Philosophisches Kopfkino: «Was ist Hermeneutik?» schon wieder?
Interesting video about the most important differences of cooperation and collaboration. Seems like cooperation is basis of any collaboration.
The Open Networked Learning course ONL191 started three weeks ago, and as in every course, there is more to learning just for everyone. On the tools side, a lot has happened this time. The learning environment includes a new website, new group rooms for exchange, file storage and management and a messaging system. Each new structure takes getting used to and is not accessible at first glance or even – as often required – intuitively and immediately usable – without thinking, so to speak. This emerged also in one of our group discussions, and I know it from many many other discussions I had with colleagues. Recently my team colleague sent me a link with an interesting blog post by Dave O White “Against intuitive technology”, and it got me thinking. How can software applications, technology be intuitive?
According to the Cambridge Dictionary, intuitive means “based on feelings rather than facts or proof” or “able to know or understand something because of feelings rather than facts or proof”. Who can understand a software application based on feeling? Of course there is emotional intelligence, an apparent contradiction, but understanding a technical, digital tool with feeling? How is this even possible?
Emotions are physical phenomena. You react physically, for example, when an extraordinary event triggers a certain feeling in you. For example, if you have passed a test, then we feel joy (=feeling) of the body reacts with laughter (emotion). When someone you love dies, sadness and despair sometimes trigger the physical movement of “crying”. Emotional intelligence means that these physical reactions can be perceived and interpreted correctly, that empathy is possible. Here very fine emotions are already perceptible. The better one succeeds in perceiving fine emotional vibrations in interpersonal relationships and in one’s own body, the more pronounced is the emotional intelligence.
But how is something technical, which unites structures, language, numbers, symbols, icons, at all intuitive, thus emotionally perceptible? These applications are constructs, nothing grown. Someone has created the structure and now you stand there and do what someone has thought up. Someone has invented how a user of this application navigates through the content levels in order to get to the desired position. There is nothing emotional per se, except perhaps enthusiasm about a successful interface or anger about unclear labelling. But in itself there is nothing emotional in it that can be perceived with feeling, i.e. that can be operated “intuitively”.
Isn’t this similar to language? As linguists have known since De Saussure, the meaning of words is completely arbitrary. The word house with its spelling h-o-u-s-e in no way refers to the material object “house”. Nothing in the word itself tells us “intuitively” that it must be a house. It could just as well be called Kaus. Or flax. Or something else. Every word in every language is composed of meaningful elements, and there is consensus about what the word means. Consensus has not grown emotionally, nor has it grown biologically. So a word is a code for an object, a fact, a phenomenon or something that people talk about. Language has nothing intuitive about it. No feeling can decipher what a word means. You have to learn it. The more languages you speak, the more analytically you can decipher meaning if you recognize certain parts of a word. But here, too, you have to become aware of the specific consensus in the language in question in order to understand the word in context. Language, with its structures – semantic, syntactic, grammatical, etc. – is analytical. Language can indeed trigger feelings, yes, if the author succeeds in doing so. Someone can speak emotionally or express emotions through language, yes. But language itself is not emotional and cannot be understood intuitively. Language is a code that allows us to describe the world. You have to learn this code. As with language, in my opinion it is also about technology and digital tools that serve a certain purpose, e.g. communication or the transfer of money. They are media. Here, too, you have to analyze connections in order to understand how they work.
An icon as an image represents a process. Which “image” symbolizes which process is based on consensus, as is language. Whoever grew up in the eighties still knows what a floppy disk is, and it is perfectly clear to them what the icon symbolizes, namely “store”. Children today, on the other hand, must learn what the “floppy disk” icon means. It must seem completely arbitrary to them. Many of them don’t ask why the process of “saving” is represented by this strange angular thing. You may not even know that there is a historical reason for this, or that the people who have loaded the icon with this meaning have at the same time ensured that the following is (still) true today: [disk] = save.
Icons such as floppy disks, the small house for “home” (=start page of a website) or the letter icon for “email” are today central elements of the interface design of software applications and have nothing intuitive or emotionally perceptible about them. Rather, they are learned things:
What many call intuition in their lives is almost always something that has been learnt. Beyond basic responses, such as a baby throwing its arms out (…), much of what we think of as intuition is simply stuff-we-have-learned-and-then-forgotten-we-learned.*Dave O. White: Against intuitive technology, 2015.
So this is what I say to the members of my pbl group when they say that they don’t know: You can’t. You can’t just know. You have to learn, as we all do! And that’s OK!
#intuitive #tools #design #languageasacode #onl191
Der Open Networked Learning Kurs ONL191 ist vor drei Wochen gestartet, und wie in jedem Kurs gibt es nicht nur für die Teilnehmenden Neues zu lernen. Auf der Seite der Tools hat sich diesmal einiges getan. So beinhaltet die Lernumgebung eine eine neue Website, neue gruppeneigene Räume für Austausch, Dateiablagen und -management und ein Nachrichten System. Jede neue Struktur ist gewöhnungsbedürftig und nicht auf den ersten Blick erschliessbar oder sogar – wie oft gefordert – intuitiv zugänglich. Und überhaupt, was bedeutet “Intuitiv” im Zusammenhang mit Technologie?
Laut dem Cambridge Dictionary bedeutet intuitive “based on feelings rather than facts or proof” oder “able to know or understand something because of feelings rather than facts or proof”. Wer kann mit Gefühl eine Software-Anwendung begreifen? Natürlich gibt es emotionale Intelligenz, ein scheinbarer Widerspruch, aber ein technisches, digitales Tool mit Gefühl verstehen? Wie ist das überhaupt möglich?
Emotionen sind körperliche Phänomene. Man reagiert körperlich z. B. wenn ein aussergewöhnliches Ereignis ein bestimmtes Gefühl in uns auslöst. Wenn man zum Beispiel eine Prüfung bestanden hat, dann fühlen wir Freude (=Gefühl) der Körper reagiert mit Lachen (Emotion), Jauchzen vielleicht. Wenn jemand stirbt, den man liebt, löst Trauer und Verzweiflung manchmal die körperliche Regung “weinen” aus. Emotionale Intelligenz bedeutet, dass diese körperlichen Reaktionen richtig gedeutet werden können oder dass Emotionen überhaupt wahrgenommen werden können, dass Empathie möglich ist. Hier sind sehr feine Regungen schon wahrnehmbar. Je besser es einem gelingt feine emotionale Schwingungen in zwischenmenschlichen Beziehungen und im eigenen Körper wahrzunehmen, desto ausgeprägter ist die emotionale Intelligenz.
Wie aber soll etwas Technisches, welches Strukturen, Sprache, Zahlen, Symbole, Ikonen vereint, überhaupt intuitiv, also gefühlsmässig wahrnehmbar sein? Diese Applikationen sind Konstrukte, nichts Gewachsenes. Jemand hat die Struktur erstellt und nun steht man selbst da und vollzieht nach, was sich jemand ausgedacht hat. Jemand hat sich ausgedacht, wie eine Benutzer/innen dieser Anwendung durch die inhaltlichen Ebenen navigieren, um an die gewünschte Stelle zu kommen. Hier gibt es nichts Emotionales per se, ausser vielleicht Begeisterung über ein gelungenes Interface oder Ärger über undeutliches Labelling. Aber an sich gibt es nichts Emotionales darin, das sich mit Gefühl wahrnehmen liesse, also “intuitiv” zu bedienen wäre.
Verhält es sich hierbei nicht ähnlich wie mit der Sprache? Die Bedeutung von Wörtern ist, das wissen die Linguisten seit De Saussure, vollkommen arbiträr. Das Wort Haus mit seiner Schreibung H-a-u-s weist in keiner Art und Weise auf das Objekt “Haus” hin. Nichts im Wort selbst sagt uns “intuitiv”, dass es sich um ein Haus handeln muss. Es könnte gerade so gut Kaus heissen. Oder Lein. Oder irgend etwas anderes. Jedes Wort in jeder Sprache ist mit bedeutungstragenden Elementen zusammengesetzt, und es herrscht Konsens darüber, was das Wort bedeutet. Der Konsens ist nicht emotional gewachsen und auch nichts Biologisches. Ein Wort ist also ein Code für einen Gegenstand, einen Sachverhalt, für ein Phänomen oder für etwas, worüber sich Menschen austauschen. Sprache hat also nichts Intuitives. Kein Gefühl kann entschlüsseln, was ein Wort bedeutet. Man muss es lernen. Je mehr Sprachen man spricht, desto analytischer kann man sich Bedeutung entschlüsseln, wenn man gewisse Wortteile wiedererkennt. Aber auch hierbei muss man sich über den spezifischen Konsens in der betreffende Sprache bewusst werden, um das Wort im Kontext zu verstehen. Sprache ist mit seinen Strukturen – semantische, syntaktische, grammatische usw. – analytisch. Sprache kann zwar Gefühle auslösen, ja, wenn dies dem Autor oder der Autorin gelingt. Jemand kann emotional sprechen oder Emotionen mittels Sprache zum Ausdruck bringen, ja. Aber Sprache selbst ist nicht emotional und kann auch nicht intuitiv verstanden werden. Sprache ist ein Code, der es uns erlaubt, die Welt zu beschreiben. Diesen Code muss man lernen. Wie mit Sprache geht es meiner Ansicht nach auch mit Technologie und digitalen Tools, die einem bestimmten Zweck dienen, z. B. der Kommunikation oder dem Transfer von Geld. Es sind Medien. Auch hier muss man Zusammenhänge analysieren, um zu verstehen, wie sie funktionieren.
Ein Icon, welches einen Vorgang symbolisiert, steht stellvertretend für einen Prozess. Welches „Bild“ für welchen Ablauf versinnbildlicht, beruht ebenso wie Sprache auf Konsens. Wer in den achtziger Jahren gross wurde, weiss noch, was eine Diskette ist, und es ist ihnen vollkommen klar, was das Icon symbolisiert, nämlich „speichern”. Die Kinder heute müssen hingegen lernen, was das Icon “Diskette” bedeutet. Es wird ihnen vollkommen arbiträr erscheinen. Viele von Ihnen kommen nicht auf die Idee, zu fragen, warum denn der Vorgang „speichern“ durch dieses komische eckige Ding vertreten ist. Sie wissen womöglich gar nicht, dass es einen historischen Grund gibt dafür, bzw. dass die Menschen, welche das Icon mit dieser Bedeutung aufgeladen haben, gleichzeitig auch dafür gesorgt haben, dass heute das Folgende (noch) stimmt: [Diskette] = speichern.
Solche Icons, wie Diskette, das kleine Häuschen für Home (=Startseite einer Website) oder das Brief-Icon für E-Mail sind heute zentrale Elemente des Oberflächendesigns von Software-Applikationen haben nichts Intuitives oder gefühlsmässig Wahrnehmbares an sich. Es handelt sich vielmehr um Gelerntes:
What many call intuition in their lives is almost always something that has been learnt. Beyond basic responses, such as a baby throwing its arms out (the Moro reflex – although here I may have moved from intuition to instinct), much of what we think of as intuition is simply stuff-we-have-learned-and-then-forgotten-we-learned.*
*Dave O. White,Against intuitive Software
Reflection on Topic 5
In the last section of our online course ONL181 we thought about what we have learned. For me, it’s mainly two insights that I take with me and want to continue working on.
One aspect is diversity. There’s no need to explain that we’re all unique and different, that we have different learning styles and that we record content through different channels. While some are primarily visually receptive, others prefer analysis through text, others use their ears to focus on a topic. We usually use multiple channels.
The question that concerns me is how we address diversity in teaching and learning settings. The main question here is how students can perceive their diversity and use it profitably.
One idea would be to include diversity as a topic for reflection right from the start. At every opportunity for reflection, students would also think about diversity and formulate ideas as to how they can best learn themselves, how they can differ from other approaches and how they can learn from others. They should also discuss what they themselves have to offer and how they can support others.
In this respect, we are moving here on the level of reflection, where diversity is a theme.
On the other level, learning facilitators should draw attention to diversity and encourage groups to discuss how diversity in the group enables or even simplifies learning. For example, awareness of diversity in the group could make students more self-confident, as it could lead them away from a right-wrong mentality.
In our group we had many levels of diversity. One is that we all live in different countries, that many of us live and work in a different country than when we were born. So there are some cultural differences in our group. This diversity already manifests itself in the language. Only one person was a native English speaker, for everyone else it was a foreign language. In addition, each English of the other group members has a different character (accent; syntax etc.). [Google map link: https://goo.gl/3BB8pV]
Another aspect of diversity was that one person in our group repeatedly distanced herself from the academic world by stressing that she had no academic background. However, she was very experienced in working in groups via webinars and video conferencing and was able to successfully bring her competence to bear. Her business background also allowed her to ask very specific questions and to steer our discussion in a new direction, which might not have worked so well if she had not been in the group. So happy to have had her in our group!
Embracing diversity in a constructivist environment
One way to address diversity in the learning group is a constructivist didactic design. Constructivism is based on the assumption that every person has to develop his or her own understanding of a certain content and can and must refer to his or her own experiences, abilities, skills and attitudes. If something does not exist in the constructivist world view, then it is the absolute truth. Von Förster has already pointed out that “the truth […] is the invention of a liar” (Von Förster, 1998). In constructivism, learners construct their knowledge, their competence, based on existing research and knowledge. However, this also means that one’s own construction of reality is based on reasoning and argumentation. Constructivism does not mean laisser faire, that everything is allowed. On the contrary, the challenge is to ask oneself one’s own questions and to find one’s own approach to a topic based on scientific criteria. It is essential to be aware of the differences in the group regarding the approach to a topic and even to accept diversity as an object of learning itself.
In this respect, diversity is even a constitutive element in the learning of the individual. It has been to my everyday life for a long time now. Nevertheless I am surprised that I did not let it flow more prominently into my educational environment. In this sense, this is a beautiful process of increasing awareness of an aspect of teaching that I don’t want to miss out on in the future. In my opinion, this is the right direction, especially in university teaching, to give students more responsibility for their own learning in the future and to free teachers from the restricting feeling that they are responsible for the learning success of their students.
Literature and Links
Von Förster, H., Pörksen, B. (1998), Die Wahrheit ist die Erfindung eines Lügners. Gespräche für Skeptiker. Heidelberg (Auer).
Holzl, A., (1999) DESIGNING FOR DIVERSITY WITHIN ONLINE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS;
After deciding to start from the second Scenario of Topic 4 our discussion began with the question what was the difference between face-to-face learning and online learning. So, what is different?
In classroom teaching, people always face each other, work in F2F groups, or work alone at home. In online learning settings there is also the possibility to learn F2F by meeting virtually at the same time as in a video conference or a webinar. Although videoconferencing is not the same as being present in the same place at the same time, there are many parallels. Voice, for example, facial expressions and gestures are preserved, as are paraverbal signals. What is omitted is body language, although this is also partly perceived. Perhaps our brain and above all our history of perception are also important. We have so often perceived body language in classrooms, in the office, at home that we are able to complete partial perception. Gaps are automatically completed by our brain. This also applies to the complete body language when voice or speech-ductus are perceived.
Perhaps we can also see the difference by asking ourselves what the properties of the elements are in learning design and looking at how and where exactly the differences are.
In the following I try to determine such differences. I start with the nine W-questions of didactics, which Hilbert Meyer formulates in his work “Didaktische Modelle” (2009). After Meyer, nine questions starting with the letter W in German describe actually, what didactics is all about. By answering those questions, you already can describe a part of your framework for a certain learning objective. Translated into English the questions are: who learns what from whom with whom, when, where, with what (by which means) why and how (German “wie”).
|Classroom Learning||Online Learning||Difference (1=yes; 0=no)|
|What||learning objectives||learning objectives||0|
|Why||learning objectives||learning objectives||0|
|Where||in the Classroom||anywhere||1|
|When||At the same time||at different times||1|
|from whom||teacher/facilitator and peers||teacher/facilitator and peers||0|
|with what||media in the class, also computers tablets, internet||media for the course;
internet communication tools, resources
|how||Methods for classroom teaching||methods for online teaching and learning||1|
From the table above we can see that the WHEN, WHERE and HOW differ with respect to face-to-face learning and online learning. This may sound like little, but it has consequences.
The communication must be possible with a time delay (this concerns WHEN). It must allow contributions to be made, discussed, replied to, quoted etc. if others have already posted their contributions hours or days before. This means that if communication is to take place at different times, it must take place either in writing or via recorded audio or video. Until now, written communication was widespread, e.g. via forums. These contributions are also stored and can be seen, heard or read at any time and several times.
With regard to the WHERE, the difference lies in the fact that one no longer necessarily has to come together in order to work together. Together with the temporal displacement of communication, new possibilities of cooperation arise. The fact that contributions are no longer ephemeral, as spoken language is in face-to-face conversations, but rather stored and repeatable several times, makes us more independent of time and space.
As in the table above, the HOW has even more consequences, they concern the methodical implementation. There are many possible ways of doing this. In the course of the ONL181 course we got to know different methods. One of them is that of the course itself. The Problem Based Learning (PBL) allowed us to deal with a realworld case and to formulate our own view on it. So there was always something to work out, because we could start from ourselves. The rest was, in a nutshell, our group discussions in the online conferences and our individual reflections on it.
Another method was presented in this topic 4: Gilly Salmon’s 5-step model of online learning, which describes the process a learning group goes through online and how to facilitate it. This model can also be used as a planning basis for an online course. Together with Salmon’s model one can use the good old Bloom’s taxonomy of learning, adapted for the digital age (Churches, A.). The taxonomy consists of learning objective-verbs that can be translated into online activities.
The many other online resources we shared during this course reveal a rich and complex world of online learning models and methods. Happy exploring and experiencing in your classes!
Bibliography and Links
In topic 3 of our Online Networked Learning Course 181 we discussed our collaboration online in the PBL group. We realized that we still cooperated so far, but that it was not really a collaboration in the sense of a common result where everyone contributed to the whole work. We did our own part and put it together very much like a puzzle with it’s pieces forming some sort of a whole result. During our first two topics we had one person at the end of the cycle to create the presentation. Google slides is good but if you dont like them then check out an alternative called Vantiq
In order to change this we decided to change the tool and use one truly collaborative tool like Google Slides where we could work on all the content at all times. On top of this we started using Trello, a task management group ware for online collaboration. For messaging or posting additional information or content we still used Google+.
The idea was basically that we wanted to get a more homogenuous work, something emerging from our group as a whole. We did have some discussions about how to get there. One idea was not to distribute tasks and then put all the puzzle pieces together but to z^take on the tasks individually that were compelling, following our own interests and questions. The second step we took was commenting on every contribution so that the slides themselves could be revised.
At the end we rearranged the slides to one presentation.
Still. We stayed on the level where the slides were all someone’s slide. We did not dare to change the slides themselves but only commented or discussed more until we thought to be done. So my remaining question is as follows: Is there a way to go one step beyond and dissolve authorship in a sense that we would be allowed to change what a group member had written and composed (and dare to do so). Maybe the only rule would be that we all would get our turn to try to improve the presentation in clarity, conciseness and explanatory power and leave what we thought served the content as a whole.
To me the difference between collaboration and cooperation is this: The puzzle is not the result of the group but of their members working together. Putting the pieces to one does not necessarily lead to one homogeneous and fluid new content. Contrarily to this, a real collaborative piece of work would look like a swirl where even different colors are in the end part of the whole figure in which the remaining colors represent the diversity in the group. The next stage would be the brown swirl where all the colors mix up together culminate in one last color owned by the group. When the colors in the image still represent our diversity in the group, a brown or black swirl there would mean the resolution of the individual in the group.
Wer are not there yet. Also I am not sure if the monochrome was the answer or even an ideal outcome. Something I learnt during this course is the importance of diversity in (learning) communities or groups which is supported by research*. You learn from the difference and not from what you already know. This sounds simple maybe, but actually it is complex and sometimes even difficult and hard. I remember that I had moments in my life when I was unable to continue working with a person because we couldn’t consent on how to work together or even what to achieve. Today I am convinced that it was not the persons involved but the fact that we did not try hard enough or that we followed the wrong ideas of how to work together. Accepting diversity is the first step. The next one is to negotiate and agree on rules, procedure and how to communicate. It takes time. And sometimes it hurts. But once you succeed the result is much more satisfying and probably also just better.
*Brindley, J., Blaschke, L. M. & Walti, C. (2009). Creating effective collaborative learning groups in an online environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3).
Kozar, O. (2010), Towards Better Group Work: Seeing the Difference between Cooperation and Collaboration. English Teaching Forum Nr. 2, p. 16-23.
Working with teaching staff and faculty we often think about digital skills in education. But digitalization is not limited to learning and teaching, but to life in general. We all constantly live in a hybrid space where material world is enhanced or even complemented by virtual space. It often is described as augmented reality (or virtual reality, if the material space is explicitly excluded). Surprisingly a considerable number of our teachers still refuse to deal with this digital reality. They are still convinced that the material world is the real world, and the virtual world is unreal. Even though relationships between students and teaching staff find their manifestation in the virtual space, tasks or problem solving are represented or even done online, the virtual element of our environment is often still denied.
When it comes to elearning or blended learning there is scepticism towards new skills and competence to be acquired individually because of the required effort. But anything new to be learned requires effort and time, as our brain has to find a way to incorporate new knowledge and new skills to new competence which often requires some personal experience. Some of my colleagues seem not to be concerned enough that they could be left behind one day soon, and they decide not to deal with digital learning at all. It seems somewhat surprising that some colleagues still think those techniques and skills are required in the future, but not now. The resistance is considerable, as well as the gaps opening up between the different (and heterogeneous) groups of users. Even more surprising is the fact that people seem to reside in different times, different eras: some are still residents of the industrial age even though some are still young, some have arrived or are born in the digital age, shifting even at quite an old age already.
During my research of digital literacy I found several articles or concepts as well as different approaches. First there is already the term that is used for the range of competences and skills summarized by digital literacy. In the German speaking part of Europe media literacy is often considered as a former term for digital literacy – and therefore used as a synonym.
One approach developed by the Austrian Professor of Digital Teaching at Krems, Peter Baumgartner, develops a very broad picture with nine dimensions of digital literacy for teaching. The competences described refer basically to the field of teaching and learning in education, and not to a larger scale of scientific or other professional work or even life in general. As mentioned above the term media literacy used in Baumgartner’s paper is a derivate of the old equation media = bearer of any kind of (digital) content.
In Baumgartners conception, media literacy (synonym of digital literacy) contains the following nine fields:
- media didactics
- media education
- media ethics
- media design
- media informatics
- media communication
- media critics
- media theory
- use of media
all of those fields located in education have to be acquired by both, teachers and students. Thus, teachers and faculty has to be competent and performing in all those fields. It implements all the abilities of the 21st Century skill palette from Critical Thinking (education, ethics, critic, theory), Communication, Creativity (didactics, design, educational media production) and Collaboration (use of digital media). There is the critical approach, the productive aspect, the learning outcomes, as well as knowledge in jurisdiction and ethics.
The broad field of media literacy in general mirrors the extent that our society is concerned by digitalization.
Digital literacy as a general skill
A similar picture of seven elements is pointed out by Jisc organization. Their concept uses newer terminology in my opinion, but the competence fields for a successful development of digital literacy are similar:
In this concept the term “media literacy” is not used as a synonym for all the “digital literacy” as in Baumgartners conception, but only for one field of use and production of digital media. All the other competences are somehow digitalized general soft skills that are not bound to certain scientific or professional knowledge but describing a personal approach to it that some of us might need. The Jisc layout of digital literacy shows a much broader view and applies to professional life as well as life in general. ICT literacy for instance touches every field of daily life from talking to your relatives, going shopping, voting, paying bills to getting a book in the library. Information literacy is a crucial skill of today’s professional and personal life and not limited to education itself.
To me the fact that digital literacy touch everyone today, young and old people here and there and not only the future generations points out the importance of competence development in the area of digital media and applications today. The digital age has arrived. The future is now.
Baumgartner P., Brandhofer, G., Ebner, M., Gradinger, P., Korte, M. (2015), Medienkompetenz fördern – Lehren und Lernen im digitalen Zeitalter
Developing Digital Literacies, Jisc organization (project 2011-2013)
While we worked on openness in learning during topic 2 I realized that this was something completely different than our still very classroom centered (and therefore teacher centered) and LMS-driven elearning environments. Open Network learning is open in many ways. While a classroom centered LMS is an image of a brick and mortar school, an open network finds rarely an exact material counterpart. Open networks just connect people and content in new ways. We discussed open or openness on a personal, an institutional, a legal and a technical level, but also on an architectural level, where the question is, how material and virtual space create a new hybrid space in wich we all move around constantly.
The hybrid space is a combination of material and virtual space, and we are already in the midst of it. We write an email on our very real computer and send it away to a server for the recipient to get it there. Of course he or she does not go there in person to knock an a door and ask for the email sent to him/her, we enter the virtual space to read what has been delivered. Who is not member of Whatsapp or Trello groups in order to manage day care for the children or manage a family? Who has been in the situation to buy a ticket for a concert and get a digital ticket on your smart phone to be scanned at the door? The situation are many and we all get it: virtual and hybrid space are real!
How does the fact that we are all the time in a hybrid space change our brick and mortar architecture of institutional buildings, or how should it change? Let’s try to have a look into the year 2028, ten years from now:
We don’t need no classrooms anymore where classes are all the same size and the same age, where all the students have to learn the same thing at the same time. Students get topic to work on sometimes with given tasks, sometimes with their own tasks and focuses. Lectures and introductions are in the net everyone knows what to read, watch or listen to to start with work. Team building is a part of students daily business. Whenever they feel the need they meet in open spaces to work on a topic. Then they organize their team work online, discuss rules and go home to work individually or catch up later online, share work in the cloud. The next day they don’t show up, they continue to work together online. When we feel the need of a meeting, they meet. If not, they don’t. Our teachers are our facilitators. We are able to contact them at any time. We trust them to answer our questions or help in other ways, as coaches, as mentors. Once a week we have a meeting online with our professors or mentors where we talk about our work and how to proceed.
In the future all those classroom buildings where spaces have exactly the same size will disappear. The floors of the buildings will be transformed, walls will be teared down. There will be are much smaller spaces for group work, even closed spaces for coaching or counseling with personal coaches and counselors. But there will also be large spaces with diverse subspaces with transition areas to the outside.
At the same time a Wifi access will be part of this new kind of space. The cloud you work in is permanently present and part of that space. But also other individuals are present, reachable, accessible: experts, your professors, mentors, tutors, coaches, counselors… your peers. We’re almost there, but it’s on you to build your own network, much more than ever before. This is what we have to learn at school though, yesterday, today. To be ready today, tomorrow.
The future is now.
Edinger, E.-C., Reimer, R. T. D., Thirdspace als hybride Lernumgebung. Die Kombination materieller und virtueller Lernräume. In: Erwachsenenbildung und Raum. Theoretische Perspektiven – professionelles Handeln – Rahmung des Lernens, Reihe: Theorie und Praxis der Erwachsenenbildung, Bielefeld: DIE. S. 205-2016.
When I publish a video on our server, I am asked, which license I want to attribute to my video. I always hesitate, as I don’t really know which license to choose. I want the videos to be watched, and why not also used by others to explain the same. But I don’t want anybody to sell them (what would not happen because the video is published in a branded environment and not interesting for commercial use) and also the video should not be alterated, neither by our staff nor by others. So which one is the right one?
To decide I watched the video by WatchNow Videomagazine, where the licences are explained:
Following these explanations I decided to use the following licence in the future:
Someone must refer to my authorship and is not allowed to make money with it.