Social Networking Sites & Learning

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/10/30/social

This article reports on a few sessions at the Educause conference in Orlando, FL that have focused on the potential for social networking sites to be used to promote learning among students in higher education.  It sounds like people have pretty much accepted the fact that things like Facebook are not going to go away, so the question for educators is "how to we capitalize on students interest in web 2.0 to promote learning?"  Some educators fear that it is naive to use sites like Facebook as learning environments because students will become distracted by everything else that is there and fail to engage in any meaningful learning.  Others think that students will just stay one step ahead of the academic machine and switch to other social networking venues to avoid contact with faculty, etc.  They may not appreciate being "friended" by professors, TA's, etc.  

As much as I agree that social networking and other web 2.0 features can be abused by students, I think that we have a responsibility to have some sort of academic presence there and to capitalize on the opportunities that are presented by social networking sites.  To take the approach of "we'll ignore it and hope that it goes away" seems irresponsible and lazy (think about the stance the church has taken in the world of the internet by having a presence and using lds.org and other sites to be a positive force on the internet).  It will be interesting to see how BYU responds to this trend--it seems like we are a little slow in adopting tehnological innovations at times.  For instance, I work in New Student Programs here at the University and about a year and a half ago we were tossing around the idea of creating Freshman Facebook groups prior to New Student Orientation to help students get connected with each other and to post information, events, etc. that would be useful for first-year students.  When that idea was presented to a committee of administrators it was quickly shot down.  Another example would be our desire to hold on to LMS's like Blackboard for as long as we have when there are a number of more attractive alternatives available.   I guess it just takes time for people to warm-up to things.

Media vs. Method

Our discussion about media and method and their influence on learning has been very interesting.  I was in the pro-method group and although I definitely believe that media has an influence upon learning, I think designers, especially new designers have a tendency to focus too much on media at the expense of being thoughtful about method/pedagogy.  Andy Gibbons describes this as "media-centrism" where designers place great emphasis on a particular medium but aren't very intentional about method or strategy.  Gibbons suggests that media should be viewed as plastic and invisible channels for learning.  I'm not exactly sure what side of the fence I fall on in all of this, but I do think that as designers we need to be careful to not get overly wrapped up in new, fancy media and forget about basic learning methodologies.   If the media support those principles of learning, all the better.  But, brand new media, employed badly will never lead to good learning.

ISETL Conference

This last weekend I attended the annual conference for the International Society for Exploring Teaching and Learning (ISETL) in Las Vegas.  I was attending as part of my responsibilities as a University employee, but I was amazed at how closely related what I heard in the sessions was to the things that we are reading about and discussing in our 520 class.  I was part of discussions about learning theory (mostly cognitivism & constructivism), metacogntion, Web 2.0, and a whole host of other things that I really didn't know anything about before September.  It was fun to be able to see the things we are learning in class applying in authentic settings.  

Also, we have talked about how with just a little experience in instructional technology, we become "experts" in the eyes of people outside our field.  I could see how that was true because about half of the conference attendees (most of whom were university faculty members) had never heard about "web 2.0", situated learning, etc.  It helped me realize how valuable the training we are receiving is and will be when we graduate and start looking for jobs.

Ruminations About the Issues Assignment

One of the things that I noticed being mentioned in a number of articles that I reviewed in Performance Improvement Quarterly was the relative effectiveness of project groups or collaborative teams that are assigned to work together to produce a product, develop an innovation, problem-solve, etc.  I also have some personal experience with this as a former coach and now in my work here at BYU where I often find myself leading or being parts of committees that are charged with producing certain things (usually ideas that can be implemented).  I have seen both the blessing and burden of working in groups and am interested in those factors that push a team in one direction or the other.  Based on my quick review of some of the recent PIQ issues, it seems like this is something that is receving a fair amount of attention in the corporate world.  I also feel like it is an issue that has implications for almost any setting, from the church, to families, to corporate America.  There seems to be a lot of power in using groups of people to generate solutions to problems (especially performance problems), but I feel like there are critical factors that are sometimes quite subtle that can make a big difference in group effectiveness.

Competencies

Our conversation today about competencies for careers in instructional technology, design, and human performance technology was quite interesting.  I was a little surprised by the reports from each of the groups about what companies/organizations were looking for in terms of those that they hire.  We tend to assume that highly technical knowledge or tangible skills are what will get us our dream jobs.  But, as I listened to each of the groups it seemed like it is our broad, transferable skills (e.g. written communication, ability to function as a  part of a team, organizational skills, etc.) that are what will make us most attractive.  That isn't to say that we should not be focused on developing technical expertise; however, an expert that can't communicate or get along with anyone isn't very useful to an organization.  

I am learning that the "broad liberal arts education" that we try to "get out of the way" is a little more important than we probably realize as undergraduates.  

Difference between Learning Sciences & Instructional Technology

The biggest thing that I have taken away from our readings and the discussion that we had in class today was the difference in these two fields (IT & LS) is the intentions and objectives of practioners.  While both are focused on learning and even on design of learning, there reasons for asking questions pertaining to these areas are different.  

Learning Sciences:  In the learning sciences researchers are concerned with understanding what happens within the learner so that they can explain it and describe the way in which learning occurs.  So, although they may design learning environments or learning systems, they do so with the hope that it will be a means to the end of understanding the learning process more deeply so as to confirm a theory or develop a new way of understanding the way in which learning occurs.

Instructional Technology:  People in IT do not necessarily disregard learning theory or work that has been done that helps describe the process of learning; however, their ultimate objective is to design learning systems or products that result in learning.  So, they do research, investigate theory, and even describe learning.  But, at the end of the day they want to see improved performance or improved learning, not just a new theory or a new way of understanding how learning might occur.

While there will probably always be a divide between folks in these two groups, it would be nice if they talked to each other a little more often and recognized that they can collaborate in ways that will help both groups reach their objectives.  For the two to live in "parallel universes" (as Edelson describes it) seems quite silly and childish to me.

The Learning Sciences

We didn't talk much about it today in class, but I am going to discuss implicit, informal, and formal learning in this posting so that I can get my thoughts down on paper.  Then I'll jump into our discussion of routine vs. adaptive expertise.

Implicit Learning:  This is learning that happens almost effortlessly and without any real intentionality.  A lot of this learning happens through observation and interaction with others.  Because this learning is not something that we consciously seek after (or are even aware of) it can be hard to articulate what has been learning (this makes me think of our discussion of "making the invisible, visible" from last month).  The text talked about how a lot of what we learn about culture and tradition happens this way.  For example, family traditions and ways of doing things are probably things that we learn implicitly.  Social attitudes and stereotypes are also often acquired this way.  One simple example of this might be the ways in which a family celebrates holidays.  A particular family might have a set of holiday traditions that they carry out each year.  A small child observing this will implicitly learn about what happens at Christmas time, but they may not be able to tell someone why, for instance, their family decorates the Christmas tree on the first day of December.  This has been learned unconsciously and without any real intention.  A lot of this learning might also be classified as "imitative learning".

Informal Learning:  This is learning that generally occurs outside of a formal educational environment and it is largely driven by the learner.  Informal learning is based in authentic contexts and is closely related to actual performances and practices.  There is no set of institutional practices, facts, or pieces of information that have to be learned; rather, the learner and "instructor" arrive at this understanding on their own, developing a personalized learning curriculum.  Like implicit learning, this is often observational learning; however, the learner is much more aware of the learning that is taking place (making it easier to articulate) and more intentional about pursuing that learning.  An example of this is the relationship that develops in the film Finding Forrester (http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi1571029273/) where the character played by Sean Connery befriends a young man and becomes a mentor of sorts.  There is no set curriculum, but the two of them work to improve the young man's writing.  Interestingly, there is also a great deal of learning for Sean Connery's character.  

Formal Learning:  This is learning that happens within a structured educational system or institution.  There is a set of things to be learned and information is often transmitted from the instructor to the learner quite explicitly (generally through language).  Additionally, formal learning  is generally decontextualized.  This is the type of learning most students are familiar with experiencing in schools.

Routine vs. Adaptive Expertise:  The biggest thing I took away from the reading and our in-class discussion was the idea that routine expertise is mostly concerned with efficiency--we learn to do the same things much more quickly and with fewer errors.  Adaptive expertise does not necessarily exclude efficiency, but there is an element of innovation such that what has been learned can be applied in a variety of situations.  An excellent example of routine expertise is the way that a factory worker might approach their work on an assembly line.  They probably don't look for ways to be overly innovative because that isn't what is rewarded; their concern is with doing their work more and more quickly.  Adaptive expertise can be seen in an entrepreneuer who starts a business in one field, using a set of business principles, and then applies those same principles to achieve success in completely unrelated fields.  They have "adapted" their expertise to be useful in a new setting.  

My experience as a student provides examples of both types of expertise (and it sounds like this is common among our class based on the discussion we had today).  As a high school student (and for about 1/2 of my undergraduate experience) I took a very superficial approach to learning doing as little as I needed to in order to get by with good grades.  I figured out how the system worked and then refined my ability to get the reward (the grades) with minimal effort.  I was becoming more and more efficient at getting "A's".  At some point during my undergraduate experience I changed my approach and "learned how to learn" (I think this is what we are talking about when we discuss "metacognitive approaches").  I started to understand how effective learners went about acquiring knowledge and I could apply that to a variety of settings (work, school, religious studies, etc.).  I wasn't just doing the bare minimum, but I was engaging in the learning process and using what I was learning as a student in a lot of different areas of my life.