Posts Tagged ‘sharing’
I share therefore I am
Posted on: March 12, 2012
I read this TED blog entry about Sherry Turkle and found the phrase that titles this blog entry. With a title like that, this might sound like the beginning of a reflection on being open, being connected, or learning socially.
But it is not. Instead, the original blog entry is a cautionary tale on how being connected online does not just change what we do but also changes what we are.
Turkle she fears that people mistake connection with conversation and replace eye contact with smartphone contact. She also worries that this constant connection might impede our ability to self-reflect.
She might be right. But part of me also wonders if we are seeing the evolution of human communication and even the human condition.
This new communication, connection, and condition might sound scary, but perhaps it is just adding variety to the gene pool so that when the environmental conditions change, these “mutants” become the dominant species.
From a teaching and learning perspective, social learning might be about being alone together. The connectedness we have now can lead to very rich interaction and unprecedented access to information.
But all that interaction and information needs to be processed and not all learners know how to do that. Teachers who recognize this need must address that need.
We used to share information because we were merely teachers. We now need to share information management because we are educators. That is our responsibility whether or not someone tells you to or whether or not you are trained to do it.
Finnish first in education
Posted on: January 17, 2012
Lots and lots have been said about the quality of Finnish education. I admire what they do and how they do it. I do not envy those who want to try to replicate or borrow ideas for implementation.
I am not going to add much to that conversation either. But I will point out what one Finnish educator said at Mind/Shift:
“You know, one big difference in thinking about education and the whole discourse is that in the U.S. it’s based on a belief in competition,” Sahlberg said. “In my country, we are in education because we believe in cooperation and sharing. Cooperation is a core starting point for growth.”
I think that value system is what allows the Finnish to “finish” first in education. But because they are not in competition with anyone else (except perhaps themselves), they do not ever finish.
What do our teachers and educators believe in?
The price of (not) sharing
Posted on: December 5, 2011
A recent article at Edudemic posed an interesting question: What If Every Tweet Cost You A Dollar? The context of this question was the cost of data plans offered by service providers.
But I have a broader question. What if it cost you money for the right to make a statement on Twitter, Facebook or your blog?
If we focus on the cost to ourselves, we would be more careful and selective of the things we would post. We would prioritize what to share and we would have to decide if to share at all. Money and the right to speak up aside, it also takes time and effort to write or podcast.
But if the cost to us to share is very low or even free, why share at all? I think the answer is simple. The cost to others incurred by us not sharing can be high.
Derek Sivers shared his thoughts on sharing. In a nutshell, what is obvious to you might be amazing to others. If we do not share, others may not be inspired. @preetamrai, organizer of the the educamps in Singapore has a website called Smarter By Sharing. Both you and your audience stand to gain because you share and they share in return.
I try to share as many of my PowerPoint based presentations or resources as I can in SlideShare. I prepared a resource for just five visitors from Vietnam; online it has seen over 500 hits. I put online a resource from my ICT course that I no longer use today; it has been used over 12,000 times in SlideShare.
These numbers are tiny in comparison to even better resources at SlideShare, but I think those who share do so with a similar principle in mind. We share not just because we care. A resource may lose value to us over time, but someone else might find it relevant. We share because that is our responsibility as educators.
So little local content
Posted on: November 8, 2011
I recall a conversation with an inservice teacher who used a YouTube video to try to convince her school principal to adopt a new edtech strategy. The principal was unmoved not because the idea was bad but because a Caucasian voice was selling the idea.
I do not think that principal was racist. He was merely stating something I have noticed too. Many of the really good videos, Slideshares or infographics seem to originate overseas. Why is there so little content from our own shores or with our context in mind?
I think there are a few reasons for this: 1) we do not encourage content creation as much as we could, 2) we expect someone else to create the content, and 3) what little we create we do not share openly.
I have commented briefly on the first two points when I reflected about how we should stop nannying our teachers. If we favour content consumption over content creation, our learners remain passive and we do not model progressive pedagogies.
If we do not share more openly, then we are not opening ourselves to critique. Just look at the content that remains locked in most LMS or official repositories. They remain unimproved, and like any closed system with little input, remain barren. The mindset of how the resources are used does not change.
Compare that with the open sharing of resources on Twitter, Google Docs or other Personal Sharing Networks. Compare that with what happens in OERs like OER Commons which build on the foundation of Creative Commons.
Given the choice of a well-manicured and walled garden or a slightly messy but self-sustaining and more natural environment, I would choose the latter every time.
To share or not to share?
Posted on: October 14, 2011
I met Derek Sivers at a TED briefing last week.
By coincidence, my PLN revealed a YouTube video (above) that he created titled, Obvious to you. Amazing to others. He shared the transcript at his blog.
There are so many reasons to share. For fame or to shame. For caring or connecting. To inspire or be inspired. It is important to share because you never know who you might have an impact on.
Just don’t share your goals. If Sivers is right about the research he cited, doing this reduces our impetus to actually get going.
Think when you share
Posted on: June 17, 2011
It’s Friday, so it’s time for something seriously light-hearted. This video is from the Ministry of Defence, UK.
The agenda was not anti-social media. The message was be safe, not sorry. You can understand this from the military point of view.
Companies and schools worry about the same thing but for different reasons.
Apple doesn’t want its employees tweeting about iPhone 5 or iPad 3 because it’s a dog eat dog world business world. You can understand that. Schools don’t want teachers ranting about horrible student work because it’s unprofessional. Understandable.
So we should all think before we post online because EVERYONE can read what we think or feel. Everyone can interpret or misinterpret what we say. Everyone. This includes those that support you (hello!) and those that don’t (hell-o!).
But worrying about this can stifle both creative and critical thought. People use social media for many things: To share, rant, crowdsource ideas, get feedback, promote, etc.
I use it to reflect out loud. If you agree with me, great. If you don’t, even better. Let’s think when we share!
Perspectives on serious gaming
Posted on: March 5, 2010
On Wednesday I conducted a professional development session for a few of my Learning Sciences and Technologies (LST) colleagues. It was more a conversation than a lecture.
I shared what I explored in our ICT course in the area of educational game-based learning. The Prezi below is something I used right at the end of the series of tutorials, rather than at the beginning, because I borrow a gaming approach: Provide experiences first and relevant content only later.
While I was aware of some other colleagues who tried this approach or topic, I learned that we looked at it from different lenses. Their approach might be considered the pragmatic or traditional content-based approach: How might teachers/students use games to teach/learn specific content?
My approach was quite different. While I had one content and curriculum based station (Station 3), my other stations had other themes:
- Station 1: contextuality, complexity and compassion
- Station 2: competition, communication and collaboration
- Station 4: cardio and coordination
- Station 5: cognition (minds-on)
In other words, I was (and still am) more interested in exploring ways that games might influence specific thinking skills or learner values and attitudes, and how these might transfer into traditional teaching and learning.
Another difference that emerged was on how we might scale up this approach.
As not all of our colleagues were comfortable or knowledgeable with game-based learning (GBL), not all our ICT classes experience GBL. My approach has been to influence the mindsets of teacher trainees in my classes and hope that a few go on to implement these ideas when they get posted to mainstream schools. The risk is that they won’t because they neither have the infrastructure nor the support of their colleagues or school principal.
An alternative that a colleague suggested was to somehow get a few self-selected teacher trainees who really wanted to design and implement innovative lessons. NIE had previously offered electives, but these were discontinued due to heavy trainee course loads (this is why I think that a one-year diploma course is TOO SHORT!). The suggestion was to have the trainees be either part of a research effort or a special programme (e.g., Post Graduate Diploma in Education, Specialization in Educational Gaming). These trainees would be posted to schools that wanted to innovate this way and have supervisors and cooperating teachers that would support their efforts. I thought that this was a brilliant idea!
So how are we moving on? I will keep doing what I do because I will reach more trainees. I also believe that the approach has short and long term benefits. Teachers tend to teach the way they are taught, so there must be alternative models for them to observe, experience and critique.
We might also look for ways to make my colleague’s idea a reality. Working towards a special diploma is an administrative nightmare. However, someone with the bandwidth to take in another research study might consider submitting a grant to, say, conduct a longitudinal study on teachers trained to conduct game-based learning lessons. 
The group will certainly be having more conversations about gaming now. I also hope to include a few more colleagues in other departments who like the idea of playing games.
ShowDocument
Posted on: May 24, 2009
According to LifeHacker, ShowDocument allows “instant document-, whiteboard-, and browser-sharing sessions with anyone. You can collaborate on documents in real-time without the hassle of installing an application, and everyone involved can save the result.”
Sounds like a nifty tool that my teacher trainees can use next semester!
I use wikis extensively in the courses and workshops I facilitate. The way I use them is a hybrid of learning management systems and collaborative writing spaces. I would like my wikis to evolve to become the latter.
That is why I love the idea of wikibooks. And I like the idea of open source textbooks.The basic idea of the latter:
“Enhancing the value of the online versions is the open source component. Students can annotate and comment in the digital margins of Flat World’s texts to share their insights, analysis and conclusions with other students. “
This makes information much more available and, more importantly, more open to sharing and critique. It’s a concrete example of social construction of knowledge!
