Warning: Missing argument 2 for wpdb::prepare(), called in /www/htdocs/w006500c/wp-content/themes/audyasha/functions.php on line 44 and defined in /www/htdocs/w006500c/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 1292
WE/ME in epedagogy design » Inspiration

Archive for Inspiration

ePedagogy(Bar)Camp Barcelona?


The next international Seminar is said to be in the begin of October and should be held in Barcelona (great!).

I thougt about if a BarCamp as a open Structure for this Seminar might be right decision. For those of you who don’t know yet what a BarCamp is:

BarCamp is an ad-hoc unconference born from the desire for people to share and learn in an open environment. It is an intense event with discussions, demos and interaction from attendees.

Anyone with something to contribute or with the desire to learn is welcome and invited to join.

When you come, be prepared to share with barcampers.

When you leave, be prepared to share it with the world.

Source: barcamp.org
In my opinion the Part of exchanging knowledge should be implemented much more in our

__(‘Read the rest of this entry »’)

Comments (5)

iPod for learning

Mobile learning popped up several times in our last international Seminar. Cocerning to that I found a nice article which shows 10 Ways to Make Your iPod a Better Learning Gadget

  1. Put Wikipedia on Your Ipod
  2. Watch DVDs on Your iPod
  3. Load YouTube Videos to Your iPod
  4. Make Other Video Formats iPod-Ready
  5. Convert MP3 files into One Big iPod Audiobook File
  6. Create eBooks for the iPod
  7. Record Web Audio and Move it To Your iPod
  8. Get a Civic Education on Your iPod
  9. Load Maps onto Your iPod
  10. Study Foreign Languages, Take University Courses, and Listen to AudioBooks on Your iPod – All for Free

I like these ideas and may be one of them saves you from organizing last minute christmas presents 😉
Merry Christmas from Hamburg
Merry Christmas
Image Source: welovepandas


Help needed in Hamburg during July

Dear all,

I am sorry to have missed the Seminar in Helsinki in the beginning of June, but I was occupied with a PR campaign in Manchester, UK. I’m writing a bit off topic here, but hopefully our network can also function as a bit of an alumni, even if our graduated student rate is jet low :).

The company I work for, Miltton, is arranging a PR campaign in Hamburg during the second week in July. Now we would need help from local people that are innovative, outgoing, social and who are interested in new approaches toward marketing and media. Naturally my first thought was my co-students in Hamburg. Do you think some of you might be interested in participating in the campaign? We need involvement for 1 – 2 weeks in July.

I guarantee it’s something new and fun. You can e-mail me (clindeberg(a)gmail.com) for more information and please spread this around your co-students in Hamburg, even if they don’t study at the E-pedagogy programme.

And to everyone: have a great summer and I hope I’ll see you at the next seminar!

Comments (3)

Connectivism and paradigmatic shifts

I think there is indeed a ‘demand’ for a new learning paradigma, as it was with behaviourism, cognitivism or constructivism. Technical progress and emergence of medial formats call for some generic term to cognitively and linguistically bundle and handle this plethora of phenomena (add a grain of sarcasm plus a dip of melancholy here, especially concerning the notion of a ‘paradigmatic shift’).
There’s a definitve lack of fitting expressions of what is going on, having led to an explosion of “e”s, “2.0”s, of a turn to hawaian and kisuaheli in webspeak.

Unfortunately, from my point of view – as a sympathiser of radical constructivism – there’s no ‘neutral’ scientific theory of learning, since every learning theory, every teaching methodology has and will always be tainted by the socio-political and the technical reality of its time, as well as by the imagined utopia of its developers and practitioniers.

For this, I was very interested in George Siemens’ presentation of his proposed ‘learning theory for the digital age’, as much for it’s theoretical foundation as for its epistemological tilt.
By reading his text “Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age” (2004), three key topics arose which I had hoped would lead to a lively and critical discussion:
A perceived objectivistic turn, the allocated role of technology, and the supposed new way organisations learn.

Unfortunately, only the first one got some attention, since the time for discussion – 11 minutes (!) to discuss a ‘paradigmatic shift’ – was much too short.

So, my first question about the objectivistic turn was as follows:

“(…) chaos states that the meaning exists – the learner’s challenge is to recognize the patterns which appear to be hidden.” (Siemens 2004)
Connectivism seems to be a rather profound return to an objectivistic concept of knowledge, meaning knowledge can be discovered, instead of being constructed, in the informational noise of networks.
Is this epistemological turn one out of necessesity, to ease the plight and responsibility of the learner/searcher in a chaotic flood of information – one of constructicism’s grave weaknesses? Or does connectivism restricts the discovery to certain areas, where a well-defined outcome at the end can be expected, or is wished for (i.e. formal education, commercial transactions, hard sciences etc.)?
What is the role of digital mechanisms – like search algorithms, knowledge agents, or datamining processes – in discovering ‘the’ meaning, compared to the role of humans? How does a connectivistic paradigma thus change our view on truth, identity and the real?

Owen Kelly greatly helped in asking further questions also concerning the connectivistic handling of culturally independent, objective truths, as did Arie Noordzij, who mentioned Paul Feyerabend’s theories on scientific methodology and progress.
Some outcomes crossed my mind before the discusssion, and I was hoping for a clarification by Siemens:

1.) It’s Siemens’ personal, and therefore intangible position on objective truth, which he had worked into his theories, maybe to counter some deficits in former theories. For example constructivism can’t deliver the learner from irritation and aporia, a serious drawback in the face of an exponential growing dataverse. Although a turn to objectivism is thus understandable, this is from my point of view quite disputable, maybe even risky, at least in the humanities.
After Siemens remarks on discussing objective and subjective truths, this seems to me to be the most likely explanation, because “This discussion leads us away from the path of happiness.” (Siemens).
At some point of the discussion, it reminded me on a very influential political speech from 2002 – though not by Siemens – where there was stated: “Moral truth is the same in every culture, in every time, and in every place.”

2.) It’s a result of a rationalistic and teleological view on the subject of a digitally networked society, a turning to the heyday of cybernetics and information theory, when it was proposed that not only communications, but also ethics could – and should – be expressed in mathematical formulas, to find the one common ground of action every rational human would share. This would seem to be on the one hand a bit old-fashioned, but on the other hand quite viable for a “learning theory for the digital age” when viewed from the actual biologistic turn learning theories are taking (see Christoph Bardtke’s lecture on Manfred Spitzer’s neurochemical/neurophysiological approach).
Personally, I’m a huge fan of the concept of a technological singularity, as Vernor Vinge described it, though it seems to conflict with some of the base tenets of radical constrcutivism.
I ruled this out, since Siemens stressed the importance of human diversity too much for this option, though I can’t be entirely sure.

3.) It’s a near-religious belief of ‘the truth’ being buried in the white noise of networking, to be found by digital means. This is an interesting idea I think William Gibson first turned up with in his Neuromancer Trilogy, where there are several people (for example Gentry) who try to find a godlike Gestalt in the background noise of the cyberspace; a kind of modernized version of the cabbalistic art of Gematria.
This would have been an idea very exciting to discuss in it’s shrewdness, but was certainly out of question.

I’d liked to have the remaining two topics seen discussed, but the time was just too short:

About the role of new technology:

“Behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism are the three broad learning theories most often utilized in the creation of instructional environments. These theories, however, were developed in a time when learning was not impacted through technology.” (Siemens 2004)
Does the relationship between digital processes and human cognition differ from what has been proposed by the ‘cybernetic turn’ in the 70ies? Back then, individual, social, and technical ‘cognitive’ processes were seen as compatible, interconnectible and utopically symbiotic, too.
Is the main difference to cybernetics/cognitivism the letting be of individual human cognition to be fuzzy – and then to harvest this fuzzyness statistically by digital means to find meaning?

About the idea of learning organisations:

“These theories (note: behaviourism, cognitivism, constructivism) do not address learning that occurs outside of people (i.e. learning that is stored and manipulated by technology). They also fail to describe how learning happens within organizations.” (Siemens 2004)
How do digitally organized groups and communities ‘learn’? Is the process the same – but faster – as the one called tradition and transmission, meaning evolutive mutation and selection of social knowledge over time?
Is the digitally organized form of social knowledge the key difference to a constructivist viewpoint that learning is embedded in and situative to a culture (for example Brown et al. (1989), „Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning“), which stores it ‘knowledge’ in form of narratives, habitus, architecture etc.?

I hope these questions will pop up sometimes in our future discussions or lectures.


Visual Literacy: An E-Learning Tutorial on Visualization for Communication, Engineering and Business

Sounds good:

Visual Literacy: An E-Learning Tutorial on Visualization for Communication, Engineering and Business

This e-learning site focuses on a critical, but often neglected skill for business, communication, and engineering students, namely visual literacy, or the ability to evaluate, apply, or create conceptual visual representations. After this tutorial, students should be able to evaluate advantages and disadvantages of visal representations, to improve their shortcomings, to use them to create and communicate knowledge, or to devise new ways of representing insights.