You've been framed

Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development theory has long been revered by the education community as a model for describing what happens when we learn in social contexts. Bright young things will know that the ZPD describes the space where, with the help of a knowledgeable other person, they can extend and enhance their learning beyond that which they might achieve on their own. Reading through the recent blog post by Graham Attwell on Vygotsky's theory, I find myself agreeing with a lot of what has been discussed. Graham has a problem with ZPD in that it implies the presence of a teacher or expert. I agree that this is indeed problematic when we view the amount of self-organised learning and user generated content that is proliferating on the Web. It's blatently obvious we don't always need a 'knowledgeable other' to be breathing down our necks as we negotiate meaning and learn for ourselves in informal settings. Lev Vygotsky's ideas were the product of his lifelong immersion in Communist Soviet society, and it's apparent as you read his writings just how influenced he was by the notion of collective action. Perhaps this is one reason why his work was suppressed for so long and only began to emerge as a major theory of learning long after his premature demise.

Enter Jerome S. Bruner, an American academic who repurposed the idea of the ZPD by introducing the concept of scaffolding (often erroneously attributed to Vygotsky). According to Wikipedia, scaffolding is: '...the provision of sufficient support to promote learning when concepts and skills are being first introduced.' It fades away as the learner becomes more autonomous or expert. If we apply Bruner's ideas we illuminate Vygotsky's model in the digital age. Let's think for a minute: on a building site (the analogy used by Bruner) what is scaffolding used for? It's not used to support the building, because that must ultimately stand on its own. No, scaffolding is there to support the building process - and to support the builders themselves.

Let's now consider that the building represents 'knowledge'. We are constructing this knowledge through a process of exploration, modelling, problem solving and reflecting through interaction with artefacts and social processes. Let's assume the builders represent the learner. The learner uses a number of support mechanisms to achieve the construction of their knowledge. Then the scaffolding is brought down as they move on to the next phase of their learning.

The scaffolding removes the problem of needing a 'knowledgeable other'. It also reconciles ZPD theory with Activity Theory, where social processes and influences assume more importance than social presence. Scaffolding can be any tool or service the learner requires at that time and in that context. It can be a mobile phone or a personal computer. It can be a TV programme or a newspaper, a conversation with a friend or even a chance remark that is overheard. Scaffolding frames the learning process, and supports it, and these are the processes that we see with personal learning environments.

Related posts:

Vygotsky, ZPD, Scaffolding, Connectivism and PLEs (Pat Parslow)

Image source

The VLE sucks

The ALT-C 'VLE is dead' symposium attracted a huge audience. It was like the Black Hole of Calcutta in that room, as anyone who was there will tell you. Each of our panel of four presented our cases, some arguing for and some against the demise of the VLE. Funeral notices were issued during the Conference. Heated tirades and hissy fits were traded over the blogosphere for weeks beforehand. The entire event, some cynical commentators would suggest, was hyped more than any other ALT-C presentation. The symposium video has been downloaded and watched by a cast of thousands. Some people actually went as far as to say that the VLE is dead symposium was the centre-piece of ALT-C 2009. Me? I couldn't possibly comment. All I know is that it was so popular that some people wanted us to do it all over again.

So we have now given in to popular demand. On December 16th, at 1pm in a neutral venue (er....the University of Wolverhampton) the panel will go head to head (to head to head) all over again in another heated debate over the future (or lack of future) of the institutional VLE. James Clay will argue that the VLE still has some life left in it. Nick Sharratt will go even farther, suggesting that VLEs are the best thing since sliced bread. Graham Attwell will probably talk the most sense, providing a real alternative - the PLE. I suspect we will again come to no consensus, but don't let that put you off. Variety is the Spice (Girl) of life we never saw - unless it's our chair for the debate - Josie Fraser. This is an open invitation event, and places are limited so book here soon to avoid disappointment.

The only difference is that the Midlands event is entitled 'The VLE is undead' (Official tag for the event is: #VLEundead). Undead hmm? I can actually find myself concurring with this sentiment. Undead signifies a vampirical nature, and institutional VLEs do indeed tend to suck the lifeblood out of institutions, giving little back. This is an important issue folks. The future of education is at stake, and the puncture wounds are everywhere to be seen: Students who are disengaged or bored with homogenous, bland content that sits in the 'Learning Management System'. Disenchanted staff who pay lip service to a lumbering system that very few people really want to use, because either it is too time consuming to use effectively, too difficult to navigate or simply unfit for purpose. The institution suffers too of course, because huge maintenance and upgrade fees and user contract payments have to be forked out each year, from steadily dwindling funds. And of course, just like a vampire, the VLE looms there, really not knowing that it is actually dead. Unfit for purpose.... undead. So I'm changing my mantra. The institutional VLE sucks.

How did we get ourselves into this corporate quagmire? And how do we drag ourselves out? How can we find a more liberating solution to the problems of digital learning? Does lifelong learning need to be as closely managed as it actually is in universities? What is the institution actually trying to protect itself from when it erects these dreadful walled gardens? And where is the University of Wolverhampton? These are the questions we will engage with on December 16th. Bring stakes, holy water and garlic cloves along with you. This is a fight to the undeath. And I am van Helsing....

Image source

The tribal web

This is the final post in the Digital Tribe series, which is abridged from Chapter 6 of the edited volume Connected Minds, Emerging Cultures (2009).

Anthropologists ascribe a variety of definitions to the word 'tribe' and it can be a contentious term. Most are agreed though, that a tribe is a small society that has its own customs and culture and that these define it. This series has explored the notion of digital tribes and clans, and has applied these concepts to those who consistently inhabit virtual spaces. Such digital territories are ideal environments within which new forms of cultural transmission can propogate and sustain themselves. The tribes and clans I have identified, it could be argued, are emerging as a direct result of their sustained interaction with, and through, social technologies.

Attempting to categorise the behaviour of online users into distinct tribal characteristics can be problematic, because behaviour in virtual worlds (and indeed in the real world) is ultimately diverse and often chaotic or inconsistent. When observed in its entirety however, the trails of evidence emerging on the Web can readily support the notion of the virtual clan. Individuals have an inherent need to belong, so groupings will occur naturally in the real world, in families, kinship groups, clans and other social collectives. The evidence for clannish behaviour online is abundant too, as seen in the creation of specific cultural artefacts that identify distinct web user groupings. The tacit gathering around new 'digital totems' to form transient interest groups is another form of evidence (e.g. Ning, MMORPGS, Crowdvine) as is the marking out of territories through the sharing of social bookmarks, the tagging of digital objects and voting for preferences and usability (e.g. Delicious, Digg). Consistent representation of digital identity within specific tools (recall the Facebooker and Flickrite tribal differences) is yet another form of evidence for the existence of virtual clans.

It should also be acknowledged that clans tend to emerge within tribes as cutural definitions and user generation of digital artefacts become more pronounced. There may be one single digital tribe in the broadest sense of its meaning, but an analysis of the virtual world and it multitude of social networking and communication behaviours indicates that there are indeed many subsets of this large digital tribe - they are the virtual clans, and although we shift our allegiances, we may each belong to several.

Image source

En masse, online

This post is a continuation of Wednesday's post entitled: Virtual Clans

Still other virtual clans are emerging from the cultures surrounding online leisure activities such as massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs), strategy games and transnational special interest groups that meet en masse, online. In massively multiplayer online gaming, the ‘clan’ (sometimes referred to as ‘guild’) is the name used to describe a group of individuals who play competitively against other clan groups. One very popular online role-playing game, World of Warcraft, has millions of adherents who compete seriously on a regular basis in guilds with strangers they become very familiar with but never meet face to face. MMORPG clans who engage with war games sometimes name their virtual clans after real or fictitious military divisions or armies. They may further identify themselves as members of their clan by creating uniformly themed avatars (their digital altar egos) to represent themselves within cyberspace. World of Warcraft even introduced digital tabards which could be adjusted electronically to show unique features that identify a particular guild. Members then purchase their own for their avatar to wear, thereby identifying more closely with their virtual kin group.

Furthermore, virtual clans often develop their own closed newsgroups and e-mail listings to keep their geographically distributed members informed. In MMORPGs, clans can identify themselves further by developing their own virtual territories, building businesses, and earning virtual currency (Childress & Brasswell, 2006). They can be fiercely competitive and often take immense pride in their achievements at the expense of rival clans. As virtual clans become larger and more organised they also tend to become more hierarchical, even electing their own leaders – clan chieftains, and developing their own unique ‘tags’ which can be used to visually identify themselves as clan members in text communication.

In Second Life, a 3-D multi-user virtual environment (MUVE) which at the time of writing has reached in excess of 8 million subscribers, there is a distinct differential between those SLifers who own land and commodities, and those who are simply ‘visiting’ and making use of these commodities. The traders and the consumers are a reflection of real life, so in effect, in-world experience mirrors our observations of real life. The use of avatars is a departure from real life with many SLifers participating in the practice of gender swapping. Even more strangely, some SLifers employ avatars that represent themselves as animals of all kinds, some common, some exotic. Still others choose to present themselves as fantasy figures, such as characters with Anime cartoon features, or aliens, wizards, pixies or fairies. Yet the clear distinction in Second Life is between the traders and those who purchase. The SLife tribe thus has at least two distinct clans, and it is highly likely that others will emerge as Second Life and other MUVEs become better established.

Tomorrow: The Tribal Web

Reference

Childress, M. D. and Brasswell, R. (2006) Using Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games for Online Learning. Distance Education. 27 (2), 187-196.

Image source

Podcasting and the listening culture

On Wednesday I was over at the University of Bath, keynoting the Higher Education Academy sponsored Podcasting for Pedagogic Purposes SIG workshop on podcasting. Podcasting is quite a new technology, but its roots run deep back to the broadcasting cultures first emerging in the middle of the last century when radio was the prime method of mass communication. Podcasting taps into an even older culture of listening though - one that can be traced back into the mists of time, where tribal elders and story tellers would gather their clans around a village clearing or camp fire and pass on their values, social mores and traditions through a form of cultural transmission.

On Tuesday night I was invited out by the SIG organisers Jethro Newton, Andy Ramsden, Andrew Middleton and others. I was very pleased to spend some time too with Derek Morrison with whom I had a very interesting discussion over dinner in an excellent Indian restaurant. We were able to bring our own drinks, and we brought our own stories too. One thing Derek said stuck in my mind: He asked what would happen if universities suddenly removed their e-mail services. Very little would change for the students, we agreed. They would simply continue to communicate as usual through Facebook, Myspace, SMS and other non-institutional media. It would be the academics and other staff members who would be seriously affected. There were a lot of conversations, and as I listened, I realised that most of our conversation was indeed storytelling.

And storytelling still remains an important component of 21st century conversation. This kind of cultural transmission continues but now at a quicker pace and also in an ambient manner because it can just as easily be technologically mediated. In the Western industrialised society, we find ourselves in a situation where people expect to be able to walk out of their door, and step onto a bus or train wearing their ear-buds or head phones, listening to their favourite music, talking book or web download. Look around you as you travel to work today and you will see what I mean. The technology mediated listening culture that first emerged in the middle of the last century has come of age, and listeners can now travel through their well trodden urban landscapes whilst their imagination and emotions are stimulated by a very portable, personalised audio system. What is the untapped potential for this type of technology in education? What are the underlying psychological principles? These are questions I tackled in my keynote. The slides from my talk are below, and also available on Slideshare.

Podcasting and the Listening Culture

View more presentations from Steve Wheeler.

Image source

Virtual clans

This post is a continuation of yesterday's post entitled: Digital pervasion and loss of identity.

Virtual clannish behaviour can be observed in a number of ways, but probably most overtly in the subtly distinctive ways in which people use their mobile phones. Members of the mobile tribe can be divided into at least two clans. One clan can be observed holding their mobile phones to their ears whilst another group tends to stare at their devices. This is the audio message clan and the text message clan. The former continue to conceive of the mobile phone as having the same functionality of the fixed line telephone – ‘that’s why it’s called a phone’. The latter have made the conceptual leap of seeing the mobile phone as a multi-functional communication tool, and as we have already seen, have developed their own reduced or slang version of common language.

Another example is the social networking tribe which boasts many clans, such as the MySpace clan, the Bebo clan, the YouTube clan and so on. One particularly interesting comparison can be made between the users of Flickr and FaceBook. The Flickrite kin group generally trades in images (photographs) and members rarely identify themselves using their real names. By contrast, FaceBookers identify themselves using real names and photographs, and coalesce around groups with common interests that are wider than photographs. FaceBookers also have a reputation for being frivolous, and engage in virtual food-fights, ‘poking’ each other and sending silly notes, much akin to the naughty school children who sit in the back row of the classroom. Flickrites are more likely to trade in affirmative comments, the ‘favouriting’ of attractive images and the awarding of prizes in mutual celebration of each other’s photographic skills. FaceBookers on the other hand, are more intent on gathering together as many ‘friends’ as possible – some with strong social ties, many with weaker ties, as they are ‘friends of friends’ or simply random acquaintances.

One virtual tribe will behave in a manner that can be distinguished from other tribes. Clans on the other hand tend to be large ‘kin groups’ that generally involve themselves in an identifiably common practice, but are distinct in some way within this practice. They yet remain a part of the larger social mass of the tribe. Whereas clans represent a part of society, tribes may constitute the entire society. Virtual clans are defined more by the technology they subscribe to, and ultimately, the software they use. Although we are bombarded on all sides by advertisements and corporate images prompting us to subscribe, buy into and involve ourselves in commodities of all shapes and sizes, many of us also have infinitely more choice in what we do, the alliances we make and how we spend our money. As a result of this plethora of choice there are many virtual clans – the distinctions are often subtle, but the clans are different, inspired by different motives, identified by different artefacts and activities, and ultimately, distinguished by different aims and destinations.

Virtual youth clans spend much of their time texting each other on their mobile phones. They may identify their clan more subtlety that through the kind of mobile phone they use, its features and capabilities. They may identify as a part of a clan through the use of specific language and other symbolism. Some virtual clanships are emerging through the choice of social networking service – Bebo users are distinctly different in many small ways to their counterpart clans who subscribe to FaceBook, who are again different to those who use MySpace.

On Friday: En masse, online

Image source

Digital pervasion and loss of identity

This is a continuation of yesterday's post entitled: Always connected.

“We are all digital now” claims Paul Longley of University College London, in a research report (BBC News, 2006). In so doing, he identifies a global digital tribe. Taking into account the fact that much of the world’s population is more than a day’s walking distance from a fixed line telephone, and even allowing for the growing trend toward mobile phone usage in developing countries, or the paucity of computers in the third world, Longley’s claim could be considered contentious. However, where applied to western industrialised nations, it musters some credibility. There is none the less a need to acknowledge the digital divides that are perpetuated wherever technology is applied. Interestingly, Longley’s claim may hold some truth when contextualised in a world where cable and satellite television channels proliferate, digital mobile communication becomes ever more pervasive, surveillance of civil movement and activity is automated, and where digital identification of individuals, commodities and services is becoming common place. The location of a global digital tribe within this landscape is a feature of interest for this chapter.

Longley’s research team identified digital tribes by their socio-economic activities and by the manner in which they used information and communication technologies. Yet there are more subtle distinctions that can be made, particularly at the perceptual and motivational levels of analysis.

There is an argument that due to the process of globalisation, national boundaries (and therefore tribal boundaries) have been eroded to the point that we are amalgamating into a homogenous mass of humanity, and where the last vestiges of tribal identity are vanishing. In essence, the forces of globalisation have amalgamated us all into one tribe. We are living in a ‘corporate age’ runs the argument, in which all of our decisions are being dictated by ‘those who have the real power’. Therefore, wherever I travel, I can find the same fast food outlets, and the same familiar chain stores where I can purchase clothing and footwear I will be comfortable wearing. I can blend into the background because I am wearing a similar style of clothing to the hundreds of other people milling around in the high street, and I will not be conspicuous, because I am eating the same food and drinking from an identical soft drink can as the natives. Have I therefore blended in to such an extent into the local culture that I lose my identity? No, my individual identity remains intact, whilst my individualism is subsumed into the social melange within which I am located. Identity and individualism are not synonymous, even though there are obvious commonalities. The identity argument may break down when it is applied to the formation of a single ‘digital tribe’, but clearly there are many personal identities represented within the tribe. It is quite possible then, that there is in fact one ‘digital tribe’ in the broadest sense of its meaning, but there are many sub-sets of this large digital tribe – what we can term ‘virtual clans’.

Tomorrow: Virtual Clans