the education, but not paying for it. The implication being that if you are a paying student, you somehow own the knowledge or at least, you own access to it. But the problem is, if you refuse to 'share' and network, you limit your opportunities to connect and learn. And if you refuse to be a node in the network you will be bypassed, to your detriment.
What are students paying for?
What we need to do to do is change how we see the provision of education. What students are paying for in open access courses is the provision of assessment and accreditation; they are not paying for the knowledge. Knowledge does not belong to any one person - it is freely available to everyone. Indeed, the course I am currently teaching is about reflective practice, and anyone can access the material on the Internet that I am using.
The other thing the student is paying for is the name and reputation of the institution they receive their qualification from.
Having my doubts
I have benefited hugely from open access education. I joined an open access course last year and eventually ended up enrolling in the course, completing the assessments and receiving the qualification. But whilst there are people who believe that education should only be provided in closed environments to paying students, and do not understand the concept of networked learning, I cannot see open access courses becoming main stream.
But I am convinced that networking, and in particular online networking is vital for health professionals to keep up to date so that they can provide evidence-based practice and provide support to each other. And that should be modeled in our education programs, at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels.
Feedback from students and educators
I would really appreciate hearing from students who have been fee-paying students in open access courses. How have you felt about being in the same course as non-paying students? What were the advantages and disadvantages.
As for teachers, what feedback have you received from students? How have you felt as a teacher in an open access course. Has it been extra work for you? Any other comments?
Source: http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/SarahsMusings/~3/409092841/cck08-who-owns-knowledge.html
CCK08 Short Paper 1: Your position on Connectivism
To read about connectivism is somewhat funny for me. Something like …
{
learning
{
what I was feeling to know
[...]
Source: http://iamarf.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/cck08-short-paper-1-your-position-on-connectivism/
CCK08 Week 1 Paper - Version 1.0 (Rough Draft)
Connectivism - Learning Theory
or Tool for Learning
If Connectivism is a learning
theory, then by no means is it a
traditional one,
such as Behaviorism, Cognitivism, or even Constructivism.
It has been proposed
that Connectivism is “a
learning theory for the digital age.” An age that is seeing the
half-life of knowledge continually decrease to the point that a single
expert is not able [...]
Source: http://whereoldmeetsnow.edublogs.org/2008/10/01/cck08-week-1-paper-version-10-rough-draft/
My Position on Connectivism
What follows is my submission for CCK08 Short Paper 1
Connectivism is a new theory of learning and knowledge that seeks to explain how the scale and scope of information, depth and levels of discourse and interaction, and technological opportunities that have emerged in the wake of the Digital Age have affected the learning process.
Connectivism can [...]
Source: http://techticker.net/2008/10/02/my-position-on-connectivism/
Missions Network 2
Source: http://arieliondotcom.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/missions-network-2/
CCK08 Concept map of week 4: My position on connectivism
The following concept map illustrates my current position on connectivism. I’ll add both outer links and my own reflection to the next versions of my connectivism concept maps.
Source: http://connectirmeli.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/cck08-concept-map-of-week-4-my-position-on-connectivism/
CCK08: Necessary Preconditions?
Here are the things that come to mind for me:
a shared means of connecting
a willingness to fail
a willingness to be wrong
a willingness to seem unknowing
trust in the other nodes of the network you're trying to build
some degree of cognitive discomfort ("The intent of sense making is to increase the cognitive comfort of an individual by reducing confusion and chaos." - G. Siemens, Connectivism: Learning Theory or Pasttime for the Self-Amused) (hat tip to marialetizia for the excerpt)
a perception of relevance
What comes to mind for you? What am I missing? Do you think there are constants, here, or is everyone's list different?
CCK08
Source: http://relaxnoreally.blogspot.com/2008/10/cck08-necessary-preconditions.html
Is it an -ism or is it art ?
CCK08 - In my student days in South Africa, a local hit song imprinted on those biochemical pathways in my brain that connect me through memory and music to 1984. Niki Daly’s “Is it an ism or is it art” didn’t really comment on the UDF, school boycotts, and the rising tide of resistance to [...]
Source: http://www.flexilearn.com/?p=52
CCK08: Adding some Shape
I just stumbled across Tom Whyte’s ‘Starting to take shape’ topic in Facebook and found a really interesting visualization.
Tom’s connectivity graph is based on twitter follower lists submitted by participants in the the CCK08 course. For me, this is a great extension to Valdis Krebs’ graph shown in the previous post. It brings some of [...]
Source: http://connectivismpd.edublogs.org/2008/10/01/cck08-adding-some-shape/
CCK08 - Whether I do or I don’t makes a difference
I’ve realised that studying in any formal context is not really high on the priority list at the moment. I am not going to get a pay rise for it so at the moment I’d rather be posting examples of my kids work like this and sharing it with other teachers than reading lots and [...]
Source: http://edusnacks.edublogs.org/2008/09/30/cck08-whether-i-do-or-i-dont-makes-a-difference/
Wk 4 - Networked Learning (history)
The article by Trebor Scholz reminded me of how far we have come so quickly. Although a lot of the advancements were more about the technicalities and not about the imagination. I enjoyed the story about the first Mailing List where “the second email on that list was an apology by the system’s administrator for [...]
Source: http://grantcasey.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/wk-4-networked-learning-history/
CCK08 -Frank and Mark’s Concept Map
Source: http://polsterf.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/cck08-frank-and-marks-concept-map/
NoT™ Chapter 3
(Phaedrus shifts forward in his seat, something that has been said catches his interest, and he yearns to engage the professor in dialogue…) The professor continues his lecture….
We have discussed some of the fundamental properties of NoT™. Let’s reiterate them here:
Centrality
Universality
Circularity
Any others, class?
Student (S). I think you mentioned that NoT™ was an ontology for all the [...]
Source: http://kenkat.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/not%e2%84%a2-chapter-3/
CCK08 - A tale lost in the telling
I only managed to skim George’s History of Networked Learning (note: RTF) but had more time to read A History of the Social Web. I was deeply disappointed in the latter, a bit like Lisa, though perhaps for different reasons. I, not being a historian, was less troubled by the fuzzy thesis than by the [...]
Source: http://connecteded.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/cck08-a-tale-lost-in-the-telling/
CCK08 - The diapason, the iceberg and the learner
diapason - by Wollschaf - Wikimedia
Some contents of this course keep resonating like a musical note in my skull, even after some time I’ve read about them.
With this acoustic analogy in mind, I’ll reflect on fragments taken from the “Daily”, from some readings and from other bloggers’ posts.
I felt encouraged by what Siemens wrote some Dailies [...]
Source: http://lcolombo.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/cck08-the-diapason-the-iceberg-and-the-learner/
Relfections on Networked Learning - Week 3
CCK08 - I think I’ve attempted some sort of distillation of the concepts for my own blog-notes and all I can say is “what a mess”. I guess that’s my network for ya. Despite having a sense of networks through a bunch of different lens’ (social organizing close to 15 years ago, network design courses [...]
Source: http://dietsociety.edublogs.org/2008/09/30/relfections-on-networked-learning-week-3/
Wordle Wanderings
One of the outcomes of my CCK08 involvement is to explore and put together a learning management system and explore tools which would support learners in the primary setting.
Today I followed a thread on the moodle and explored the programme called Wordle. I found it easy to use thought not appropriate for children to use [...]
Source: http://ms.head4.org/?p=28
“Web 2.0 and Your Own Learning and Development” Stephen Downes.
Just viewed this video and two things insights came from it. The first one is linked to the last post about multi tasking and the observation that I seem to be developing the capacity to veiw, listen, read text and process information simultaneously. Stephen’s comment that whilst listening to the video, one should also be [...]
Source: http://ms.head4.org/?p=21
Week1 Multi-tasking
Yesterday I watched the recorded edition (10th Sept). Interested in how easy the tool was to use, maybe previous experience with “Go to meeting” and Skype, gave it its intuitive feel. I was soon simultaneously listening to the audio discussion, following the visual messages and also chasing links. I was conscious that I was not [...]
Source: http://ms.head4.org/?p=16
Here goes !
Hi Sandra and Judith. Thanks Neil, for setting this up for me. I am excited about the motivation this group is giving me to become a contributing member of a community as well as a blog “lurker.”
Hoping this week-end will provide the opportunity to catch up on the course. To think it is only [...]
Source: http://ms.head4.org/?p=12
Emergent social networks
Last Wednesday Valdis Krebs gave a guest lecture at the CCK08 elluminate meeting. Krebs talked about emergent networks and social network analysis. I wasn’t able to actually attend the session but watched the recording and looked at the slides. As i’m a plain newbie to this subject of social network analysis i also used Wellman’s presentation on networks for newbies. Krebs explained social network analysis as follows: “Social Network Analysis [SNA] is a mathematical and visual analysis of relationships / flows / influence between people, groups, organizations, computers or other information/knowledge I found it really interesting to see how Krebs looks at organizational structures using social network analysis. He showed us a traditional organizational hierarchy diagram. Then he flattened the picture out and showed the hierarchy as a network diagram. You could see that this traditional organization consists of small (business) units and that there are no connections between them other then via the top (management). Krebs stresses that in the white spaces between the units happens the work that’s most valuable to the organization. This is just like we see with innovation processes that occur the post at the periphery of and between communities or networks of practice. But then Krebs showed us the same picture that shows lines between the diverse nodes, those are the actual connections that happen during work. We now see that there actually are connections between the diverse units. Krebs has visualized the prescribed organization vs the actual organization. Online social networks Krebs also talked about online social networks, see also this article on his website. Krebs states that most online communities consists of three social rings: “a densely connected core in the center, loosely connected fragments in the second ring, and an outer ring of disconnected nodes, commonly known as lurkers.” The image above is a visualization of an existing online network, the three social rings are clearly visible. In the chatbox of the presentation, many people instantly talked about the similarities with the CCK08 community. People in the core of the community are actively participating and sharing their views on connectivism, people in the second ring are not that actively connected but do follow the course and perhaps connect with a small group of people. People at the periphery probably just read the daily and maybe follow some blogs or the disccusion at the moodle board (Stephen also wrote about this at the cck08 blog). Unfortunately Krebs didn’t hook into that immediately, but at the Q&A George asked him about how to deal with the people in the outside ring. Should we pull them in, get them more active? Krebs told us that there is “no requirement to bring those in but its nice to know who they are and where they are. You can be a very pasive participant in one environment and a very active one in another, so its not just by personality. Its what you consider is important and what u consider urself skilled at.” I think it’s important to consider how the networks in which you participate are build up and being aware of your position in those. I consider myself to act in the cck08 network somewhere on the border between the green and the red nodes. As i connect with more people and keep participating i expect to move further to the core. One question that arises me here is that this whole network was almost completly new to me. Is it so that those who initialy had more connections are moving quicker or perhaps starting at the core? In that way networks like this one really are emergent.
processing entities.”
Source: http://www.joostrobben.info/?p=39&lang=nl