02.04.07
Posted in Conferences, Web 2.0, Learning Theory at 12:39 pm by Norm Garrett
For the past couple of years, I have spent most of my research time and travel funds presenting webiners, conference sessions, and workshops on network theory and learning communities. In a nutshell, my philosophy is that social networking can be leveraged by teachers to supplement “traditional” instruction. In order to do this, the social network in a classroom has to be jump-started. That’s where technology comes in. Blogs, wikis, forums, podcasts, and the like can be used to fertilize a learning community that has natural roots to begin with. Even though I present and speak on this all the time, I haven’t (to date) posted a blog entry about it.
In higher education it is even more critical for the instructor to push-start the community, since the community isn’t as naturally formed as it might be in a group that meets 5 hours a week (high school) or even 30 hours a week (elementary school). 150 minutes per week isn’t, under normal circumstances, enough time for a community to sprout and begin to grow. Accordingly, if the instructor isn’t actively involved in fertilizing the community, it will not sprout, or sprout and quickly die.
The results of this are clearly seen when we apply network theory. Network theory tells us that in a class of 30 we have a potential 870 connections (the formula is n(n-1)). Chances are, if the collaborative network is not allowed to grow, we have only 29 connections (the teacher to all 29 students). Consider the difference that takes place when even a portion of the potential network connections are used by students in peer-to-peer interaction: A geometric increase in connections.
As an example, I have created a network diagram of a class in which there are 19 students and a teacher. Very few of the students interact. In a second example, each of the 19 students has a relationship with approximately half of the other students (a relationship would be incoming, i.e. the student gains information, or content, from the other student). Take a look at the second network diagram and then consider the amount of learning that is likely taking place in the second network versus the first. The instructor is still the central connection, but the addition of dozens of additional network connections augments the content, varies the type of learning (appealing to different learning styles), and results in a more dynamic and richer learning environment.
I am finishing work on a website for the Illinois Online Conference 2007, which takes place on Feb. 14th and 15th. Here is a link to the site if you want a preview.
Permalink
03.22.06
Posted in Web 2.0 at 9:35 am by Norm Garrett
I just read an excellent blog post (on WebMonkey) by Tim Ziegler. It is one of the best analyses of Web 2.0 that I have read. It is thorough and separates the hype from the facts. Web 2.0 has become an interesting subject because it is viewed (depending upon the perspective) as everything from a panacea to all of our ills to being dead in the water and nothing more than overblown hype. In between, there are many viewpoints:
- Web 2.0 will greatly enhance our ability to collaborate, which is a good thing
- Web 2.0 will greatly enhance our ability to collaborate, which is not a good thing
- Web 2.0 will give power to the masses
- Web 2.0 will give the masses information overload and, more importantly, serious information quality problems
- Web 2.0 will allow ordinary people to publish, giving that power to the masses
- Web 2.0 will fill our lives with trivial, unsubstantiated, poorly researched (if researched at all), and ubiquitous junk information
Are any of these true? Certainly, some must be. Read Tim Ziegler’s post to get a better handle on it and see what you think. What do I think? I think the jury’s still out. There is an old saying among programmers and software developers that goes like this: “Do you want your software developed quickly, correctly, or cheaply (select any two)?”
Permalink
01.13.06
Posted in Future, Web 2.0 at 9:37 am by Norm Garrett
Yesterday, I made an entry in this blog regarding Web 2.0 (actually, a couple of entries). Today, I received an update that Wes Fryer has a new podcast today on the very same topic. Although I haven’t had a chance to listen to it yet, I think that the fact it is being discussed points out that we, as educators, need to move forward carefully.
Today, I received a Merlot update on an RSS feed that I subscribe to and as I was looking into some new entries, I saw one that caught my eye entitled “Framework for Addressing Educational Issues.” I went to the site and found some very insightful material there. I would recommend to anyone to visit that site and follow the methodology presented there for allowing a meaningful discussion on a very controversial subject with educational circles.
Another link that is interesting is edTechNOT.com, a site where controversy is discussed (both sides) regarding educational issues. It’s worth looking at.
Permalink
01.12.06
Posted in Web 2.0 at 3:28 pm by Norm Garrett
Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
Posted in Web 2.0 at 10:18 am by Norm Garrett
The possible implications for education with Web 2.0 (or the loosely related set of technologies that comprise it) are endless. Only our own creativity will limit what we might be able to do. Still, like all technologies, there may be a dark side. Most technologies, no matter what they are, have four characteristics in common:
- They have obvious benefits
- They have hidden benefits that are often not recognized until after they are implemented
- They have obvious drawbacks or negative aspects
- They have hidden drawbacks or negative aspects that are often not recognized until after they are implemented
These technologies share these characteristics with all other technologies, past, present, and future. Most often, the obvious benefits tend to attract our attention and seem, at least at first, to far outweigh the obvious drawbacks.
As educators, we need to progress methodically with these technologies, as with any new technologies, and research their efficacy to uncover both the hidden benefits and the hidden drawbacks before we plunge wholeheartedly into an abyss from which there is no return. Implementing technology is more like a ratchet than a path. On a path, you can turn around and reverse course. Once a ratchet has moved forward, it cannot be moved back. I am 100% in favor of exploring, being creative, and testing new ideas. But lets make sure we test them thoroughly and objectively before we massively adopt and undertake a paradigm shift.
Permalink
