Sorry, sorry, sorry...

Sorry, sorry, sorry...

by Alexandre Enkerli -
Number of replies: 12
(In honour of Femi Kuti...)

Three strikes I'm out?
Been thinking about my behaviour on this forum recently and I feel I should apologise for being so blunt as to being harsh. Doesn't resemble me much.
It was inappropriate of me to be so opinionated on this forum.

What's funny is that I haven't really been acting like this elsewhere. And, of course, I really enjoy the sense of community here.

Which is a point that I'm often making about Moodle. Apart from the technical advantages of Moodle the Learning Management System, there are pedagogical advantages to Moodle the Community.
Next month, I'll be doing a workshop about my use of online tools in teaching. Not that I'm a specialist or that I have something unique to share, but I've been asked to do this and it sounds like fun.
The original idea was to do a Moodle workshop but it transformed into something more personal. Moodle will be a big part of it but it'll also be about "technology is about tools, teaching is about learning." In other words, the idea that people should use the tools and techniques with which they feel comfortable. Contrary to what some designers seem to assume, comfort levels often have more to do with social relationships than with technical specifications.

Moodle encourages community-building. This Moodle community (and several key individuals within the community) are adding a lot of value to Moodle by making the tool feel more comfortable to use. Learners benefit from Moodle if teachers feel good about using it. And it's easy to feel good about a technology when we can share our experiences with it.

Yet again, we could talk about Facebook. Reading Marc Andreessen's analysis, we might see the platform concept as the central point in the rise in Facebook popularity. In my mind, there is a larger movement toward community-building going on and we should probably embrace this movement (windmill, not shelter). Not imposing structure on communities. Tapping existing social links to create something bigger, without being able to predict the outcomes.
I guess we can all see pedagogical implications for this. wink
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Alexandre Enkerli

Re: Sorry, sorry, sorry...

by Samuli Karevaara -
Well, you just probably felt too comfortable and let one rip amongst friends. But no more breaking wind in the public Lounge smile !

About the technological tools et cetera: many people chant the mantra that technology should just be a tool. This is in essence of course true. But at the same time most people don't realize how much their choice of tool (technology) inevitable affects the material/teaching that is produced by that tool.

This sounds vague and obvious, so I'm trying to formulate the idea into an article with my wife (education PhD student). It focuses on "genre based thinking" where the genre is a combination of a tool, it's usage and the teaching materials that are used. (Wiki is a tool but Wikipedia is closer to a genre. Video lecture could also be a genre.)

One idea is that the way that the tool is used is more characteristic in a pedagogical sense than the tool itself. But to be able to use the tool in a broader sense requires the comfy zone you mention. Familiar example would be the way that wikis can be used to produce much other stuff that just encyclopedias.
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Samuli Karevaara

Genre-Based Thinking

by Alexandre Enkerli -
Samuli,

Thanks for the reply. It's funny what this lounge can do to some people. Must be all the orange-coloured furniture...

If I understand your "genre-based thinking" correctly, the connection between technology and teaching need not be causal but there's a "configuration" in which some methods and tools will make sense according to the rules governing the form of the whole?
Or maybe I'm completely off. I understand "genre" in formal terms ("performance theory" by Bauman et al. is a study of genres, to a certain extent). And I think about the connection between technology and behaviour (in this case, teaching practise) through the lens of cultural anthropology.

At the same time, your Wikipedia and video lecture examples make me think of the term "application," as it's applied in some tech circles. Or even "implementation." Going from broad concept (which would be what "wikis" are) to actual uses or concrete realisations from the concept. Is this close to what you mean?

If I'm not too far off, this could be a nice way to avoid the problems associated with McLuhan-style technological determinism while keeping an eye on the implications of choices in technologies.
What's fun about the current discourse about "trendy tools" is that the tools which are more appreciated are those which enable unpredictable uses. At least, that's what I interpret Marc Andreessen's Facebook Platform analysis to be about. So, we can think about tools which don't force us to teach in a specific way (e.g., Moodle). At the same time, some tools "go really well" with some learning and teaching strategies (e.g. Moodle with social constructivism).

Even if I'm not getting your point, I think we're on to something.
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Alexandre Enkerli

Re: Genre-Based Thinking

by Samuli Karevaara -
I should emphasize that I'm a rather hardcore engineer and a geek (read: "I'm 100 % logical, so if my thinking seems illogical, then it's the realitys fault" plus hobbies include version-number-watching and measuring the compile times of Linux kernel), so I should probably not through formal educational theories around, but what would be the fun in that? clown

The literal meaning of "application" is quite right, but the associated meaning ("software") is mostly defining just the bits and the intended usage of the software.

Yes, the interesting thing is the unpredictable uses. Mobile text messages (SMS) were originally thought to have very little use, mainly to send technical alerts to mobile phone users etc. but not to be used as the main messaging channel.

In many ways the unpredictable use requires either the technology (not necessary a piece of software, could as well be a long stick as a fishing rod) to be very simple or the user to know his/her way around it well enough to exploit it. Another example would be a hammer as a fishing net weight: I know that it's heavy and dense enough to sink, and that I can tie a string around it. Then which would be more accurate description of it: a fishing net weight or a hammer?

If I (+ the wife) ever get enough time I'd like to create some "named genres". "Video lecture" could be one. "Video lecture with online chat" could be another. Traditional ones are a "Lecture", "Chalkboard lecture", "Overhead projector lecture" etc. In some contextes it is important to realize that the nature of a chalkboard lecture changes once it's videotaped, digitized and broadcast over the net, realtime or not. I would be interesting to characterize these changes, what are they, do they effect the "learning thing" and how.

I see these genres as "learning objects 3.0" tongueout They would be a package of inteded tools, usage of those, nature of the learning material, inteded audience, the whole shebang (sic?).

As part of this informal study we are trying out different "fourfold tables" (is that the term) for the technologies (web page, wiki, web page as a wiki, book, book as web pages, book as a wiki etc.) with different axes (the one interesting one has axes product <--> process and solo <--> social). Top right corner would have things that masses might generate "from scratch", but they require a critical mass that is in the comfy zone and has the motivation. The lower left corner is not to be dismissed either, a lot of things "start" from there, like reading a book first. Then participating on an online discussion about the book could be the next step. Here the "reading a book alone" and "online discussion about a book" might be some pre-named genres.

Further: just to have a "book" as a genre is not enough, as there are obviously different kinds of books. A "fact book" (not prose) around Microsoft Word could be something like "Be a better writer", "Computer Aided Word Processing", "Microsoft Word User's Guide", "Microsoft Word Reference"... So here both the form (printed book) and the content define "the thing".

(Oh, I see that our server is done copying, we misplaced around 100,000 files after upgrading to Moodle 1.8.2+ but found them under the sofa cushions...)
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Samuli Karevaara

Re: Genre-Based Thinking

by Alexandre Enkerli -
I'm more of a "fuzzy logic" kind of person. And I'm a rather hardcore humanist. Both "Humanities" and "Humanism." When I see a pattern of things making sense, I assume it's because of inter-subjectivity. wink
I'm also a wannabe geek.

Unpredictable uses are fascinating, especially in learning contexts. But they're also difficult to sell to administrators. "Oh, yes, we'll start using SMS in class and see what happens." Not so good. Don's examples of cellphone/SMS use in class were very useful in this respect. We can imagine the possibilities for our own situations.
There's a connection to be made with the habit, of some techno-enthusiasts, to say that "technology will fix things." Along with the "technology is just about tools" mantra is the mantra about technology not "solving" inappropriate teaching.

Named genres also have to do with expectations. Many people expect a lecture to have a certain format (say, a logical progression, breaks for group exercises, etc.). When you mix things up a little bit (say, by not doing group exercises), people are puzzled and will look for another genre to associate the lecture with. What's funny is that those named genres are very contextual. In French-speaking «séminaires» in North America and Europe, I've participated in rather intense discussions with much table-pounding on the part of students. Hashing it out. We start with a broad theme, everyone had done the readings in advance, and we just connected things up. Teachers became mere facilitators. Some seminars lasted for seven hours straight, not a single break. In North American English-speaking "seminars" I've attended, there was always a sense of focus. Even when teachers were facilitators, they retained control of the floor. Table-pounding on the part of students was extremely surprising and probably unnerving to participants. But at least one faculty member associated the table-pounding "seminar genre" to the United Kingdom.
What's even funnier (to me), is that we can readily notice differences in television show "formats" in association with those teaching genres. Given the fact that learners (and many teachers) watch a lot of tv, it wouldn't be surprising if tv genres had some connection with teaching genres. Even when we don't notice, we use models we know. Talk shows, variety shows, documentaries, game shows...

All the while, people are learning.

I see what you mean about a lecture changing because it's recorded. It has been my experience with my courses being (audio) podcast that my teaching does change, although those changes are often difficult to assess.

I'm unaware of what you call "fourfold tables." Is this something technology implementators talk about?

Yes, I'm going on tangents. This is what the genre "lounge" means to me.Langue tirée
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Alexandre Enkerli

Re: Genre-Based Thinking

by Samuli Karevaara -
"fourfold tables", in French it's probably one of the following "table à 4 cases ; table à quatre cases ; table à double dichotomie ; table 2 x 2". It's just a simple graph, that I thought is "everywhere", but now I couldn't find one with Google. Drawing an ascii example

 social
 Q1 | Q2
 |
 |
 |
product ------------ process
 |
 |
 |
 Q3 | Q4
 solo
Ok... The thing eats spaces... Anyways, just a table with two axes: x is product <--> process, y is solo <--> social. Then map each genre on this table according to the two variables: how "process" is it and how "social". A book is a product, an empty wiki is (more of) a process and so on.

The four quadrants make it "fourfold". Quadrant usually have some labels too, like the top right corner (Q2) could be "Web 2.0" or something equally silly. Q3 could be "From monks to Gutenberg" smile

Aren't those tables popular with "humanists" or educational scientists? smile
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Samuli Karevaara

Re: Genre-Based Thinking

by Alexandre Enkerli -
Yes, these tables can be quite popular with either educational scientists or humanists. In fact, I just talked about multiple axes in a conversation about Open Source culture, this evening. But I was just thinking about other things, I guess.
So, W2 is more social and more process-oriented while scribes were working on their own to complete product. Ok, I see where this is going, now.
Sorry for being so thick.

Merci pour l'explication!
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Samuli Karevaara

Re: Genre-Based Thinking

by Frances Bell -
As someone who works in a Business School, 2x2 matrices are very familiar but what this brought to mind was Fred Brooks work on the Mythical Man Month.
His matrix see here p 19/322 shows that a 'program' can move to 'system' and to 'product' that seems to me to be about integration and generalisability - this has relevance to Web 2.0 IMHO.



Average of ratings: -
In reply to Frances Bell

Re: Genre-Based Thinking

by Alexandre Enkerli -
Frances,

Thanks for the link. Didn't know the book was available for download. It seems to have been fairly influential, especially in some software development circles. There's a connection with ESR's Cathedral and the Bazaar, which itself had an influence on the Open Source movement, which itself had an influence on what O'Reilly called "Web 2.0."
Seems like much of these things have to do with a specific model of "task-oriented collaboration." This model is likely to be applicable to several learning situations.
Am I going too far on tangential points? Sorry. Langue tirée
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Alexandre Enkerli

Re: Genre-Based Thinking

by A. T. Wyatt -
Table pounding? Wow! I would not know what to do with that! As the professor, I have yet to pound a table! And I have never seen a student do it. But it is an interesting concept.

All the while, people are learning.

That is an important part! But it would have to be something that the "class" knew how to process. Otherwise, people might NOT be learning.

atw
Average of ratings: -
In reply to A. T. Wyatt

Re: Genre-Based Thinking

by Alexandre Enkerli -
Well, "table pounding" might be a bit much. I'm not completely sure I've ever pounded a table in class, even as a student. I do know some other students have done it, literally. The main concept is that some of us become quite passionate about what we're saying and that we could as well be standing and throwing invectives at one another. I think the comparison with the British parliament was probably fitting.

Some people did have a difficult time processing what was happening, this one time I did it in a music and poetics course. But we actually debriefed about it and most people understood what had happened (though they were still puzzled about the process as a whole).
My main point here, these are strikingly different "genres" though they come from very similar "cultures."
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Samuli Karevaara

Re: Sorry, sorry, sorry...

by Frances Bell -
As moderator, I would request that you desist from breaking wind in the Lounge - it smells so nasty and flutters the curtains wink
see http://moodle.org/course/view.php?id=55
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Frances Bell

Re: Sorry, sorry, sorry...

by Lee Allan Sanders -
...on occasion, albeit rarely, when a proper diet has been consistently consumed for a little while prior to the breaking of wind in the lounge, those present sometimes remark about "a sudden fresh & pleasant breeze passing through"...  (heh)  ...never realizing what they have just consumed...  (heh)
Average of ratings: -