Click. Connect. Learn.

All posts in Social Learning

Why Is Your LMS All Up In My Learning?

The following scenarios all describe events in which people learn online, or in a blended learning environment:

Learning is part of all of the interactions described above. Yet, some of these interactions won't fit into the systems that claim to manage learning, and/or the systems that assess the worth of that learning.

In very general terms, the current crop of learning management systems are designed to reduce a complex process down to a series of manageable steps. This reduction makes it more difficult to account for informal learning alongside more traditional learning. But, as more learning occurs in informal ways or in informal settings, the shortcomings of how learning is "managed" gets in the way of people learning.

A. Learning as Conversation

If we look at learning as a series of conversations, one way of looking at a simple type of learning activity is:

A person did this thing in this place.

This is analogous to a something like twitter, an annotated bibliography or list of works consulted, or a person telling a story.

B. A Conversation, with Metadata

We can add more detail to the conversation to make things more clear:

A person did this thing in this place about this topic.

The addition of metadata (aka tags, keywords, etc) makes this more like a blog post, a forum post, or a reblogging platform like Tumblr or Posterous. This could also be thought of as a single piece in a working (or in-progress) portfolio.

C. A Conversation, with Metadata, and Reflection

Predictably, more detail changes the nature of the conversation:

A person did this thing in this place about this topic and learned these things.

The addition of a reflective component (some thoughts/context about what the initial conversation means over time) adds a level of analysis that is critical for self-directed learning, or as part of peer-supported assessment. The addition of reflection also converts the information to something that resembles a page in a presentation portfolio.

D. All of the Above, Situated in a School

Grades aren't essential for learning, but they have their uses:

A person did this thing in this place about this topic and learned these things for this course and earned this score.

E. The Components

  • Person: First name, Last name, Email, Password, UserID
  • This Thing: Title, Description (a combination of any of: excerpt, original text)
  • This Place: a url and/or geolocation data
  • This Topic: Keywords/Tags/Folksonomy
  • Learned: an analysis/reflection/notes about the event
  • This Course: a course name; only needed if the learning is part of a formal learning experience (aka school)
  • This Score: grade information, ranging from a letter grade to a percent to X earned points out of Y possible points.

F. Next Steps

Current learning management systems pay a lot of attention to pieces of traditional schooling that may or may not be relevant to all types of learning. By focusing on a system that only stored key elements of the interactions that comprise learning, we'd free ourselves up show learning in ways that actually reflect how the learning occurred.

If the core system just focused on interactions, learners would be free to learn as they best saw fit. This lightweight structure would work equally well for a learner working in a MOOC, a learner writing a series of self-directed research studies, to a learner in a traditional setting.

The data stored in this system could be exposed to external systems so that different types of assessment could take place, as needed, but these assessments could live independent of the core system.

If we pare back what people consider an LMS to a core set of data points, people could learn as they wanted, and that learning could be contextualized and assessed as needed. We need to remove the systems that interfere with our learning.

Can Students Be Makers When Teachers Are Consumers?

I recently came across a discussion initiated by a technology director in the first year of an iPad rollout. The release of iOS5 rendered some key apps inoperable; due to how Apple manages upgrades on mobile hardware, it can be difficult to adequately test new software, let alone schedule a bulk upgrade.

Given that pieces of an academic program can be rendered inoperable via an upgrade you are not empowered to stop/opt out of, how reliable do iPads feel?

While most of these upgrades are painless, do the opportunities offered by an iPad justify having the release schedule of an external company potentially trump or disrupt the schedules you, your teachers, and your students have worked out?

Lock

I'm definitely not advocating a return to a centralized, fully controlled environment, but just as I wouldn't tolerate anyone coming in and painting my kitchen without asking, I have an equally hard time being told that I have no say over the environment of a piece of hardware I (theoretically) own.

So, if we own the hardware we use to create, and someone else controls access to the tools we use to create, where does that leave us with respect to ownership of our creative work? If the only way we can make use of the work we have created is through a device that is a closed environment with respect to hardware, running software that is beyond our reach, how can we make any claims that we have created something over which we have control? In this situation, our data is accessible to us only if we keep paying for hardware we don't control, and keep paying for software we might not need or want any more?

We encourage students to be makers and creators; these exhortations lack the strength they could have when they are based on a foundation of consuming what we are given. By using a closed system, and allowing our programs to be shaped by the whims of an entity who is completely oblivious to the day to day needs of of the programs we have laid out, we model an external locus of control.

How can we encourage students to be makers when some of our behavior models straight consumption?

Image Credit: "Lock" taken by BlackmanVision, published under an Attribution-Non Commercial - No Derivatives license.

Social Learning and The Freedom To Change Your Mind

Last week, Fred Bartels posted that, over the holiday break, he was going to start doing some brainstorming about an online progressive school. In response to some initial questions, Fred started to flesh out his vision.

I responded within the thread; this post is an attempt to extend and clarify some of those thoughts.

Cats in a Bowl

Part of the puzzle in defining and "building" an online school requires that we address issues related to reuse, redistribution (of both lessons and completed projects), and possibly recontextualization/remixing of lessons and materials created as part of the learning process.

Lessons, in this context, are really semi-structured exercises that can support a broad array of research-based, project-based experiences.

Assessment shifts from teachers determining what a student needs to know to a student articulating what they learned and considered valuable from the process.

The role of the teacher (and really, every other learner in the system) is to help people spot the gems that arise from their experiences.

Portfolio-based assessment is more readily suited toward documenting this type of experience than multiple choice tests, but whatever form the assessment takes, the assessment should highlight the learner's understanding of their experience as the starting point for determining what has been learned. Toward that end, assessment should include reflection back on how a learner has progressed, and part of schooling would need to include methods to support students as they identify where they have grown, and where they need work.

When it comes to developing a system/web site/web application to support this type of learning, there are many systems that already do this (and a bunch that don't - as a general rule, any system predicated on a hierarchy where the teacher controls a class-like space will be less than satisfying). Rather than getting too deep into the mechanics of designing another one, it might be more instructive to look at common elements/habits of mind that support this type of learning.

The communities, and their output, are endlessly iterative. They support a never ending stream of questions, responses, conversations, outside inputs, search, recontextualization of existing sources, original research, publishing, revision, and so on.

Learners can choose to dip into the stream and highlight what they consider important or valuable; over time these highlighted/curated/researched/freshly articulated/endlessly revised objects become what some people might call "finished." Personally, I think it is more accurate to call them snapshots, as we should all reserve the right to change our minds as we discover more.

But the key to any system like this is the underlying expectation that learning never ends, can always be revised, and should always be subject to new input from various sources. A system that supports this type of learning should simplify the discovery of these new sources of information, and the publication and revision of snapshots of learning in progress.

Image Credit: Photo "Baby Cats" taken by randomix, published under a Non-Commercial/No Derivatives/Attribution license.

The Content Management System Isn't the Enemy -- Unless It Is

From Cole Camplese, Should it all be Miscellaneous?:

The idea that we can follow a book filled with instructions on how to do information architecture, web design, usability, and so forth may be crazy.

Some great conversations going on about structuring dialogue within organizations, and the inherent tension between freely flowing conversation and institutional control over the messages contained within that conversation, and the need for quality control over content affiliated with an institution.

In addition to Cole's post (linked above), D'Arcy Norman has a couple of good posts that provide some context.

Syndicate content