Knowledging across life’s curriculum

INTJ + PhD

I’m sure you’ve heard of the Myers-Briggs or MBTI personality assessment test based on Jung 16 types. And the similar Kiersey temperament sorter. You can take a 72 question Jung Typology test or the Kiersey temperament sorter for free. I think they’re only partial tests, but to my knowledge relatively accurate if you reply to question not as you would like to see yourself but how you actually act and think in situations.

Learning styles are also assessed through the MBTI

The 126 item Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), Form G, is the most reliable method for assessing student learning style. The MBTI provides data on four sets of preferences. These preferences result in 16 learning styles, or types. A type is the combination of the four preferences. The most common MBTI type for business undergraduates is the ESTJ, the Extraverted-Sensing-Thinking-Judger.

The author doesn’t say much about other disciplines, but gives a number of teaching tools to address the different types encountered. The 4 pairs of characteristics are Introverted/extraverted; intuitive/sensing; thinking/feeling; judging/perceiving.

I first heard about the MBTI test in a research seminar when I was doing my MA a while back. We were introduced to the typology to identify what type of researcher we were. I turned out to be an INTJ, which is labelled a Mastermind in the RATIONAL category by Kiersey. I’ve retested myself a number of times and come up with quite similar results, with my I (for Introverted) becoming a bit more E (extroverted) with time. Normal according to the metrics. It seems that INTJ ’s are rare, 1 to 2% of the population, and a majority found in higher education and various thinking spheres. I guess PhD studies were inevitable!!

You can imagine what ‘rare” entails, misunderstood when young and sometimes later in life too I remember one time I told the team under my supervision, “If I come to the conclusion that I am not needed or don’t fit in this system, I will fire myself”. I did get weird stares but what I meant was that the parts are less important than the whole and I was hired to take care of the organization, not individuals per se. As a therapist, even when working with individuals the family and social systems to which they belonged were most important in finding the keys to improved wellbeing.

We INTJs think in systems, love concepts and have fun envisioning and planning for the future. And most of all testing theories. Googling a bit more, I came across an edtech professor who introduces himself through his type …guess which one? Yes INTJ, explaining to prospective supervisees his personality quirks and suggesting students know their own type for a better communication match. He was clear on the limits of what the MBTI could offers but could also see the benefits in understanding preferred modes of thinking and behaving. For one it was a more efficient means of getting the word across. Efficiency another INTJ must!
An INTJ is

Conceptualizer Director: INTJ

Theme is strategizing, envisioning, and masterminding. Talents lie in defining goals, creating detailed plans, and outlining contingencies. Devise strategy, give structure, establish complex plans to reach distant goals dictated by a strong vision of what is needed in the long run. Thrive on putting theories to work and are open to any and all ideas that can be integrated into the complex systems they seek to understand. Drive themselves hard to master what is needed to make progress toward goals.

Pretty good description of what my son calls driven behavior. I often see myself take models and theories and pull them apart, see if I can apply them to various situations. I’ve been going back and forth with Doug@Borderlands and a bit with Chris who comments there too. A whole section here is devoted to commenting on sensemaking and deconstructing epistemologies and developping new conceptual territories. You would think that in PhD studies it would be a welcome attribute. Well, to a certain extent it is working to my disadvantage. The educational technology department in which I study has repeated numerous times model building was expected in an APPLIED PROGRAM, which seems to preclude theoretical dissertation work. What is happening to PhD programs these days? In psychology there are PsyD and PhDs: one is clinical (practice oriented) the other more theoretical/philosophical. I’m doing a PhD not an EdD! There is a great though older (1997) debate on the subject here. It seems the practice/theory divide is problematic at the conceptual level, and second as a determinant of what a program offers be it Ed.D or Ph.D. It is perhaps time to review the labels in light of what is really happening in various programs.

This is to me, a major dilemma at the moment–practically at the end of my course work. It has eaten up much of thinking space and peace of mind, sapping my energy in the pursuit of these final requirements, making me very very unhappy there. After many years of mulling this over, I think I have a solution. Can’t say right now, but just feeling the vice relax around my brain, makes me feel much better.
Am I saying that as an INTJ in education, mental models should be taken into account ? Maybe. But that would be naive in the face of a department’s mental model wouldn’t it! I am a systems thinker and can see how much the environment in which I study is stuck with its own model and politics. I feel like a hexagonal peg in a square hole! Either I chop off a few asperities to fit or find a less cartesian environment. To be continued…

Expanding conceptual territories

“As an anthropologist, part of the great value I see in the study of “Indigenous Psychologies” (Indigenous Psychologies the Anthropology of the Self (Language, thought, and culture)) is that they help a person get outside the “grid” of the secular, normative, middle class frames of everyday reality to see other ways of being and knowing beyond the comfort zones of everyday middle class experience.” (Panshiva)

I couldn’t find who Panshiva was for sure but he echoes the same beliefs I have about restrictive mental health views in our ‘modern’ medical world. Medical anthropologists and ethno-medicine have much to say to expand our thinking and should be standard read for medical students. Unfortunately this cross pollination is still very rare.

An eye opening book which had nothing to do with the standard read of a practicing psychotherapist was perhaps: Suzanne Kelman’s (1998) “A cultural History of Family life”. The book which I found when perusing the bargain bin when waiting for the metro a few years back, is a very interesting comparative analysis of family related themes done by a journalist. Notions of love and loss; child rearing; the place of fathers; what happy families mean; church hegemony in families; etc. are contrasted to other cultures, providing a wider conceptual territory to think from. I found that my restricted model of family expanded after this read. A positive consequence I would say.

I wonder what a cross-cultural take on education–one that is not completely contaminated by western models, would have to say about pedagogy, prioritization of contents and useful technologies? A quick google search with ethno-education as key word turned up the following. An ethno-educational approach sees empowerment and focus on indigenous knowledge in developing countries as alternatives. Unfortunately:

The development paradigm based on the Western epistemology and value system is, however, still embedded in the development world and follows ‘the prescriptions laid down for them ['underdeveloped' countries] by those already ‘developed’ (Escobar 1992a: 411).

I could not find the reverse relationship of learning from others (I did see a project in ethno-medicine and ethno-botany though). I’ve always found comparative analyses important in understanding difference. This to me is learning that humbles and opens to the knowledge of others, widening our conceptual territories to embrace other ways of doing and seeing the world. I guess I’m conceptually claustrophobic, when it comes to our western ways. I’ve always worried when too much power is concentrated in the same hands. Give me my own generator and cook top, alternatives to the restaurant and supermarket please!

extensive vs intensive reading

One of the subjects that drives my knowledge seeking is finding out how we come to know what we know. What this means to me is engaging knowing in it’s socio-historical, culturally situated reality. In reading Peter Burke’s “A social history of knowledge: from Gutemberg to Diderot I couldn’t help but identify a number of historical links to topics discussed in blogs and presented as newer phenomena when in fact they are the same types of manifestations to a changing information landscape, albeit supported by different technologies.

For example Burke speaks of a reading revolution in the 18th century brought on by widely available books and printed materials . Types of reading were evolving and becoming more extensive than intensive and echoed the gradual “desacralization” of the book (p.179).
What is meant by extensive is more browsing and skimming behavior than deep (intensive) intimate reading of written materials. This new behavior bothered scholars all the way back to Ancient Rome where Senaca was found to advise his pupils not to browse in books; a behavior understood as “toying with ones food”.

Francis Bacon using an eating metaphor to define levels of engagement with reading materials spoke of :

1. tasting
2. swallowing
3. chewing and digesting

The past blog entry “the joys of shallow thinking” by George Siemens is really about shallow reading he says:

What happens when we change how we interact with information? We “ramp up” our processing habits. Instead of reading, we skim. Instead of exploring and responding to each item, we try and link it to existing understanding. We move (in regards to most information we encounter) from specific to general thinking…from deep to shallow thinking.

In a sense he is echoing one type of reading behavior that is brought about by the immersion in quantities of information. Obviously not a new phenomenon. I object to the fact that it is presented as a new behavior that seems to supersede other forms of reading and engaging with information. There was always a place for skimming and browsing, but for information (an artifact) to become learning (a process of engaging the info) and in turn knowing (higher level process built on past learning), a slowing down process must take place to first “chew” and then “digest” –to use Bacon’s analogy.

If we don’t slow down to chew, we take in the aromas and build impressions, a type of amorphous and nebulous map of a terrain. As a guiding, intuitive approach to navigating information it is surely useful, but it can’t be equated with knowledge until it is past the taste buds, oesophagus and digestive track, supported by the sorting and elimination processes. Separating the wheat from the chaff!

Lurk & Learn

Lurk & Learn

I just came back from a very nice get together with friends from a long time ago—we were friends in our teens!! During conversation I had the opportunity of sharing my research interests with a friend’s husband. I told him how I was interested in the professional development potential of online conversation with people from similar backgrounds. He shared how his company had learnt about a whole new domain of business in a different part of the world by participating in online forums specialized in the area he was interested in. He added that it was through ‘lurking’ that they learned of the of the field, the issues that mattered, the psychology of the market and idiosyncrasies of its particular context. I’m reacting to this because in community of practice theory, one is either a participant (one who contributes openly) or a peripheral participant–one who is learning about the community and in the process of becoming a full participant. The model is community centric, and seeks to maximize reproduction of its model (see the arrows turned inward on the diagram). There is no room in this model for peripheral participation, that is not turned inward towards the community–what my friend’s husband was speaking about.

The diagram above is from a CPsquare (July 2003) Let’s get more positive about lurkers document. The assumption is that a full participant gives back to the community, while a ‘lurker’ is only a taker, one who learns but gives nothing back. This and other similar studies, limit their focus to rapid response within the confines of a given group. As someone who has been moderating an online group of professionals, these many years immersed in textual dialogue, have taught me that such limited conclusions are problematic. For example, members who were lurking for years can spontaneously make their presence known when a subject of high interest comes to the fore; and just as they came, slip back into the shadows. There is such a thing as verbose textual participants, just like there are verbose speakers; and conversely quiet members on the periphery f2f and online.

Moreover, information can be taken from the group and ‘transplanted’ elsewhere. Members are contributing outside the boundaries of what is conceptually thought of as a community. As I was reflecting on the best unit of analysis to study online dialogue, it increasingly became clear to me that a network is perhaps a better configuration, than a community. Though online professional groups who share an identity, like my group does, show many signs of community; Wittel (2001) calls this narrativesociality, or shared stories, such a group also shows many signs of being a network–informational sociality, where socializing is a matter of the artefact that is shared.

What is less clear in the terminology is how to be more precise about the direction of the activity: active taking in (learning from the online dialogue) and putting out as in textual communication. Lurking was until recently, often understood as passive, just like listening in our activity obsessed society, though prescribed for better communication, is still considered passive non-contribution.

Online forums provide all kinds of learning opportunities not only for the writers but also for those who ‘observe’ the textual interactions of the group members both in content, tone and themes that emerge. Most members are comfortable in the peripheral role, just like many students will prefer to listen than to contribute their words.

In a study of distance education Taylor (n.d.) contrasted learners levels of participation to grades. The active participants, called ‘workers’ actively contributed messages. ‘Lurkers’ regularly accessed the e-forum, but wrote only occasionally. And ‘shirkers’ were those who never contributed a word and only sporadically accessed the e-forum. The results between the two first groups (workers and lurkers) were quite comparable (.02 difference in GPA), while the latter did less well (-1.1). The scale used is unfamiliar (Australia) they were talking about 5.43, 5.41 and 4.3 GPA levels. In Quebec we use scales of 4.0 and 4.3. The author concludes on a number of questions for further research. I conclude that ‘lurking’ is active engagement of the silent kind; engagement with information not people. Taylor, J. (n.d). Teaching and Learning Online: The Workers, The Lurkers and The Shirkers. http://www.ouhk.edu.hk/CRIDAL/cridala2002/speeches/taylor.pdf

In another study by Nonnecke, B. & Preece, J. (2001) Why Lurkers Lurk the authors found a number of ‘restraint’ related reasons’ to non-contribution (not ready, fear of posting, wanting to stay anonymous, etc) and another list of ‘gratifying’ reasons (access to expertise, keeping abreast of field, etc). In the category ‘keeping oneself informed’ they said:

Participants sought three types of information: factual information (e.g., job postings, and solutions to technical problems); different viewpoints arising from different levels of expertise; and access to personal experiences of others. Participants also mentioned breadth and depth of expertise as being important, as was finding “authentic” information based on an individual or group experience. Timely information was also considered quite important both in the sense of it being current, and that it meet the participants’ immediate needs. Getting information from people living in the Middle East during the Gulf War was given as an example of timely information.

Learning on the periphery is one of loose ties and perhaps even no-ties to members, the ties are to the information that keeps these ‘lurkers’ engaged. This is Karin Knorr-Cetina’s notion of object-centered sociality (see earlier posting). The object/artefact/interest impels the relationship foregrounding the object, not the people. The relationship is one built on and around that object, and only secondarily to the person. What my friend’s husband was talking about was lurking, but purposeful lurking, an interest elicited by the content that was generated by the textual activity of the group. Moreover this was a group he had no interest in contributing to. A community of practice model simply doesn’t fit this particular type of informal self-directed learning in online forums.

Assumptions around jargon

I was about to post this entry on Steven Down’s blog , but chose instead to post it here.

The context is a reply from a reader to one of Jeremy Price’s blog entries regarding the use of inaccessible language. Jeremy’s thoughtful response can be read here. I won’t be so kind.

My reply to Anymouse/anonymous,

May I say that I hope the level of discussion remains in the realm of the more difficult. There is enough oversimplified information out there already. As Jeremy pointed out, hyperlinks provide background to anyone who takes the time to search out additional information, information that can’t be provided in these writing fragments. If a person does not make the effort than too bad. Self-directed learners are assumed in our readers.

I have very little empathy for those who can’t/won’t stretch or worse have the gall to attack a writer because ‘they’ don’t immediately understand what is being said. Ask a question, engage in dialogue–an opportunity that is provided in these forums. Don’t demand of others to adjust to your needs further labeling them elitist because YOU don’t understand.

I have a personal stake in this since I was the one to reintroduce Karin Knorr Cetina’s evocative term in a comment and later discussion around object centered sociality with Jeremy Price. I in turn learnt about it through a related blog posting by Jyri Engestrom in May 2005. Did I find it transparent at the time? I didn’t and sought out the source to get a better understanding. I did the leg work! Now I know what she means and like Jeremy find the term quite useful.

This also brings up the assumption that writing on blogs because they are public should be accessible to everyone and anyone. I’m sorry but if you don’t have the right background, from the right field, it may mean that a term or text won’t be accessible period. There is preliminary work to be done and not everybody is willing to do the work. This is not a classroom environment where the writer is the teacher and the reader the student who NEEDS to comprehend what is being transmitted. There too, a simple question may lead to more information.

A further assumption is thinking a blogger writes for YOU. Perhaps as Jeremy pointed out, we write first and foremost for ourselves and second for a community of others who share interests and levels of discussion. You are as Steven Down replied free to click for more, or click out at any time.

Pathological adjustment

I suppose this is of common occurance when you write. that is getting up in the morning, if of course undisturbed by daily obligations, to have more to say on whatever was written the day or night before. Such is the case today.

I woke up thinking about Jay Cross’ adjustment proposition as a replacement for learning and my objection to it. In fact I would argue that it is healthy to resist. This would consist of the educational equivalent of using critical thinking and not buying into whatever is being taunted as new and better (latest tech for example), or construed as fact leaving no room for personal freedom (pace of life for example). I would also propose a new class of mental ailment: pathological adjustment!

The main symptom can be observed when any new fad, way of doing, or seeing the world–in whatever field, cannot be resisted, producing strong levels of anxiety if endorsement is not fully cooperative and completely in line with the story line. The result is a complete loss of identity traded off for a borrowed and fleeting reflection of approval from imagined others. Sometimes real social pressures are present, but the result is living someone else’s life, a pseudo-life with a false self. A false-self is characterized by borrowed identities, living in someone else shoes or skin. This is a take on a real psychological problem.

False-self Symptoms (pathological adjustment or learning)

• never satisfied about accomplishments– You can’t you never do anything for yourself
• difficulty deciding anything of significance– What if it contradicts with what others/society want of me
• activ’oholism –If I stop I …I can’t even imagine what would happen
• rationalizing that there is no choice –Society, my boss, school .. performance is key! (for who I ask?)
• etc.

I’ve pulled these off the top of my head. But this is a real ailment treated at various degrees and going by different names if either a central feature or symptom. Another list of social and psych. symptoms is found here. The author says the ailment is common in North America. Perhaps we should take the time to find out why.

These symptoms are so common in America that they’re seen as normal. True-Self symptoms (above) are far more rare. These pseudo-self symptoms are typical, and in random order. Note that if a false self controls you now, s/he will probably distort your self-evaluation of these clues. Are you feeling like your Self is present now?

ummmm! Something to think about.

Edtech webcast

A classmate of mine pointed us in the direction of Worldbridges - Global Webcasts Podcasts & New Media:  A Global Network of Homegrown Webcasting

The site provides–as can be deducted from the title, a number of webcasts/podcasts of interest in EDTECH. I took the time to listen with a distracted ear–multitasking of course  ;-)  to an hour long conversation between Jay Cross and George Siemens. In this audio transmission they contrast their views on learning. Informal learning is Jay Cross’ area (in a corporate environment) while George Siemens is interested in networks and nodes of interconnected learning (in higher education). There was some back and forth between the two where similarities and differences were contrasted.

For one JC feels that the term learning should be replaced by adaptation. He said he was coming at it from a corporate perspective where the term connotates negatively. GS on the other hand, finds learning should become a meta skill.

I find JC’s adaptation is too related to ajustment and fitting in for my liking. It reminds me of the DSM-IV adjustment disorders category. As though what is out there should continuously usurp agency and will, take precedence over what individuals consider to be their rhythm or ways. This one doesn’t go over well with me.

On the other hand, I find myself wanting to agree that learning should be a meta skill. But again, I think it already is. We continuously learn by adjusting or by creatively tweaking circumstances on a day to day basis. We learn from the time we are born from being in the world. Learning is a meta skill that is part of our genetic blueprint. In the definition of learning (both as process and as end product) I include: ajusting, adapting, creating, experiencing. I include, JC’s notion of gut knowing, felt experiencing. Learning through the senses, through the body, through the eyes.  

Getting back to the webcast, a number of interesting ‘morcels’ of thinking could be heard in the following:

• He means that pre-packaged top down training should give way to learner centered ways.

• I guess this is a logical consequence. If not they should be closed, seriously rethought and re-designed.

• Meaning if it is useful use it, forget about the label.

• He said he was looking for a definition that takes into account  heart, head and gut approaches to learning (JC) (nod *_*)

• I too find we need to design more of the environment, than the content,
• Design more for information flow and access, than manage content
• Design people supports and connections, than performance measurements.

I found myself appreciating this respectful back and forth clarification conversation. And appreciating George Siemens candid ‘public learning’ anecdotes, when he said his readers could often point out the contradictions in his own writing when reading his blog.

I think we can all connect to that one, I too do a lot of public learning, In fact this is something I’ve come to appreciate in networked social environments. The ability to work on ideas by having others give them a spin according to their views. But I’ve also come across too many that could not stand a debate around ideas and took everything personally.

I have also seen cultural differences. In France for example, ideas are expected to be challenged, and you as a person are suppose to be equipped to debate and discuss. The person is not the target, his ideas are. Instead I’ve found that in Canada, and perhaps the States, ideas are personalized, too close to the individual and when you challenge them, you are in effect challenging the person who too often responds angrily or defensively because of hurt feelings. That I find problematic. Could it be we are not teaching skills in debate and as we say in french ‘répartie’ ? It has been my experience that the French were usually more comfortable with language and translating their thoughts into words.

Learning afforded by networks & communities

culture, discourse, learning–to read

It’s been my experience that different countries produce advanced thinking in very specific subjects. I’ve found that Northern countries (Finland and Denmark in particular) published most interesting papers in KM when I was reading in this subject.

Today I find their research around sociality, interactivity, agency, collaborative practice, knowledge construction and discourse (the latter only new to my list) is at the forefront of all that is out there. They provide novel readings on these very popular subjects.

In the Anthropology, culture and organization tutorial I took, we read D’Iribarne, Philippe (1989) La logique de l’honneur. Paris: Editions du Seuil.

The book compares the management cultures of three countries, Netherlands, USA and France. D’iribarne found that the central business value in France was one of honor (if say I will you can trust me on my honor); American managers wanted contracts to be signed and in the Netherlands, cooperative decision making was central. Perhaps this focus on collective decision making  based in relationships and social processes make researchers in these Northern countries more versed in processual activities that echo their own culture. I’m speculating here. What do you think?

——————-

The following articles are from an online journal

IMPACT is an interdisciplinary electronic journal devoted to research in the cultural, technological, aesthetic and scientific significance of formalisation.

—————-  The following are TO READ articles

Signs of learning in Computer Cultures : Proposal for a cultural approach to the study of learning and information technology

Tem Frank Andersen
Centre for the Interdisciplinary Study of Learning
Aalborg University
www.vcl.auc.dk/ansatte/tfa/  
tfa@vcl.auc.dk

Abstract: This paper presents theoretical reflections on learning and information technology (or IT) seen from a cultural perspective. The starting point is taken by a brief review of the influential work of psychology professor Sherry Turkle, cultural study professor Stuart Hall and professor in communication James Lull in order to develop a horizon from which to work with the concept of computer cultures. These three approaches to the study media cultures is discussed and bridged in relation to semiotics as a general theory of signs, codes and signification. In the attempt to pinpoint learning the paper finally discusses the concepts of interactivity and collaboration, both as signs of learning in computer cultures, and as learning processes in themselves.

Keywords: Culture, learning, semiotics, interactivity, collaboration, play

—————

Talking about Technology – An Interview with Bonnie A. Nardi

Anne Marie Kanstrup

Department of Communication,
Aalborg University, Kroghstraede 3, 9220 Aalborg East
Denmark
amk@hum.aau.dk

Abstract: The interview with Bonnie A. Nardi, conducted March 25 2004, has its point of departure in the authors’ and Nardi’s shared research on local IT-support, also referred to as mediating work or gardening in the interview. The first part of the interview is thus an open talk with Nardi on selected topics on local IT-support such as the value of local IT-supporters in organizations, the invisibility of local IT-support work, and the view on and recognition of local IT-support work. The second part of the interview focuses on Nardi’s recent book “Information Ecologies”. Following the theme of the book, this part of the interview opens with a conversation on good technology practice, technology criticism, responsibilities regarding good technology practice, and ideals and realities for technology design and use. Subsequently, the talk moves to a focus on the ecology metaphor presented in the book. The interview is concluded with Nardi’s reflections on future challenges for technology design and use.

Keywords: Local IT-support, gardening, invisible work, Information Ecologies, Technology Practice

Mobile camel library

A BBC photo journal of a Kenyan literacy effort

Librarian Rashid Farah tells the BBC News website about their efforts to provide books and reading materials. “The people whom we serve lead a nomadic life. They are here today but tomorrow they might be gone.

A reminder that the world is not flat thanks to anthropologi.info an anthropology related blog.

Re-inflating flat impressions

Dialogue and exchange, and the learning that comes from these exchanges, coupled with the need to know more (personal agency) are powerful forces that help unflatten first impressions. These are theses promoted by many learning theories which are in my daily writing life, reaffirmed when knowledgeable others help expand my always too limited point of view on any one topic.

My last posting, summary and mini essay on Friedman’s concept of flat and what it could entail for education, stimulated readers to point me to more information.

Simple enough, but this is too often forgotten in our attention starved and time contrived world. Will anyone act on this insight consequently? This foray into other points of views help build the bigger picture of how one piece of information is situated in the larger world of ideas. We are taught this early on in our educational upbringing. Why do I feel it is important to reaffirm this timely insight?

Various authors help de-construct arguments, push them through the sieve of their situated knowledge and come up with new interpretations and possibly new meanings. It is very hard today, not to have a knee-jerk reaction to a piece of information that comes our way. I think it is human to want to process, tag it with our stamp of approval, file it as useful  or simply trash it and move on. This is especially true in the information overloaded world of today. In this moving along reaction–one of the symptoms of this attention problem, we sometimes (often I would argue) come to great uninformed conclusions that sometimes matter a lot, not a little, and skew our ways of dealing with what comes next.

From my learning perspective, I’ve been subjected to increasing amounts of information sometimes called knowledge, sometimes with no guidance to wade through it in a systematic and  organized fashion. From the more is better = more is choice perspective that has gripped this part of the world, we need pointers on how to manage breadth without losing depth. I believe this is one of the most crucial NEW areas that needs attention in a number of our sense making activities but especially in education. If professors were the guides to help this ‘orientation process’, why am I hearing so much about what Siemens calls ‘off-loading’ of this responsibility onto students? (he says technology but who is behind the operating of tech?) Also a consequence of ill-informed constructivism I must say.

To return to my initial introduction, the fact that I have readers who point me toward other views helps my orientation process in the vast expanse of what is out there information wise. It also has a secondary benefit in reaffirming that reviews are important tools to make sense of popular pieces of published materials. Just as critical essays I find to be of immense benefit in rapidly deconstructing ideas into a prism of possible interpretations. For me these are compasses and maps to navigate the written world.

Therefore, to unflatten my uni-flat take on Friedman, here are some excerpts from reviews of his book and his views which are diversified and as such useful for further thinking. They are what I have found in a very informal and time limited search with no pretention to cover the scope of views. These range from Policy views, to Country perspective, to a work related take on the subject, another columnist’s understanding and finally to a cultural evaluation (anthropology) of Friedman’s words.

The world of knowledge is certainly NOT flat, if you take a bit more time to see it.

From  David Hazony, His World Is Flat; Policy Review 132, August/Sept. 2005 issue: 

The World Is Flat is a missed opportunity, one that flows “inexorably” from its author’s belief in the supremacy of the material and the necessity of the revolution. Friedman’s world, indeed, is much flatter than he knows. Rarely has someone worked so hard to provide so many fascinating examples of a phenomenon so very important while having so little to say about what it all means. In the last few years — really ever since the Internet bubble burst and terror struck — most Americans have become well aware of what Friedman does not recognize: that no matter how beneficial or fascinating the it revolution may be, the history of the twenty-first century will not begin and end with Global Crossing and Geek Squads. Peace and politics, war and friendship, democracy and tyranny, poetry and song, love and commitment, parenting and virtue, morals and devotion and God himself — all these have yet to be digitized. For the most important things, our world, like a vintage record album, is still analog, still round.

An Australian take on the book (Sept 3/2005):

And America is what really matters to Friedman. This is a big book, packed with interesting snippets of information and a lot of valuable analysis. But its objective, as set by the author, is to recommend ways in which the US can deal with the emergence of China as an economic superpower. Europe does not seem to matter much to Friedman. Certainly, it plays no real role in his assessment; it’s flyover territory as he visits Beijing and Bangalore and marvels at the economic-technological revolutions therein. Australia also fails to register.

Thus, the Friedman take on the flattened/shrunken world is interesting as far as it goes but it is up to the astute reader to sift through these 469 pages to locate what is relevant to the Australian experience because no matter how much we identify with the US, when it comes to our respective economies there is no comparison and hardly any affinity at all.

From the Future of Work blog (reprint from May 12, 2005 review)

Which brings me to one final point: the implications of the flat world for our established economies, at least in the United States and Western Europe, are incredibly profound. Friedman does an excellent job of highlighting the dismal realities of our education system, our health care system, and our dependence on middle eastern oil in a world that is becoming a global battleground, where our assumptions about U.S. leadership and U.S. ?entitlements? are simply no longer valid.

  From another columnist (? I think). This time the NewYorkPress’ Matt Taibbi (April 27, 2005);

On an ideological level, Friedman’s new book is the worst, most boring kind of middlebrow horseshit. [...] It is a tale of a man who walks 10 feet in front of his house armed with a late-model Blackberry and comes back home five minutes later to gush to his wife that hospitals now use the internet to outsource the reading of CAT scans. Man flies on planes, observes the wonders of capitalism, says we’re not in Kansas anymore. (He actually says we’re not in Kansas anymore.) That’s the whole plot right there. If the underlying message is all that interests you, read no further, because that’s all there is. [A techn skewed view of the world. Unfortunaltely he's not the only one. My addition.]

[...] Friedman is an important American. He is the perfect symbol of our culture of emboldened stupidity. Like George Bush, he’s in the reality-making business (my emphasis). In the new flat world, argument is no longer a two-way street for people like the president and the country’s most important columnist. You no longer have to worry about actually convincing anyone; the process ends when you make the case.

   From an Anthropologist’s perspective, May 15, 2005. (Thanks to Ulises Mejias for pointing this one out):

Ultimately, Friedman’s work is little more than advertising. The goal is not to sell the high-tech gadgetry described in page after page of the book, but to sell a way of life — a world view glorifying corporate capitalism and mass consumption as the only paths to progress. It is a view intolerant of lives lived outside the global marketplace. It betrays a disregard for democracy and a profound lack of imagination.

This book’s lighthearted style might be amusing were it not for the fact that his subject — the global economy — is a matter of life and death for millions. Friedman’s words and opinions, ill informed as they are, shape the policies of leaders around the world. Many consider him to be a sophisticated thinker and analyst — not a propagandist. It is a sobering reminder of the intellectual paralysis gripping our society today.  [comments also in previous post] 

I’m glad to report that the previous policy review presented above, is of a similar point of view.

Note: see comments to  Flat education ? for more.

Recent annotated readings

Partial readings up to November 12

Amblard, H., Bernoux, P., Herreros, & G., Livian, Y-F. (1996) Une sociologie de la traduction. Chap.3, (pp. 127-177). Les nouvelles approches sociologiques des organisations. Paris : Éditions du Seuil.

A closer look at actor network theory an its components (actants, translations, and chains of translations).

Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Chap.1, (pp.1-28). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Borgatti, S.P. & Foster, P.C. (2003) The network paradigm in organizational research. A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29(6), 991-1013.

Thorough overview of how the term network is understood and used in organizational research. Based on a 4 quadrant matrix, the structural dimension is paired with the connectionist dimension that looks at flow of information through ‘conduit’ or pipes (reminds me of Siemens theory.) The structural understanding is seen as a ‘girder’ that shapes (reminiscent of contingency approaches), while the connectionist understanding is responsible for diffusion and contagion. It also looks into levels of analysis, social cognition, group processes, KM, direction of causality, consequences of networks,

Bowskill, N. (2004) Informal learning projects as a vehicle for collaborative professional development in online communities. Proceedings of NLC 2004, Individual Research papers, Networked learning conference 2004, Lancaster University, England, UK, April 5-7, 2004, Lancaster University, UK. Retrieved Oct.10, 2005, from:

I thought I would find an interesting informal learning approach, but instead this study looks at a community approach where a coach is paired with someone who has a project to develop. The learning in this e-communication structure (seen as a community) centers around a project. Mentors and mentoree convene around a project. It does not address contextual difficulties related to project, negotiation factors, power structures that inform choices, if the projects are viable, no word on the process of dialogue other than evidenced in produced docs. Confusion in terms used: project based 2 people teams are not communities, nor is the overseeing of a project necessarily informal.

Cross, J. (2004) Emergent learning. Retrieved Sept.23, 2005, from:

Guribye, F, Wasson, B. (2002) The ethnography of distributed collaborative learning. Paper presented at the Nordic Interactive Research School - Discourse and Interaction in CSCL, InterMedia, Oslo, May 2001. Retrieved May 17, 2005 from: http://newmedia.colorado.edu/cscl/148.html

More about doing ethnography than about collaborative learning per se.

Engeström, Y. (2004) Collaborative intentionality capital: object-oriented interagency in multiorganizational fields.Retrieved November 10, 2005, from:

In Engeström’s newer thinking object centered sociality is becoming more present. Still moving from an activity centered focus, this paper explores concepts of distributed agency in speaking of the coming together of able active actors. From social capital theories, object oriented interagency He also explores the 3 main forms of modern work organizations: markets, hierarchies and networks.

Engeström, Y. (2001) Expansive Learning at Work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualisation. Journal of education and work, 14(1), 133-156.

See entry on blog.

Engeström, J. (2005) Why some social network services work and others don’t. Or the case for object-centered sociality. Retrieved June 12, 2005 from:

Fernback, J. (1999) There is a there there: Notes towards a definition of cybercommunity. (pp.203-220). In Steven G. Jones (Ed.), Doing internet research: critical issues and methods for examining the net. UK: Sage.

Communities as place, as symbol, as virtual and real versus virtual. A number of problems of definitions are presented.

Jones C. & Esnault L. (2004) The Metaphor of Networks in Learning: Communities, Collaboration and Practice. Proceedings of NLC 2004, symposium 13, Lancaster University, England, UK, April 5-7, 2004, Lancaster University, UK. Retrieved March 18, 2005 from:

Good thorough paper

Good thorough paper

Good thorough paper

Jones, C. (2004). Theory and the practices of learning technology. Proceedings of NLC 2004, symposium 1, Lancaster University, England, UK, April 5-7, 2004, Lancaster University, UK. Retrieved October 10, 2005 from:

heory and the practices of learning technology. Proceedings of NLC 2004, symposium 1, Lancaster University, England, UK, April 5-7, 2004, Lancaster University, UK. Retrieved October 10, 2005 from: heory and the practices of learning technology. Proceedings of NLC 2004, symposium 1, Lancaster University, England, UK, April 5-7, 2004, Lancaster University, UK. Retrieved October 10, 2005 from:

Speaks of the eclectic nature of the profession within the practice/theory divide. Talks about trends in employment of learning technologists and the problem of deskilling when reorganizing employment categories.

Law, J. (2000) Networks, Relations, Cyborgs: on the Social Study of Technology. Published by the Centre for Science Studies, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YN, UK. Retrieved June 15, 2005 from:

Lemke, J.L. (n.d.) Metadata Literacy: transforming meanings and media. Retrieved Oct 19,2005 from:

First part of the article most interesting. Looks at the need to open up our ‘literacies’ to move beyond notions of text to multi-media and tech literacies. Lemke proposes a typo (text) and topological (picture) sense making. He launches into an ideological reconstruction of the world in the second part, based on a new information literacy according to an interactive learning paradigm.

Mejias, U. A. (draft 2005) Social agency and the intersection of communities and networks. Retrieved Oct.16, 2005 from:

proposes a social agency view of code which is perhaps the most interesting aspect of the paper. He splits community view where social agency is retained by humans, versus social software environments where code reduces or determines how we relate, which he attributes to networks. He does not seem to be aware of K Knorr Cetina’s work.

Reynolds, M., Sclater, M. & Tickner, S. (2004) A critique of participative discourses adopted in networked learning. Proceedings of NLC 2004, symposium 10, Networked learning conference 2004 in Lancaster University, England, UK, April 5-7, 2004, Lancaster University, UK. Retrieved March 18, 2005, from :

Siemens, G. (September 2005) Designing ecosystems versus designing learning. Retrieved Oct. 23, 2005 from: http://connectivism.ca/blog/32

Siemens, G. (October 2003) Learning ecology, communities and networks. Retrieved Oct.23, 2005 from:

Stahl, G. (2004) Building collaborative knowing: Elements of a social theory of CSCL. Chap.3, (pp.53-86). In J.W. Strijbos, P.A. Kirschner, R.L. Martens (Eds). What we know about CSCL: and implementing it in higher education. MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers

Stahl, G. (in press) Contributions to a theoretical framework. Chap. 11. In Group cognition: computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge MA:MIT Press.

Stephenson, K. (n.d.) What knowledge tears apart, networks make whole. Internal Communication Focus no. 36. Retrieved Oct. 21, 2005 from: http://www.netform.com/html/icf.pdf

Managerial biased paper full of socio flavoured misconceptions: 1) Trust equated with culture 2) Network seen as intra org configuration, 3) “a network is a seamless and invisible web of entrusted connections” 4) Objective for tacit knowledge is to make it explicit for storage and retrieval 5) F2F much interaction 6) People skewed networks (no artefacts )

Paavola, S., Lipponen, L. & Hakkarainen, K. (200?) Epistemological Foundations for CSCL : a comparison of three models of innovative knowledge communities. Centre for research on networked learning and knowledge communities.

Reviews Nonaka’s model of knowledge creating org; Engestrom expansive learning model and Carl Bereiter’s knowledge building framework. Avoids individualism and Cartesian dualism by bringing in artefacts and other epistemological tools. Knowledge building part of a dynamic process. Emphasizes elements of mediation in knowledge creation. Limited by the theories chosen where sociology’s contribution is not evident.

Wittel, A. (2001) Toward a network sociality. Theory, Culture & Society 18(6), 51-76.

Excellent paper that builds on Karen Knorr Cetina’s object centered sociality and post-social theory. She distinguishes between narrative sociality that is closer to communities, from informational sociality that is more shallow punctual and negotiated on a project based basis. She speaks of networking an activity that permeates work and play and renders many relationships instrumental at developing the ‘getting ahead’ network of contacts needed. There are many other interesting nuggets of knowledge interesting to anyone curious about understanding how the permeation of technology in our lives is not only acting as a mediator to social contact but configuring new ways of relating that are techno enabled. I found her understanding of what happens in online communities somewhat limited, while her conclusions leave a feeling of instrumentality to all social contacts when the work/play boundary disappears.

Expansive learning & Actor Network Theories

I recently read : (2001) Expansive Learning at Work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization.

Professor Yrjö Engeström is head of the Activity Theory Research Centre in Helsinki. His (2001) paper is quite interesting as it widens significantly our understanding of what can influence learning in work based situations.

Activity theory has gone through 3 generations that began with Vygotsky (individual unit of analysis), and moved to Leont’ev (group focus). Presently in the 3rd generation it takes a much wider take on influences. This time the unit of analysis becomes groups of groups (Wertsch, Kakhtin, Latour, Russel).

Engestrom’s unit of analysis are networks of communities linked by a need to dialogue in finding solutions to coordinate services across institutions and external services. His particular research focus looks into health delivery systems in Finland.

What I found compelling about his theory is his understanding of the emergent nature of learning. The conditions to helping this emergence is dialogue amongst the parties; discussions that are triggered by an initial contradiction. Expansive learning is the result of uncovering a mutually satisfying means to tackle the need.

It must also meet the condition of multi-vocality– the result of hearing all the ’community voices’ concerned by the problem; inclusive of the end-users or customers. 

A network understanding of significance is reminiscent of the actor network theory ANT of Callon & Latour,  which he only briefly acknowledges in his paper, rapidly discounting the ‘actant’ (the term used to identify the actors or artifacts that are significant in understanding  network coherence) as  black boxes that have no clear internal identity or agency. As an aside I think this is a rather unfair two line acknowledgement of Callon & Latour’s significant work which pre-dates and in my opinion complements Engestrom findings. 

The significant difference between the two who both identify the emergent nature of information organized around some kind of contradiction (Engestrom) or controversy (Callon & Latour), is mainly that the sense making process is centred on solution focused activities for Engestrom, in contrast to discourse for Callon & Latour (through translations the term used to signify the symbolic transformation that is operant in the group sense making processes). Callon & Latour are less concerned with activity or action, than they are with understanding the  knowledge construction processes (through what the authors call translations) of the parts (actants) in the whole (network). Engestrom is interested in a mutually satisfying solution (condition to his expansive learning).

Engestrom’s theory also has a blind area and it has to do with the design conditions that are put into place to facilitate his expansive learning dialogues and how these conditions influence the ‘activities’ that follow. This is one of the black boxes in his theory. 

For a list of references to Callon & Latour’s work, click here. Scroll down the long article.

Finally this long detour brings me to the interview of professor Engestrom. It was recorded in 2002 at the CSALT conference in Lancaster UK.  Source of information: http://csalt.lancs.ac.uk/alt/engestrom/ It is a quick overview of his theory and thinking.

MPG file OR WinMedia file

keeping up to date (trying…)

These entries are to read, interesting finds that need more of my time than I presently have but don’t want to pass up.

To read: notes to myself

Debates on Social software vs Web 2.0

Barb Dybward has two entries:1) Approaching a definition of Web 2.0 From personalization to glocalization and back again. It seems to be an attempt at making sense of Web 2.0. Longish posting, seems thought out (first impressions) many informative graphics & interesting comments by readers.

2) What seems to be a follow up to the first posting : Does social software still mean anything. No really! An excerpt:

Has social software been supplanted by Web 2.0? I’m not the only one wondering about the distinction between the two — danah boyd and Ross Mayfield are grappling with the same existential questions over at the old bastion of social software, Many-to-Many.

On the issue of use and reuse of web content and various media artifacts. Danah Boyd writes:

Part 1 When media becomes culture: rethinking copyright issues Part 2 remix is active consumption not production (when media becomes culture, part 2)

Comments:

I’m wondering about this scanning behavior and how we pick bits and pieces up connecting these into a web of … what exactly? Impressions for sure.

• Are we embarking on a culture of impression given our reduced attention span on any given thing? The proliferation of quick info, clips, blurbs, etc. Hummm! Do we want to promote this in education?

On the remix issue ( I think the term comes from Lawrence Lessig). Not only do I hear this echo in George Siemens (Connectivist theory) but I’m also coming across this in other ed-tech areas.

• Take this posting by Will Richardson from Weblog-Ed who tells the story of a teacher who reported the problem of students blogging test answers between classes.
• His reflection brings him to the conclusion that using what is out there is now fair game in the digital age. That teachers should be thinking of changing their methods instead.
• Not that I don’t agree that some update is necessary but, this patchwork reconfiguration is leaving me a bit perplexed.

I’ll need to reflect on this and… yes read more. But this time actually read the entire thread, posting, article, paper or book! I think that could make a significant difference in my info quilting!

An educational take on Blinklist

I started using Blinklist a number of weeks ago after researching folksonomies, tagging, ethnoclassification and metadata keywords. Del.icio.us is probably the most well known, but I found it ugly (yes aesthetics are important) and not as user friendly as blinklist. I also enjoy working with emergent tools because when in the early beta stage, the developers are eager to get feedback from their users. The list of suggestions I provided was rapidly turned into reality, nice very nice.

A new blog I came across BlendedEdu wrote a rather positive review of Blinklist from an educational point of view. Constructivist enthousiast it seems, the authors note:

“Rooted in constructivist theory, BlinkList is designed to act as a facilitator, providing users with the tools to chunk, scaffold, and organize knowledge in a format that best suits them. In a nutshell, BlinkList opens the path to knowledge instead of being a digital pothole on the e-learning super information highway.”

I must say that I enjoy using Blinklist (click my ‘learning’ tag) very much. I’m thinking of a way to use it with groups and create a collaborative knowledge base. I’ve spoken to the “minds” behind the scenes who are busily creating other interesting aspects to this space. I was invited to beta test something new, still secret unfortunately…. They sure know how to keep the suspense alive. I’ll keep you posted when I can.

Later !!!