Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Identity: Re-inventing yourself one post at a time

Hiatus over. Sometimes you need to stop the inertia that keeps you going without questioning. What I've been up to and, most importantly, what triggered it is subject for another post. Here I just want to say that coming back from the hiatus is easier when your friends unite in conversation about a topic that interests me a lot: identity.

The virtual meeting is at David Truss' blog post: Blurred Identity Lines. The words that trigger my thinking have to do with something I know David believes, since he had many times expressed so in tweets. Something along the lines that meeting f2f or seeing each other's portrait is not a condition to build these connections. It has not been our case, at least.
I tried to summerize that idea in my comment on his blog.
"David, you’re probably the closest person to my thinking that meeting f2f is something that needn’t happen to make connections. I would like to extend that thought. I think that it would be rather limiting to think that the only meaningful connections to our learning and weaving the fabric of our beings are the ones who we might meet f2f one day. The world is too large to leave so many people and their uniqueness outside."
The expression "the fabric of our beings" is David's. Isn't that plain beautiful? (Warning: I suffer from an instant adoption of that expression). We are weaving a fabric one post at a time. It doesn't matter where, it could well be face to face. The point is that learners like us are into building that fabric, which needs the connections to happen.

An aside to these thoughts. Perhaps a word of warning. I'm not saying meeting f2f is not necessary or not as valuable as it is. I'm saying that online encounters for people who are committed to learning is revealing new aspects of identity building I would not have associated with Internet before. I mean, to the vast majority of f2f people and friends not connected to my profession leaving all or most of our interactions to online spaces or text messages is a sign not to overlook. When meeting f2f or a phone call has a local cost, not doing so is a red flag that tells me we are not that close friends. If I think about my adolescent students, their constant distractions with the mobile phones in class, the overload of importance (and amount of thinking) given to a text message from a significant other can make me shudder. However, this post is about people committed to keep in touch, not merely relying on lazy forms of near synchronous communication. It's about making a large word smaller. It's about drawing materials for the fabric of our identity with a far wider freedom of sources. That's what's new; that's what we have never been able to do before in the days prior to the Internet. I think it's worth exploring what it entails and enables.

Now, I believe David Truss and Alan Levine are attracted to another twist of the same topic: being one, being yourself, no matter where the connection is made. Alan would say (see his comment) he is one Alan everywhere. Of course not all of Alan goes online. Privacy always exist, but he has been able to do away with pre-conceptions that being whoever you are depends on context -offline or online as if it were another place.

For me, "going online" has been somewhat similar to becoming a citizen of another country. Not a new place, but a country -or more precisely a culture- I had been studying for years while becoming a teacher of English. College does not guarantee you'll get some aspects of a culture blended into the fabric of your being. Many teachers of English I know would never "feel" the language in the same way as your mother tongue. But for me, I started having a voice online in English; it was much later that I started blogging in Spanish. I do change the topics I blog about when I shift languages. If you think translating them is easy since I am the writer as well as translator, you might as well delude yourself. Nothing is as difficult as translating words passionately written. A language is not a tool. Translation has limiting effects; there are what we call degrees of translatability and localization of the message to a different culture in an audience. Just as in friendship, are you sharing and being in exaclty the same way with each and everyone of your friends? See? Those are translated versions of yourself at work.

A language change is to your identity development something quite close to choosing connections which are outside your echo chamber. A comfort stretch exercise. Do it or not, it's your own choice and peril. Once you "speak" that new language from your heart, you need interlocutors. Isolation of important aspects of who you are, and what you believe in is death to the development of that richness within you. In a nutshell, don't try to learn a language if you are not going to have significant people around who would interact in it as a preferred means of communication. Same goes for ideas about education: you need context and people to make them flourish, people who share your learning direction, not the findings. Even if you don't do a project together, even if you never meet face to face these people are very important. I can say no one in my staffroom except Gabriela Sellart understood fully what my blog writing implies. I could have never become so clear about what I believe without interlocutors who take me further. That's the value of blogging and connecting to me. The essence is in those shared values and directions, not in meeting face to face.

I know it sounds harsh when I say it so bluntly. Allow me to go back to the word of warning above and extend that idea. Think of this scenario: your daughter has a boyfriend who only texts her, but doesn't see her much. Wouldn't you clearly see something is not committed there? Wouldn't you feel like advising your daughter there is so much more imaginary stuff than a real thing potential in that relationship? Sounds like short lasted, right? You'd probably agree with me that text, chat or other forms of communication are a nice I've-been-thinking-about-you message to support a well founded f2f relationship.

I argue that the opposite happens online for committed learners. Why is that possible? Because in the day-to-day flow of so many bureocratic aspects of teaching, complying with syllabuses and the like, we have lost the disposition to have reflective conversations in the staffroom, which has turned into quick plastic cup coffee places and the odd catharsis about being occassionaly feeling overwhelmed by the profession and parent's or manager's misunderstanding of our job. We make friends out of sharing some circumstances, but not out of shaping together our most valued beliefs. Blogs are not immune to trivia exposing, but let's be realistic: who would spend time writing, transcribing those mundane staffroom conversations or let alone reading them? We are too lazy to create that noise online. Besides, writing is permanent. People may quote you. So when teachers write, we tend to have something to say or we go hiatus.

To build relationships over online spaces as a primary means of communication takes time. I don't know if more or less than physical spaces (I can't bring myself to use the word "real" spaces). I think it might take as much time because it is more relative to how aware you are about what you are after, how much you know yourself and how much meaning you ascribe to isolated words as opposed to words supported by consistency of previous blog posts, transparency about how you got there, etc. Writing about learning as a profession complicates it, because our "business" is change, innovate, then expand and change a bit more. In my case, dedicating so much effort to sharing my self teaching photography and dealing with issues of identity now has made me shift the topics in my writing and it most definitely made me lose contact with teachers who want fun activities or ideas for their lessons. Everything has a price, right?

If you are more "practically minded", I mean, if you set out to write a blog to make connections who might end up collecting partners around a f2f project or collaborate from a distance on a regular basis, then of course, all my talk about thinking and reflecting with online friends sounds too much bohemia to spend your time on. But with that criteria, why ask your students to read a short story by an author who is dead and will never interact with your students via Skype when there are so many authors alive? I wouldn't miss reading Shakespeare because I need a translation of bits of his language, understand his composition and poetic rules and know some historical facts to fully appreciate what I am reading. How could I say diversity is important in front of a student if I am not willing to go the distance to Shakespeare's context? How can we say our blogs are global just because they are online?

Speed of connections as well as instant publications make you think you can get wherever you need and learn instantly all the time or make a thousand friendships with so many followers on Twitter. Mind you, important learning, great ideas and good relationships still take a lot of time. Internet hasn't changed things much there.

I'll remind myself to do the hiatus again sometime. It's a sanity check of my ideas, of myself. I once was told I should care about my online "reputation" and post more often. For those who blog on as if they ran a business or promote it, as if they sold themselves to be called to presentations and build a reputation, it will be hard to grasp what I am trying to say about forging and identity, a presence and from there, build your relationships to end up with a nice fabric of ideas you can rely on. I don't expect to do this with thousands of people. A number that would seat around a good Argentinean coffee table will suffice for me.

Lectura
Photo by me, at a café in Monserrat neighbourhood http://www.flickr.com/photos/yet-one-more-pic/5351561825/

If you get the habit of speaking, shaping your thoughts and revealing the process online as a natural thing to do (i.e you blog), then, only then, I think something magical happens. There is a you that exists (or was born) online and that not all of the people in your face to face world know about. More dramatically put, they wouldn't care to know about. In a previous post on identity I framed the question in a way my friends Alan and David have considered significant.
"Let me ask you once again: Who are you when you write online? Think of it conversely. The offline-only people in your lives who have never ever cared to read what you passionately write about, who do they actually know?"
Don't get me wrong. Don't rule out the f2f people who would not read your blog! Go inwards and ask yourself where you choose to reveal what and how to imbue each space you live in with the nature you've acquired in the other.

There you have some learning exercise to spend a lifetime to master.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Learning Italian and a poem

I'm attending Italian lessons again after so many years. Back then, I only studied with books. Now I'm surrounded by connectivy and possibilities I have explored for my own students of English, yet not so much for my own informal learning support outside the class.

So I've done my little online research and collected my resources on a wiki. Today I felt the need to go more social about it. I came across a couple of groups in Facebook that surprised me for their content, participation and creativity. Yeah, it seems Facebook can do good!

The group Impariamo Italiano gives you a variety of prompts to practice. From pictures of Italy where you must guess and post answers (in Italian of course) to questions (using a Facebook app) to choose the right grammar of a sentence. They even answer you in a personal way in the comments. A very interesting model of how to use Facebook for staying in touch with the language in an environment where everybody is real and a learner.

This prompt caught my attention, translated into English, it says,

Write a brief story including these five words: Night, do, tomorrow, kiss and sea.

It caught my eye because I remember having to do exercises of the kind in English exams. As a student, I disliked being forced to use exactly those set words. But now something changed. Out of the +21,000 fans of the page, a few folks got inspired and wrote stories.

Here's my favourite by Antonio Buffon,

"Era NOTTE alta e DOMANI poteva essere l'ultimo giorno. Non avevamo nulla da FARE, se non aspettare il momento migliore per attaccare. Uno sguardo al MARE e un BACIO alla lettera dell'amata..."

Translated,
It was high night and tomorrow could be the last day. We didn't have anything to do, except wait for the best moment to attack. A look at the sea and a kiss to the letter for his beloved...

Wow. Isn't that beautiful enough for a quick post on Facebook?

I always wonder what it is that makes people participate guided by prompts that grow communities around them. I don't know. I do know what gets me inspired and writing. People like this being engaged and sharing openly without expectation of an answer. I like that.

I joined the group. Now it's my turn to try. Only my take is a
poem, not a short story. My first poem in Italian. Who would have thought it possible at level one? Hope the grammar is acceptable.

La notte è arrivata.
Niente da fare; allora il pensiero
diventa un mare
che mi fa ricordare
un'immagine di due pescatori.
Lascio un bacio al cielo
e dico il tuo nome.
Seguo a caminare.
Un giorno qualsiasi ti rincontrerò.
Per questo domani è la parola più bella.






Translated,

Night is here.
Nothing to do, then my thoughts
Become the sea
That brings to mind an image
Of two fishermen.
I blow a kiss to heaven
While I say your name.
I walk on.
One day -any day- I'll find you.
That's why tomorrow is the most beautiful word.




The image in my poem is a memory of my brother and father fishing in a pier in Mar del Plata on a cloudy day. I woke up much later that day and decided to do a long walk by the sea to go and meet them. I arrived in the afternoon. The colours and the stones in Gennaroeaz' photo, though taken in Italy, come quite close to my recall of those holidays.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, June 20, 2011

They day students see us vulnerable, learning

The question of being vulnerable and learning has been on my mind since watching Brené Brown's TED Talk. This time, it was a post by Bud Hunt that prompted me to write a comment, which, in turn, Bud used as prompt for teachers to write their reactions.
Edited links on July 17th.

Here's my question/comment:

Do your students know how you, the teacher, write? Can they catch you somewhere in the middle of your own learning process, doubting, wondering, as a vulnerable human far from the know-all/authority in the subject ideal?

I was wow-ed by reading the Google Doc with all its rich comments. Please go and read Bud's post on his own learning around this question.

Thank you, Bud for writing about this. And thank you Scott for listening. May one day our students catch us learning like this.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, May 22, 2011

Blogworthy Tweets II

This post is a sequel. Here's number 1 in 2009. This new selection was made from the list Twitter provides of my own tweets re-tweeted. They are mostly from 2010.

Why these?
-Because they are very telling of my own interests in networking.
-Because they are the result of dialogues with my learning buddies that sparked a synthesis.
-Above all, just 'cause.

With such three powerful reasons listed above, I can save you any further introduction and proceed to embed a few snippets of my thinking aloud.

Learning

If the learning experience is just for the student, if it is unidirectional, is it learning? Just saying.less than a minute ago via web Favorite Retweet Reply


Voices

@budtheteacher Blogger/writers face -at least- two problems: a) find your voice to express. b) not to get trapped by it.less than a minute ago via web Favorite Retweet Reply


Experts

@dkuropatwa Now seriously. If people *decide* you are an expert, there isn't much to control there.Keep your learner attitude with them.less than a minute ago via web Favorite Retweet Reply


Excuses

Both children and adults can find excuses for not learning. The difference is that children' excuses tend to be creative. Adults copy&paste.less than a minute ago via web Favorite Retweet Reply


People

@budtheteacher Networking is about choosing special people. What makes them special is you cannot avoid learning when they're around.less than a minute ago via web Favorite Retweet Reply


There.

It feels much better to know you have saved a few thoughts from ever wondering in cyber-outer-space.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Sunday, November 28, 2010

A reply to Rabiz Raisdana

Rabiz Raisdana has published the result of a collaborative project to create video. My story of how I got to know about this and why I participated is detailed in Addendus, my blog in Spanish.


Here is the comment I wrote to Rabiz in his blog (awaiting moderation):

Thank you for this, Rabiz.

Pleasantly surprised and speechless at first, I was able to articulate some words in my blog in Spanish about all this (linked to my name).

In a nutshell, I explain there how I've been following your posts lately and why I participated. I ventured to translate a paragraph from this post that, in my opinion, summarizes why I feel I sync with your idea of learning.

@wmchamberlain
I often used to ask myself how could these things be translated into classroom practice. Certainly a valid question. However, I've decided to put off thinking about it. I've found that it often leads to closing a learning cycle too quickly with practical imperatives. I couldn't let such a question deviate me from experimenting anyway. Perhaps it is someone else who can help me see how that is to be done.

For all I know, I could very well be losing some of my time. But important changes do not come in isolation. They tend to be a part of a continuum. So I keep at it. Who knows when I will create a successful classroom practice with my playing today? What will it look like? Definitely it will be some mix of this with new and unknown contributions from students or network.

Probably I will not even be teaching them. We'll be learning together seems more like it.

Image:
Dry, by fceblog

Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, November 15, 2010

Picture That

Today I've spent quite some time on Flickr. I've been honouring the present of a Pro account I received from Gabriela.

I've had a Flickr account since 2007. A camera since 2008. Let's say I like taking my time.

It was only last month -again with a wink from Gabriela- that I noticed there are a few photography groups on Facebook where people decide to go out and share tricks, pictures and a coffee in Buenos Aires. Probably the best use of Facebook so far. Despite some anecdotes unworthy of a post, all in all, a pleasant experience that has taken me to a next learning and engagement level. I had been simply taking pictures of nice things and now I am thinking where the light is coming from. It's a start.

As much as I've found many of my overseas tweeps inspiring with their pictures, I realise I needed to be next to other amateur photographers to play with, to pull myself out of my private albums and start being there.

Outdoors, I move confidently with my camera and do not mind making mistakes. Every now and then, I need to show one or two pictures to the person next to me and get some instant feedback. This makes a difference for my learning. Once the picture day is done, taking a look at the way others have worked with the same objects is so revealing, both about photographs and their authors. Full learning circle.

Back at home, I spend a long time pondering which picture to publish. Does everyone go through this? Will I get more fluent or more obsessed with details? I look at my older shots with critical eyes, but I've decided the learning journey has to be registered. Period. Moving on...

The pictures at the Recoleta Cemetery are probably my best so far. I must admit, though, the place is so inspiring even a beginner like me can obtain something good.



























Everything I'm publishing now are raw pictures and some cropping. Just barely played with Picasa editor, but can't help feeling it's a huge time eater. Excuses? Perhaps.

Maybe I just want to learn by plunging into the informal practice pool. I'd like to wait until I sense my pictures point me to a need of technical advice, a few touches of editing or a little help from my friends.


Labels: , ,

Sunday, May 23, 2010

Learning Dimensions


Some ideas around the social, the private and other learning lands. I am just trying to understand these concepts by spotting intersections with Connectivism. This is a remix of notes I left out of my previous post, Social Learning.


Take the notion of space and combine it with learning. Informal learning can occur in a variety of places. Incidentally, learning may happen with a teacher, without a teacher or in spite of a teacher. Formal learning happens when there is a school structure acting as an architect of a learning space. Yet, informal learning can take place in a university and formal learning can be seen in a social network. What does this depend on? Perhaps on the readiness to identify marginally relevant conversations in a classroom (residual knowledge). Perhaps some recognition that some instances of learning with networks we come across on the web are nothing but old things in a new medium.

Now take the social ingredient and add it to the learning soup. Social as the people factor. Social as someone who can be friendly with us should we need to pick their brains. Mind you, not your friends who like you or friends of a friend who send requests, but an ever shifting node in the network that can help you learn wherever your drive takes you in your knowledge quest. It may seem that the world is a small town. It does not matter if the node is six degrees away. It's not as much about access as it is about diversity of contribution.

How does this work?
One node at a time. At a learning ripe time. To me, the node is not there to simply share what they know or show you how they have been learning, but to learn together with you. Not social because they pressed publish to their thoughts. Not just transparent about their processes and sources. People learning right there and then, as a natural consequence of the connection and its current conversations. Something like "I can't help learning from you because you learn here and now with me".

This kind of learning timing does not seem to be liable to scheduling. It goes beyond having learning interests in common. I find it closer to personal values and attitudes to nodes and the learning process itself.

Now season it all with the Internet and what do you get?
Acceleration. Sparks. Too much to read in your RSS. Suddenly you affirm digital learning is different. Is the internal learning process (not the observable outcome) really different? Or is the digital dimension more clearly revealing or confronting us with the way genuine, long lasting learning has always been?

Think of a traditional classroom. Imagine students unable to interrupt a teacher's lecture and no mobile phone distractions. Then listen to teachers affirming that what is going on in there is knowledge transmission. Would you, digital citizen, say that the learning which may have resulted in such classrooms was due to transmission? Learning has probably never been too different. What has changed is perspective and description.

Digital learning spaces are providing new evidence. Learning is more complex than our preconceptions. The social and the space are the context of learning. Learning can happen outside context. Hard to keep in a cage called formal or informal. Is learning voluntary or involuntary? Not every student learns the same in one given classroom. Learning revolves around togetherness and individuality. Togetherness is ruled by social context and degree of synchronicity (same place, same time). Individuality is ruled by personal relevance.

Maybe the distinction between formal and informal learning is misleading. Informal learning examples are probably the evidence that formality in education is a fiction. A learning tale. I am not saying I have not learnt anything in a class. All I am trying to say is: what if it was not because of that class? Description as explanation is insufficient.

I see a lot of metonym talk around. The tool as an umbrella term for the venue, process and outcomes. Stretching an idea of learning, surpassing it or destroying it. Learning is not in the tool, but in its shadow.

Far from objective facts, my reality and truth about learning will spring from my unique perceptions and interpretations. To me, learning is experienced as social during conversations. That's how I feel it. However, our perceptions, as Dr. Carl Sagan teaches us, are somewhat limited:



Frankly, I find that most of us work on the outskirts of a true learning land. What we know is not automatically in sync with what we do. It makes me wonder whether authentic learning entails some disrespect for our most cherished illusions about difficulty grading, linearity of syllabus and hierarchies. The world is flat, we say. We are flat landers, busy building our flat classroom business, projecting our models on the dimension of learning spaces for our own individual purposes.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Sunday, May 16, 2010

Social Learning

The title of this post is arbitrary. I am simply choosing two of the most frequent words in a long trail of thoughts shared in Twitter. I transcribed the tweets (as seen from my end @fceblog) in a wiki page for reference and context.

Several questions emerged in that Twitter exchange:

-Is all learning social?
-How can learning be not social?
-Is social learning mediated by language?
-Is reading a book an example of social learning?
-Do learning nodes need to be human?
-Is language social? Is language socially constructed?

This post is not about answers. This is a post about the roads my mind goes through when I approach thinking about these issues. I cannot offer definite answers. Truth is something we attempt to aproximate through different learning grids. I just hope to be transparent about what I bring, as a node, to my personal learning network.

Language and clarification of terms can reveal subtle hidden differences in the way we view our networked learning experiences. I think we cannot underestimate the importance of trying to be clear about terms. Having a blog, a will to share, a number of coincidences and lots of enthusiasm with the topic is far from saying we talk about the same things. We often assume shared basic knowledge. Perhaps this belief partially springs from being in contact with some people for so long. This might be the drawback of echo chambers and preaching to choirs. However, the bell makes a new sound every time we touch it.

For the sake of simplification as well as to getting started in conversation, we are naturally inclined to take for granted the meaning of words such as:
-social
-learning
-language
-connection
-conversation
-reading

The idea is not to be prescriptive trying to define them. The point to me has little to do with finding the best definition, but simply with identifying what we mean when we loosely conjure up so many concepts. I am interested in finding contradictions between what I claim to know and what I actually believe. I find these intersections are a fertile learning ground.

As a teacher of English as a foreign language, my learning grid has been influenced by studies of general linguistics, applied linguistics, literature and translation. I believe that good reading is very much like a conversation, whether the author is present or not. It is a kind of internal, unique dialogue where the reader is a co-creator of a text; that is, the meaning of that particular text. Widdowson, as cited by Bauri, resonates here:

"According to Widdowson, reading is an act of participation in a discourse between interlocutors. It is regarded not as reaction to a text but as interaction between writer and reader mediated through the text. This interaction is governed by the 'co-operative process', where encoding is a matter of providing directions and decoding a matter of following them. In this interactional exchange what is actually expressed is vague, imprecise and insignificant, it is satisfactory only because it provides the interlocutors with directions to where they can find and create meanings for themselves. Widdowson suggests that this kind of creativity is not exclusive to reading but is a necessary condition for the interpretation of any discourse. Spoken as well as written discourse, operate in accordance with this co-operative principle (Widdowson, 1979, pp. 174-175)."

The mention of learning happening in conversations or interactions is generally linked to social networking and the connectivist learning that occurs among nodes. However, to affirm that learning happens in conversations also points to the idea that learning involves some negotiation of meaning or object being learnt in aconstructivist fashion. Re-reading our Twitter exchange, I think I find a tendency to explain new phenomena with old terminology. There seems to be a stretching of a pragmatic definition of knowledge derived from conversation to explain learning as we experience it enabled by technology. This suddenly sounds to me as old things in new ways. We do not voluntary construct serendipitous knowledge, which simply emerges.

The crux of the contradiction is probably a confusion between constructivist and maturationalist views of knowledge creation. A reading of connectivist views quickly points to several analogies with neuroscience, not pragmatics. If learning happens within our brains, we cannot hurry to equal learning with social.


"Research (particularly in the field of neuroscience) is beginning to indicate that the primary learning component of our brains is pattern recognition, not information processing. Stephen Downes (2005) extends this concept by offering a challenging vision that learning is not a direct causal interaction between teacher and learner. Replacing the causal model of learning (need highlighted, instructional intervention planned, measurement enacted) with 'network phenomenon':

“But with online learning comes not only a much wider, more diverse network, but also the idea that (a) the network may be based on non-physical (or emergent) properties, (b) that the individual may choose to belong to or not belong to a network, and (c) that an individual may assume multiple identities or memberships in multiple networks. The theory of distributed representation has a profound implication for pedagogy, as it suggests that learning (and teaching, such as it is) is not a process of communication, but rather, a process of immersion.”

This explanation of learning in a digital age is far from equating learning with social. I would be inclined to think that what we broadly describe as social learning is simply not connectivist. To begin with, the concept of social is elusive. Before going to the web to find a definition that may help us prove a point, I think we have to examine first what we are actually saying. In our Twitter exchange, the term social clearly includes two components:
a) people
b) language use
We are unarguably saying social means interactions mediated by language.

The term learning is also tricky. Do we mean that only people (alive) learn? Then, books do not. Do we mean that cells in our brains learn to make new connections? Then, the social component of learning is a trigger but it is different from affirming that (all) learning is social.

We are leaving out of the discussion any learning that does not happen in contact with people talking to us. We are assuming that language -with its social exchanges- mediates all the learning. This is not true every time. We learn essential things like eating before we can actually utter a word or fully comprehend our parents language. What is important to bear in mind is that we have unawarely decided to limit the object of our talk. So the learning we are concerned with is one that occurs between people and mediated by language.

Connectivism seems to suffice its arguments leaving linguistic aspects outside the discussion. However, there are some similarities between what learn fromChomsky's studies on universal grammar and the notion of personal knowledge as presented by Downes in Buenos Aires, Argentina. According to Chomsky, no amount of talking and teaching can make a child learn the principles and parameters of language. The distinction between internalized language in the brain as opposed to a particular language in use is key. So is the notion of personal and social knowledge distinction in connectivism (Slide 17). Learning, though socially triggered, is not a social outcome. Performance in a test does not necessarily show learning evidence. Learning needs immersion and exposure to models. Learning uses something external to the self to build an internal capability. Learning is mediated in the conversation, by language in use. Learning is not an object socially negotiated, but rather a new capacity (neural connection) in our brains.

Bringing the concept of language into the picture does not make a good argument in favour of social learning, because language is not inherently social. What is the difference between universal language in the brain and a particular language (English or German)? The level at which the abstraction is made. Now, abstractions like these are made for a purpose. Teachers may disagree with the need to focus on unobservable capabilities in the brain and prefer to focus on observable classroom outcomes. In my opinion, the oversimplification that learning in a digital age could be analogous to being a foreign language speaker and going on to say there are natives and immigrants is a good example of not making abstractions at the right level.

In spite of all this, I will most probably continue teaching my students with the metaphor that we can have a dialogue with the text. It seems to be an effective resource for a purpose. The danger lies in confusing the map with the territory, or abandoning cartography because we are comfortable with one map (ours of course).

To me, more than arguing language is social, what is useful for a teacher to understand is that the capability to develop language use to the level of Shakespeare is simply within human reach. We all inherit that capacity. Teachers have power to hinder inborn capabilities or let them emerge and grow. Certainly teaching has been a systematic attempt at controlling the construction of learning in contexts rich with language use. The problem with formal teaching is that it overlooks the reality that within networks knowledge can emerge quite unplanned. Through teaching we can collect evidence that learning is social. What we cannot explain observing teachers experiences or conversations in groups is the amount of learning that happens outside those interactive contexts.

Teaching is definitely social. Learning is probably not.


Now I want to read how Bud Hunt challenges my thinking.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Success

This post is about my wiki with EFL students. Actually it's a post about my EFL students after using the wiki for a month.

After a month using it, I would say we have just dipped our fingers into the wiki pool. The real time of wiki exposure in class has been 6 hours at the school lab. Our lessons are twice a week, 2 hours each.

So far I have been focusing on and hoping they learn three things:
1) They can publish their work. (Although there is a shyness to press the save button as if they could not edit again ever).
2) Tags bind same tasks together and allow them to quickly access a classmate struggling with the same writing problem. (Mind you, to edit tags, to understand the need to use a comma or hit enter to teach the machine exactly which tag they mean is taking... well, a month. The wiki even gained a "wicked wiki" fame because of mis-tagging/not-finding frustration).
3) The wiki is a heritage project. They can read what my students have been writing since 2007. They can find real models from the past and among present classmates easily. They have just tried opening discussions to chat about what they read and find worth mentioning in others work.

I consider this simply basics. A simple socialization of students writings. With a bit more work, it could have been done on paper. This is not yet close to my expectations of wiki use.

And yet, yesterday I learnt something. We went to the lab to listen to a manager who introduced the students to the LMS they will be using. This is basically going to replace practice tests and the use of past papers for exam preparation.

To begin with the talk, the presenter asked my students if they knew what a campus is. One of them answered very confidently:
"Yes, it's a place where we get in, we share and help each other learn".

That simple.

After the presentation, students understood that within the LMS they will be working individually, becoming responsible for their own performance, results and follow-up of the process. They liked it. Back in the classroom, though, they wanted to make sure the wiki was still going to be used as well as the LMS. I heard them detailing how much they valued 1 and 3 above (in spite of 2).

For the last two weeks I had believed we were being slow to adapt to the wiki. I felt the overwhelming sensation that more creative uses of the tool would have us all stuck at a misunderstood tag. I wondered how much more time would have to be spent on publish/tag/link basics. When will they get to explore the notify-me tab? How to strike up a meaningful conversation about RSS?

However, all of those are surface structure observations.

Deep inside they have been changing a mindset of individual learning to a socialized one. They have tasted enough to value it. They have been taking it slowly indeed. But they haven't done anything they were not believing in yet. Mindset before toolset. This is the important lesson I learnt yesterday. I need to be more patient for my wiki-fied dreams.

This is a post about my wiki. Wait, no. Our wiki. This is a story of how I learnt because they learnt.








Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Classroom Evolution


Back then...
Ten years ago this classroom situation was normal in my English as a foreign language lessons.
Student question: -How do you say "osteoporosis" in English?
My answer: -I don't know.
Student: -Sorry.

Sorry? Why?
Students found it hard to explain why they apologised for asking something I didn't know. I think it had to do with respect for the teacher being some kind of authority in their subject resulting from hard work . By spotting the language gap, they were exposing my not knowing (perhaps not being good enough?). They liked the idea of learning with a good teacher. They were demystifying the classroom hero they admired. They felt genuinely sorry for it.

I always made it part of my job to explain there was nothing to be sorry about. I would explain that medical terms tend to be similar in English, but I would look it up in my dictionaries and bring the answer next time. I thank them for their questions because they made me curious and helped me to learn more than I could on my own.

Silence in the classroom. They looked puzzled. The "Sorry" died hard.

In later years, I was happy to find surprised faces at asking something I could not answer immediately. I think they felt thrilled, perhaps powerful, at seeing they could make the teacher learn with their questions. They could even take it as a game: "Let's ask more difficult questions" or"Let's ask questions at the level of the teacher". I enjoyed this change. This is the classroom atmosphere I am most comfortable with, I thought. More vibrant.

Back to the present...
Yesterday something completely different happened in my class. I corrected a student who was using two words as synonyms when they are not.
-Are you sure? -he asked.
-(Why ever would I correct him if I wasn't? -I thought.) Positive. -I answered.
Next, he produces his Blackberry from his pocket and goes to an online dictionary to check.

At this point I saw the two roads diverging in the woods... and I determined to take it easy while I sensed my authority as a teacher being put to the Internet test.

Silence in the classroom.

I decided to join his efforts and look it up in my netbook as well. We ended up exchanging what we had found out.
He looked at me with a smile of satisfaction and admitted: -You're right.


That moment was a turning point in my lessons. I had read before I am no longer the most authoritative person in a connected classroom. Reading it is one thing. Going through it is quite another. The more travelled by road is soothing. New paths are challenging for the teacher not in academic terms, or new technology literacy, but in human terms. To flow in the current teaching context, you need to give your ego a sanity check.

Authority is not a given. It is earned. A student at a time. Everything you have studied for is not enough. The best tools used for the right purposes will not give you that either. Authority in today's classroom is a humble attitude towards the student and the subject being taught. It is about sharing how you get there as opposed to how you once got there. Authority is the result of transparent processes unhindered by the knowledge possession illusions of a distant educational past.

Do I like this new scenario? Frankly, I'm getting used to it. For starters, reading my two reactions to the previous situations makes me feel amused now. Clearly, I didn't get it back then. I barely hinted at it. You need your students to evolve enough for you to experience a comfort zone stretch. Then, we can talk about authentic, timely learning.


Image credit
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edans/453998716/

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, March 22, 2010

Some things I am certain of (for now, this is beta, OK?)

These are mostly notes to self. You see, I read a lot and I fear losing touch with my own ideas. So I jot down a few to go back to them when learning gets too messy.

Thought it might be useful to share. Hence, post.

1) Teaching English is hard, anything else is an adverbial adjunct of place, manner and time. In other words, teaching is worth discussing. Anything else can be found for free on the Internet.

2) Time can be an excuse. Few things are not done because of time constraints. (I need more time to explain those few things, though. Suffice to say time is money and teachers need jobs).

3) Technology in the classroom is an intangible. Or not. If it is there and needs cleaning, it is probably not an enhancer, but an extra time consuming obstacle, needy for integration. Good technology use in the classroom is transparent and intertwined.

4) Transparency fosters authority. Mind you, not because I say so. I am talking about transparency about processes. Blog posts about how you are -right now- developing ideas and action. If you post after, if you just communicate results, this is more valuable as history or (self) marketing.

5) Motivation is a drug. It is a short-term target. It needs more and more to be done on the part of the teacher just to keep it going (see #2 above). Better keep the eyes on the mission. Better make people "addicted" to learning, to the process, to the autonomy of it. There are intrinsic reasons why this is pleasurable, meaningful and long lasting per se.

6) There are no how-tos. There are purposes. Question is not how-to but to what foreseeable end you work for. Allow for the unforeseeable, yet meaningful to happen.

7) Mind the use of the word "enhance" when linked to learning. Mind the gap. Old things are just old things.

8) Online contact does not entail collaboration. Work together does not imply face-to-face. Anything in the middle is ambiguous and requires a clarification of terms. That's a good use of a blog.

9) Standards are for things that fit a pattern. When educators claim that creativity is a "21st century" essential skill, we need to accept the limitations of striving for standards. Assessment and standards are cousins.

10) Doubt, question and never, ever just assume. Particularly applicable to all of the above.


More brewing in my mind at the moment. I'd rather pause here and wait for your thoughts.


Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, January 07, 2010

Learning Together and a Tribute

Many times we learn from,
many times we learn after somebody
many times we learn with,
but none of the above sounds like learning the way we hint at in blog posts, those posts that breathe the phrase "they get it". At least to me.

Let me share where this comes from.

I remember when I was at the teacher's training college. Aldo Blanco, my linguistics teacher was mystified by Noam Chomsky. He knew his explanations were hard to bear; he admitted his teaching skills were not the best. All he was after was not our perfect understanding of the subject, but our learning to think. I remember him looking into my eyes and asking me if I felt something was wrong with the trail of thought he was exposing. I nodded without having a conscious clue at why the argument was dissonant. He agreed. He went on to say how newer theories had already found other ways. He knew the class time was not enough to go full circle in discoveries that had taken linguists years, yet he valued our intuition, our hinting at it.

The oral final exam of the subject Linguistics was super. I had a 'time-out' to think about a question and then go talk about it in front of the examination board. His questions were of the type "How did you get to that conclusion?" The tension of the moment was I knew all the while my conclusion path was incomplete, perhaps utterly wrong. He evaluated my process. He never flaunted the right answer.

Sometimes us students got puzzled. One of our comments to the topic of the class would set him thinking aloud -clearly going away from the original class plan. It was hard to follow his mind, his smile at getting somewhere was a poser to us. Yet he talked as if we could follow, as if we were not his students, but peer researchers in the localist theory of case. Other times he fell silent for long minutes, smoking, reflecting, right there in our presence. Open-ended lessons.

But I digress.

The memory that triggers this post is from the subject Grammar II the year before Linguistics. That was generative grammar, case theory, a bit of logic and long debates on prepositions -preparing ourselves to grasp Chomsky, he would say. It was in one of the early lessons about case theory that he asked us to define the lexical item together, to reduce it to its basic components. The long debate closed with Professor Blanco stating this definition/formula:

Together equals same place, same time.

The moment, the silence, the image of it are a footprint in my mind.

Before writing this post, I wondered on Twitter whether learning, or learning 2.0 as some would have it, can be a one-way street. I thought-out-loud:
If the learning experience is just for the student, if it is unidirectional, is it learning?

I do not have answers. I have implications. I am concerned with a traditional teacher's love of control and careful lesson planning. I am worried about a overly loyal treatment of the curriculum at hand. I wonder if a total prediction of the road or the outcomes is a good learning path planning.

Are you planning room to learn something yourselves when you design your class? How do you do that? Can you be surprised or blown away by a student's reflection or question? And if none of this happens, what did they actually learn?

We all have learning illusions underpinning our practice. We generally are more or less aware of them or how they drive us to prove them right. As much as we tend to impulsively agree that we all move in the direction of fostering life-long, autonomous learners, we are confident our teaching role is still necessary. That role means something different for each of us. I think we owe our colleagues and students some transparency. Before approaching the teacher's role, I think we need a clarification of lexical items.

My belief, my bias, is that learning happens in a meeting of minds with unequal knowledge backgrounds. A togetherness of sorts with a classroom or online scenario (see number 3) for a place and a time that need not be strictly the same, but more right-in-time for learning.

The conversation is the medium that enables learning. It involves a negotiation and some passing of meaning among the participants. All of the people involved are transformed by it. This is where it differs from a monologue. Mind you, you can still learn from or with it.

To get together, to make community, we have to be able to generate and be part of some constant knowledge flow. A river of news, a network. To stay together, we have to keep learning together.

What? Right. I'm discussing learning together and I forget the blog, and the wiki, and Twitter. How come? Well, to me, if we talk about genuine learning, those are just technical details. Or distractors perhaps.



Afternote

Looking for links for my teacher, I just learnt that Professor Aldo Blanco passed away last October 2009.

Let this post be a humble open tribute to one of those teachers who hard-wired my brain into reflection. A person who valued thinking over method. A teacher who would let us see the interstices between the marriage foreign language teachers sometimes force between general and applied linguistics.

I also pay a private tribute. I keep all of his legendary grammar class notes. Everyone who studied with him in the nineties remembers those heavy paper notes photocopied from a an original made in a typewriter -full of his tiny handwritten comments. No one ever got the complete works, we had to exchange the missing pages with his previous students. Truly unforgettable.



Image credit

Labels: , ,

Links

Meta

Visits since July 2006:

Copyright ©2006-2025. Claudia Ceraso. All rights reserved.
  • My Blogger Profile
  • Subscribe to this blog's feed
    [What is this?]