CCK09 Leadership

Chinese philosopher Lao Tse described Leadership 2500 years ago:

A leader is best

When people barely know he exists,

Not so good when people obey and acclaim him,

Worst when they despise him,

But a good leader, who talks little,

When his work is done, his aim is fulfilled,

They will all say “We did this ourselves” (in Rogers, 1983:145)

Reference:

Rogers, C. (1983). Freedom to Learn for the 80’s. Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, Columbus, Ohio

CCK09 Social Media

Enjoy this American Teens and Social Media by Danah Boyd:

CCK09 About Teaching and Learning

Enjoy this confession:

Postscripts:

There are a few “astounding” remarks here by Professor Eric on the feedback from the students: “Professor is not teaching anymore, we have to learn all these ourselves”.  Does it mean that peer instruction may not appeal to some students?  What happens to those students who prefer lecturing?  Would these students turn away to other professors who would lecture if they have a choice?  Would lecturing still be appropriate in some of the courses in higher education?  Why did some students still prefer lecturing? 

In a corporate world of training, are participants still preferring the typical lecturing style?  Are participants attending lectures to gain “information” and “knowledge” or to learn how to think and learn? 

I remember the Mastery Learning, which was popular in the 1980s (around 1986), where learners were to master their learning (until they have mastered to near perfection say at least 80% mastery) based on self-paced learning and/or instructional techniques with Q/A and the socratic approach of questioning. 

So peer instruction is still based on Q/A instead of self-paced learning combined with tutoring.  The questions are: What do the learners want to achieve?  What do the professors want to achieve?   What are the learning outcomes?  What is the instructional design and strategies?  What is the pedagogy?

There are huge assumptions here: that every learner will understand better with those instructional techniques (like peer instruction).  That every learner has the motivation to achieve the “standard” expected by the Professors or institution.

By means of “improving” the teaching technique, it may be proven to improve the learners’ conceptual learning.  But is Socratic method of questioning a thousand year old technique? 

So, when it comes to learning outcomes, the focus is on performance criteria – i.e. how the learner could analyse, synthesise and evaluate the information, or as mentioned by Professor Eric, it is more important to ensure learners know how to use the information (basing on the concepts), rather than “knowing” or “remembering” the information itself.  So, “knowing” the concepts is fine, however, would the emphasis be on the application of concepts if we want learners to achieve “deep learning” based on metacognitive learning strategies?  Could classroom learning alone deliver those learning outcomes?

Would the use of Web 2.0 help in supporting the learning?  This includes the use of Personal Learning Networks/Environments where learners could create and navigate through their learning networks, not just by attending the classes in order to learn.

I was also intrigued by the comments by Professor Eric about the values of laboratory experiments in learning.  Are laboratory experiments helping the learners to learn?  When I was performing experiments in the laboratory in my University days, there seemed very little learning happening there, simply because some of those ”electricity and electrical machine” experiment didn’t relate to real life.  They took the forms of circuits, connecting the equipment or machines, and what you have to do was to complete the circuit, and wrote a report on it.  I could learn about the Ohm’s and Kirchhoff Circuit Laws, but how did they affect my life?  So, relevance in learning is important in the learning process.

Take a look at social networking, the experiment is here, and we are interacting, and there is no absolute solution due to complexity nature of learning in networks.  Though there are always problems (or better, opportunities) that we have to solve, we seem to learn more effectively through such social media learning. 

There is simply no limit to our learning in this learning space of internet and global networks.

CCK09 Pedagogy of Blogging

Enjoy this:

CCK09 Some reflection on Learning

Here is my response to Heli’s post on her view on the process of learning.

Hi Heli,
Great to learn about your reflection. I share you sentiments about learning in networks: “trust, respect, empowerment. It cannot be only objective information change between blind unknown people.. it is about motivation and culture as David White said. Human values must be included, connections are nothing without them?” Those are the values that I aspire too.”
May I share this?
“Socrates believed the best way for people to live was to focus on self-development rather than the pursuit of material wealth. He always invited others to try to concentrate more on friendships and a sense of true community, for Socrates felt this was the best way for people to grow together as a populace” To me, “knowing” more will be more meaningful if such self-development could lead to friendship and community development, as we are all learners supporting each others, IMHO.
So, wishing you to have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
John

CCK09 QR Code

Thanks to Stephen Downes reference to this QR Code post and QR Code

QR Code:

Here is the code for my blog post:

CCK09 Web Conference Exp NY09

Here is “The O’Reilly Radar”

I like these quotes:

“Don’t fight the internet”. Eric Schmidt

“Do what you do best. Link to the rest”.  Jeff Jarvis

“Do the right thing.  You will gratify some people, and astonish the rest”. Mark Twain

CCK09 Web 2.0 Conference

Here is Danah Boyd’s “Stream of Content” in Web 2.0 Conference.  

I think she has done her very best.  

  

 

 

CCK09 Social Skills Training

Enjoy this:

CCK09 Conflicts, Trolling and Conversation in social networking

Hi Ken and all,

I have thought about my response to your interesting discussion here for a long time, and here it is:

Interesting to reflect on what we had learnt about conflicts in CCK08, especially when participants have “strong views” and “distasteful remarks which sound condescending to others”.   If we want to model our conversation for our next  generation, would we be expecting each other to engage in ”fruitful” conversations based on open sharing of views and perceptions, with respect and trust? 

We could each state our reasons, our interpretations or our views.  However in reciprocity, we may need to engage with others with active listening, and acknowledging and valuing each others’ views in an open and constructive manner.  If we don’t understand others’ views, how could we expect others to understand us?  Is empathy important in online conversation?

We could disagree with others on the principles we consider “wrong” or “misleading”.  We could agree to disagree.  That is perfectly fine.

However, I don’t think it is wise to criticise others in an online environment  simply because the other person is holding a different belief from us, or that they do not agree with us.  If we think the person’s belief or the information provided is wrong, a few probing questions may be what is needed to challenge him or her – that requires us to ask the right question, with the “right” tone, and with a “right” sense of respect. 

There may be occasions when an instructor or learner would offer criticisms, but such criticisms or critiques would be based on the idea, principle that don’t seem right, or some provocative or disruptive behaviour exhibited by others.

From an educational point of view, any criticism should be based on the “behaviour” exhibited by others like name calling with an insulting language (the special “alpha” words…), or labelling others inappropriately (sentencing others as trolls or bullies), ”shouting” or “yelling” with condescending commands, in an online environment. 

We could discredit the disruptive behaviour, or neglect those who exhibit such behaviour.  That may be the constraint that we could exercise on “trolls” or “bullies”.  We could also exercise our choice of connections, by avoiding any spammers or trolls.  

So instead of stating what may be an unacceptable behaviour, we could also question each others’ responses or arguments, rather than forcing each others to accept our views.  Would that be the adult-adult communication pattern, rather than the parent-child communication pattern based on command and control?

I think we all like to be respected, especially when engaged in online conversation.  One litmus test would be:”Treat others as you would like to be treated“.   

We could all exercise our autonomy in learning, especially online.  At times, we may sound too polite in the networks, especially with the appreciative inquiry, that may lead to the echo chamber effect or the group think, without any critical thinking behind the ideas.  On the other hand, too harsh pushes on each others’ thoughts and ideas could also hinder innovative ideas from its incubation, and the respect on others’ ideas.

Online conversation is an art that requires great networking and communication skills….

Would that explain why some people find it harder to engage than others in the online world? 

So, imagine if one is immersed in a network, and is not respected by others, would it be important to ask why?  What cause that disrespect?

Now, this marks the end of CCK09.  Thanks George and Stephen for this wonderful CCK09, and I enjoyed the company of many co-learners throughout this CCK09 journey.  Fantastic!