"I think, therefore I am" contrasts "We participate, therefore we are"

John Seely Brown, innovator, scholar and scientist weighs in on the differences between the older modes of knowing and CNL modes. Brown contrasts Cartesian individual learning, “ I think, therefore I am” with “ We participate, therefore, we are” mode of learning which allows us to link together to be and learn with one another in a group. In Mind's on Fire: Open Education, the long tail, and learning 2.0, John Seely Brown and Richard Adler contrast the two modes in this way:

The emphasis on social learning stands in sharp contrast to the traditional Cartesian view of knowledge and learning—a view that has largely dominated the way education has been structured for over one hundred years. The Cartesian perspective assumes that knowledge is a kind of substance and that pedagogy concerns the best way to transfer this substance from teachers to students. By contrast, instead of starting from the Cartesian premise of “I think, therefore I am,” and from the assumption that knowledge is something that is transferred to the student via various pedagogical strategies, the social view of learning says, “We participate, therefore we are.”

This perspective shifts the focus of our attention from the content of a subject to the learning activities and human interactions around which that content is situated. This perspective also helps to explain the effectiveness of study groups. Students in these groups can ask questions to clarify areas of uncertainty or confusion, can improve their grasp of the material by hearing the answers to questions from fellow students, and perhaps most powerfully, can take on the role of teacher to help other group members benefit from their understanding (one of the best ways to learn something is, after all, to teach it to others).

Today and in the future, we have technology in place that allows us to direct our own CNL into and with a community of practitioners in learning in any field that will permit us to participate in their endeavors

Knowledge Economy and Search Economy:dynamic processes and processing

I was just reading blog entry from Robert Gringely (March, 2008), which adds an interesting twist to Judy Breck’s thoughts on findability and knowledge. Gringely explains that we have moved past the knowledge economy to the search economy. I think of the knowledge economy as more static something that you can hold onto or possess while search is more dynamic and in process. In my work on collaborative learning-work, I have talked about the process of creating new knowledge; perhaps in the work place we are moving to a dynamic world of meta-knowledge creation as the work and the worker enables dynamic finability for the ever changing purposes of the user.

Gringely in War of Worlds: The Human Side of Moore’s Law explained:

Andy Hertzfeld said Google is the best tool for an aging programmer because it remembers when we cannot. Dave Winer, back in 1996, came to the conclusion that it was better to bookmark information than to cut and paste it. I'm sure today Dave wouldn't bother with the bookmark and would simply search from scratch to get the most relevant result. Both men point to the idea that we're moving from a knowledge economy to a search economy, from a kingdom of static values to those that are dynamic. Education still seems to define knowing as more important than being able to find, yet which do you do more of in your work? And what's wrong with crimping a paragraph here or there from Cringely if it shows you understand the topic?
This is, of course, a huge threat to the education establishment, which tends to have a very deterministic view of how knowledge and accomplishment are obtained - a view that doesn't work well in the search economy. At the same time K-12 educators are being pulled back by No Child Left Behind, they are being pulled forward (they probably see it as pulled askew) by kids abetted by their high-tech Generation Y (yes, we're getting well into Y) parents who are using their Ward Cleaver power not to maintain the status quo but to challenge it.

With this philosophical view in mind, I think about knowledge as the snapshot which freezes the dynamic process of searching.

Howard Rheingold's Participative Pedagogy

The communication technologies which make CNL possible also call upon us to shift our thinking to develop new methods and approaches to learning. We develop me methods, which capitalize upon and incorporate the participatory nature of the technologies and the corresponding literacies. Following a post today from Howard Rheingold on twitter.com, I was directed to an essay Participative Pedagogy for a Literacy of Literacies. Rheingold strikes again and hits the nail on the head with his comments on Participative Pedagogy and new literacies. I found the following exert particularly relevant and thought provoking:
A PARTICIPATIVE PEDAGOGY
To accomplish this attention-turning, we must develop a participative pedagogy, assisted by digital media and networked publics, that focuses on catalyzing, inspiring, nourishing, facilitating, and guiding literacies essential to individual and collective life in the 21st century. Literacies are where the human brain, human sociality and communication technologies meet. We're accustomed to thinking about the tangible parts of communication media−the devices and networks−but the less visible social practices and social affordances, from the alphabet to TCP/IP, are where human social genius can meet the augmenting power of technological networks. Literacy is the most important method Homo sapiens has used to introduce systems and tools to other humans, to train each other to partake of and contribute to culture, and to humanize the use of instruments that might otherwise enable commodification, mechanization and dehumanization. By literacy, I mean, following on Neil Postman and others, the set of skills that enable individuals to encode and decode knowledge and power via speech, writing, printing and collective action, and which, when learned, introduce the individual to a community. Literacy links technology and sociality. The alphabet did not cause the Roman Empire, but made it possible. Printing did not cause democracy or science, but literate populations, enabled by the printing press, devised systems for citizen governance and collective knowledge creation. The Internet did not cause open source production, Wikipedia or emergent collective responses to natural disasters, but it made it possible for people to act together in new ways, with people they weren't able to organize action with before, in places and at paces for which collective action had never been possible. Literacies are the prerequisite for the human agency that used alphabets, presses and digital networks to create wealth, alleviate suffering and invent new institutions. If the humans currently alive are to take advantage of digital technologies to address the most severe problems that face our species and the biosphere, computers, telephones and digital networks are not enough. We need new literacies around participatory media, the dynamics of cooperation and collective action, the effective deployment of attention and the relatively rational and critical discourse necessary for a healthy public sphere.
MEDIA LITERACIES
In Using Participatory Media and Public Voice to Encourage Civic Engagement, Rheingold wrote:
If print culture shaped the environment in which the Enlightenment blossomed and set the scene for the Industrial Revolution, participatory media might similarly shape the cognitive and social environments in which twenty first century life will take place (a shift in the way our culture operates). For this reason, participatory media literacy is not another subject to be shoehorned into the curriculum as job training for knowledge workers.

Participatory media include (but aren't limited to) blogs, wikis, RSS, tagging and social bookmarking, music-photo-video sharing, mashups, podcasts, digital storytelling, virtual communities, social network services, virtual environments, and videoblogs. These distinctly different media share three common, interrelated characteristics:
• Many-to-many media now make it possible for every person connected to the network to broadcast as well as receive text, images, audio, video, software, data, discussions, transactions, computations, tags, or links to and from every other person. The asymmetry between broadcaster and audience that was dictated by the structure of pre-digital technologies has changed radically. This is a technical- structural characteristic.
• Participatory media are social media whose value and power derives from the active participation of many people. Value derives not just from the size of the audience, but from their power to link to each other, to form a public as well as a market. This is a psychological and social characteristic.
• Social networks, when amplified by information and communication networks, enable broader, faster, and lower cost coordination of activities. This is an economic and political characteristic.
Like the early days of print, radio, and television, the present structure of the participatory media regime−the political, economic, social and cultural institutions that constrain and empower the way the new medium can be used, and which impose structures on flows of information and capital−is still unsettled. As legislative and regulatory battles, business competition, and social institutions vie to control the new regime, a potentially decisive and presently unknown variable is the degree and kind of public participation. Because the unique power of the new media regime is precisely its participatory potential, the number of people who participate in using it during its formative years, and the skill with which they attempt to take advantage of this potential, is particularly salient.
Rheingold, Howard. (2007) "Using participatory media and public voice to encourage civic engagement." The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning: 97-118.

Facilitation of Learning-- Interpersonal Communication

I would now like to turn my attention to interpersonal communication process in collaboration with others and the how to support the interpersonal communication processes of the learner.

Messages which facilitate interpersonal communication.
The work of Dr. Mildred Shaw is useful in helping to understand the types of task-oriented messages that facilitate learning. As part of her work in personal construct psychology, Shaw has identified different behaviors to help individuals attempt to extend and understand their own thinking in networked groups. The messages which facilitate the learning processes, helps individuals to:
• see the relationship of their points of view to those of others;
• explore differing terminology for the same mental constructs;
• become aware of differing constructs having the same terminology;
• extend their own construct systems through interaction with others;
• share with others constructs that they have found valuable;
• and finally facilitate areas of disagreement or agreement among members of a group.

Additionally, two specific types of task oriented messages can be discussed--(1)messages that facilitate individual meaning and sharing of meaning,(2) messages that lead to a shared meaning among all members, e.g. consensus or knowledge pooling.
Facilitating individual meaning or construct formation.
The availability and accessibility of relevant examples is critical to the on-going learning process. However, the example must be of personal relevance. Relevance would result from one of three conditions: the facilitator understands the learner and the state of processing at the time well enough to provide relevant examples, the individual is aware of his current state and is able to request the required knowledge independently, or the individual and the facilitator negotiate a strategy for discovery or uncovering the required information. One key advantage of message sharing in a networked environment is that collaborators theoretically have the possibility to draw on relevant information and knowledge from a wide range of sources, either from other participants directly in a synchronous channel such as through audio or video networks or through asynchronous channels such as CMC or by accessing information stored in any database.
Creating shared meaning, knowledge in a team.
Another important category of facilitation involves messages that create shared meaning among the group or work team. Rather than using the group as a "sounding board" or context for testing out their own meaning, members may attempt to create shared knowledge and understanding in a particular area. For example, a work group engaging in the process of design would ideally need to pool their individual knowledge in order to create a new product. They will eventually want to create a shared meaning, which would allow them to take action together to carry out the design. For example, the activities of groups who are using a combination of media to share individual drawings, an audio conference to discuss their meaning, and electronic mail or conference to exchange on-going messages are engaging in group learning and knowledge creation. The final integrated design is new knowledge which the group created through their collaborative efforts. Reaching a shared meaning such as occurred in this example involves a process of differentiation and integration, according to Johnson and Johnson (p.244). Differentiating messages proceed the integrating messages. ‘’’Differentiation’’’ involves seeking out and clarifying differences among members' ideas, information, conclusions, theories, and opinions. It involves highlighting the differences among members' reasoning and seeking to understand fully what the different positions and perspectives are. All different points of view must be presented and explored thoroughly before new, creative solutions are sought. ‘’’Integration’’’ involves combining the information, reasoning, theories, and conclusions of the various group members so that all members are satisfied. After differentiation the groups seeks a new, creative position that synthesizes the thinking of all the members.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1998) Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning (5th Edition) (Paperback), New York: Allyn & Bacon.

Facilitation of Learning--Intra-personal Communication

At this time I feel it is important to start focusing on the communication processes that can facilitate learning. The facilitator could be another learner or a designated group leader(teacher). First, the intra-personal processes are those that occur within the mind of the learner as s/he formulates and explores the meaning of new concepts. Here are some directly applicable strategies to facilitate intra-personal communication. Besides individual willingness and an overall supportive context, the facilitator can support the learning process directly with a number of specific strategies.

Messages which facilitate intra-personal communication

Encouraging representation and articulation of tentative constructs.

Facilitation messages encourage formulation and representation of tentative constructs, based upon the current state of understanding. The facilitator would also encourage learners to look for patterns as well as support the individual as s/he attempts to formulate new patterns to encompass ‘’new’’ information which no longer fits previous understanding. The facilitator supports and encourages the learner to continue the intra-personal process. The individual learner may only feel comfortable representing these tentative understandings for himself. The facilitator can encourage the process without requesting that the learner engage in premature interpersonal communication.

Probing for additional examples or observations.

A facilitator can support learners by helping them discover or experience additional information or instances of events within knowledge areas in which they are working. For example, if my only exposure to software tools utilized a directory and file structure, I might induce that this structure was the only way computers organized information. However, through exposure to other systems I might formulate a different tentative hypothesis and then continue to refine that hypothesis as part of my on-going learning process.
Encouraging use of representational tools.

Often times the individual can learn through the aid of a representational tool which allows them to map out their thoughts. Depending upon preference, the learner may use written words, pictures or spoken words, to formulate and communicate ideas for his/her own consumption before the ideas are ready for public consumption. Ideally in a collaborative network learning environment, the tools for self representation should feed directly into the shared network. Individuals would then have an opportunity to test out ideas with others.

Planning--learning with and from "weak ties"

Weak ties and collaborative learning--who are your most useful collaborators for any given learning task?

I was reading an article this past weekend “Brave New World of Digital Intimacy” by Clive Thompson in the New York Times, September 5, 2008. Thompson made a very interesting and useful point to think about when engaging in collaborative networked leaning. If one only selects, “friends” or e-vites others who are part of your intimate circle of friends and colleagues to participate, one may not get the richness of insight and ideas that we are likely to get by e-viting or soliciting information from our “weak ties.” Here is how Thompson (2008,p.4) explained the idea:

“This rapid growth of weak ties can be a very good thing. Sociologists have long found that “weak ties” greatly expand your ability to solve problems. For example, if you’re looking for a job and ask your friends, they won’t be much help; they’re too similar to you, and thus probably won’t have any leads that you don’t already have yourself. Remote acquaintances will be much more useful, because they’re farther a field, yet still socially intimate enough to want to help you out. Many avid Twitter users — the ones who fire off witty posts hourly and wind up with thousands of intrigued followers — explicitly milk this dynamic for all it’s worth, using their large online followings as a way to quickly answer almost any question.”

Of course, all of your “connections” are available from our contact or friends list by any mobile device anywhere, anytime.

Planning--findability implicaitons for design and development

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.