Being vulnerable

18425537072_954d4b0e1d_oI’ve had so much fun over the last 18 or so months. Ever since I happened upon rhizo14 and then discovered other such events I have been making the most wonderful friends. I’m not going to list you all – there are too many of you for that – but I hope you know that I mean you  – that’s right – you. It’s been glorious – I’ve laughed so much, and learnt so much, and I feel very lucky to be a part of it (whatever “it” is).

Then something happened a couple of weeks ago that hurt me – a lot. It still hurts. And Helen wrote this blog post asking how we share our human side online. And it made me cry, because I saw that she understood.

I knew about trolls, and how they could hurt – I’ve been hanging about in left-wing, feminist spaces online for long enough now that I am mainly immune to them – but I didn’t expect to be hurt by somebody I counted as a friend.

So – my questions are – if we reveal our human sides in digital spaces, and in so doing we make ourselves vulnerable, then how do we prepare ourselves for the possibility that others, also being human, might do things that hurt us? And how do we attempt, being human ourselves, to model our behaviour so as not to inadvertently hurt others?

And how would we go about helping students work through these questions?

Picture of vulnerable black-handed spider monkey: flickr photo by goingslo http://flickr.com/photos/goingslo/18425537072 shared under a Creative Commons (BY) license

Posted in #rhizo14, Love, Rhizomes | Tagged , , , | 17 Comments

Not virtually connecting

I was at a loose end.  I spotted my pals.

“We’re going to do a Hangout”, they said. “Want to join in?”

I didn’t, really, but I perched at the end of the sofa.

The hangout started. I waved. They angled the laptop screen away from me so I could nearly hear and see what was going on. Not enough to join in, though.  I had my knitting, so I got that out. It seemed churlish to move away, so I stayed.

They thought the hangout was deep. Maybe it was. From where I was it was not even shallow – it did not register. I was not included. Look at the photos and you might think I was there, but I heard nothing, saw nothing, said nothing.

Was I there?

Posted in Learning, Online learning, Peer interaction, Rhizomes | Tagged | 7 Comments

Squinting sideways

Sweet is the lore which Nature brings;
Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:–
We murder to dissect. (Wordsworth, The Tables Turned)

I often used to feel that doing analytic philosophy was like pulling the legs of a spider in order to see how it worked – by analysing things too rigorously and asking what things “really” are we miss any chance of understanding them at all. As a wise man1 once said, sometimes it doesn’t pay to look at things too deeply – it’s better to sort of squint at things sideways, out of the corner of one’s eye – that’s when you’ll see the spider scuttling off to weave its web.

Wittgenstein makes a similar point about the futility of finding and defining essences with his talk about games and family resemblance:

One might say that the concept ‘game’ is a concept with blurred edges.—”But is a blurred concept a concept at all?”—Is an indistinct photograph a picture of a person at all? Is it even always an advantage to replace an indistinct picture by a sharp one? Isn’t the indistinct one often exactly what we need? (Wittgenstein, PI, Section 71)

And, earlier in the same discussion he admonishes those who think that games must all have something in common to challenge such assumptions:

Don’t think, but look! (PI, Section 66)

A few days ago some of us from #rhizo14 presented at ALT-C In this talk we ask how we should describe ourselves. A community?  A collective?  A network?  A group? A swarm? Rhizocats, I jokingly said.2

We simplify, in order to discuss. And in so simplifying we distort. There is no one thing that is/was #rhizo14, there is no one band of rhizo researchers. As Heraclitus probably once said:

You cannot step into the same river twice (Here)

Actually, I don’t think you can even step into the same river once.3

1. I’m paraphrasing and extending something Dave Cormier once said in a Facebook group when some folk were trying to work out what rhizomatic learning was.

2. Simon might be making related points here and here

3. This semester I have to tutor about personal identity to 1st years. Ugh!

Posted in #rhizo14, #rhizo15, Learning, Rhizomes, Wittgenstein | Tagged , , , , | 10 Comments

Rhizocats

This week we presented at ALT-C, a fairly large (about 500 delegates) annual conference which was held in Manchester this year. Maha has already blogged about us all meeting there, so I won’t repeat that – but I do have a tear in my eye remembering all of it, and thinking about sweet little Hoda. We were asked (by Catherine, I think) what word we used to describe ourselves – as Ash said afterwards, we should have returned to our title slide – we’re rhizocats!  Thanks, Scott, for the inspiration.

Niall recorded our talk, and I have uploaded it to YouTube.

Slides from the talk are here.

Posted in #rhizo14, Conferences, Learning, MOOC, Online learning, Rhizomes, Social Media, Technology | Tagged , , , , , | 7 Comments

Virtually connecting, but missing the real connections

I’m presenting at ALT-C this week. I was really excited about it – my co-presenters are part of my rhizo14 folk and I never thought I would get to meet them.

But a bad thing seems to have happened. Somehow, rather than spending time with me and other folk at the conference in the UK it seems that they have found an elite set of presenters and are choosing to set up Google Hangouts with North Americans.

 

🙁

Posted in Conferences | Tagged | 18 Comments

What’s the point of feedback?

I recently had a conversation with some other academics about the whole marking, assessment and feedback parade that we go through in HE, and the NSS student survey results, which always score lower for feedback than for other areas.

We were pondering about why that might be – and came up with the following hypothesis:

These is a mismatch between the perceived goal of feedback – students think it does one thing, whereas staff think it does something entirely different.

When a student gets feedback, according to this hypothesis, they are hoping to be told how to get a better mark next time. However, when staff give feedback, they are looking to justify the mark they have given (negative sense of this: explaining why they have given such a low mark; positive sense: asking oneself “what could I reasonably expect a student at this point in the studies to be able to do?”).

I suppose one way of summing this up might be to suggest that staff are in the business of providing feedback, while students are looking for feed forward.  Steve Draper, of course, has written a paper suggesting that feedback is pointless unless it changes the learner.

Tee trick then, according to Steve, is to provide feedback that triggers the student to do something … and the challenge is how to do that when teaching modules with the bulk of the assessment falling towards the end of the module …

 

Posted in Learning, Online learning, Teaching, Technology, University | Tagged , | 1 Comment

When is a pilot not a pilot?

4111953123_d317182ddd_o Recently we’ve been running some software pilots in our unit. Although I am sure that some folk in our Uni think that we are unnecessarily risk averse with regard to core systems such as Moodle (“it’s just  a line of code” is a running in joke we have about folk who do not understand the complexity of the systems we run, and the possibility of them breaking in unpredicatable ways if we try to hack them), we are actually keen to run pilots of potential software as and when the opportunity arises. These are usually bits of 3rd party software, so we are seeing if they are suitable for use within our Uni – we do not have the capacity to rewrite other folks’ products.

But we’ve noticed a funny thing. When we run a pilot we assume that our aim is to evaluate a bit of software and produce a report weighing up the pros and cons prior to making a recommendation about its suitability, sustainability, robustness, etc. – so it is by no means a done deal. Here’s a quote from Prof Wiki to summarise what we think that we are doing:

Often in engineering applications, pilot experiments are used to sell a product and provide quantitative proof that the system has potential to succeed on a full-scale basis. Pilot experiments are also used to reduce cost, as they are less expensive than full experiments. If there is not enough reason to provide full scale applications, pilot studies can generally provide this proof.

Ostriches-head-in-sand2A consequence of the above, then, is that a pilot might fail, or might have to be shelved for the time being because the software is not quite up to scratch yet – we do try not to say no, but often we have to say “not yet”. So we think that what we are doing is working with a group of folk who are willing to take  a risk and help us decide whether a system is viable. However, we’ve recently come across some people who seem to believe something different. When these folk are faced with any problems with the software they are helping us test they do not see this as a barrier to rolling out the software at an institutional level – instead they assume that is is we that are at fault and not the software, and that if they shout loud enough magic will happen.  Like the proverbial ostrich they stick their heads in the sand and refuse to believe that some bits of software are just not suitable (because they are too broken, too primitive, whatever the reason) and that consequently not every pilot will result in a full scale roll out of software.

I am not sure how we can educate such people.

Image credits:

Student pilot Jean McRae of Homosassa: Tallahassee, Florida. flickr photo by State Library and Archives of Florida http://flickr.com/photos/floridamemory/4111953123 shared with no copyright restriction (Flickr Commons)

Ostriches by Fwaaldijk [CC0], via Wikimedia Commons

Posted in Online learning, Technology, University | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

Vicarious learning

If we think that tutorials and seminars are an important part of the campus based learning experience, then how to we replace these when we are designing and delivering online courses? One way might be to use virtual classroom software such as BigBlueButton or Adobe Connect, or  to organise a Google Hangout, but this sort of solution is far from ideal if what you are trying to do is to mimic the F2F experience.  Before opting for something like this, educational designers need to think about:

  1. Scheduling. Is the course going to attract international learners? If so, then what time zones are participants going to be coming from? A recent MOOC I participated in had all of its synchronous activities at midnight in my time zone. I know that some folk will choose to stay up late/get up in the middle of the night to participate, but is it reasonable to expect participants to do this? How would you feel if you were paying for a distance course and part of the activities were at times when it was inconvenient/impossible to attend? What will you do if there is no time that all participants can be expected to be available?  What if the best time for participants is the middle of the night for your educators?
  2. Technology. How are you going to ensure that all participants have access to computers that are able to access the technology you are expecting them to use? How are you going to help them to troubleshoot when they have problems accessing the software? What about participants who have problems with bandwidth or firewalls? You can try to stipulate about minimum requirements, but how will you support learners who do not take heed of your advice?
  3. Scale. How many learners are you anticipating? If this is going to be more than about 10-15 (and in the age of the MOOC it could be a lot more than that) then are you going to be able to offer synchronous tutorials or seminars for everyone? This could turn into a logistical nightmare.

There will be other issues as well, but I see these as the main ones.  You might think at this point that it is going to be, if not impossible, then incredibly difficult to incorporate a tutorial or seminar type activity into your course design.  Well, maybe – but if you look to the educational literature you might find a way.

I think that the vital questions to ask when designing online/distance learning experiences are things like:

Should we be trying to translate learning experiences for online and distance learning, or is the ambition to transform learning?

And a related question that might help us to think about how to do this would be something like:

What are we trying to mimic and why?

Yesterday I read a paper by Miki Chi. Steve Draper’s referred to it many, many times, so I was familiar with the rough findings of her research – but I had not appreciated the detail. The conclusion is that pairs of students who collaborate with each other and watch a recording of a F2F tutorial of a tutor and tutee learn just as much as the tutee in the F2F tutorial. 

I’d recommend you read the whole paper which, as Steve says,  is long and contains a lot of important stuff. But here’s what she did in brief.

She noted that learning from F2F tutoring is the most beneficial learning design for students, followed by learning by peer collaboration. Because “human tutoring” is costly to scale up, she designed research in order to gain a better understanding of why F2F tutoring is so beneficial and try to identify an alternative (scaleable) learning environment. Could learning by observing be optimised in some way? (The active/constructive/interactive learning hypothesis.)

She took a group of 70 undergraduate physics students who were educated to roughly the same education and grades and allocated them to different groups:

  • 10 Tutees: these received 1-1 F2F tutoring to solve a set of problems.
  • 20 Collaborative Observers: these watched  recordings of the F2F tutorials and worked together to solve the same problems as the tutees.
  • 20 Collaborators: these did not watch the recordings, but collaborated on the same problems together.
  • 10 Lone Observers: these watched the recordings and tried to solve the problems alone.
  • 10 Solo Solvers: these did not watch the recordings, but tried to solve the problems alone.

The same tutor was used for all the tutorials. Chi spends some time talking about her hypotheses, the research design and the analysis of the effectiveness of each design which I will not go into here.

The findings were surprising. Not only did the Collaborative Observers learn better that the collaborators, the lone observers and the solo solvers, but:

Collaborative Observers could learn as well as the Tutees who participated in tutoring suggest[ing] that this can be accounted for by the interactions of the Collaborative Observers per se, without interacting directly with a tutor. (Chi 2008 p336)

So here’s a thing. If you want to replicate the benefits of 1-1 F2F tutoring for online learners, you can do this just as effectively by getting them to watch recordings together and collaborate on solving the problems as by giving them individual tutorials. You don’t need to use virtual classroom software, with all the challenges that brings, all you need is to host the recordings of the tutorials in a place that students can access them, and some collaborative authoring software such as Google Docs (with maybe a phone line or a Skype account) in order for students to work as Collaborative Observers.

Not only will this solve a lot of the issues that I raised above, but the learning will be more effective. That has to be worth exploring.

For a related point, see Niall’s post on evaluating an online conference system

Birds Of A Feather – The Macaw Version flickr photo by Bill Gracey shared under a Creative Commons (BY-NC-ND) license

Posted in Learning, Online learning, Peer interaction, Teaching, Technology, University | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

WYSIWYG

There’s a new challenge going around – watch a short video and write a bog post tying what you have seen into something about education. So Whitney sent me this one about the Landfill Harmonic, who make musical instruments out of landfill:

The world sends us garbage, we send back music

Favio Chavez (Director)

What do you see when you look at a landfill site? A representation of the gluttony and wastefulness of the modern Western world? A blot on the landscape that obscures the beauty of nature? Probably something like that. But these folk saw potential. Instead of focussing on all of the negative aspects of what they were given, they looked carefully within it for parts that could be used. Maybe these needed a bit of a polish, maybe the results were never going to be perfect, but the instruments that resulted play sweet music. These instruments do not conform to the usual standards for orchestral instruments, but they function just as well as those made from traditional materials.

It’s all a matter of attitude, really. We are often told that modern students are lazy and unmotivated – that they can’t be bothered to engage with hard subjects, that they expect to be spoon fed an education. And I expect that if that is what you are looking for, then that is what you will see. And if lectures are boring and assessments are ill thought out, then students may well not bother to engage. It can be hard, when faced with huge class sizes, not to see the potential of individual students.

But if you take the time to look a bit more closely then you will see that beneath the surface there are keen students wanting to take an interest in their education. You might have to rethink how this is going to work, though – developing authentic assessment for large class sizes can be a challenge, but it can be done.  If you are willing to give students a say in how that learning is going to happen, and look at using co-operative learning designs such as the Jigsaw Classroom, and peer reviewing models such as Adaptive Comparative Judgement then you might be surprised by the results. It won’t take you any less time to teach by using this methods, but both you and your students will have a much more rewarding time.

I’m not linking to another video here, but a picture. #blimage is more my thing than #blideo

flickr photo by WarmSleepy http://flickr.com/photos/timothykrause/5885747179 shared under a Creative Commons (BY) license

flickr photo by WarmSleepy http://flickr.com/photos/timothykrause/5885747179 shared under a Creative Commons (BY) license

Posted in Learning, Teaching, University | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments

Don’t “check your ego at the door” please

Jean-Luc_Picard_as_Borg (1)

I do a lot of collaborative writing, both at work and for fun. Often, particularly at work, this means that we’ll have a quick chat and then I will throw some rough words onto paper to get a sense of what we might want to say, and throw those open to my collaborators to change. I’m not precious about these words as I don’t really consider them to be mine, or wonderful, or set in stone – so when I find that somebody has changed them it doesn’t bother me.

But there’s a trite phrase that gets bandied about in the context of collaborative working, about “checking egos at the door”* that misdescribes how I feel such collaborations work. Let me try to explain.

sheepSome of us have been using the metaphor of a swarm to describe some of the collaborations that have happened as a result of rhizo14, 15 and other such events.  Keith Hamon has written a lot about it and I’ve written a couple of things. I’m still not convinced that it’s actually a good metaphor, mind you – but some folk find it useful and it doesn’t bother me enough to make me want to find a different one.  But whatever word we use to describe the collections of folk who collaborate on these various projects, the one thing we do NOT do is check our flipping egos at the door. The Borg and the Cybermen do that (well, they’ve had it done to them), we do not. We all have personalities, and (I think that) we all have strong egos – and that is part of what makes these collaborations so successful, enjoyable and addictive – the fact that other folk say things and go about things in ways I would never have thought of.

So I am not precious about my words, and I don’t mind them being changed (in fact, afterwards, we often don’t know who wrote exactly which part, because there have been so many edits, and conversations, and so on), but I do sometimes have strong opinions about what we are writing about, as do the others I collaborate with. And I think that this is vital.  If we try to ignore our egos, I think that we could be reduced to trotting out things that all of us agree with – and that would be incredibly boring for us and for everybody else. Or we would never challenge something that everybody else seemed to be happy with, because we’d assume it was just our own ego getting in the way. For example, I have just strongly disagreed with a particular choice of word in something that a group of us are writing.  I didn’t throw my toys out of the pram (to use another trite saying), but I did express my opinion strongly.

Image from: http://8bitnerds.com/colorful-wooly-dyed-sheep/

Image from: http://8bitnerds.com/colorful-wooly-dyed-sheep/

Checking egos at the door is fine if you want mindless drones, but it’s not an appropriate metaphor for the type of collaborative writing that we are trying to engage in.

We are people, not sheeple (ha, another trite phrase I loathe).

Here’s some Hawkwind about clones to play this post out with:

 

 

* Notably, when I googled this phrase, the links were written by business owners, or about business collaborations. Nuff said!  I also found this gem, which is sort of the opposite of what we are trying to achieve:

Checking your ego at the door is a request to not bring your ego into some discussion; to remain objective rather than emotional

(Picard/Locutus image by Science_Fiction_Museum_and_Hall_of_Fame_3.JPG: Gryffindor derivative work: El Carlos (Science_Fiction_Museum_and_Hall_of_Fame_3.JPG) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons)

Posted in Rhizomes, Writing | Tagged , , , , , , | 8 Comments