This is a presentation from a debate in Wolverhampton on “The VLE Undead:. But central to it is the idea that we are learning from multiple sources and in different contexts and that the challenge for the institution is to remain relevant.

We live in a multi cultural and multilingual community. Yet all too often, educational technologists tend to assume the world speaks just English. Witness the Edublog awards whcih as far as I can remember featured just one non English language blog.

We are hoping to develop Pontydysgu blogs as a forum for innovative and exciting thinking over the next year. And we hope to reflect the diversity fo the community we live in. to that end we are delighted to welcome Maria Perifanou to Pontydysgu blogs. Her blog – appropriately named Dialogos – will be in Greek language, although she will write the occasional English language entry.

One of the most positive developments in technology Enhanced Learning over the past year has been the ‘mainstreaming’ of Open educational resources’ (OERs). What do I mean by ‘mainstreaming’? Instead of being confined to the fringes in funded projects the creation and distribution of OERs are increasingly being seen as a strategic approach ro institutional educational strategies. At the same time there has been an increase in fundfing avaiable for the creation, distribution and discovery of OERs together with added awareness of what OERs are and how they might be used.

That is not to say every issue has been resolved. The resourcing of OER creation is till an issue, although some institutions seem to be absorbing the cost into the overall budgets. There remain issues over how to develop OERs, given that materials often include artefacts that are covered by copyright. Discovery – finding suitable OERs – is still not always easy. Academic practices (and terms of service) are not always aligned with the idea of open publishing. And of course we still do not as a community have a single agreed understanding of what constitutes an OER. But all thes eissues can be resolved given a little time.

However, the movement towards OERs conceals bigger issues. Firstly what do we mean by an Open Educational Resource. I am not  talking here about definitional squabbles. More important for me is who the resources are aimed at. many of the early OER repositres have comprised of materials for teaching and not for learning. these are not the same. Of course lecture notes and overhead presentations may be helpful to support learning (and certainly helpful for teachers). But, I am not sure that reading and watching course materials constitutes a learning programme in itself. Neither have many of the institutions providing OERS intended it to be. Why make free courses available online of it would compete with courses offered by an institution.

Yet, at the same time, organisations such as the BBC, are publishing increasing amounts of  learning (not teaching) materials aimed at a wide range of age groups and a wide ability range. YouTube contains hundreds of videos providing help in how to do almost anything. Web tutorial sites abound. And the growing power of mobile devices and if rumour is to be believed, the immanent arrival of smart tablet readers, allows integration of learning into everyday work and leisure activities. In other words, learning is moving outside teh institution at an ever increasing rate. It is these materials which will be of most profound influence on the future of our education systems

My prediction of trends for 1010 is that the crisis over the future role of institutional education will continue to deepen. The crisis, engendered largely by technological and social change, can only be exacerbated by the financial cutbacks facing higher education in many countries. At the moment education institutions can fall back of their function in providing recognised qualifications. Although the degree of regulation regarding qualifications and the weight such qualifications carry for employment varies between sectors and countries, in general we might expect that increasingly employers will look to a person’s digital identity and digital record of learning, rather than accepting qualifications as the basis for employment.

So do educational institutions have a future? I think they do but this will require profound change. Already a few pioneers like Dave Wiley, George Siemens and Stephen Downes have tested new models for online courses including both participants registered for a course credit and those not registered. But more fundamentally institutions may have a role in motivating and supporting the learning of students at particular phases in their (lifelong) learning. But this requires far more flexibility than our present (higher) education systems provide. Although I do not agree with his motives the Prince of Darkness, UK Business Minister Peter Mandelson, may be right when he talks of more flexible degree offerings including both full time two year degrees and more work based degrees. And we may even have to question the degree structures. Why not start recognising the learning that takes place whilst following a course in an institution, rather than referring to the course which frames that possible learning?

And of course such (personal learning) programmes will have to start from the point of where learners are at – recognising their previous learning and their learning needs (and desires). Much of that learning will have come from engaging with OERs in a workplace or social setting. That doesn’t mean there is no place for the seminar, workshop or even lecture. But it does mean that the regimentation of courses may become a thing of the past. Different learners will have different prior experiences and different learning needs. Why not conceive of university as an university such as an extended bar camp or unconference. Students could opt to follow particular elements and could themselves support the learning of others. Support would still be needed to help learners get from where they are now to where they potentiality could be. Universities could become an intense learning experience, unlike the present exam factories, often marketed on the basis of the social life around the institution.

If course I might have been reading too many science fiction novels over Christmas. But the times are a changing, however slowly and the increasing availability of Open Education Resources or Open Learning materials are part of that change.

I would like to introduce you to Sandrine Han who holds the International Art Education Association (InAEA) in SL, a non-profit organization located in the virtual world of Second Life (SL) and on the Web.
She just developed the InAEA’s constitution and statement documents. Sandrine is a doctoral candidate at Northern Illinois University. Her dissertation is about distance learning and visual culture in 3D visualized virtual worlds. Her SL name is Kristy Handrick in Second Life. We had the pleasure to meet her with the students in InAEA’s representation in Second Life.

The International Art Education Association (InAEA) is a non-profit organization located in the virtual world of Second Life and on the Web. The goal of InAEA is to build bridges among art educators around the world and promote the importance of art education. InAEA is a free membership organization. Everyone around the world who loves art, education, and art education is welcome to join. All members are encouraged to devote their knowledge to the association, attend the monthly meeting, and post related articles on the InAEA website.
InAEA has held monthly meetings since October 2007. The InAEA meeting time was change to every Month the First Tuesday, at 7AM SL time.

For more information, please visit the InAEA Web site at: http://www.inaea.org/ or access InAEA in SL, or join the Facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=166051974787#/group.php?gid=165766354265

Since I work at the intersection of arts, design, computer science and media technology, am following the increasing interest in trans-disciplinary approaches being embraced by the research community in the field of arts, science and technology. As I addressed in earlier posts, there is an increasing interest of introducing the art practice based PhD in the framework of new study programs at art academics at the international level. However, one example of current trans-disciplinary research conferences I came across is the symposium entitled Claiming Creativity: Art Education in Cultural Transition presented by the Columbia College Chicago in partnership with The European League of Institutes of the Arts.

Interestingly the symposium includes a program strand on Arts, Science and Technologywhich outlines the following questions:

“-What are disciplines?
– What is between the disciplines?
– What is beyond the disciplines?
– Is art a discipline?
– Can disciplines talk to each other?
– Is technology a medium?
– How active is technological interactivity?
– How creative is science?
– Will the hype for social networking tip over into a desire for much more intimacy and privacy?
– Who is still interested in the millions of pictures of ‘my’ dog with a bent ear?”

What do you think about the questions? Are those the ones of most importance when looking at future education and development?

In the Leonardo Education Forum community, there is big debate on the issue of Arts&Science, especially addressing the impact of nano technology on the arts as well as nano arts.
However, the symposium is outlined as follows:

“Claiming Creativity seeks to re-position creativity as a driver not only for our economies, but also for art making, for transformational processes, and for social and cultural development and change. The working assumption is that the vitality of our common future is linked tightly to creative practice in many forms. This symposium will place artists, designers, architects and other active “creators” and those who teach in the creative disciplines squarely at the center of these important conversations along with leaders in industry and commerce who share an interest in the life of the imagination and its value to society.

Educators and other leaders in the arts, business, science, commerce, industry, public policy as well as other areas relevant to the symposium topics are invited to submit proposals to present research, works in progress, case studies, or summaries of research already completed that have the potential to stimulate lively and productive debates among symposium participants. Proposed presentations must include room for participant interaction so that the symposium sessions will be as interactive as possible.

A special feature of Claiming Creativity is the symposium online forum, which will be available beginning January 18, 2010 and will lead into the Chicago event. Successful proposal abstracts will be posted to the online forum for discussion by other symposium participants. These online discussions will provide additional ideas for special sessions at the symposium in Chicago designed specifically around the web forum discourse. Additionally, a symposium “journal” will be published through Columbia College Chicago’s academic press.
the workshops attached to it address Networked Realities / Receive and Respond:
Art paradigms exist on a continuum from the individual voice creating objects for contemplation to the engagement of groups in the performance of shared, responsive environments. This workshop tackles the notion of art as conversation, and considers the implications of interactivity on contemporary art practice.”
Further it addresses the topic of Unlikely Cohorts:

“How does Art compute Science? How does Science grapple with Art? Scientists and artists mediate the world with similar methodologies. They pursue inquiries with no preconceived answers. Research and artistic production lead both to creative analysis. As technologies thrive, more information is available for interpretation and scrutiny creating new arenas for scientists and artists to work collaboratively. This workshop will look at these areas of intersection to consider ideas of research, creativity, and new untraditional partnerships.”

What are your experiences in cross-disciplinary working and learning and how do you cope with working in between disciplines and learning cultures with students and pupils in formal and informal education settings? Looking forward to your comments.

For details about the symposium and the submission requirements please visit http://claimingcreativity.com

This research rocks! At a workshop on ‘Technology enhanced learning in the context of technological, societal and cultural transformation‘, held in Garmisch Partenkirchen earlier this month, I was lucky enough to talk to Elisabetta Adami who was presenting an expellent paper on ‘Individualized participation in public forms of communication and learning: reshaping contexts in a changing world of cultural products.’

But it was her doctoral research which really got me interested.  Elisabetta’s dissertation, called Video interaction on YouTube: Contemporary Changes in Semiosis and Communication’, looks at interaction through video replies on YouTube. It is both serious research and fascinating to read.

The entire dissertation, written in English is available on the web and can also be downloaded. Here is an excerpt from the conclusion to the abstract:

“the analysis of the process of video-interaction focuses on (a) its distinctive features and structural characteristics, (b) its semiotic ‘affordances’ (Kress and van Leeuwen, 2001: 67), in terms of the material and social constraints and possibilities which the medium imposes over the semiosis, and (c) the diversified (and often conflicting) semiotic practices with which the affordances are actualized by the interactants.

Rather than following traditionally conceived cooperative or relevance principles and notions of coherence and cohesion, video-interaction works on a ‘loose’ form of individualized participation. While the structural characteristics determine the interactional possibilities, the interactants’ practices exploit the affordances of video-interaction in unexpected ways and often lead to changes in the structure itself (in the same way as the Saussurean parole, when made socially dominant, modifies the langue). Patterns of relatedness in the exchanges are driven by the sign-makers’ diversified interests. More specifically, sign-making relations in the exchanges are established through a system of differentiation-within-attuning, so that interactants bring their distinctive contribution while keeping the same (either formal or semantic) theme, set by the initial video. In this sense, video-interaction is analogous to collective forms of artistic improvisation (e.g., the genre of variation in music or the contemporary free-style). Video responses take up – and actualize – one or more prompts within the range of possibilities set by the initial video. This prompt-response relation generally disregards the interlocutor’s intended meaning, it often does not follow relevance principles, it presents (traditionally considered) marked textual organizations, and does not build coherent exchanges. Not only is (intertextual) implicitness widely practiced, but also formal attuning is sometimes more regarded than (semantic) coherence for the establishment of relatedness in the exchange.

Rather than on the interactants’ mutual understanding, video-interaction hinges on a playful and challenging engagement with the medium and with the other texts in the exchange, by exploiting maximally the representational possibilities of both.

Patterns of relatedness are established through an interest-driven selection, transformation, assemblage and recontextualization of (often formal, at times implicit or backgrounded) elements of the initial video or of other texts. This way, sign-making is often done by means of a copy-and-paste technique, which follows the interactants’ diversified interests, and disregards coherence or the signmaker’s intended meaning. Responses frequently and intentionally produce their texts through misunderstanding and exploit maximally the potential semantic ambiguity of the interlocutor’s text. Incoherent exchanges are successful and generally acknowledged and accepted by interactants. In this sense, videointeraction epitomizes the changes in representation and communication which are taking place in our contemporary semiotic landscape, whereby traditional systems of coherence are disregarded and (traditionally considered) incoherent or noncohesive exchanges are acceptable as the result of representations produced through the selection, copy and paste, recontextualization and forwarding of other texts.

These contemporary changes in representation and communication need analogous changes in the theories of communication, while their description requires adequate analytical models. Therefore the thesis concludes by hypothesizing the usefulness of the theoretical and analytical framework devised for the research to the description of contemporary forms of communication.”

In general I don’t like Christmas. Difficult travel, rampant consumerism, enforced jollity and all that kind of thing. But there is one thing I like about it and that is the peace away form day to day meetings to try and think and write a little. In this case I have an overdue short paper to deliver for the MatureIP project looking at teh work of Vygotsky and what we can learn from his work for knowledge maturing processes and for Personal Learning Environments.
Needless to say, I have not finished it yet and the more I read the more confused I seem to get.
The approach Vygotsky took to cognitive development is sociocultural, working on the assumption that ‘action is mediated and cannot be separated from the milieu in which it is carried out’ (Wertsch, 1991:18).Vygotsky considered that “higher mental functions are, by definition, culturally mediated.” Social processes give rise to individual processes and both are essentially mediated by artefacts.
Furthermore Vygotsky held that “environment cannot be regarded as a static entity and one which is peripheral in relation co development, but must be seen as changeable and dynamic.” The social cultural approach to learning has been extended through Activity Theory and I find that interesting in the context of comparing formal education and the use of tools compared to informal learning in social networks. Within an activity system tools or instruments – including technologies – are considered to be mediating elements.

First lets look at formal education. Formal education systems are heavily rule bound, with rule determining both the contents and usually the process of learning. The divisions of labour are strongly defined, especially with regard to the roles of managers and teachers within teh system. the community is that of the institution, which once more is heavily prescriptive regarding tools and objects with outcomes frequently being seen as formal acquisition of qualifications. In this subject – or learner – situation the selection of the tools which mediate the learning. Indeed in this activity system the selection of tools is intended more to preserve the rules and the division of labour and to contain the outcomes, than it is to support learning per se.

Then lets compare that with the use of social software for learning in the workplace. Firstly the division of labour is very different and more likely to be influenced by work place divisions than that of teachers. In this respect if the object is knowledge acquisition the outcomes may well be bounded by work processes, for instance through the need to solve a problem or through the introduction of new technologies or innovation in the workplace. The division of labour still remains important to the activity, especially the object, in permitting or restraining the time and the access of the subject to the tools they need to undertake the activity. However it is important to note that Vykotsky saw learning as taking place in Zones of Proximal development and to be influenced by the interventions of a Significant Other Person. This could be  a teacher, a trainer, a peer. However this process is once more mediated by instruments or tools thus meaning that significant person or persons could be supporting learning through a forum or through a Personal Learning Network.
Once more the tools will mediate the activity of learning. But here the prescription may be less in that the community itself will influence the tools and may be a broader community of learners or a community of practice, recommending tools based on a collective experience. However, rules may still apply especially through the Terms and Conditions of Service and use of any particular social software service. In the context of the tools, Vygotsky considered that all artefacts are culturally, historically and institutionally situated. “In a sense, then, there is no way not to be socioculturally situated when carrying out an action. Conversely there is no tool that is adequate to all tasks, and there is no universally appropriate form of cultural mediation. Even language, the ‘tool of tools’ is no exception to this rule”. (Cole and Wertsch).
In terms of informal learning and work based learning, the tools are less likely to be culturally bound to the institution of the school. Thus more often we may see the appropriation of cultural tools or artefacts used in wider society and repurposed for learning, than the use of explicitly ‘educational software’. But over a period of time, as the practice of the use of such tools for learning becomes culturally embedded within society, it may start to influence the selection of tools and instruments for learning within institutions framed through the rules and division of labour of the education systems.
Sorry if all this is not too clear. But I would very much welcome any feedback 🙂

Academic Tribes and Territories, Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines
by Tony Becher and Paul R. Trowler
[Random thoughts about texts I have been reading. Please notice that I am still trying to make sense of this all and therefore welcome your critical comments. I am sure they will help me look at the topic […]

Αρχικά θα ήθελα να ευχαριστήσω θερμά τον φίλο μου Γκράχαμ Attwell για την πρόταση του να γράφω στην “Γέφυρα της  Μάθησης”,  σ’αυτό το ‘πολιτισμικό’ ιστολόγιο, ενώνοντας έτσι την φωνή μου με τις φωνές άλλων ανθρώπων διαφόρων χωρών και διαφορετικών γλωσσών για να μιλήσουμε για ένα θέμα που πραγματικά μας απασχολεί όλους; την εκπαίδευση; Συγκεκριμένα θα συζητήσουμε κυρίως για το παρόν και το μέλλον της εκπαίδευσης χωρίς σύνορα εστιάζοντας κυρίως στην εξέλιξη της μέσα από το πρίσμα της τεχνολογικής επανάστασης και αναλύοντας τις επιδράσεις και τις αλλαγές που αυτή δρομολογεί στην εκπαιδευτική πραγματικότητα.

Στην συνέχεια προσπαθώντας να γράψω δύο λόγια για μένα όπως μου ζητήθηκε θα έλεγα ότι είμαι άνθρωπος που πραγματικά αγαπώ να ακούω, να ψάχνω την γνώση, να μαθαίνω από τους άλλους και να μοιράζομαι νέες ιδέες, οράματα μα πάνω απ’όλα να τολμώ να συμμετέχω ενεργά στη ζωή βλέποντας το μέλλον πάντα αισιόδοξο. Νιώθω κατά βάθος ένας πολίτης του κόσμου, που δεν βλέπει πια γεωγραφικά σύνορα χάρη στην δύναμη της τεχνολογίας, μια εκπαιδευτικός που προβληματίζεται για το μέλλον της παιδείας, μια ερευνήτρια που προσπαθεί να δώσει τις δικές της ερμηνείες στην νέα εκπαιδευτική πραγματικότητα.

Επιλέγω να γράψω αρχικά στην μητρική μου γλώσσα και να καλέσω όλους εσάς να κάνουμε ένα ενδιαφέρον και σε βάθος διάλογο. Εξάλλου μέσα από τον διάλογο πάντα μπορούμε να προσεγγίσουμε τις μεγαλύτερες αλήθειες και να βρούμε τις καλύτερες απαντήσεις στα ερωτήματα μας.

Μαρία Περηφάνου

Υποψ. Διδάκτορας Παν/μίου Αθηνών

Τμήμα Ιταλικής και Ισπανικής Γλώσσας και Φιλολογίας

Τομέας: Εφαρμοσμένη Γλωσσολογία

Twitter:mariaperif

[This is not a post about recent ideas or opinions regarding education in general. This is a post about my own education and the cumulative experiences which have contributed to what and where I am today and what and where I want to be in the future. I welcome your comments on my personal views […]