My perspective at the end of Week 1 is that we have had a successful week - but who's to say? This is just my perspective and I can only compare to previous experience and to my own personal expectations. There will inevitably be alternative perspectives.In setting up this blog, I wanted to explore to what extent I could become and be perceived as an equal learning partner in an online course in which I have the facilitator role and to explore the tensions that naturally arise in online courses, which may extend to face-to-face courses as well.
My role: Am I learning? Yes I am - a lot. There have been so many thought-provoking posts, providing alternative perspectives. Am I perceived as an equal participant? I'm not sure. I doubt it and wonder whether it can be a reality in a tutor/participant relationship. Are there any examples of this in the history of teaching and learning? I will have to explore this further.
I have only received a few direct responses to my own posts and only one challenge, which was great. It really set me thinking. Research shows that it is extremely difficult to encourage constructive criticism (challenge) in the online environment. People are so keen to adhere to Netiquette guidelines that trying to engage with constructive criticism is a bit like 'walking on eggshells'. So here we have the first tension. A tension between social etiquette and moving learning on, whether that tension be between participants or between facilitators and participants. The fact that both are important is the reason that Etienne Wenger in his work on Communities of Practice talks about dualities and not about tensions.
The course: It has been such an interesting week and for me as a participant and as a facilitator/observer, I can see (from my perspective and interpretation) a few tensions/dualities emerging.
1. Peripheral to core participation (Wenger's terminology, which I think is better than insider/outsider). In the whole group we are already beginning to see those who stay on the edges and those who get into the thick of online interaction. This is normal. But how does it feel from the participant perspective? Does being at the core feel like too much responsibility? Does being at the periphery equate to feelings of isolation? Not everyone can be at the core (can they?), neither can everyone be at the periphery (?) so how do we keep the balance so that everyone feels comfortable? Ideally people would be moving between core and peripheral to suit their needs but I'm not sure whether this works in practice.
2. Theory and practice. My perception is that the balance on this course is towards practice, but there are probably some participants who would like more theory. How are we to maintain a balance so that everyone gets a little of what they need? How are we to ensure that practice is informed by theory? Do we need to?
3. Activity and reflection. Many people (me included) have been very active this week. Too much activity can be an issue for learning (my perspective). There was brief mention at one stage about whether a physical space could promote reflection. For me it is the bath (very non-eco-friendly), but it seems to be the only place where I really can stop and 'think'! A shower is just not the same! Short online courses tend to be fast-paced. Perhaps all courses are too fast-paced, and overloaded with content. Space is needed for reflection.
4. Breadth and depth. In the early part of the week the course was very fast-paced and lots of ideas were being added to the forums. It's difficult to know how to get the balance between breadth and depth. Breadth is easier to go for with a fast pace - depth (for me) takes more time. In an article I've recently read by Anne Edwards (2005) Let's get beyond community and practice: the many meanings of learning and participating Vol 16, No. 1 The Curriculum Journal, she writes that
It is not clear how the community of practice metaphor deals with learning something new. It provides a compelling account of learning as socialization into existing beliefs, values and practices, but does not offer an account of how new knowledge is produced..... Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it does not tell us what is learnt, only what is done.
It seems to me that to focus on what is learnt as opposed to what is done, then we need a depth of critical discussion and reflection which will allow time for the constructive criticism and development of ideas. The problem with an online course is that for the online bit to be successful, there needs to be a certain momentum of posts. This rather militates against the 'slow' approach that might be needed for depth of reflection. On the other hand the asynchronous nature of online discussion means that we don't have to respond immediately. We do have time to think and reflect before posting - but we can never be sure whether discussion will have moved on in the meantime.
5. Facilitator and gatekeeper. From what I have learned from Wenger the ideal for a mature community of practice is to have the continuum weighted to the facilitator end. In the early stages of a course my role feels to be at the gatekeeper end. My ideal is that ultimately (and I'm not sure that this is completely possible in a short course), different members of the community take on more or less of the facilitator role according to the context, that learner's take control of their learning, that learning and curriculum are negotiated, that participation is individually determined and that knowledge is socially constructed by the community.
There are of course other tensions, but I need to reflect on them further before posting. I think these will do for now!
(030309) - Looking back I can see that this post was very much influenced by my thinking about a research paper that I was writing at the time. I don't think I have changed my mind about these tensions. If anything, I am more aware of them.
Source of Image: http://www.michellemorrell.com/images/prints/duality.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment