Monday, January 7, 2008
<p>A hello to Savvica staff who are replacing nuuvo with Savvica
<p>I've done quite a bit of Web 1.0 instruction online. It's time to move on to work at the Web 2.0 level --- I would like to encourage DEEPER involvement of students in knowledge building, group learning, knowledge structuring and organization.
<p>Here's a partial list of Web 2.0-inclined newcomers, (thanks to ReadWriteWeb): <ul> <li>elgg.net a Social networking, open source, application. While it is not set up so much for education... it can serve a distributed network as it talks over and collaboratively develops knowledge. The following from the University of Brighton: <blockquote> Elgg is now being used formally within course and modules and less formally to bring together people with similar interests - enabling people to share information, reflections and comment across course boundaries and develop something very different to anything we've had before. I firmly believe we're taking the first steps from a Virtual Learning Environment to a Shared Learning Environment."</blockquote> <li>nuuvo -- now savvica (evidently in beta). Here <a href="http://support.nuvvo.com/documentation">documentation</a> for nuuvo. Presumably there will be resemblance; though that's not guaranteed. Nuuvo became Savvica via a purchase (Often the purchase can sever originator vision from the product. Would "repurposing" be an appropriate description of what often takes place?)</li> <li><a href="http://www.digication.com/about/company">Digication</a> <li><a href="http://www.chalksite.com/learn/">Chalksite</a> a system for teacher communication with students and families. Can include a web site. <li><a href="www.haikuls.com/php/features.php">Haiku LMS</a> Includes teacher and class website creators, gradebook, assessment, dropbox for online submission of homework, and much more. The only classroom feature that is not obvious is a testing module. <li> <a href="www.hawaii.edu/its/sakai">Sakai</a> Is like Blackboard, WebCT (now owned by Blackboard) and Moodle [to a lesser extent, I would arguw] in its relatively traditional organization of instruction from the teacher out. They're teacher centric, if you like. A student centric , or at least a more balanced approach, would start with an individual student, or group of students and the voluntary choice of a knowledge or competence target. The teacher would serve as an advisor on the learning path, the method and the recognition of sufficient competence. </ul>
<p>To be honest, given my comments on Sakai, you might not be surprised to know that I'm not sure that there is a student-centric knowledge acquisition system out there. Bits and pieces but not yet the whole system. Once its constructed it will resemble a generic research application with a strong focus on verifying that knowledge acquired satisfactorily matches all specifications initially given by the student. Perhaps the teacher could serve as a honest reflector upon the accomplishments. It can be easy to rationalize the product as 'just right' , even when it is short of or different from the original goal, because of fatigue or even an honest change of mind that has come because of engagement with new knowledge bits and engaging knowledge-making processes.
<p>PS. After above thoughts I think I should dig into the definition of Web 2.0 Learning systems. Distributed ownership is terrific but is not the same as, is not necessarily accompanied by, learner centric instruction.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Summary: I praise the free knowledge-making possibilities now available on the web.
Some would have said, did, in fact say, that team knowledge development could be strongly advanced by the combination of weblogs and wikis. It's now a free reality.(draft 3/19/07).
This will be the first draft.. less subtlety than I'd like. At the very least it's a place-marker for what I consider to be a worthwhile "philosophy, technology and the times" entry. While keeping my original title for the sake of continuity I find "Team Knowledge Development" to be too obscure. The phrase conjures up sports and hi-tech think tanks... that is too small a venue. The possibilities are far huger than that!!
Why? Think: do we need more knowledge (def. that which allows you to satisfy basic needs in a constantly changing, always demanding environment)? Yes. Where can it come from: any one of the 6 billion entities that call themselves human.
So anything that advances the ability to adjust and adapt and shape for humanity is needed. Sure. No argument, one might say! But, I am also arguing that computers linked via the internet and these free knowledge-making venues , if generally and broadly available and applied, offer us the chance to accelerate the development of useful individual and social behavior.
Individual and group and community, for that matter, knowledge construction is becoming accessible to those who access to the internet via the 100 dollar computer, the internet, and, of course, some kick-off training to develop the taste for it (there is always a need) and a starter set of skills. The taste and the starter set may be more of a challenge than the technology. But, once developed, will have I think, HUGE potential repercussions.
Take 1 group blog on blogger.com and a wiki from wikispaces or from an inexpensive open-source provider (see, for example, www.siteground.com - 4.95 per month) and you have either a free or very inexpensive group knowledge-making environment.
Three years ago it was an operational reality in well-heeled think tanks or online classrooms like Blackboard and Moodle. This was utilization in one --even unrecognized as a "knowledge-making venue" because doing so in the guise of traditional teaching-- of a far broader list of potential individual and social knowledge-making activities. Research as a general knowledge-making activity was by-and-large untouched. This year, while it isn't commonplace, it is possible for all and sundry and has developers and forward-looking venture capitalists recognizing the possibilities.
Now we have to create the social processing that allows us to do what the tools now allow.
The following is a connectivity weblog entry from early December of 2003.
Summary: I illustrate and explain a small group knowledge-making model.
I do this in order to distinguish communicative contexts for weblogging.
The general weblogging case --well described by Dave
Pollard in a recent entry
(See also my response and links here)-- is different from the situation in which weblogging is part of
an individual or group research (knowledge-making) activity. My sense is that, since new knowledge development requires extensive introspective note taking, research journaling and, often, the testing of successive hypotheses, a wiki is better suited to the process. I've left the external communication role (of more finished pieces of research work) to the weblog. Details below and in notes linked to below.
In my above-referenced entry I noted:
…if the issue really
is expanding individual and collective knowledge, then the inter-blogger
steps are a "surface" process which is an overlay on another, less
accessible phenomenon, namely, a group's acquisition of new (at least to
its members) and goal-related knowledge. IMHO the explanation of the
blogging process in this context would be better served if some
explanation of essential knowledge-making actions were folded into, or
at least linked to from within, the discussion of sequential blogging
behavior.
I followed this expressed concern with
notetaking concerning the differences between general
case blogging and blogging in the context of research/knowledge-making.
For my set of notes using Dave Pollard's blogging steps but expressed
from the point of view of an individual writing an in-house blog for a
working research/knowledge-making group look here.
Those notes led to my construction of this entry's diagram
which I offer for your consideration and evaluation. It, too, is drawn from the
within-research-group perspective.Explanation of the research and publication
process follows beneath the diagram.
Most research group endeavors have a life cycle--preceding from
formation and ending with either a mature knowledge product or a
partial version of the planned-for knowledge product, (or, in the extreme worst case, nothing that was intended nor even any unintended side product that has value). The within-group processes I describe below are aimed somewhere in the middle of the life of the research group.
At the base of the diagram you will see 5 R-S pairs. Those represent 5
researcher pairings with a research(knowledge-making) "situation".
Each has researcher's assignment has two aspects:
first is to "getting a good answer" to a research question and
second is to make it accessible, via explanation, to other members of
the research team.
Each researcher's notes, problems, results and
explanations are detailed in her/his respective wiki. As part of
participating in the research team each researcher comments upon, offer
suggestions for, evaluate, etc. , the work of two other team
members--via the evaluated member's wiki. Those processes are signified
signified by the dashed arrows from each researcher to two other team
members' wiki documents (those documents are W1, W2, W3, etc.). Such
cross-communication can help to assure that the researcher will be
developing her/his findings and explanations in ways that are compatible
with the larger knowledge question which all are addressing with their
particular research projects.
There is one other (the sixth) team
member: the Reporter/Coordinator(RC). S/he will also be
reading/evaluating the wiki's from the perspective of the larger
knowledge-making situation of which the separate researcher situations are
each distinct parts. S/he will also be reading from the perspective of an
explication of the total product to a public.
In the early project stages the
research coodinator/reporter documents impresssions of progress in the
in-house summary document which is the group wiki (GW).
For non-group
members summary snippets are issued via the group weblog (GWL); its purpose is to
document progress and/or to justify solicitations of material support from a
suprasystem or from a granting agency. Informational support might come
via weblog comments from collaborating groups in a larger enterprise
(e.g., a containing suprasystem) or from the broader public made up of
knowledge consumers and competing research enterprises. Any responses from those outside
sources will be fed back into the group wiki as a means of
challenging/updating within-group work.
A last observation: the dashed line surrounding the group is meant to
indicate that the boundary is voluntary. All members voluntarily limit
their communications to fit within the bounds of the research mission.
This self-limitation will occur for some portion of their time as dictated by
their interests and the commitment made to the group. In the best of research groups this
self-limitation is in fact empowerment. (See my entry
about knowledge-making in bounded groups)
[Note 1: I have expanded the number of tools used to two: wiki and weblog.
When a publication is to show it's edit history and
to allow text intrusions ranging from paragraph level editing by multiple
editors to page-level comments, I've chosen a wiki. When the document itself
is to remain intact but is be accessible to attached commentary and for linking,
I've chosen a weblog. It is possible to follow the design using weblogs alone
(replace all wikis with weblogs).The wiki, however, affords a far more nuanced set
of possibilities.]
[Note 2: Larger knowledge-making enterprises could be approached by using the illustrated group design as a module and by adding necessary organizationalinfrastructure and process]
[Note 3: If we replace the researcher and group wiki's with in house circulation of a weekly progress update--- on paper, and if we replace the group weblog with newsletter publications and/or journal articles -- again, on paper , then we still have a "plan". How much better off are we , at this
level of analysis, because we HAVE inserted Wiki and Weblog?]
Summary: I praise the free knowledge-making possibilities now available on the web.
Some would have said, did, in fact say, that team knowledge development could be strongly advanced by the combination of weblogs and wikis. It's now a free reality.
This will be the first draft.. less subtlety more like a placemarker.
Take a group blog on blogger and a wiki from wikispaces or from an inexpensive open-source provide and you have a low cost/no cost group knowledge-making environment.
Three years ago it was an operational reality in well-healed think tanks.. but not that well disseminated. Now, while it isn't commonplace, it is possible for all and sundry.
Now we have to create the social processing that allows us to do what the tools now allow.
The < a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0106698/2003/12/05.html#a202">following from early December of 2003.
Summary: I illustrate and explain a small group knowledge-making model.
I do this in order to distinguish communicative contexts for weblogging.
The general weblogging case --well described by Dave
Pollard in a recent entry
(See also my response and links here)-- is different from the situation in which weblogging is part of
an individual or group research (knowledge-making) activity. My sense is that, since new knowledge development requires extensive introspective note taking, research journaling and, often, the testing of successive hypotheses, a wiki is better suited to the process. I've left the external communication role (of more finished pieces of research work) to the weblog. Details below and in notes linked to below.
In my above-referenced entry I noted:
…if the issue really
is expanding individual and collective knowledge, then the inter-blogger
steps are a "surface" process which is an overlay on another, less
accessible phenomenon, namely, a group's acquisition of new (at least to
its members) and goal-related knowledge. IMHO the explanation of the
blogging process in this context would be better served if some
explanation of essential knowledge-making actions were folded into, or
at least linked to from within, the discussion of sequential blogging
behavior.
I followed this expressed concern with
notetaking concerning the differences between general
case blogging and blogging in the context of research/knowledge-making.
For my set of notes using Dave Pollard's blogging steps but expressed
from the point of view of an individual writing an in-house blog for a
working research/knowledge-making group look here.
Those notes led to my construction of this entry's diagram
which I offer for your consideration and evaluation. It, too, is drawn from the
within-research-group perspective.Explanation of the research and publication
process follows beneath the diagram.
Most research group endeavors have a life cycle--preceding from
formation and ending with either a mature knowledge product or a
partial version of the planned-for knowledge product, (or, in the extreme worst case, nothing that was intended nor even any unintended side product that has value). The within-group processes I describe below are aimed somewhere in the middle of the life of the research group.
At the base of the diagram you will see 5 R-S pairs. Those represent 5
researcher pairings with a research(knowledge-making) "situation".
Each has researcher's assignment has two aspects:
first is to "getting a good answer" to a research question and
second is to make it accessible, via explanation, to other members of
the research team.
Each researcher's notes, problems, results and
explanations are detailed in her/his respective wiki. As part of
participating in the research team each researcher comments upon, offer
suggestions for, evaluate, etc. , the work of two other team
members--via the evaluated member's wiki. Those processes are signified
signified by the dashed arrows from each researcher to two other team
members' wiki documents (those documents are W1, W2, W3, etc.). Such
cross-communication can help to assure that the researcher will be
developing her/his findings and explanations in ways that are compatible
with the larger knowledge question which all are addressing with their
particular research projects.
There is one other (the sixth) team
member: the Reporter/Coordinator(RC). S/he will also be
reading/evaluating the wiki's from the perspective of the larger
knowledge-making situation of which the separate researcher situations are
each distinct parts. S/he will also be reading from the perspective of an
explication of the total product to a public.
In the early project stages the
research coodinator/reporter documents impresssions of progress in the
in-house summary document which is the group wiki (GW).
For non-group
members summary snippets are issued via the group weblog (GWL); its purpose is to
document progress and/or to justify solicitations of material support from a
suprasystem or from a granting agency. Informational support might come
via weblog comments from collaborating groups in a larger enterprise
(e.g., a containing suprasystem) or from the broader public made up of
knowledge consumers and competing research enterprises. Any responses from those outside
sources will be fed back into the group wiki as a means of
challenging/updating within-group work.
A last observation: the dashed line surrounding the group is meant to
indicate that the boundary is voluntary. All members voluntarily limit
their communications to fit within the bounds of the research mission.
This self-limitation will occur for some portion of their time as dictated by
their interests and the commitment made to the group. In the best of research groups this
self-limitation is in fact empowerment. (See my entry
about knowledge-making in bounded groups)
[Note 1: I have expanded the number of tools used to two: wiki and weblog.
When a publication is to show it's edit history and
to allow text intrusions ranging from paragraph level editing by multiple
editors to page-level comments, I've chosen a wiki. When the document itself
is to remain intact but is be accessible to attached commentary and for linking,
I've chosen a weblog. It is possible to follow the design using weblogs alone
(replace all wikis with weblogs).The wiki, however, affords a far more nuanced set
of possibilities.]
[Note 2: Larger knowledge-making enterprises could be approached by using the illustrated group design as a module and by adding necessary organizationalinfrastructure and process]
[Note 3: If we replace the researcher and group wiki's with in house circulation of a weekly progress update--- on paper, and if we replace the group weblog with newsletter publications and/or journal articles -- again, on paper , then we still have a "plan". How much better off are we , at this
level of analysis, because we HAVE inserted Wiki and Weblog?]
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Summary: A multimedia and in depth learning ecology lesson is available. Slides and Audio. Whether you are after content learning or metalearning, George Siemens offers understanding and advice on how you creates a learning ecology -- and supports the subsequent evolution of quality . His ideas will apply online or off.
PS. You can navigate in nonlinear fashion --attending to voice, or slides or graphics, as you like.
His graphic above (slide 19 in his audio and video sequence), captures important segments of the depth complexity of a learning ecology.
PPS. Nota bene. This delivery demonstrates what can be done with powerpoint. Further, because he has used "Articulate" - a Windows-friendly powerpoint-augmenting software -- you get more features and don't have to worry about downloading, compressing or decompressing. :o]
[George's Material came to me via Will Richardson's Weblogg-Ed ]
Summary: The resources abound for technically inclined teachers and motivated and technically inclined learners.
The picture makes sense when you've read the Jan 25 entry on Bee-Coming A Webhead. It's all really happening.
Michael Coghlan is now presenting Hearing Online Voices in EFL/ESL on Yahoo Messenger for the BaW 06 Evo Session. 30 people present, among whom 3 Brazilians (Carla Arena, Erika Cruvinel from Brasilia and myself in Sao Paulo). Aiden is explaining how she participated in an audio exchange with Michael and how the students became the main protagonists in the chat. Michael describes how Chris Jones (Arizona), Anne Fox (Denmark) conducted exchanges online with their classes. Buthaina (Kuwait) had webheads listen to students' oral presentations and ask questions.
Aiden and Michael have recorded wonderful messages for my blogging workshop on the Summer School Podomatic.
It's almost to the point where people are "taking it for granted". Scary -- cause we still have to pay attention to
whether we are teaching!!
[technorati: weblogging, edublogging, onlinelearning]
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Summary: It would be a complicated proof, at this point in our [proven] understanding of weblogs, but wouldn't we start with the "Goose to Gander" inference?
"What's good for the goose is good for the gander!"
is intpreted to mean , "What is good for a man is equally good for a woman; or, what a man can have or do, so can a woman have or do." This comes from an earlier proverb, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."
That is, if weblogging enhances deuterolearning for students then don't we at least make the initial assumption that it enhances learning for teachers, too?
Thus, given that a significant fraction of professorial behavior involves teaching, don't we also assume that weblogging would be good for the learning of professors too?
Therefore, I offer the following hypothesis:
Intensive, consistent and persistent professorial weblogging significantly accelerates meaningful professorial learning* **.
Let's get on with specific research efforts on professorial weblogging! Let's find out what aspects of weblog form, structure and/or process separates translates this speculative logic into a comprehensive set of real findings which verify the utility of weblogs in the job-related practice of professors !
*Where meaningful professorial learning is defined as documented changes in behavior, i.e., real and significant change in content of knowledge shown in relevant instructional, research and service domains.
**"Meaningful" is meant to distinguish job-relevant learning from learning that does not relate to the professors role or competence with her/his specific discipline. No disrespect is intended towards other learning that may also occur. However, those learnings that enhance the income and prestige for the institution, the advancement and known disciplinary competence of the professor and the quality of education for the student are seen to be centrally important in the higher education context.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Summary: Earlier his month the Chronicle of Higher Education published
an article on faculty weblogs in higher education, it was Bloggers
Need Not Apply by Ivan Tribble (a pseudonym). The apparent message of this
entry: "Don't write a weblog if you want to get be hired as a faculty member;
the risks far outweigh the gains" [or words to that effect]. Stephen Downes' reaction
to the entry: "[In a nutshell you've said :] Let's keep our lives secret before we take a new position;
that will make it much more certain the job will be a good fit. [And I say, ] "Rubbish". More reactions below.
Given that I'd just written about multiuserweblog set ups in university settings this counter-response to "rubbish" seemed apt. More, , possibly, later.****
A respected University of California Philosophy Professor,
J. Searle, in a public service appearance. His purpose, in this case, was to make his ideas accessible to
the broader San Francisco Bay Area community. (details on all professorial duties immediately below). Professors
have multiple public functions to fill.
---------------------------
Background on being a professor, i.e., teaching faculty member in a college
or university: The professorial position is not paid by the hour but, rather,
in return for carrying out of certain functions. The are three central functions are generally seen as:
- make new knowledge (=scholarship),
- transmit
knowledge to students (undergraduate and graduate), and
- help the institution
carry out its functions now and in the future (=teaching), within the institution
or within the community within which the institution functions (=service).
The quality of a professor's efforts in each of these areas depends on the quality
of her or his written/spoken/or-otherwise-communicated knowledge or thoughts.*
In short, the professor is a public knowledge resource in her or his
specialty area and is expected to be a good, thoughtful and reasoned thinker
in the general sense communicating effectively to a fairly wide
audience in a considerable variety of situations. In the classroom the professor
is expected to be an effective communicator and to be a just grader. She/he
is expected to use her or his influence and power in an ethical fashion.
The principle of academic freedom affords the professor (at
whatever level) the room to pursue knowledge development in her or his field
as he or she sees fit. The methods of research must be both legal and moral. The
degree to which the topic(s) of those investigations are popular or acceptable
to a general public, even to Deans or to Board of Trustee members is, at least in
theory, out of bounds.
First criticism of Tribble's view (you can find plenty of them by searching Google
under "Ivan Tribble"), nicely said by Evan Roberts in his
weblog (one of many in the University of Minnesota multiuser weblog
system) Coffee Grounds:
To me it seems that the gist of Tribble's
article is that the search committee was shocked (shocked) to learn that
their candidates had outside interests and emotions that might prevent candidates
from spending 14 hours a day on research or teaching.
He gives a lead in to some other higher ed weblog material from Daniel
Drezner
"…"[Untenured faculty are cautioned to] think
very, very, very carefully about the costs and benefits of blogging
under one's own name (emphasis original)." I'm not sure that I thought very,
very, very carefully about blogging under my own name; perhaps very carefully.
as well as the following analysis
Can academics be bloggers?
A truncated version of what
I said at the Public Choice roundtable with Michael
Munger and Chris Lawrence on
the question of "Can Academics Be Bloggers?":
1) Of course academics can be bloggers. The more interesting
questions are:
a) Can academics be good bloggers?
b) Should academics be bloggers?
My answer both of these questions is "yes, with significant
caveats."
CAN ACADEMICS BE GOOD BLOGGERS?
The answer should be yes:
1) 40% of TTLB's
Higher Beings have Ph.D.s, so clearly it's possible.
2) Academics possess skills that are useful for blogging
-- expertise, writing experience, analytical and critical thinking skills,
etc.
That said, the answer for many academics is no:
1) To put it gently, some
top-notch academics
have not completely mastered the art of the blog. In all likelihood this
will change, but it points to a barrier to entry for good scholars; unlike
lower-level primates like myself, high-profile academics will often attract
attention the moment they start blogging, stripping them of the opportunity
to stumble out of the gates and move down the learning curve under the radar.
2) Furthermore, tenured academics have to adjust to a new
and strange power structure if they start blogging. Suddenly they're in
a world where mere graduate students,
or worse yet, people possessing
only a B.A., wield more power and influence than them. I mean, it's
been three months and Munger is still in a fetal position from being
exposed to my "mighty" hit count. And that's just between a full professor
and an assistant professor!
3) Richard Posner's theory of public intellectuals suggests
that as academics stray from their area of expertise, their signal to noise
ratio of the information they generate drops. Some
academic bloggers strongly confirm this hypothesis.
4) Yes, academics have writing experience, but they've been
trained within an inch of their lives to eschew clear prose for jargon-laden
discourse. There are sound and unsound reasons for this within the academy,
but for blogging to the general public it's disastrous.
5) It should be stressed that these hindrances are not permanent,
but they do constitute a barrier to entry.
SO, SHOULD ACADEMICS* ENGAGE IN BLOGGING**?
*By academics, I mean untenured ones, for tenured faculty
[ motivation to exert oneself is less?, see however Manho Singhman's notes
on why he blogs below. ]
**By blogging, I mean [general blogging-- my phrase SPH] rather
than blogging only about one's research, which is an unalloyed good.
[emboldening is mine , SPH. See, for example, excerpts below*** from Mano Singham's Web Journal
1) Blogging can be thought of as part of service. It's
a low-cost way of reaching beyond the ivory tower. It's also acting like
a quasi-referee of public intellectual output.
2) As blogging has become more respectable, the stigma associated
with the activity has faded away.
NO:
1) It can be addictive.
2) If the blog is successful, it will breed
resentment from colleagues, because it creates an alternative path to acclaim
where tenured faculty do not function as gatekeepers.
3) Colleagues who do not write for a wide audience will
overestimate the amount of time you devote to blogging, because they assume
a one-to-one correspondence between public articles and scholarly articles
(the actual ratio is more like 1:3). They will also underestimate the possibility
that blogging is a complement rather than a substitute to traditional scholarship.
4) Scholars who out themselves as not part of the mainstream
political persuasion of academics will have some uncomfortable hallway moments
-- though this cost is often overestimated.
5) More serious are the academic political minefields that
blogging can trigger -- you know, thin-skinned
senior academics who are perfectly willing to carry a blog grudge into
the academic realm.
*There are gradations in professorial rank (in the US, typically, instructor,
assistant professor, associate professor, professor-- professor the highest).
** Movement through the ranks is supposed to relate to quality in
carrying out the actions associated with the role. Generally the actions are
categorized as teaching, scholarship and service. While much time can be,
and is, in some cases, spent assessing each, in my experience rough and ready
solutions are applied in order that committee members can return to more familiar,
and less intense, duties. I would say that, in general the rough and ready
translations are: quality of scholarship translates as "number of juried
journal publications (prestigious , juried, journals preferred) per year",
quality of teaching translates into a summary of student evaluations
on after-class polls and quality of service translates as "number of
worthy nonteaching, nonscholarship activities (committee work is typical)
successfully undertaken.
***Mano Singham's "Why I blog"
I reached a kind of landmark this week with this blog.
I have been making entries since January 26th, posting one item each weekday,
except for a three-week break in June. As a result I have now posted over
100 entries and consisting of over 100,000 words, longer than either of
my two published books.
Why do I blog? Why does anyone blog? The Doonesbury
comic
strip of Sunday, July 3, 2005 fed into the stereotype of bloggers as
self-important losers who cannot get real jobs as writers, and feed their
ego by pretending that what they say has influence. The idea behind this
kind of disparaging attitude is that if no one is willing to pay you to
write, then what you have to say has no value.
Of course, there are a vast number of bloggers out there,
with an equally vast number of reasons as to why they blog so any generalization
is probably wrong. So I will reflect on why I blog. Some bloggers may share
this view, others may have different reasons. So be it.
The first reason is the very fact that because of the blog,
I have written the equivalent of a complete book in six months. Writing
is not easy, especially starting to write on any given day. Having a blog
enforces on me a kind of discipline that would not exist otherwise. Before
I started this blog, I would let ideas swirl around in my head, without
actually putting them down in concrete form. After awhile, I would forget
about them, but be left with this nagging feeling of dissatisfaction that
I should have explored the ideas further and written them down.
The second benefit of writing is that it forces you to
clarify and sharpen your ideas. It is easy to delude yourself that you understand
something when you have the idea only in your mind. Putting those ideas
to paper (or screen) has the startling effect of revealing gaps in knowledge
and weaknesses of logic and reasoning, thus forcing a re-evaluation of one's
ideas. So writing is not a one-way process from brain to screen/paper. It
is a dialectic process. Writing reveals your ideas but also changes the
way you think. As the writer E. M. Forster said “How can I know what I am
thinking until I see what I say?” This is why writing is such an important
part of the educational process and why I am so pleased that the new SAGES
program places such emphasis on it.
Another benefit for me is that writing this blog has (I
hope) helped me become a better writer, able to spot poor construction and
word choice more quickly. Practice is an important part of writing and the
blog provides me with that. Given that the blog is public and can (in principle)
be read by anyone prevents me from posting careless or shoddy pieces. It
forces me to take the time to repeatedly revise and polish, essential skills
for writers.
When I started this blog, I had no idea what form it would
take. Pretty soon, almost without thinking, it slipped into the form that
I am most comfortable with, which is that of a short essay around a single
topic each day. I initially feared that I would run out of ideas to write
about within a few weeks but this has not happened. In fact what happens
is what all writers intuitively know but keep forgetting, which is that
the very act of writing acts as a spur for new ideas, new directions to
explore.
As I write, new topics keep coming into my mind, which
I store away for future use. The ideas swirl around in my head as I am doing
other things (like driving and chores), and much of the writing takes place
in my mind during those times as well. The well of ideas to write about
does not show any signs of going dry, although it does take time to get
the items ready for posting, and that is my biggest constraint. Researching
those topics so that I go beyond superficial "off the top of my head" comments
and have something useful to say about them has been very educational for
me.
Since I have imposed on myself the goal of writing an essay
for each weekday, this has enabled me to essentially write the first draft
(which is the hardest part of writing, for me at least) of many topics that
may subsequently become articles (or even books) submitted for publication.
If I do decide to expand on some of the blog item for publication, that
process should be easier since I have done much of the preliminary research,
organization, and writing already.
All these benefits have accrued to me, the writer, and
this is no accident. I think most writing benefits the author most, for
all the reasons given above. But any writer also hopes that the reader benefits
in some way as well, though that is hard for the author to judge.
I remember when I was younger, I wanted to "be a writer"
but never actually wrote anything, at least anything worthwhile. Everything
I wrote seemed contrived and imitative. I then read a comment by someone
who said that there is a big difference between those who want to be writers
and those who want to write. The former are just enamored with idea of getting
published, of being successful authors and seeing their name in print. The
latter feel that they have something to say that they have to get out of
their system. I realized then that I belonged to the former class, which
I why I had never actually written anything of value. With that realization,
I stopped thinking of myself as a writer and did not do any writing other
than the minimum required for my work. It is only within the last ten years
or so that I feel that I have moved into the latter category, feeling a
compulsion to write for its own sake. This blog has given me a regular outlet
for that impulse.
I would never have written so much without having this
blog. I would recommend that others who feel like they have to write also
start their own. Do not worry about whether anyone will read it or whether
they will like it. Write because you feel you have something to say. Even
if you are the only reader of your own writing, you will have learned a
lot from the process.
POST SCRIPT
Paul Krugman is an economist at Princeton University and
is a member of the reality-based
community. His July 15, 2005 op-ed
in the New York Times shows how far politics has moved away from
this kind of world and into one in which facts are seen as almost irrelevant.
Thanks to Richard Hake for the following quote by F.M.
Cornford, Microcosmographia Academica - Being A Guide for the Young
Academic Politician (Bowes & Bowes, Cambridge, 4th ed., 1949 first
published in 1908), which might well have been addressed to Krugman and
other members of the reality-based community, although it was written over
a century ago:
You think (do you not?) that you have only to state a
reasonable case, and people must listen to reason and act upon it at once.
It is just this conviction that makes you so unpleasant….are you not aware
that conviction has never been produced by an appeal to reason which only
makes people uncomfortable? If you want to move them, you must address
your arguments to prejudice and the political motive….
**** a more systematic analysis of perceived benefits and detriments on the part of higher education practicitioners; I'm collecting documents now. Suggestions are welcome!
|