Looking for the bigger picture.

I'm quoting George Siemens verbatim here, not because I agree with everything he says in his post but because he is getting at something that seems very important to me as well. My view is that we really don't understand yet what learning is or isn't, and so we have no business saying that "learning is this and no other view is acceptable." This is true of behaviorism as much it is of constructivism. We just aren't that smart yet. If we were, we could produce perfect, one-trial learning every time for every individual on any topic.

Learning as a social process?.

I'm getting a bit frustrated with the continual statements that learning is a social process. Certain types of learning certainly require a social process. Other types of learning are not at all socially enabled. I'm a strong advocate for the value of individuality in learning (especially group learning). My interest in learning networks stems from the individuality of each node in the larger network. For example, if a corporation designs an effective learning network (effective being defined as having diverse features with high level of learner control - i.e. blogs, wikis, mentorship, communities, access to resources, etc.), then any one node within the network can increase the value of the entire network simply by learning. If I'm connected within my organization, when I expand my knowledge, the entire organization benefits.

What does this have to do with social learning? Well, most learning is actually not social. When I wish to improve my own competence/learning, I may take numerous approaches - reading, researching, searching online, thinking, etc. The social element of learning occurs when I engage my network for feedback and understanding. It's very important that each node within a network brings value to the network, rather than simply attempting to learn together with the network. When an individual comes to the network as an individual with unique ideas, beliefs, and experiences, she is able to challenge and learn from/with the larger network. However, when an individual simply enters the network, without contributing individuality, she is largely an unnecessary node (as she simply reflects the existing content of a network).

As I've stated before, different types of learning are important for different learning needs. Plugging someone with no knowledge of a field into a network is probably not the best approach. Some base level of learning (even if only the terminology) needs to be present before meaningful interaction and contribution to the larger network can happen. This isn't to say that a newcomer to a field would be completely lost in a network...but that a base level of competence often needs to exist before the full value of the network can be utilized.

As well, a primarily social view of learning also overlooks many of the affordances of technology. I can learn (learning defined as actuated or actionable knowledge) from a computer program, an intelligent software agent, or a contextually appropriate learning resource (i.e. when I need to do the task, the learning resource is mediated by technology). So, yes, learning does have a social component, but anyone who has spent much time learning and interacting with technology will assert that it is not the only (or perhaps even the dominant) aspect of learning. My biggest issues with constructivism center on the emphasis that learning is social and largely subjective. As stated, yes it can be...but it's only a part. A large, more integrated model is needed to adequately express learning today (shall I plug connectivism again? :)).

3:41:42 PM    

Centralization and decentralization in e-Learning.

I don't think the problem is that many educators are unwilling to acknowledge the trends that are unfolding in the learning sphere, it seems to me that many educators simply do not see the trends at all, or if they do they don't understand those trends as being relevant to them. The same thing is true of many e-Learning vendors and may be true of e-Learning entrepreneurs too.

Co-opting the creative revolution: "Digital technology is providing people with the tools to produce and share content like never before, and it is set to throw the relationship between them and institutions into turmoil, say experts."
George Siemens Comment: It's disturbing that many educators seem unwilling to acknowledge the same trends unfolding in the learning sphere.

3:33:39 PM    

Do we believe in knowledge as a democratic process?

Trusting Wikipedia. Alex Halavais has an interesting post about ways we might think about certifying the value of Wikipedia, and I think he gets it right when he argues that just assigning academics with PhDs or "acknowledged experts" to do the work is probably not the right way to do it [Weblogg-ed News]

9:35:13 AM    

Screencasting, vlogs, and video weblogging.

This has been developing for about a year now, right along with podcasting. Video weblogs, screencasts, etc., are more expensive than either weblogs or podcasts but they may offer a tool for workstream instruction and for network marketing. Read the Wired article referenced in J.D. Lasica's weblog.

New screencast blog opens (recording of computer screens).

J.D. Lasica, on his blog about new media, talks about a new Screencasting blog.

These are the new tools of technology evangelists.

Over the next six months I predict you'll see an explosion of screencasts. The Blogcast Repository is yet the first to build a directory of a bunch of interesting screencasts.

Technorati tag for Screencast.

Wikipedia definition of Screencasts.

Do you have a favorite screencast?

9:30:21 AM