Formal Education Online

Call to Action: Go with the flow. (The flow can take us to a revolution and/or a conversation, it's your choice.)

I am a student. I am enrolled for 9 units in the Professional Teaching Certification at the UP Online University. Technically, that is 9 hours of studying per week, one work-day excluding time for homework and other requirements. I am also an educator. I "teach" first year IT students; 2 classes of 3 sections each, 40 students per section.

It is in this context that I post this essay as a baseline on what I think I know about online education. Let me organize my thoughts and outline this essay as follows:
1. Characteristics of online learning today
2. Developments in education
3. Opportunities for change

1. Characteristics of online learning today

Content is no longer king.
Knowledge resources are readily available to anyone for free. Defensive innovations that refuse to embrace The Commons do not realize that they already have lost the war in the clouds.

Connection is king. Curation is queen.
So what now is of prime importance in the Relationship Era and the Age of Conversation? Connection. Connectivism tells us that knowledge lies in the conceptual and physical connections. The connection can be between real entities (an entrepreneur connected with suppliers and customers), ideas (technology and education), or knowledge objects (The Internet, the book you are writing and your best friend's half-sister's colleague's neighbor's expertise in design). Amidst all these points of knowledge and the flood of information that all learners need to deal with, an essential service we desperately need is CURATION. We need experts to tell us which among these things are important to us in different situations and contexts.

Time is not of the essence
Asynchronous learning now provides learners the freedom to schedule their own learning periods. Learning objectives provide the direction and learning tools & resources provide the venues for the actual learning process.

Synthesis rather than Synergy
Learning remains to be more effective and more relevant in a social context. Individual acquisition of knowledge is almost useless in comparison with the breadth and depth of the collective & collaborative process of group learning. The last couple of decades' focus on Synergy has brought us overproductivity, surplus and waste. What we need now is synthesis of the essential components towards sustainability. We don't need more and better. We need just right and good enough.

2. Developments in education

Use of technology has always been frowned upon by educators. From ballpens and calculators, to Wikipedia, Facebook and mobile phones. They/We have tried to resist using these tools in schools. Why??

http://thefischbowl.blogspot.com/2006/09/what-if.html

Education everywhere
Some educators believe that there is no ADD, just an organic need to actively participate in the learning process. Classroom lectures is simply un-engaging to today's learners. We need downloadable knowledge when we need it ala Matrix. To a certain extent, this is now possible. And, that is why hybrid or blended learning easily captures the imagination of both educators and learners alike.

No more teachers
The evolution of the teaching profession is on the brink of getting to the next level. Educators are no longer instructors. We are coaches, facilitators and co-learners. We enhance the learning process by providing affective guidance, critical expertise and experiential context. But, simple person-to-person knowledge transfer is now becoming an archeological artifact.

Accelerated learning
Notwithstanding asynchronous learning, synchronous as well as face-to-face interactions still provide the great advantage of immediate and satisfying feedback from all particants leading to a more active learning environment.

Technology offers a range of collaboration tools that help learning. From the imaginative & effective to the simple and efficient. Brian Solis' conversation prism is a good working list of services available to us.

3. Opportunities for further learning

Open up
Before Google, they used to tell us about the "invisible college" where academics and researchers shared knowledge to solve the world's problems. Now that it's more possible than ever, it is strange that it is the academic publishers and institutions that remain closed. Why is the academe always the last to adapt the advancements that it spawns?

Convergence
Before Facebook, my family would hardly know my officemates and my classmates would never meet my neighbors. Now, we are all in this crazy funky mix of people where apparently an obscure neighbor is the best friend of a good friend from gradschool and a friend of a friend of a friend is potentially my next boss or supplier or client or MMO guild member or love of my life. Initatives like BranchOut has a lot of potential in this sense.

Mob rule
Crowd sourcing is the in thing, but team sourcing is where the learning happens. Focused individuals with common values, interests and complementary skills and resources are bringing us open innovations. Kiva and Kickstarter are showing us the power of the mob, but communities like Gameful.org and MOOCs are showing us the reality of groupthink.

It is an exciting time for nerds and geeks and intellectuals for they/we are now part of a revolution, but it is also a great time to be the common person and find that you don't even need to study to learn. You just need to be part of the conversation. In whatever course you take, revolution or conversation, you will need to connect.

Age of Conversation

Call to Action: Stop arguing. Start conversing.

In the Relationship Era, conversation is an essential part of our connection with one another. As we create our own stories with friends and strangers, we share our own versions of that story. But, what we sometimes miss is that we are all in the same story.

If we bring back our awareness to this unifying principle, then we might be able to forego some of our negative impulses like anger, fear, cynicism and control. Instead, we can start conversations in an atmosphere of shared meaning, mutual trust, true collaboration and openness to be changed.

So as we create the story of our lives, I highly recommend that we stop focusing on monsters, foes, bosses and arch-enemies. The real-life mysteries, painful slapstick, suspenseful deadlines, heart-rending family drama, exploratory adventures, romantic escapades and other true to life experiences should keep our stories enriched for exactly one lifetime, shouldn't they?

This blog was inspired by a TEDx talk by Susan Bird.

Synthesis is the new Synergy

Call to action: Keep it simple, silly.

In the old-old world, we were halves looking for a whole. ½ + ½ = 1 was the equation of our lives. We quoted Tom Cruise and we all wanted to be complete. Then, technology afforded us a little more freedom. With a bit of awareness, we invented Synergy. The paradigm took us from a world of delusion and illusion into an interdependent world of information that needed to be productive. That world is now over. Instead of creating equilibrium, meaning and happiness, our synergistic efforts produced a lot of waste, stress and negativity.

In a world of excess, we no longer need surplus. We need a unified collective. We need curation and decision systems to give us something that works. Something that is good enough. Nothing less, but especially nothing more. We don't need more, we need just right.

In our connected world where content is no longer king, we desperately need to find that one thing that gets the job done. Extra features are just distractions. In fact, there should no longer be extra features. If it does not contribute to a singular experience, or if it cannot be a part of the whole, then it should not be included in a product or service.

We need reliable, credible and trustworthy brands to give us all the plus ones we need when we need them. But, they must not take us away from that one thing we need to do.

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi states in Edge.org, "The idea that will change the game of knowledge is the realization that it is more important to understand events, objects, and processes in their relationship with each other than in their singular structure. Western science has achieved wonders with its analytic focus, but it is now time to take synthesis seriously."


Here's Shea Hembey, taking synthesis a hundred levels up. 

Measuring Trust

Spectrum of Trust on Prezi

In the last couple of weeks, I have skimmed through collections of articles and papers and books that measure the main currency of relationships from different fields. They include but are not limited to Sociology, Economics, Business, Computing, Artificial Intelligence, Transportation, Game Theory, Politics, Law, Psychology, Neuroscience, Genetics, Communications, Physics, and other fields that look into relationships of interconnected entities or nodes that form a network.

My objective was to create a practical guide simple enough to help me plan behavioral strategies to form better relationships. The available evidence is extensive and I will probably write a book about it soon. But, just to summarize, here's what I came up with.

The Trust Spectrum (THRIVE) is a 6-point checklist for building a strong relationship. Each component is necessary in all types of relationships. The quality of each component will determine the quality of the bond between two nodes. Let us start with definitions.

Trust is an agreement of truth or expected behavior given by one node to another. A node is a single entity in a network. It can either be a person, an organization, a product, a piece of information or anything that another entity can relate to or connect with. For example, a husband trusts his wife to remain committed to their marriage. Students trust their teacher to provide them with correct information. A business owner trusts the Internet connection to be operational 24x7. Now on with the components.

Time. A relationship is defined by its lifetime. A strong relationship becomes stronger through time, but a weak relationship becomes weaker without intervention.

Handshake. Different types of relationships will have different types of linkages. The context will include the initial and subsequent intention of each entity for forming the relationship. Individual and collective objectives of the network must continuously be met. Norms & rules based on designated identities of both nodes are also definitive. Control & influence of each entity on the relationship must create a balance of power.

Risk & Vulnerability. Trust is most needed when it is most difficult to give. Every relationship that is formed will require a certain level of risk from both sides. The kind of risk that each entity is willing to take is directly related to the level of vulnerability that they are willing to expose. There are a lot of trust activities and strategies that can be systematized to lower the level of risk and vulnerability exposure.

Individual Node. Integrity. Credibility. Reputation. Authenticity. Sincerity. These are only some of the descriptive requirements to measure the Trustworthiness of a single node.

Value. What is the cost of creating and maintaining this relationship? What are the short- and long-term benefits of being in this relationship? What is the cost of forming connections with other similar nodes? What is the cost and compensation of dissolving this relationship? These are some of the quantitative questions that can be asked when appraising existing and planned connections.

Event. Relationships are also defined by the kind of activities done by one node to the other or done by both entities together. Predictability of the desired behavior is a good measure of the level of trust given and received mutually by both nodes. Security of the connection is also a deciding factor in any type of relationship. Contracts and assurance mechanisms are created primarily to systematize event-related trust issues.

Books and doctoral theses have been written on the topic for several decades now. I certainly cannot go through all aspects of trust in one blog entry. But, I've laid out my framework. So far, I am confident that the THRIVE spectrum of trust is inclusive. So far, all aspects of trust that I have encountered can be neatly placed under one of the components. I will dedicate one blog entry for each of the trust components in the coming weeks.

Here's a very funny and an extremely inspiring talk on giving away your trust for fun and for becoming a part of something bigger than yourself.

The EVE Online Universe Network

EVE Online, one of the most engaging virtual spaces we have. It has over 350,000 active accounts by the end of 2010 with the latest record of 67,000 players simultaneously online. Those numbers are nothing compared to WoW's numbers, but EVE's charm comes from its "player-driven economy." Prices of raw materials to all manufactured goods are determined by the market in the old tradition of supply and demand.

The interesting characteristic of the EVE Universe is that its nodes are location-dependent. This means that each node is immovable and the connections between nodes are semi-permanent. The main variable now becomes accessibility and desirability of connecting with a node.

One of the biggest mysteries in EVE is the popularity of the Jita star system. It is the biggest marketplace on EVE, the only system running on its own server. I hypothesize that a basic network analysis of the connectivity of the star systems would show that it developed into a hub because it acted as a central node to the different  activities that are required for a complete economy (mining of raw materials, manufacture of goods, questing, trading, and yes, piracy).

How To Profit If Your Main Product Is Free

Connectivism has the answer.

Mike Masnick's TechDirt eloquently puts it in an elegant equation:

CwF + RtB = $$$

Connect with Fans and give them a Reason to Buy
This business model has proven to be viable in the past few years with Radiohead spearheading the informal, collective and revolutionary movement. Amidst the continued defensive thrashing of the old establishments (intellectual property, monopolies, scarcity), the band consistently proves that the "fan-driven economy" is viable. 

The Internet is teeming with examples and it's a matter of time for a new post-scarcity economic theory to be formalized. I submit that the new paradigm will be based on Connectivism, which essentially solves Matt Mason's Pirate's Dilemma. Here are a few favorite examples:

1. Free gurus (blog stars): Steve Pavlina, Art of Noncomformity

2. Free songs (YouTube stars): Kina Grannis, Gabe Bondoc

3. Free games (Casual Games portals): Kongregate, y3

Free Lunch

Some commentators observed that if you are not paying for a product, then you are the product. In some ways, that is true. But, the concept of products, producers and consumers are mostly applicable in the old paradigm. In the relationship era, consumers have become co-producers, producers have become aggregators, and products are, for all intents and purposes, free. Valuation now comes from the meaning perceived by the fans that is provided by the artist/blogger/website in the form of purchasable goods or services or Reasons to Buy. Examples are exclusive consumer products like t-shirts, premium services like consulting or speaking gigs, and meaningful content like donations, subscriptions or virtual products.

Value of Relationships
The free product has become the initial spark that creates the connection. The connection is nurtured within the context of the relationship. The relationship is strengthened in time with trust and meaningful interactions. Interactions become transactional when the perceived value is monetized in the form of a book, a song or a plea for donation. The strong connection becomes a long-term access point for the transaction without the overhead costs of the old mediators.

The Answer
A haunting line from the movie Field of Dreams comes to mind, "If you build it, they will come." I never really understood what it meant until now. In the pull economy, the fans will tell you what they will pay for. So, here's the 5-step process on How To Profit If Your Main Product Is Free:

1. Create your free product. 
2. Create points of interactions.
3. Create strong relationships with your followers.
4. Find out which interactions are valuable and meaningful.
5. Monetize those interactions by upgrading them into transactions.

Connectivism & the Relationship Era

Connectivism, the Relationship Era and Games on Prezi

Connectivism is an emergent theory for learning that aptly came out in the relationship era.

During the information age going into the knowledge era, about a decade ago, finding the right information as well as finding the right knowledge assets was key. That's why Google came out as the primary technology that enabled the world to go about their business.

Facebook wins

Now that information is handy, available and readily shared, the new imperative was to find the right people to share it with. Facebook came out as the winner. As we build on the relationships we are continuously developing, we now search for meaning. The early winner, not surprisingly, is FarmVille. But, going beyond virtual produce, we find that learning as a process is being revolutionized. Learning is something we need and learning is something we seem to be needing more and more of. This is just a logical step resulting from the ease of knowledge acquisition and breaking of the barriers of relationship initiation.

Supermodel work

This is where Connectivism comes in. We need a model and not necessarily a theory to work with. The comparison with other learning theories is well and good and necessary to elaborate the details. But, as can be seen in the ongoing theoretical debates, we generally want to have a model we can use. There is a sense of impatience among the practitioners. And, this is explained by Connectivism itself.

Ends and means

In the connectivist learning model, the flow of knowledge is more important than the knowledge itself. In other words, the process is more important than the content. The main reason for this is that there is a constant need for quick adaptation. In this era, knowledge must be directed quickly to where it is needed to be applied. Once it has served its purpose, it is archived and momentarily forgotten. Notice that discarding information is now practically unheard of because once the connection has been made (i.e. something is learned), it will be stored somewhere. The additional task is mere retrieval or recollection.

Let's talk

Going into the connectivist layers, the initial requirement for learning is the communication of two nodes. This connection could even be one-way. Of course, it would be better if the communication cycle is completed via a feedback loop.

ASL pls

In the first layer, we are concerned with the type of communication channels that are being used. It can be physical, conceptual or virtual. Physical channels include electromagnetic fields like line-of-sight, infrared, microwave, radio waves, talking, other physical forces like gravity and even neuronal, endocrine processes and other biological communication. Conceptual channels include friendship, marriage, imagination, ideation, multi-level marketing, governments, social clubs and any other form of organization. The virtual channel was made to delineate connections that are mediated on the Internet. They could be argued as both physical and conceptual, but the main purpose is to be able to look into the distinct processes that can only be facilitated in the cloud. Virtual channels include mailing lists, forums, YouTube subscriptions and other lists, online courses, online games, IRC, BBC, and (I just realized now!) practically every element in the virtual universe, currently dominated by Facebook and Google.

Other concerns in the communication layer are the attributes that allow, improve or hinder the communication process. These would be the amount of traffic that flows through the channel, the quality of the transmission and noise, the integrity of the feedback, the type of feedback mechanisms, and the speed.

Trust Me

The 2nd layer of connectivity is determining the type of relationship of two nodes. It is postulated in Connectivity that stronger bonds produce better learning. A good currency of this bond is trust. This is defined and differentiated on both sides. Aside from the trust given by one node to the other, we also look at the level of commitment of that node to the given trust. Again, it works both ways. Trust is then supported by time and consistency. Relationships are also supported by entrainment. This is the level of similarity, compatibility and synchronicity of purpose of both nodes for maintaining the relationship.

Let's dance

For instance, the nodes of gaming and problem solving initially have different goals. When they are connected the resulting relationship has a high level of entrainment in that having fun facilitates finding solutions and the process creates a utilitarian dimension for having fun. Essentially, one node feeds on the outcome of the other. Another concept of relational bond is entrenchment. Nodes that are forced to remain connected each other are entrenched either by the interconnectivity of their mutual connections, or by the type of their relationship (e.g. marriage, monopolies, mafia).

1 + N = Infinity

The 3rd Connectivity layer is synergy. It describes the value of the connection. The cost of producing the connection must always be less than the benefits that pass through the connection. Other optimization factors are also included in this layer such as critical paths and efficiency. Processes described from other fields, theories and models such as Neuroscience, Connectionism, Distributed Cognition and Artificial Intelligence are included in this layer. Other activities that enhance the outcome of the relationship or learning are also part of the synergy layer. A few examples are promotion, gratitude and play.

Imagine

The 4th layer posits that learning and knowledge can exist without the awareness of the actual connection of the nodes. We are looking at probability and potentiality. Consider yourself and a stranger in Facebook with 50 mutual friends. You haven't met each other in person, but every time you both login you see each other on the side bar under friend suggestions. At some point, both of you at separate times will click on each other's profiles, and find some point of connection. If one of you sends a request and the other approves, learning will have occurred. These would be like the times when you hear something that is so logical you wonder, "Now, why haven't I thought of that?" And, now you have.

Listen

Context is of extreme importance in Connectivism. The environment and circumstances surrounding connections defines the actual value of the information that is communicated through the channels. Some contextual factors are compatibility of all layers, shared resources among nodes and patterns, and productivity of the network and sub-networks.

Let's play a game

The Connectivist model basically allows us to talk under a common framework where we could understand each other more by playing the same language game. Now that we have initiated the conversation, where do we go from here? What do we do? The new generation has already started to answer it for us. The theorizing has come expectedly in the heels of the sprinting era and there is a lot of catching up to be done.

Because, this "relationship era" is no longer a child, but a very young parent. The gaming era is now being born from the connected minds of the kids who either just dropped out of the dysfunctional educational system or got their PhD's in their mid-20s. In the coming years, more and more people will be playing games not just for fun but for work.

Thank you for reading. How time flies when your having fun. Please leave a comment or a question. I'd really appreciate it. :)