From the Archives: Sensing Our Changing Roles

Well this little post has tried to be born into the world twice. Time to give it light. I’m going to leave it exactly as it was with it’s last draft date of 2015. Seems to me the image suggests so much that is relevant today!

A blog post from Peggy Holman on  Changing Roles in Changing Times from way back in February of 2014, came across my screen today and triggered one of those moments “blog this, Nancy!” While Peggy’s post was about the changing roles in journalism, the image she included from the Berkana Institute was what caught my eye.

From Peggy Holman, adapted from Berkana Institute's

From the Archives: 2008 Hyper Optimism about MOOCS

I found a REALLY old one full of the hope and optimism of 2008. Leaving it as is, with just the addition of cheerful flowers. I want to feel optimism again!

image of 5 colorful imaginary flowers on a light cream background.

I should be doing a hundred other things than blogging at 8:30 at night. No wonder I have weird dreams. But I really wanted to jump into the flow of posts and conversations about Massive, Open, Online Courses or MOOC’s.

I’m referring to Stephan Downes’ and George Siemen’s generous offering, “Connectivism and Connective Knowledge”, a twelve week, open offering they are getting ready to launch. No small feat. For anyone who has ever designed and offered an online collaborative learning event, it is a lot of work. An act of love. (Yes, Stephen, LOVE!) But what happens when 1200 people want to play? This reminds me of the lovely conundrum Leigh Blackall is in with 90 people signing up for his Facilitating Online Communities course. It is raising all kinds of fun questions about how to scale social learning.

So, can a ‘course’ scale to 1200 people as a social, connected learning event? What does that look like? How do we set our expectations? While Stephen and George are creating a course (see this page) I suspect that something wholely different will be experienced by many. It is a delicious set of possibilities and challenges. I’d like to question if it is even a ‘course’ in the way we have come to understand the word. Of course, with academic institution sponsorship, one can understand the name, but what I think this is is a Massive Online Learning Happening (MOLH!). Or a Massive Online Learn Fest (MOLF!). Or maybe a Massive Love-Learn-In. (MILLI!)

Seriously, this is networked learning.  But what a great learning edge to find out what happens when you really OPEN the doors.

Thanks to Stephen and George’s course blog, we’ll have a line of sight in to the action, even if we aren’t able to jump into the actual event. (I confess, the thought of it alone kind of makes me tired!)

So here are my questions:

  • How much will end up being about content delivery, how much about meaning making through individual reflection (especially evidenced in this case by blog posts) and how much will be socially constructed through interaction and meaning making between people (reading and commenting on other blogs, shared creation on the wiki and conversation in whatever conversation spaces crop up).
  • What are the implications of such a large group and the large possibility that they will have wildly different experiences — will what they learn be wildly different? Does that matter?
  • What are the implications of those paying for credit and support? How do they feel about “sharing” the course with 1000 other people?
  • What is the impact on the learning facilitators? Will the size of the group push them back to the traditional role of information providers? Will they only interact with the paid participants? Will they get any sleep for 12 weeks????
  • How does this compare/is this related to what we know about other types of online events?

Associations Should Consider the MOOC | Mission to Learn
I suspect I don’t really even need to spell out how the MOOC model could be of value in the association sector. Or for nonprofits hoping to engage a large group of stakeholders around a cause. Or for businesses seeking greater engagement with their customer base.

Just taking associations as the main example, imagine bringing together a significant slice of your audience online – member and non-member – over a period of days, weeks, or even months to engage on a topic that is central to their day-to-day work. Not just an online conference with a line up of presenters – plenty of that has already been done with widely mixed results. Rather, an event that is truly facilitated, in which key thought leaders help evoke shepherd audience input and participation, taking advantage of social media-driven Learning 2.0 approaches.

The potential seems tremendous. And not just for professional development or continuing education. I sincerely hope this idea will not be relegated to that. This is the stuff of missions.

Perhaps one of the most fascinating aspects of what Siemens and Downes are doing will not even be the course itself – though I have no doubt that will be incredibly valuable, and I plan to participate – but rather observing the thinking and processes by which the course comes about. Siemens and Downes have been documenting their efforts on the Connectivism and Connective Knowledge blog, and have also engaged in at least one podcast interview so far on EduTech Talk.

From the Archives: Visual and Audio “Getting Into Online meetings” Ideas

Back in 2020 and 2021 some of my friends and colleagues refused to get stuck in the same-old, same-old of starting meetings online. Fisher Qua showed me a Music Labs experimental tool and playing with it (in this clip) opened possibilities of co-creating visually and aurally that could start a meeting in a way that immediately changed our participation and experience.

A bit wild, sure, but why do we seek so much to maintain the status quo? Why do we snap back to the safe, predictable, without even considering if it is still useful? Time for more creative destruction. Make space for something that is more useful. What meeting starting habits have you creatively destroyed? What new practices emerged from that space you created?

Snapback, Falling off Horses, Toxic Nostalgia and What Do We Do Next?

Picture of a horses nose and mouth with bridle on.

Today is my birthday. Always a good time for reflection….

How do we discern what practices to keep and which to throw away? What have we noticed in our changing practices since the pandemic and how do we make the MOST of them? Or not! Are we wallowing in toxic nostalgia?

Dr. David Viscott, author of a book entitled Emotional Resilience, defined toxic nostalgia as “a subtle mixture of feelings, attitudes, perspectives and needs from different ages all showing themselves at once as the unresolved past attempts to define the present.” I found Dr. Viscott;s quote via Rabbi Mike Harvey. Rabbi Harvey also made his own offering describing toxic nostalgia is “thinking that things used to be amazing, focusing only on good memories, and defining the past by those good memories, then projecting the difference between the reality of the present with the imagined reality of your past and seeing the difference. “

Once I started looking, toxic nostalgia shows up in the media a lot lately. I felt resonance. Think about our societal polarization on so many issues. Our blindness as we endorse things that do us harm.

For me and my group process practice we use the term “snapback.” Snapback to the old, familiar, comfortable ways – even if those old ways are no longer serving. For groups working together, the pandemic tossed us out of our familiar ways and ruts and many of us rapidly embraced new ways. Now that things are leaking back into old settings (i.e. F2F offices, meetings) the snapback is showing up. I’m noticing that some of the groups I worked with during the pandemic where they created and adopted new, productive practices, are slipping back into high control, low liberating practices.

If we don’t examine and compare our practices, we may default to toxic nostalgia and snapback. Or we can stay awake, notice what has changed and how that change has or has not positively impacted what we are trying to do together. We fear “falling off the horse,” but perhaps what we should fear is not noticing with either got back on or fell off the horse and learned NOTHING!

From the Archives: Are technology and process configuration patterns enough?

In 2009 Etienne Wenger (now Etienne Wenger-Trayner), John D. Smith and I published the culmination of lots and lots of thinking about how to use technology to support groups and communities. Digital Habitats: stewarding technology for communities was our way of trying to make sense of the tech landscape so that communities could provision their tech without having to be a total technologist.

In my archive of drafts was this post with just one paragraph:

What are the patterns of interaction over time, what are the configurations of technology over time,  and are these distinct enough patterns so that we can simply template the tech and process, or do these change enough with and every interaction?  And we need to know how to do that. 

With the rebirth of virtual and hybrid work, this is again a useful question, even if I can’t figure out what I meant with the last sentence! 🙂

Let me give an example of why this fascinates me. 

We have a group of people who need to work/learn/do something together. At the minimum these days they have Zoom or some other synchronous video meeting tool. Most groups also have a shared document space. For what types of work is this minimal tech configuration (set of tools and how they are used) sufficient? Is there a pattern that says “simple configuration is all you need?”

If the simple configuration is adequate, what types of group need trigger more tech tools and processes? For example, we used to think that groups distributed across diverse time zones needed asynchronous communication tools in addition to the sync (video) and content sharing. 

If a group has more complicated content needs, do they need more tools for the creation, curation and sharing of content? What triggers this next level of need?

If a group is handed a very complicated technology configuration right off the bat (our corporate platform!!) that has more tools and features than the group needs, what impact does this have upon their work? Will they reduce their efficacy messing around and tripping on the tech? Fully ignore the platform? Invent whole new ways of using the tech?

Do you see what I’m getting at… there are both stable patterns AND lots of ways to subvert the patterns. So my question is, is it worth spending time to develop the patterns at all, or just let things emerge? When? Why? (I do NOT have the answer. Just the curiosity!) Oh, I see Ton is also writing about this!

By the way, if you are still reading, I discovered a box of Digital Habitats books in my basement. If you would like a copy and are in the US I’d be happy to mail you one. Let me know in the comments. If you want to reimburse me for postage, I’ll mail one further afield. They do no good sitting in my basement. And you can always get the free PDF on the website.