Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.
Churn, Sink and Drift – 21C Outcomes
Published November 7, 2009 Pedagogy Shifting , Professional Learning Leave a Comment
Online communities – are now a culture or counter-culture depending on your ideology. Community, culture, churn, sift and drift are the reagents of motivation and at the center of learning anything online.
Communities need culture to operate. Anyone talking about communities in an online world, cannot dismiss its cultural influences. This is however a ver spikey idea – especially to people who prefer the world the way as it was. Big communities are more robust. In times of stress, they spin off into smaller ones rather than shattering. They are easy for newcomers to join, so you spend less time recruiting as there’s always room for one more. They are very attractive to socializers who seem to prefer their inclusive feel. Small communities are fast to develop, the community levels faster (I think there are 4 stages to community: communication, interest, practice and collective action). Small communities are more personal-friendly to newcomers. They tend to be more diverse in their interests and are far more exclusive. Explorers, risk takers and innovators prefer them.
They all suffer from churn, sink and drift.
Churn is the rate people leave. The stronger the community, the less churn. (schools auto-churn students every year). Most of the churn happens in the newcomer days: It’s too hard, I don’t have time, it’s not me etc., A good way to manage churn rates is to offer a trial (as in 10 days game play for nothing). This acts as safety value to ensure the community is not determined by the churn. The community does not want people who can’t strengthen it and are willing for give up revenue and size for this. Much of education is fixated on cost and size, so actually promotes churn. Education is built to churn by offering pilots and taster communities, most of which fail when the community is forced to scale to reach enterprise level. We go from a few classrooms to a few schools to a policy as enforcement. The churn point.
Sink is all about why people engage. Why people sink time and intellectual investment into learning or playing online. It is why people want to use a virtual world – or why they want to learn from YouTube. Drift is why they stop using it, or stop being interested. Community is the hook that pulls people into Educational Technology and what keeps them there. Immersion is what teachers and leaders need to be concerned with. It is rare for a politician to talk about immersing teachers in a culture of … as they have no real access to communities that do – they are not buraucrats.
The strategy of adding more hardware, more tools, more resources, more policy does not promote community of immersion. It promotes churn (I tried, and didn’t like), sink (I wanted to do it, but it was blocked) and drift (I have been using some technology, but that now I’m told its old hat). I think that when you get beyond around 250 members of a community – you will see sub-groups forming with their own sub interests – leading and coordinating those is a whole new level. In EdTech communities; the laws of churn, sink and drift determine everything.
This is why we see teachers churning out the classrooms, sinking thousands of hours into online communities nand drifing away from the ideology and philosphies that were installed in them as pre-teachers. We love our small communities – as we reach that level of participation and action quicky (classrooms, small groups etc) and use the big communities (Twitter, Facebook, Blogs) to locate them.
These communities operate at an almost intutitive level, they defend, promote, create and help constantly, the best ones do it for free and never attempt to rule the members but enable them. Second Classroom reached 250 members this week. A virtual community that now has to level up if it is going to become a big strong one.
There is much written about communities, especially around students. Seth Godin uses the ‘tribe’ metaphor and says ‘we need you to lead us‘. I wonder if leadership plays out differently where leader is to a greater or lesser degree, a designer or the game maker, not your hierarchical superior. If we are seeking Godin’s view of leadership, is education trying to turn gas into a solid.
There are some tenants needed for effective community. MMOs, Virtual Worlds and Open Source more often demonstrate understanding that to work members/players must have a shared pool of knowledge. They must follow and abide by common practices. They must have a history (either self-evolved, or presented though a back-story). Members must share a vision or mission goal for the whole communities future. Members must work together on projects so that the community to creates strong bonds between groups and individuals. They must also be able to negotiate outcomes.
A strong community is desirable over a collection of people using a portal, because members are less likely to want to break the bonds made between them. Portals have users, who have no bonds. To the portal makers, when the level of community-friendlyness extends to attempt to undermine the goal – it’s a warning sign, that there is trouble. Messenger or Twitter in schools for example undermines a weak community – but strengthens a strong one. See Shelly’s post about Latin Tests on Twitter and Laurel Papworth on banning social media in schools. Please don’t yell ‘duty of care’ … as clearly public education policy is medieval in comparison to private and Catholic on this – BOTH have the same legal obligations.
There are levels in which a ‘community’ must pass in order to succeed. Leadership requires a specific design, revealed to members as they pass through these levels – but is always adaptive to it’s members needs. Leaders do get lucky from time to time – but also unlucky when things fall over or fail to work as planned. In a weak community, it shatters all momentum but in a strong one members will accept a bad day on the grid, lose a game or not get that code to run … a strong community rallies where as a weak one stumbles.
Strong community cannot be built though artificial means. Unless you have a leader you want to follow and who’s design you believe in – you don’t join. No one wants to join a crap community. Consider how easily many newcomers to technology give up (the reluctance problem) when leadership is less than compelling. We don’t believe, therefore look for the exit.
In Halo, we get killed, in Second Life, we all get logged out and in Open Source, things crash – but we try again, we learn from it, and make it better next time.
These levels probably have shades of gray, but I see them like this – and I’m sure you can swap out the examples).
- community of communication (twitter, messenger, facebook, myspace, bebo, workmail)
- community of interest (nings, wikis, games, forums, second life)
- community of practice (collabatoriums – sourceforge, indie games)
- community of commitment (advocacy, guilds, networks)
Any group which gets to the last level here is a force to be reckoned with. There is an almost spiritual bond between it’s members – who both advocate, maintain and defend it. The Church is a great example. They have the community thing down to a fine art, but the Minister for Edumaction – I don’t think so. So we are left with using policy to force group creation. Policy is supposed to protect the organisation and members but does not create community. When members cannot succeed or operate without being in the group, they never become a strong community as the policy is the bubble that defines the operational limits, regardless of the groups increasing abilities and interests.
We can’t replicate what we see happening in conference lounges between networked friends or in Warcraft inside systems defined by policies designed to prevent it. Open Source for example didn’t start with a policy but and idea and people who rallied around it to form community. We can’t realistically expect a ‘revolution’ because Rudd wrote a policy. We can expect compliance and performance pressures.
A great community is one which is communicating and working intuitively on their need to strengthen and defend members and values, as well as achieve operational and strategic goals. There are thousands of these online today. People who are not just saying they believe – but truly believing. From Car Audio to Steam Punk Photography, there’s a community for everyone and an opportunity for everyone to make a new one. It stands to reason that there is increasing opportunity to learn in places that didn’t exist a decade ago.
Seth Godin calls these people ‘true fans’. How many of them are there in your work place? … or do you have people determined to prevent it – fearing some perceived loss? Culture, ideology, philosophy and many more behavioral intelligences play a much greater role in adoption that skills in how to use a computer. Participation in groups at the higher levels is entirely voluntary, so of course will join communities of their choosing, not their employers. We simply don’t hang out in the employers portals in the same way students won’t hang out in our creepy treehouse. Level 1 and 2 you can make me do, level 3 and 4 is up to me.
Communities, like game players, need to learn to level up. Players in MMOs or communities in Second Life such as Caledon operate at the higher levels. Members have the skills, bonds and committments to continually strengthen the group performance for as long as they choose to voluneer. Leaders in these spaces are able to design for strong community from the outset. This is the missing ingredient in many districts, administrations and patriarchies – they don’t know how to do it. Its not in the MBA, wasn’t in the Masters and probably not the subject of their PhD. Anyone who is talking about building communities can’t be in it for the money, the power or the glory in my view. They are in it because they want to be, and that they want to participate in ways that the leaders have designed. Open Source is perhaps the best example of this leadership and community. Not using it in schools, locks students out of a culture that has tremendous value for them and society.
The learning dilemma
Published November 3, 2009 Professional Learning 3 CommentsTags: education, technolgy
As if there was any doubt that information is increasingly heading into the Z dimension, Wikitree has gone open source – in response to a need to grow (pun) the solution. Wikitree is a 3D-Wiki plug-in on the virtual world platform, Second Life. Its a wiki, but creates the canopy of leaves represent the information, and versions of it.
Now imagine information is not in fact limited to letters, video, sound or images – but has three dimensions. Let me expand.
This is a Wikipedia page on a Spanish Galleon. I am sure with a little Google skill you can find a video or even a 3D render of one too. In wikitree, there would be a Spanish Galleon. You can rez it, move it, walk around it. With a little more imagination, the galleon is a fleet and the fleet becomes an Armada. Wikitree changes the dynamics of information because the things we want to describe and know about are multi-dimensional and spacial. But it’s not just a rezzer. You can vote, add, comment and do all the connected stuff that we love about wikis in the browser.
Look past the Second Life platform itself and picture this ability in high end game engines that already exist in MMOs and consoles. Imagine what happens when Porsche start releasing 3D information and you can take their prototypes around the track. Imagine when the school wiki – allows you to experience the syllabus in three dimensions.
Wikis are very powerful ways to create, share and store information – Wikitree is a further signal that what is currently in the browser will continue to be augmented by that pesky Z dimension. Perhaps most interesting to me is that it is considered architecture – not ‘media’.
WHAT is a good teaching strategy? It’s a plan for someone else’s learning. It encompasses the presentation of materials the teacher might make, the activities and exercises they designed for the students, providing access to resources and tools needed to develop a growing understanding of the subject – and assess it.
Laptops and computers are not a strategy and hardly a revolution without teachers, but the steps needed to succeed are hard to articulate. We now have a fleeting opportunity to reshape schooling with long overdue public funding, yet teachers still find ‘tabbed browsing’ a new concept. This is not funny, it’s scary. They can hum the tune, but not name the song. Even experienced, successful teachers that function well inside the cognitive apprentice classroom are web novices unable to develop any effective strategy, lock-stepped by intersecting perceptions of why they can’t or won’t do as the tide of change rises ever higher.
The strategy is relatively straight forward, but obviously requires access to a group of people who are experts in dealing with this issue. If we are to capitalise on school investment – there has to be someone to call, someone to help – when you need it. This is the role of leadership – to create a culture of participation.
This is the question to put to school leaders. “How are you demonstrating this strategy in your own work and provisioning it for your staff?.”
There are five steps that I believe must occur continuously.
- Encounter the idea, concept, principle or skill
- Get to know more about it
- Try it out for yourself
- Get feedback/evaluation
- Reflect (I liked, I wondered, my next steps)
It is a cycle of transition that won’t be done simply though infrastructure – and it amazes me how easily we accept press releases from high office about size, numbers and dollars – at the absolute expense of effective professional development of teachers. No effective teaching strategy, no effective learning. This is achieved by working with people who can implement it – not just talk about it.
A long time ago I somehow managed to get on TV very briefly - and not just in a crowd at a Forest game either. Some fairly lame documentary called “Thatcher’s children“. This was around the same time that baby boomers where freaking out about the post-cold war era and real fears over Beastie Boy’s pinching their Volkswagen Golfs GTi Badge. The era of MTV.
A BBC TV documentary labelled kids born in the 80’s Thatcher’s Children, but the Prodigy coined a better phrase in the 90’s, calling them the Jilted generation. These are the kids built on Sunkist, Jolly Ranchers and Pop Tarts, spending nights sat in bus shelters smoking Sovereign drinking Hooch and 20/20 and cider. [Easy Kill]
To some degree or another, my formative years in education was within a social culture where people became more socially liberal than their forbearers. We were less interested in the authority of politics and more interested in ourselves as a result of their actions – we wanted our MTV (check this great ad). We were influenced by the policies that either introduced new institutions, or removed them. Cable TV, in the Thatcher years was a major change in access to broadcast media, from the generation who listened to Pirate Radio. Music has always been a clear signal of youth interest – “you can’t stop rock and roll“. In the 80s, music – had to had a visual narrative as well ‘the rock’. Video’s became story, not just filmed performance – and some were just plain silly, others such as ‘sledgehammer‘ – changed the use of media itself in story telling.
Today the primary U.S. MTV channel does occasionally play music videos (albeit rarely), but is far more interested in other genres of programming such as Reality TV. We are seeing similar shifts in Facebook – the once ‘connecting’ site for friendship management – has fast become the number one place to play social games. However, first impressions last … and perception’s are often un-shiftable.
Did it really make us ignorant? In my house it was just on, like wallpaper – I didn’t watch it, I more absorbed it. I worked all day Saturday to pay for it too. This seems to be equally true today … so perhaps we have only moved from the TV set to the headset.
As MTV in the UK was MTV Europe, I vividly remember the Euro-content. Even before reality TV, MTV Europe changed a generation’s view of borderlines. The central arguments against it are essentially the same as those against social media and games today – with added fear over privacy and predators.
… our embodied experience of the world also includes the ways in which our actions bring about changes in our understanding of ourselves, our emotional makeup, and our conscious and unconscious behaviours. The performative characteristic of embodied experience is not necessarily associated with our physical body. Magellan Egoyan
Back then however, teachers had almost no interest in MTV Europe. It wasn’t about to enter the classroom – and definitely not important. Today, music is accessed via iTunes, YouTube, LastFM, MySpace and more. Back then – Slash was a guitar player, now he’s toon on Rock Band – you get to be Slash not just watch him. Most teachers and schools have no clue where or what students are thinking or saying online – let alone playing or connecting to, because we feel that the filter ‘blots’ out the problem. It doesn’t it multiplies it.
It would be fascinating ask those who are technology adverse – please enter the command ’slash watched’ into your brain. If they are not online – where are they getting their information about the world. Today, Lily Allen is using social media and feeling it’s backlash – and why not, those who rebuff politician tweets or leave spikey comments for soda-pop stars grew up in an era that changed their view of what they can do. Are politicians tweeting because they want public opinion, or because they too are slightly bored much of the time, locked in their chamber. Our lack of action today is going to bite us in the bum later. Its not nukes that worry us now, it’s social decay … V for Vendetta, Hunger Games … 1984 or Brave New World?
Story Quest
Published October 18, 2009 Pedagogy Shifting , Professional Learning , Virtual Worlds in Edu Leave a Comment
STORY QUEST. Not only is this a brilliant idea, it represents yet another signal to the wider educational technology teaching community that virtual worlds are fast crossing over as the place to take your read/write/make classrooms. The impossible is possible, and with a clearer understanding of writing – students can experience a much more open and immersible learning environment – exploring on their own terms and raising questions that it generates. While the current fuss over Google Wave rages on Twitter, I can’t help keep asking what is it for – in the classroom. What does it do that can’t be done. I suspect Google Wave will have implications for people, but not sure how it would align with the current syllabus’ demands for information communication technology.
The great thing here is that you can not only watch that video; but step into it yourself. You prompt the action and interaction and your presence in the space triggers the events. It is designed for architects, to understand how to look at Second Life or Reaction Grid as an instructional design space that is created to meet outcomes intended, though activities and assessment. For more information, check out Jo Kay’s blog post on Story Quest, grab a walking stick and explore a new way to tell stories – and in Story Quest, there are no stupid questions.
As I begin a 6 month project in Virtual Worlds … this sim to me, shouts – this is where story’s and learning are heading …
What is in the EdTech backpack? Is it a mobile phone, laptop, 3G dongle or a bag of virtual dirty tricks, magical potions and comforters – part operations, part strategy, part performance art.
With hind-sight, I’d have created a persona online from the outset. I’d be Victor Gloucester. He’d feel confident to throw dynamite-ideas into rooms where people sit with arms folded staring into the vortex of techno-denial. He’d tell you “technology, when given to adults, presents a distinct chance that it will be used to reinforce more of the same – or it will blow their hand off and they won’t touch it again”. Vic would be far more self-confident and inordinately cooler. He’d have figured out how to have made a million from consulting by now. Vic wouldn’t create an ePorfolio … he’d serve ‘cease and desist’ notices to the Emporer Ruperts of old-lore-mediocraty – in between watching Geek Brief TV and riding his Triumph.
The great thing about ‘toons’ … we can characterise them any way we like, they are imagined. The great thing about us is we are real an can imagine adopting project based learning, games, blogs, film making or writing a book. The characteristics of learning really are determined by our engagement with it. As simple as that. If the teacher isn’t engaged AND management doesn’t support or believe in it, then to them – your name is Vic. The tenants of eLearning have not changed in over a decade – but the opportunity has.
If you give people shovelware, all they will learn to do is shovel. God Bless Queen Victoria, and welcome the to the jugganaught of public education policy. We need stokers.
