I found this Aligning the Quantum Perspective of Learning to Instructional Design of great interests.
I still need to spend more time in thinking and reflecting through the details of this paper.
I have been exploring some of the topics discussed there, including emotional intelligence (and here), creative learning and learning styles.
Good to explore these areas in future research.
Jon posted in And so it ends:
I’m not the first to observe that a big problem with connectivist-influenced MOOCs like this is that they are, well, chaotic and lacking in centre. People are contributing all over the place in a hundred different ways and certainly not in an orderly fashion.
We wound up talking quite a bit about balance this week – reaching that Goldilocks spot that is not too hard and not too soft in not just our technologies but the whole system of which technologies are a part.
What might be the not too hard and not too soft in MOOC?
What do participants of MOOC really want?
Have you watched King Arthur?
My relative forwarded me this extraordinary story about King Arthur.
Here The story begins:
Young King Arthur was ambushed and imprisoned by the monarch of a neighboring kingdom. The monarch could have killed him but was moved by Arthur’s youth and ideals. So, the monarch offered him his freedom, as long as he could answer a very difficult question. Arthur would have a year to figure out the answer and, if after a year, he still had no answer, he would be put to death.
The question?….What do women really want? Such a question would perplex even the most knowledgeable man, and to young Arthur, it seemed an impossible query. But, since it was better than death, he accepted the monarch’s proposition to have an answer by year’s end.
He returned to his kingdom and began to poll everyone: the princess, the priests, the wise men and even the court jester. He spoke with everyone, but no one could give him a satisfactory answer.
Many people advised him to consult the old witch, for only she would have the answer.
But the price would be high; as the witch was famous throughout the kingdom for the exorbitant prices she charged.
The last day of the year arrived and Arthur had no choice but to talk to the witch. She agreed to answer the question, but he would have to agree to her price first.
The old witch wanted to marry Sir Lancelot, the most noble of the Knights of the Round Table and Arthur’s closest friend!
Young Arthur was horrified. She was hunchbacked and hideous, had only one tooth, smelled like sewage, made obscene noises, etc. He had never encountered such a repugnant creature in all his life.
He refused to force his friend to marry her and endure such a terrible burden; but Lancelot, learning of the proposal, spoke with Arthur.
He said nothing was too big of a sacrifice compared to Arthur’s life and the preservation of the Round Table.
Hence, a wedding was proclaimed and the witch answered Arthur’s question thus:
What a woman really wants, she answered….is to be in charge of her own life.
Everyone in the kingdom instantly knew that the witch had uttered a great truth and that Arthur’s life would be spared.
And so it was, the neighboring monarch granted Arthur his freedom and Lancelot and the witch had a wonderful wedding..
The honeymoon hour approached and Lancelot, steeling himself for a horrific experience, entered the bedroom. But, what a sight awaited him. The most beautiful woman he had ever seen lay before him on the bed. The astounded Lancelot asked what had happened.
The beauty replied that since he had been so kind to her when she appeared as a witch, she would henceforth, be her horrible deformed self only half the time and the beautiful maiden the other half.
Which would he prefer? Beautiful during the day….or night?
Lancelot pondered the predicament. During the day, a beautiful woman to show off to his friends, but at night, in the privacy of his castle, an old witch? Or, would he prefer having a hideous witch during the day, but by night, a beautiful woman for him to enjoy wondrous intimate moments?
What would YOU do?
What Lancelot chose is below.
BUT….make YOUR choice before you scroll down below.
OKAY?
Noble Lancelot said that he would allow HER to make the choice herself.
Upon hearing this, she announced that she would be beautiful all the time because he had respected her enough to let her be in charge of her own life.
Now….what is the moral to this story?
The moral is…..
If you don’t let a woman have her own way….
Things are going to get ugly
Back to the question: What do participants of Change11 MOOC want?
I can’t speak on behalf of others. For me, what I want is to be in charge of my own life, and my own learning.
Would this be the wants of MOOCers? There are more wants…..What would you say?
An excellent presentation by Jon Dron here. Ailsa has summarised her notes with reflection here. Jenny has posted here, and here too.
Some notes that I have taken, together with my reflection.
Jon explained about the 3 types of collectives:
1. Direct
2. Mediated
3. Stigmergic – sign-based, sematectonic
Effective collectives:
1. Adaptability
2. Stigmergy
3. Evolvability
4. Parcellation
5. Trust
6. Sociability
7. Constraint
8. Context
9. Connectivity
10. Scale
Jon used the following definition of Technology: The orchestration of phenomena for some use – by Brian Arthur.
I found this similar to the concept of technology affordance. Whilst Ailsa referred to ANT as a way to describe the relationship between technology and human (the actors in the networks).
I found it interesting when Jon referred prayers as “part of technology” that are aimed to achieve goals, in case of religion, to ask for forgiveness or favours 🙂
Jon sums up that all technologies are assemblies.
Soft technologies – Active orchestration of phenomena by people.
Hard technologies – Orchestration of phenomena embedded in the technology. This could relate to set of processes, or procedures, which impose constraints on the processes, so steps and instructions must be followed.
Hard is easy, is efficient. Hard is complete, is brittle, but could limit change and creativity. If the process is automated, people have little control over that process.
Soft is hard, is incomplete. This could be part human, part machine. Soft is flexible. It enables creativity. People could have control over how things are used.
Design patterns:
Soft
– Adapt
– Aggregate
– Recommend
– Extend
Hard
– Automate
– Replace
– Filter
– Limit
Artificial apes – Our technologies are not just reflections of us or things that we use. They are, in part or whole, made of us. This sounds like technology in us, and us in technology, and that technology shapes us as good as we have shaped technology.
Good cyborg/bad cyborg
Humans are part of technologies and humans are in control – Good cyborg
Humans are part of technologies and technologies are in control – Bad cyborg.
Operating manuals, legal systems could be one where technologies are in control – bad cyborg.
Some danger signs that a technology is too soft – repetition of boring tasks, the need for skill, complexity and puzzlement.
The holy grail – not too hard, not too soft, just right.
Assembly – Remix, Reuse and Resample.
The use of hashtag in Twitter has been hardened as a technology (i.e. Twitter as a Soft Technology)
What we need would be designing technology – half human, half machine that is just right.
Pictures: Google images
Learner Weblog 