Subject: [IFETS-DISCUSSION:1407] SEC: UNCLAS Discussion Summary
From: Laurie, John (john.laurie@defence.gov.au)
Date: Mon 19 Mar 2001 - 05:12:04 MET
From: "Laurie, John" <john.laurie@defence.gov.au> Subject: [IFETS-DISCUSSION:1407] SEC: UNCLAS Discussion Summary Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 15:12:04 +1100
"Distilling a Language for Cyberspace" Summary No.2
March 19
R. White suggests that time and speed of learning are two factors which are
"major hurdles in the conventional chaotic classroom environment" but that
there is greater latitude for individual learning styles in online learning.
Lilly Evans writes in response to a question by Charles Nelson on research
in communication theory(?), noting the work of Marcial Losada in comparing
high and low performance teams where the premise was "that best results are
evidence of the ability of teams to adapt to changing conditions"
She goes on to write that the central finding was an optimum group size of
8, which she interpolates to perhaps 8-links being an optimum in online
conversations . Lilly then quotes Marcial extensively regarding use of the
variables "inquiry-advocacy, other-self, and positivity-negativity" and the
attractiveness and utility of nonlinear dynamics.
(JL Personally, in my F2F teaching experience I found that for discussions,
and tuition which had a physical component (ie. Performance), 7-8 was the
optimum number. However, in lecturing, 30-40 was the optimum size, where the
lecture could be delivered in a focussed efficient manner. In smaller
groups, individuals lacked the anonymity that seems necessary in inculcatory
sessions and larger groups (100+) had such a cumbersome and unstable dynamic
it was necessary to include 'entertainment' to keep them focussed. )
Bill Ellis writes, commenting on previous contributions from Charles Nelson,
addressing "want v. need" and suggests that the school system's assumption
that it knows what young people will 'need' might have once been valid, but
in the age of context and lifelong learning a different approach may be
required. He goes on to expand on this and suggests that "devising
nonlinear paths" is an oxymoron and we need to be prepared for a "diversity
of contexts" rather than following the (false?) linear paths laid out by
society's 'leaders'.
Regarding prior discussion around "the point of maximum learning", Bill
suggests that this term is part and parcel of a past 'content' paradigm and,
if I understand correctly, that it's a static concept in a fluid situation
and at best we can be prepared for "optional maxima".
(This relates to the discussion theme in that perhaps it's a mistake to
regard the on-line screen as containing static 'content' but rather as
delivering information in a suite of fluid contexts - the corollary the
being that affinity with the 'language' of the on-line screen is in direct
relation to one's attitude to it)
Charles Adamson writes regarding the definition of narrative and quoting
Random House Dictionary. He suggests narrative is more than continuity or
sequence, that performing a series of actions is not a story but describing
it is: "...some sort of meta-description of the story."
(JL I'd have to disagree here. Firstly, a dictionary, electronic or
otherwise, defines objects in stasis, and thus promotes an early modern
view of narrative as a linear parade of artefacts. In literature that's
been very much debatable since William Burroughs' first book.. Secondly,
there is no performing any act without describing it, if only to oneself.
Narrative to me is an interior thing. Externalised stories are just one
manifestation. The point being that no series of actions makes sense unless
connected by a purpose. The way humans visualise/conceptualise that purpose
is narrative. It relates also to the context-world as described by Bill
Ellis - perhaps narrative can exist in a vertical as well as horizontal
plane, without the imperative of the clock? )
Charles goes on to suggest possible distinctions for various on-line
elements which might be used "to discuss the context in which on-line
education is conducted."
(As a start point, these might be very useful as variables where subjects
are tested as to the relative 'impedance' of various combinations)
Charles then comments on Lilly Evans' contribution regarding class sizes,
elaborating, through use of a 'curve' metaphor, on his own informal
research.
Laura Czerniewicz writes that the discussion feeds into how to measure
"non-linear learning" and that it's perhaps related to the
"constructivist/instructivist" debate.
She then provides the following URL:
http://www.sri.com/policy/designkt/found.html which contains a number of
studies which may be useful in this context.
Robert Luke writes a very interesting and comprehensive response to my
pre-discussion paper:
RL>>My question would be to what
>>extent is it desirable to have a unified structure, when
>>post-structuralist thought has taught us (Judith Butler included) that
>>any claim to such structure belies a "suspect nostalgia" for a unified
>>and universal(izing) desire to structure thought and philosophy in
>>general. The characterization of the WWW as an "alphabet soup" fits
>>neatly within Eco's conception of semiotic theory, but fails to account
>>for the voice of the Other that may not share this alphabet in the first
>>place. The same applies to online education. The problems with policy
>>development in this area include the need to teach uniform standards
>>(measured against extant curricula) with culturally and locally relevant
>>material. My response here is that Laurie's claims of "dis-integration"
>>as being part of the problem is in fact the reverse: it is the solution.
>>The concern is to what purpose or end does the desired-for "integration"
>>serve?
JL I'd agree entirely. I intended to contrast the "dis-integration" on-line
with "integration" of single linear systems wherever they be found. I didn't
necessarily propose integration of the screen or its disparate elements. I
think I asked myself the question as well, and the more this discussion has
progressed the more it seems that any integration must be found within the
head space of the individual in coming to terms with the context world-view
and that 'interpretation", the hermeneutic aspect, is more important than I
originally thought. If there's physical or 'virtual' integration, it
relates to the transparency Robert writes about further on.
RL>>Certainly it is true that our conception of narrative is based (as
>>implied in the pre-discussion paper with the reference to Butler) on
>>Aristotle's dramatic theory. But this reduction negates the possibility
>>of writing marginalia to this narrative. This narrative is not a static
>>element that acts upon us; we are active players within it. We write in
>>the margins, creating a perpetual palimpsest as we continually
>>(re)define relevance to our daily lives. This is especially true of the
>>WWW. This is indeed "accidental, serendipitous and brief," but need not
>>be confined to such interpolation. Thus narrative is encoded in our
>>language, and vice versa. Debord's notion of the "society of the
>>spectacle" is predicated on an alarmist and decidedly modernist reaction
>>to a pace of technological change. It is a posture of resistance,
>>building as it does on de Saussure et al and the strucuralist imaginary.
JL In the original prediscussion paper I had a graphic which didn't make it
onto the list version. This was an illustration of the "Magna Deorum Matris"
by Athanius Kircher (1652), which in the style of the time was covered with
marginalia imposed on the narrative of the illustration (narrative in that
it 'represented' a well-known linear story by section). The point of this
was to suggest that post-modern online narrative has more to do with
pre-modern practise than modernist linearity. I would agree that narrative
is encoded in our language and thus to find the language we are actually
using on-line gives us the narrative as well. While I'd agree that Debord's
notions are 'a posture of resistance', luddite even, this was to be expected
as Debord understandably lacked any concepts by which he could disengage
from modernism. To me this doesn't negate his essentially true perception of
spectacle and commodity as being the drivers of late modernism, alarmist
though it may be.
RL>>The real issue, as I see it,
>>is to adapt our conceptions of learning to the new realities, rather
>>than impose a false sense of narrative upon it.
JL I agree entirely - any narrative is to be discovered rather than imposed,
and probably found within our conceptions, of learning, of communicating, of
a world of fluid contexts.
Robert also places my reference to McLuhan in the better context of
McLuhan's apocalyptic beliefs - the "medium" being the golden arrow no
doubt, interestingly, replacing "medium" with "context" fragments the single
apocalypse to its current manifestation in the thousands. (The smaller the
grain the smoother the sand).
I think a key point in this discussion is reached in what Robert calls
"transparency"
RL>>Bolter and Grusin (2000) call the process of rendering a technology
>>transparent "remediation, an 'interfaceless' interface, in which there
>>will be no recognizable electronic tools--no buttons, windows, scroll
>>bars, or even icons as such. Instead the user will move through the
>>space interacting with the objects 'naturally,' as she does in the
>>physical world. Virtual reality, three-dimensional graphics, and
>>graphical interface design are all seeking to make digital technology
>>'transparent.' In this sense, a transparent interface would be one that
>>erases itself, so that the user is no longer aware of confronting a
>>medium, but instead stands in an immediate relationship to the contents
>>of that medium" (pp.23-4; see also Levinson 1997, pp.104-14). The
>>concept of remediation is a goal towards which the development of online
>>media is striving, to more seamlessly integrate all people into the
>>technological fold to use all media as a simple fact of communication.
>>And while the notion of pure transparency may be unattainable, it does
>>apply to the idea of digital literacy and using media to access online
>>learning networks. Digital literacy is the transparency of the computer,
>>as well as the skills needed to manipulate the operating system, dialup/
>>Internet connection, and web interface with its attendant iconography.
>>All must be seamlessly integrated into the users' sense of experience in
>>order for this medium to be fully exploited for educational purposes.
JL This relates to the simplest expression of the question asked by the
pre-discussion paper. If the technology was transparent the language would
have become innate.
Virtual reality, 3D graphics, are bound to fail in this quest because the
key is in the user and not the tools. The more technology tries to mimic
reality the further it gets from it, the more complex and harder to
psychologically ingest. Like make-up, or the finals throes of ideology. The
telephone, as quoted by Robert, is transparent and a very simple tool,
which might give some clue. Digital literacy is probably essential, but
calls up questions of equity and accessibility, particularly if the tools
are complex. I doubt though if digital literacy is the transparency of the
computer. Sure it makes it easier to use, but the incorporation of the
concepts of parallel spaces and time, of context relationships, of learning
as accretion and 'weathering', into the individual psyche might be where
the beginnings of on-line language and transparency is found.
RL>>Privateer shows how education has largely
>>been constrained by an Enlightenment notion of information processing:
>>the rote assemblage of factual data that is then re-presented as
>>knowledge. By detailing how new technologies can challenge and produce
>>change within traditional notions of learning, Privateer encourages us
>>to rethink what skills will be necessary for people entering the 21st
>>century. Skills such as information and knowledge management, connected
>>intelligence building, and group management skills are brought to the
>>fore under contemporary rubrics of institutional change and learning.
>>These skills are characterized by an ability to act within the fluidity
>>of what Castells (1996) calls "the space of flows" of the information age.
JL This relates to the previous - particularly that "ability to act within
the fluidity of the "space of flows" of the information age".
On Robert's final paragraph; I do not recall alleging that online learning
had "failed". Perhaps I said it has "failed to..." whatever. I don't
believe it's got to a point where 'failure' could be a valid concept. I
agree that lack of structured flow is a strong point and monocentric
thinking is a hallmark of modernist thought. One of the problems here
though, is that in the world there is a heady mixture of pre-modern, modern
and post-modern all running at once, and the online screen currently
reflects that reality.
Lawrie Hunter writes that "narrative is a kind of document structure, not a
kind of information" and that sequence is the underlying information
structure in narrative. Lawrie goes on to write that in looking for a
language to support online learning the key question is how to situate the
learner in the information "to empower the learner to navigate the
information wittingly"
Doris Sweeney writes regarding "want v. need" and that within educational
circles it's harder to nail down than societally where the original concept
still applies.
Doris also writes that lack of functional literacy will be the main barrier
to implementing the paradigm shift from factory skills to managing
information.
Deidre Bonnycastle provides the following URL FYI:
http://www.ils.nwu.edu/~e_for_e/nodes/I-M-INTRO-ZOOMER-pg.html
Charles Nelson asks for details from Lilly on the Marcial Losada variables
she quoted.
(JL I too would like to know more about these)
The discussion so far is growing into something quite worthwhile and
stimulating. I think we have a consensus about the state of the on-line
screen and maybe some debate about whether its plus or a minus, or just a
given. Personally I'd go for the last option. Perhaps also, in distilling a
language for cyberspace, we should be looking more towards the
psychological and biological basis of learning. It seems that it might have
something to with what performers and sportspeople describe as "that
confidence thing". If so, questions may arise as how to teach that in terms
of online learning. Concepts of accretive learning and 'weathering' (the
heuristic process) may be relevant.
Clearly though, technological development has a key role in maintaining
simplicity and expediting 'transparency', and it might be interesting to
discover what relationship, if any, exists between 'transparency' and
transactional distance theory.
Keep it coming.
John Laurie
Australian Emergency Management Institute
john.laurie@defence.gov.au
---------------------------------------------------------
List address to send message to everyone:
ifets-discussion@catfish.valdosta.edu
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
Forum website: http://ifets.ieee.org/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@massey.ac.nz
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.ieee.org/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Mon 19 Mar 2001 - 07:08:57 MET