I was recently looking over the seven characteristics of findability formulated by Judith Breck. The seven principles have implications for how one plans and implements CNL today and in the Web 3.0 learning future. I do believe that “findability” is a critical global challenge for the on-going activity of collaborative networked learners. I want us to take a learner or user centered focus and on the ways to support the learner and learning-worker. Freeing or unbundling the info-chunks for learners' access is the first challenge for the planner/information architect; it presents opportunities to create paths for learners who need more guidance as well as freeing experienced learners to direct their own paths.
Findability--Implications for the planning, design and development processes
Learner driven design and information chunking.
1. Consider the implications of learner or user driven design in the learning and work environment.
In order to design information to meet the needs of different users directly it is important to understand the nature of the work of the users and the tasks they perform. When one focuses only on content, the "logical" order of the content guides the development. When one designs for the user, the users needs and tasks form the basis for ordering, labeling and presenting information.
2. Consider the new skills required to chunk content.
Designing architectures for multiple paths of access, which are controlled by the user rather than primarily the designer, require knowledge design skills and domain knowledge. Designers need to develop not only a knowledge of the particular tasks and content of the discipline from the user perspective, but they also need experience with object-oriented, modular design. A designer needs to understand the underlying structure of the field and the corresponding logical relationships between the content chunks, and how to design for flexible, "random" access by multiple users from different entry points.
Static and dynamic modeling of information and users
1. Consider both static organization and display of information units and dynamic modeling and display.
• Static organization requires less time and effort for design and development than dynamic modeling; however, dynamic modeling is more likely meet the precise needs of the user, reducing search time and increasing productivity. One notices static organization where there is one pattern and set of relationships defined by the designer(or packager) of information. The order of presentation of the information will always be the same. For example, in paper based Text Based Instruction the relationship between units such as paragraphs on a page is static; the implicit order on the page is "before" or "after" with minimal opportunity to explore other relationships easily such as "related to" links as in cross referencing. Static organization is also evident in hypertext systems in which the 'links' are created at the time of packaging and displayed as defined when selected by the user. Although the chunks may be randomly followed if the user chooses, they go to the same content chuck.
• Dynamic modeling as planned for Web 3.0 collaboration and other model based systems involves specifying the nature of each chunk of information as an object in a knowledge base. The types of relationship of one object-chunk to any other chunks are defined as "variables." Depending upon the model of the user/learner and its current state at the time of search, the "value" of the variables will changes, and the information displayed to the user could change. The tools and skills required to model are different from those for creating static organization and again are different from those required for cross referencing within a static organizational structure.
2. Consider the learner and the learner model as an important aspect of the environment.
Initially the user/learner model might handle only three identifiable groups: the experi¬enced expert, the new-to-the-domain leaner, and the experienced self-directed learner in a related domain. The designer would need to understand these users and their needs in order to develop the user models. The knowledge made available to each user could be different depending upon the model for the user at the time of access.
Ultimately, if the system is to be designed to support the user based upon "learner profile" and the "learning environment", then dynamic modeling is the design strategy of choice. It affords the opportunity to model the user(s) and continually update the model of the user in order to provide access to the information needed at the moment.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Planning--Select Channels/Media
As part of the planning process I feel it is important to look at the tools for collaboration. In my mind there are at least two key factors--immediacy of feedback/response and media richness.
IMMEDIACY
Synchronous in Time
Audio Conferencing
Video Conferencing
Synchronous in Time and Space
Group co-located in person
Group co-located in simulated conferencing rooms
Groups in 3-D meeting rooms with avatars
Asynchronous in neither time nor space
Text based conferencing/discussion forums
E-mail group distribution
Wiki for collaborative authoring
MEDIA RICHNESS
Text-based computer conferencing offers the lowest cost,
globally accessible strategy minimal set-up time, using already existing computer conferencing software
Audio conferencing offers the next lowest cost which is most accessible globally via cell phone for small group global collaboration
Video conferencing offers more social presence with higher cost
Small group video chat available economically
Video conferencing offers a slightly higher cost for larger group
All different combinations available on desktop, wireless laptop, cell phone or specific purpose video collaboration suites to match the demands of the task at the moment.
IMMEDIACY
Synchronous in Time
Audio Conferencing
Video Conferencing
Synchronous in Time and Space
Group co-located in person
Group co-located in simulated conferencing rooms
Groups in 3-D meeting rooms with avatars
Asynchronous in neither time nor space
Text based conferencing/discussion forums
E-mail group distribution
Wiki for collaborative authoring
MEDIA RICHNESS
Text-based computer conferencing offers the lowest cost,
globally accessible strategy minimal set-up time, using already existing computer conferencing software
Audio conferencing offers the next lowest cost which is most accessible globally via cell phone for small group global collaboration
Video conferencing offers more social presence with higher cost
Small group video chat available economically
Video conferencing offers a slightly higher cost for larger group
All different combinations available on desktop, wireless laptop, cell phone or specific purpose video collaboration suites to match the demands of the task at the moment.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Planning--created or self-organizing systems.
Planning for CNL—created or self-organizing systems.
In the "walled garden" of structured learning and working, one may be assigned to a pre-existing or pre-determine group. However, in the new social operating system (S.0.S.) we can use our resources to decide who we want to work together and either invite or allow for self-organizing systems to emerge.
One of the most important aspects of planning is the issue of trust and credibility in the S.O.S.
Trust and credibility—in the social operating system
One important aspect of the planning process is who to include in the collaboration. If the collaboration is planned with invited participants, then the organizer can invite the participants based on there interest , knowledge or wiliness. If an existing group, takes on a new goal, then the members would be in place and the focus shifts to planning the process of collaboration. If the group is open to others who might want to participate, then an open public announcement might solicit members.
Trust and credibility—in the newly formed group.
One of the most challenging issues for groups, who are newly formed, is to tackle how the members view one another. Can I trust the other individual? Is what they have to say credible? How do we form these judgments if we do not have previous knowledge or association with the members. In the past, we might have asked friends if they knew anything about the person(s) and what they thought of them. We mind also have consulted co-workers, or co-learners who see if they had collaborated with a person before the current grouping. We might also search for background information such as blog posts, co-published project reports or profiles in a social network.
Trust and credibility--among our connections. When using our social operating system we move one step beyond our own simple search of our social network, we might begin to take advantage of “social operating systems” which will show us the connections and linkages operating among any given group of co-learners, with an active past of learning and working.
In the "walled garden" of structured learning and working, one may be assigned to a pre-existing or pre-determine group. However, in the new social operating system (S.0.S.) we can use our resources to decide who we want to work together and either invite or allow for self-organizing systems to emerge.
One of the most important aspects of planning is the issue of trust and credibility in the S.O.S.
Trust and credibility—in the social operating system
One important aspect of the planning process is who to include in the collaboration. If the collaboration is planned with invited participants, then the organizer can invite the participants based on there interest , knowledge or wiliness. If an existing group, takes on a new goal, then the members would be in place and the focus shifts to planning the process of collaboration. If the group is open to others who might want to participate, then an open public announcement might solicit members.
Trust and credibility—in the newly formed group.
One of the most challenging issues for groups, who are newly formed, is to tackle how the members view one another. Can I trust the other individual? Is what they have to say credible? How do we form these judgments if we do not have previous knowledge or association with the members. In the past, we might have asked friends if they knew anything about the person(s) and what they thought of them. We mind also have consulted co-workers, or co-learners who see if they had collaborated with a person before the current grouping. We might also search for background information such as blog posts, co-published project reports or profiles in a social network.
Trust and credibility--among our connections. When using our social operating system we move one step beyond our own simple search of our social network, we might begin to take advantage of “social operating systems” which will show us the connections and linkages operating among any given group of co-learners, with an active past of learning and working.
Planning—Determining goal structure
Planning—Determining goal structure
I wanted to address a rather critical difference between CNL groups and the traditional educational and work worlds. In a CNL group the members share a cooperative goal structure. The cooperative structures contrast with two other structures--competitive and individualistic. Here are the differences to consider.
• A cooperative goal structure is the desired norm for CNL. The Johnson bothers have been writing about and researching these differences as a major focus of their academic and publishing careers. In a cooperative group members see a positive cor¬relation among group members' goal attainments- that is, they perceive that they can achieve their goal if and only if the other members with whom they are linked obtain their goal. I think it is important to add the concept of interdependence here as well. For example, when a group lifts a heavy object or members of a software development team integrate and debug a new application, all members experience the success.
• Competitive goal are not as effective for CNL. In a competitive situation, there is a negative correlation; members perceive that they can obtain their goals only if other members fail to obtain their goal. We create winners and we create losers but don’t really create a cohesive group working toward a common, shared goal.
• The individualistic goal structure is inappropriate for CNL. In contrast to these two group goal structures is the individu¬alistic goal structure common in many learning environments. The individual is rewarded for his/her own achievement and the achievement is generally unrelated to that of others. I do believe it is possible for individuals to self-direct their own experiences but it is not the goal for CNL.
CNL groups are based on a shared cooperative goal structure. As work occurs more and more in teams requiring the combined expertise of different members, the cooperative goal structure of CNL is more likely to support the overall goals of work group process than highly competitive or individualistic approaches.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1998) Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning (5th Edition) (Paperback), New York: Allyn & Bacon.
I wanted to address a rather critical difference between CNL groups and the traditional educational and work worlds. In a CNL group the members share a cooperative goal structure. The cooperative structures contrast with two other structures--competitive and individualistic. Here are the differences to consider.
• A cooperative goal structure is the desired norm for CNL. The Johnson bothers have been writing about and researching these differences as a major focus of their academic and publishing careers. In a cooperative group members see a positive cor¬relation among group members' goal attainments- that is, they perceive that they can achieve their goal if and only if the other members with whom they are linked obtain their goal. I think it is important to add the concept of interdependence here as well. For example, when a group lifts a heavy object or members of a software development team integrate and debug a new application, all members experience the success.
• Competitive goal are not as effective for CNL. In a competitive situation, there is a negative correlation; members perceive that they can obtain their goals only if other members fail to obtain their goal. We create winners and we create losers but don’t really create a cohesive group working toward a common, shared goal.
• The individualistic goal structure is inappropriate for CNL. In contrast to these two group goal structures is the individu¬alistic goal structure common in many learning environments. The individual is rewarded for his/her own achievement and the achievement is generally unrelated to that of others. I do believe it is possible for individuals to self-direct their own experiences but it is not the goal for CNL.
CNL groups are based on a shared cooperative goal structure. As work occurs more and more in teams requiring the combined expertise of different members, the cooperative goal structure of CNL is more likely to support the overall goals of work group process than highly competitive or individualistic approaches.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1998) Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning (5th Edition) (Paperback), New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Planning--Determing Purpose
Planning CNL--Determining Purpose
To make Collaborative Networked Learning (CNL) experiences focused and efficient, I have summarized several basic structures to help with planning.
Purpose defined by organizer
The organizer/ facilitator of CNL might defined the purpose in advance of securing participation. In this type of CNL, participants would join the group based upon a desire to share in accomplishing the pre-defined purpose. The purpose could be very specific such as: " The members of this group will prepare a marketing strategy for value added services for a CNL Platform;" or more general, such as: The members of this group will learn about and share information regarding common creative licensing issues for organizational learning.”
Purpose defined by the group
The purpose might initially be more loosely defined, based upon the prior knowledge of the selected group of participants such as, "the members of this group will pool their knowledge to develop a long-range adoption plan for CNL." Or, "the purpose of this CNL forum is for experts and novices to share their experiences moderating a
learning forum." As the group learns more they will continue to refine
their purpose. Learning in the context of problem-solving is a example of a more general group purpose, where the specific learning and outcomes
are refined based upon the goal and prior knowledge of the invited
participants. For example, the experts from different fields might be involved in developing a crisis management plan as their outcome.
Purpose defined by on-going needs
The learning purpose in these situations is open-ended and on-going. The group with a broadly defined learning goal will determine specific operational purposes based upon current needs. Frequently, existing learning groups define their purpose based upon a long-term mission. On-going learning within a particular domain and group is motivated by the rapid rates of change being experienced in our society and the work group or knowledge domain.
The group which starts with an open purpose may from time to time want to refine their purpose, based upon new information and current mission, for two reasons:
to know what they have accomplished and that the experience was worth the effort to establish criteria for completeness, or "doneness."
When one speaks of purpose-driven CNL, it does not necessarily imply either a closely defined initial purpose or an open purpose. It implies that as part of the experience the group develops a shared purpose and that their interaction is focused on accomplishing that purpose. The purpose-driven interaction criteria distinguishes CNL group activities from general personal blogs or chat rooms in which individuals post and share the latest available information in an area.
While the group has a stated work-learning related purpose such as those mentioned earlier, it is also likely to fulfill a social functional for the members. It is important that both the stated purpose and the personal purposes of the members be considered as the group interaction continues
To make Collaborative Networked Learning (CNL) experiences focused and efficient, I have summarized several basic structures to help with planning.
Purpose defined by organizer
The organizer/ facilitator of CNL might defined the purpose in advance of securing participation. In this type of CNL, participants would join the group based upon a desire to share in accomplishing the pre-defined purpose. The purpose could be very specific such as: " The members of this group will prepare a marketing strategy for value added services for a CNL Platform;" or more general, such as: The members of this group will learn about and share information regarding common creative licensing issues for organizational learning.”
Purpose defined by the group
The purpose might initially be more loosely defined, based upon the prior knowledge of the selected group of participants such as, "the members of this group will pool their knowledge to develop a long-range adoption plan for CNL." Or, "the purpose of this CNL forum is for experts and novices to share their experiences moderating a
learning forum." As the group learns more they will continue to refine
their purpose. Learning in the context of problem-solving is a example of a more general group purpose, where the specific learning and outcomes
are refined based upon the goal and prior knowledge of the invited
participants. For example, the experts from different fields might be involved in developing a crisis management plan as their outcome.
Purpose defined by on-going needs
The learning purpose in these situations is open-ended and on-going. The group with a broadly defined learning goal will determine specific operational purposes based upon current needs. Frequently, existing learning groups define their purpose based upon a long-term mission. On-going learning within a particular domain and group is motivated by the rapid rates of change being experienced in our society and the work group or knowledge domain.
The group which starts with an open purpose may from time to time want to refine their purpose, based upon new information and current mission, for two reasons:
When one speaks of purpose-driven CNL, it does not necessarily imply either a closely defined initial purpose or an open purpose. It implies that as part of the experience the group develops a shared purpose and that their interaction is focused on accomplishing that purpose. The purpose-driven interaction criteria distinguishes CNL group activities from general personal blogs or chat rooms in which individuals post and share the latest available information in an area.
While the group has a stated work-learning related purpose such as those mentioned earlier, it is also likely to fulfill a social functional for the members. It is important that both the stated purpose and the personal purposes of the members be considered as the group interaction continues
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Three Basic CNL formats
Selecting a CNL format
I have implemented Three basic CNL formats successfully. Each of the formats has its own unigue challenges and appropriateness.
I have implemented Three basic CNL formats successfully. Each of the formats has its own unigue challenges and appropriateness.
- All Electronic in which participants accomplish
their learning and co-creation of knowledge all on-line in any
virtual meeting "space." The electronic digial, mediated form could be text-based, audio or video collaboration or any mix of media. Regular audio and video conferences for sharing ideas,debriefing and developing strategies are also common examples of
this form of collaboration. - Before or After an in-person group meeting, such as the
electronic pre- meeting or organization. Before a face-to-face
meeting, electronic interactions provide an opportunity
for all participants to review and share basic background
content prior to real-time interaction. After an in-
person meeting, the group can continue the interaction
and address new issues as they occur. - Mixed mode in which participants meet together in person
or listen to broadcast video in conjunction with
interacting on-line. A "blended" or "hybrid" group
provides collaborators an opportunity to interact
with each other between face-to-face meetings. Mixed-mode formats
often integrate, video broadcasts,text based materials, networked collaboration with co-located meetings.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Communication and Learning System Continuums
Learning...Personal Exploration...Knowledge
Known and Discovery of Creation/Personal
Answers of Established Transformation
Knowledge
Fixed Path...Guided Exploration...Open Ended
Access &
Experience
Designer User Driven
Control----Bounded Exploration-----Self-directed
Closed Systems..................Open System
Models of Learning Models of Knowing
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
