A7 – Mycorrhizae metaphor of learning!

Image by nutmeg66 via Flickr

Engeström 2007 From communities of practice to mycorrhizae

Reading a chapter by Engeström that discusses several metaphors in relation to learning.

The article begins with a critical review of the idea of communities of practice, and the metaphor of participation as being a key mechanism for learning. In the first section Engeström identifies and deals with the limits to the idea of community of practice, in particular its ahistorical nature.

The article then goes on to introduce ideas about user generation of value and the term knotworking.

In the final sections of the reading, Engeström discusses the idea of ‘runaway objects’ and the metaphor of mycorrhizae.

The introduction outlines the communities of practice notion (Lave and Wenger 1991) which moved learning from acquisition to participation as a metaphor and mechanism for learning. The COP notion sits within situated learning and the apprenticeship.

What criticisms does Engeström make?

Engeström doesn’t think that the Communities of Practice (CoP) notion is relevant anymore because CoPs are based on apprenticeships and situated learning so they are bounded with membership criteria, have a single centre of supreme skill and authority,and is characterised the novice moving towards becoming the master, (one way).  Engeström says that this does not reflect the true developments that have happening in the way organisations work.

What changes does Engeström identify; e.g. open source?

The changes towards a knowledge society, where knowledge empowers organisations and not hierarchies or markets. Knowledge creates a collaborative community and collaborative interdependence which coordinates interactions, requires a wide range of competencies and shifts as the knowledge and services change which cannot be met through traditional team structures. The challenges to the organisation is that teams need to have more fluid boundaries and individuals a diversity of skills and knowledge, authority is based on knowledge and values are important in motivating the individuals.

(b) What does he mean by negotiated knotworking?

Negotiated knotworking– an emerging way of organising work for co-configuration. Collaboration between partners is vital but takes shape without rigid predetermined rules or central authority.

Social Production or peer production – open source movement. New forms of community based work and knowledge creation. No single permanent centre, every can be a centre momentarily, importance of a shared goal.

(a) What are mycorrhizae?

The invisible organic texture underneath visible fungi. Fungi feed on absorbing nutrients from the environment around them. They do this by growing through and within the substrate on which they are feeding. Fungus is always in contact with its surroundings. Large surface area compared to volume.  In return the plant provides sugars for photosynthesis of other plants.

(b) How does this organic metaphor relate to networks?

1. Difficult to bound and close
2. Hard to kill but also vulnerable
3. Lie dormant for lengthy periods but generate again when the conditions are right
4. Heterogeneous participants working symbiotically
5. Thriving on mutually beneficial partnerships with other plants and organisms

The mycorrhizae depend on other plants and produce mushrooms, without these plants and mushrooms it will not take shape so the careful analysis of structures and dynamics of an activity system is needed.

(c) What are wildfire activities?

Engeström uses the examples of bird watching and skateboarding to explain these and compare them to networks of learning.  – activities that disappear or die in a given location, but reappear and develop vigorously in a different location

(d) How do you think these metaphors assist or hinder your understanding?

I liked the mycorrhizae explanation. I liked the idea of me being a small entity in social learning, but I spread my wings and cover a wide surface area of other people learning the same stuff by using the internet. Without the internet and web 2.0 I wouldn’t be able to absorb these elearning nutrients from others.  The community continues to exist as conditions allow it, and sometimes dies back and yes it is at risk. This also reminds me of Learning III where we need to find people who believe or want to investigate/learn the same things as us so we aren’t seen as weird.

Week 23 A6 – network metaphor discussion

Image via Wikipedia

Bruce Ingraham (2004) offers a critique/commentary of Jones’ (2004) networked learning metaphor article (see earlier activity) in the next issue of the same journal. Then Jones has another opportunity to respond and expand his original article.

Ingraham’s concerns include:

1.  how the technical and mathematical models of networks are not thoroughly expanded and applied the debate on network elearning, he is also “alarm[ed]” by comparing human behaviour with mathematical models.

He says that networks of nodes and links can be flat and 2 dimensional however complex networks are 3D so understandint this added Dimension can make a difference to our understanding of the network metaphor. Ingraham basically wants Jones’ to expand on his explanations and how he sees the models applied to learning that he uses.

2. Concerns about the network metaphor itself.

Using the network metaphor, JOnes’ and others see the humans and resources as nodes. However, Ingraham says you cannot call tutors and students nodes, but they are the link makers between the notes and links.  An abstraction of the network can only exist if people make the links and the pattern of links made is the social process which makes up the network.  The path taken through the nodes/links by each learner will be different. It is the links MADE by each individual learner than makes up the network they are in.  So ingraham is saying that Jones’ explanation of networks does not add anything to our understanding of the processes of networking building.

Ingraham offers the RHIZOME as another metaphor for the social processes in networked learning – which spread out, fold back on and through themselves in complex patterns of growth. Rhizome is a type of root system in a plant. like ginger, which grows above and below ground.

Jones’ responds in the same issue (2004).

A problem is how people view different terms, if people still see networks as 2d then the metaphor doesn’t work, but Jones’ sees network as 3d – scale free networks, random networks.

In response to the criticism of using nodes to represent humans, Jones states that in English the term node derives from growth points in plants, in French it dervices from the word Knot, implying interweaving links. Jones’ sees nodes as collectives, organisations, sub groups, regions etc. Individuals could be networks of relations.

Jones’ mentions the communities of practice metpahors for networked learning and says that limitations of this implies strong close relationships between parrticipatants to create unity.  Jones’ view is that networks are held together by looser links than COP imply.

Jones criticises the Rhizome metaphor as a root based metaphor which carries images of transport in and out of a system, roots are transactional systems sustaining a living organism and the transactions are largely one way and only particlaly interactive.

The key problem Jones’ poiunts out is how different people perceive networks, Ingraham sees them as 2d, Jones sees them as mulit dimensional phenomena. So as he says, the “network metaphor is not new and clearly carries with it a certain baggage from previous uses.”

Week 23 – Activity 4 – more metaphors

What new metaphors might help in terms of describing new technologies and the ways in which teachers and students interact with them?

• Pick and mix – mixing and matching the tools used and trying different things until settling on what you like, and then seeing another new sweet and trying that one and on it goes.
• Knitting – drawing lots of threads together, using your own mind (Needles) to make a whole output.
• Parachute Jump – an all in approach, use everything and see where I land!

Week 23 Activities 1 and 2

Image by CarbonNYC via Flickr

Week 23 – starting again. Now that I’ve got a better understanding why and how metaphors are being used I’ve decided to start this week again. Fortunately having read the stuff once it’s quicker again and this time I know what I’m looking for.

Intro:

Exploring the issues of how new digital environments are described and how these descriptions make sense of them. They say there is “a need for new forms of language and meaning making to understand and describe the interaction of individuals in the digital environment.”

It’s important to understand the rhetoric we use as the language we choose can have connotations and hidden assumptions. Every discipline carries its own terminology, epistemology (the study of the theory of knowledge) and ontology (a formal representation of concepts, the characteristics of things that exist)

Activity 1 -

I’ll come back to next week along with everyone on the discussion forum as I am a week ahead.

Activity 2:

The H800 study guide says that learners and teachers lack the skills needed to exploit the technologies on offer. There is a lack of appropriate language to make sense of the interactions between individuals and technologies.

Metaphors are ways of making meaning out of something, to give us different lenses to understand it. Social networking and the network metaphor is about the links between objects and people and not just the people or shared objects.

In this article Conole (2007) Stepping over the edge: the implications of new technologies for education offers some possible new metaphors for looking at these interactions and how they impact on learning.

In the past, technologies have been described based on physical spaces but now it’s time to look at the connections between the technologies and users together.  A common way to describe technologies is by functional specifications or by spatial metaphors such as the desktop, files and folders.  But web 2.0 means we use computers differently now, information is no longer in one place, from one source. Spatial descriptions are not adequate for describing what’s happening.

Conole says we should also consider the Temporal (time factors), functional (what do they do, inputs, outputs, info flows) and social dimensions of the web – connectivity.

Conole also introduces Morgan’s work on organisational metaphors and sees if these can be used as metaphors for TEL.

These are – the machine – the org’ns structure; the brain – the information processing systems; the organism – the living ecosystem; the culture – the customs and values; the political – relationships, interests, conflicts and power.

Spatial, temporal and functional dimensions of web 2.0 related to the environment as a machine or brain. But organism, culture and political can also be used to describe the connected nature of the internet.  The organism metaphor, in particular, is starting to be used – learning ecologies, ecosystems, nodes, interconnected, unseen, distributed (Engestrom’s MYCORRHIZAE metaphor).

Using new metaphors in TEL give us more insights into digital environments and ways of describing what is happening.

The cultural metaphor helps us understand the communities, practices and values.

The political metaphor helps us articulate power dynamics, conflict, tensions between technology and institutions, and so on.

Another way of helping us to understand what is going on is with the new visualisation tools such as Compendium and mind maps which help us understand the navigation and narrative paths within a network of social objects which bind people together and generate learning.

I really like Conole’s penultimate line which reads ” the ultimate goal has to remain harnessing the potential of these technologies to provide better and more engaging learning environments and opportunities for students” – that is why I moved into elearning from admin, I’ve always cared so much about giving the student a better learning experience and having experienced text based distance learning myself, I wanted to help give DL students more opportunities for more engaging learning.

Metaphors and Similes

My tutor linked me to this website that explains the differences. http://knowgramming.com/metaphors/metaphor_and_simile_difference.htm.

A simile is saying something is LIKE something else to represent it. It cannot substitute the other, but it describes it.

A metaphor IS a substitute; they suggest that something is actually the word being used.  So learning is networking – networking is equal to learning, participation is equal to learning, acquisition is = to learning, the VLE is = to learning.

I’ve done a bit more research, and found this stuff on  “conceptual metaphors” or “cognitive metaphors”  which clears it up a bit.

The following is taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_metaphor

“In cognitive linguistics, conceptual metaphor, or cognitive metaphor, refers to the understanding of one idea, or conceptual domain, in terms of another, for example, understanding quantity in terms of directionality (e.g. “prices are rising”). ^”

“The latter half of each of these phrases”… [the metaphor e.g network, participation, acquisition]

“invokes certain assumptions about concrete experience” [ie learning]

“and requires the reader or listener to apply them to the preceding abstract concepts” ….”in order to understand the sentence in which the conceptual metaphor is used.”

Maybe I need to reread some of the week 23 stuff now I’ve got a better understanding.

AM and PM Metaphors – my thoughts

February 25, 2009

Having read about the Acquisition and Participation Metaphors and the Activity Theory I’ve got the following thoughts and key points

Sfard does not claim that AM and PM are muturally exclusive, in fact, PM rarely exists without some AM first. A combincation of AM and PM bring to forward the advantages of both and pushes back the limitations of each.

There should be more metaphors such as the knowledge-creation metaphor and to crudely categorise things as simply AM or PM was unsatisfactory.

Activity Theory – in elearning control is lost by the teacher to the student. In face to face practice teachers have control over their excellence in teaching. The outcome of the activity system is a change in the learner. In elearning technology the excellence in teaching is limited by the software, which is limited by the norms, skills, etc of the developers. The content developers become involved and have further norms and rules to follow.

However, this does not concur with the findings of Bayne where she found that students felt a lack of control and teachers felt more control over the learners from the perspective of cyber identities.

Activity Theory hlps us to understand how in elearning the activity control is lost by the teacher to the student. In face to face practice teachers have control over their excellence in teaching. The outcome of the activity system is a change in the learner. In elearning technology the excellence in teaching is limited by the software, which is limited by the norms, skills, etc of the developers. The content developers become involved and have further norms and rules to follow.

The author doesn’t mention the influence of the students. I feel that in discussion forums a lot of the control over how stable the objective remains is down to the students and the route that their discussion take. In H808 discussions were given more freedom and time to develop and explore different avenues, so far on H800 this has been difficult due to the overloaded nature of the activities. There is no time for deep learning.

Comparing the metaphors to my own learning experiences (from wk 1)

a) do all of my examples of learning refer to learning in terms of either acquisition or participation? Learning how to use captivate was acquisition because I just read the instructions, but it was participation in terms of action as in order to establish the learning I had to practice it.   Most have a combination of both AM and PM. Surely, how can you learn through PM if you don’t have the knowledge acquisition either before or during the Participatory period.

b) Any instances that do not fit into either AM or PM?No.

c) Is your learning process more oriented to you as an individual or to you within a social context? Social. I prefer to learn from doing, sharing and discussing than from reading/listening. It helps to reinforce my learning. Even blogging to me is PM, I’m participating with myself because I don’t have a class to “talk” to about what we’re learning. I’ve always learnt more from vocalising what I’m learning, eg explaining to others or simply discussing or sharing information.

Sfard was basically saying in Week 3 that learning is acquisition and learning is participation. On reflection, my thoughts are that acquisition is one of the “ends” of learning, and participation is one of the “means”. The other signifcant end to learning is application which takes us onto Brown’s article for Week 4 about authentic learning experiences and the enculturation of learning.

Week 3b – further thoughts in the Activity Theory and AM and PM

I was having trouble grasping the concepts in the Sfard Articile and the Activity Theory that was introduced in the course notes and in preparation for the online tutorial we have tonight I’ve done some further research to try and develop my understanding better.

Articles found

James, M and Brown, S(2005)’Grasping the TLRP nettle: preliminary analysis and some enduring issues surrounding the improvement of learning outcomes’,Curriculum Journal,16:1,7 — 30  URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0958517042000336782

and

Robertson, I. (2007) “E-Learning Practices: Exploring the Potential of Pedagogic Space, Activity Theory and the Pedagogic Device,” Learning and Socio-cultural Theory: Exploring Modern Vygotskian Perspectives International Workshop 2007: Vol. 1: Iss. 1, Article 5.  Available at: http://ro.uow.edu.au/llrg/vol1/iss1/5

J&B state that it’s important to think in terms of relationships between teaching input and learning output.

They state how metaphors are used in how people theorize about learning and learning processes.  They explain  Sfard’s Acquisition and Participation metaphors more. Learning as acquisition is the dominant view. The PM is a “linguistic turn” where the dynamic activity of doing gives way to the static concept of having.  Sfard suggests that “the learner should be viewed as a person interested in participation in activities” as opposed to just collecting possessions of knowledge.

Learning activities are “embedded in contexts” so learning is about “situatedness, cultural embeddedness and social mediation”. The emphasis of PM is on discussion, activity, interaction and being part of a community.

In J&B’s research, the AM was more prevalent that the PM metaphor, in most cases there were dual approaches and in only 1 was there PM only.

J&B suggest that there should be more metaphors such as the knowledge-creation metaphor and to crudely categorise things as simply AM or PM was unsatisfactory. The theoreiical perspectives that fitted into the AM were extremely varied – constructivist as well as social-constructivist views.

Part of Robertson’s article looked at the Activity Theory in relation to elearning and compared how it can be used for F2F and e-teaching.

It has helped me to understand the Activity Theory (AT) better. “Activity is seen as dynamic, contextually bound and the based unit of analysis. Activities are distinguished from one another by the tangible or intangible objects achieved. If the object changes then so does the activity.” Tools… mediate between the subject and object… such as physical tools, language and symbols which are created or transformed in the course of the activity”  The tools and other factors in the AT are both enabling and limited.

Em’s Comment: So we can use the AT to look at what parts of the learning process we need to do an assessment of when reviewing or writing elearning activities.

2nd generation Activity Theory diagram showing the different elements. This shows the theory at a collective level, rules may be explicit or implicit; division of labour refers to the explicit and implicit organisation of the community.  Third generation Activity Theory brings in the concept of boundaries and where two of more activity systems come into contact there may be tensions.

In f2f teaching the teacher is mostly responsible for the development and delievery of the teaching programme and it is adapted to some extent based on the responses of the learners behaviours and is adapted by the teacher. The teaching is influenced by the text books used and the cultural norms of the institution and the discipline they work in.

F2F annotated AT diagram

In elearning activities control is shared by many groups involved in design and delivery of the teaching. The norms and behaviours of the software developers is influential and that of content developers. The division of labour in elearning activities is divided between many people.  Here is the diagram annotated with the elearning activity.

 

Based on the elements of generation two Activity Theory Mwanza and Engestrom (2003) describe an eight step model to guide researchers using Activity Theory.
1. Activity: What sort of activity am I interested in?
2. Object(ive): Why is the activity taking place?
3. Subjects: Who is involved in carrying out the activity?
4. Tools: By what means are the subjects performing the activity?
5. Rules and regulations: Are there any cultural norms, rules or regulations governing the performance of the activity?
6. Division of labour: Who are responsible for what, when carrying out activity and how are those roles organised?
7. Community: What is the environment in which this activity is being carried out?
8. Outcomes: What is the desired outcome from carrying out this activity? (Mwanza & Engestrom, 2003)

The author helps us to understand how in elearning the activity control is lost by the teacher to the student. In face to face practice teachers have control over their excellence in teaching. The outcome of the activity system is a change in the learner. In elearning technology the excellence in teaching is limited by the software, which is limited by the norms, skills, etc of the developers. The content developers become involved and have further norms and rules to follow.

Em’s Comment: the author doesn’t mention the influence of the students. I feel that in discussion forums a lot of the control over how stable the objective remains is down to the students and the route that their discussion take. In H808 discussions were given more freedom and time to develop and explore different avenues, so far on H800 this has been difficult due to the overloaded nature of the activities. There is no time for deep learning

Week 3b What it means to learn – metaphors and practices

Week 3b What is means to learn – metaphors and practices
You need to think about what learning means and to question whether collaboration and active participation are all there is to learning. Your assumptions about learning drive what you do to bring learning to yourself or others. Two core metaphors underpin learning – the acquisition metaphor (AM) and the participation metaphor (PM).

Metaphors and approaches to learning
Often educationalists concentrate on how learning happens as opposed to what learning is because it is difficult to define. Kolb learning cycle 1984 introduced the concept that reflection on concrete experience plays a role in the learning process, and not just abstract knowledge and thinking. Kolb draws on the ideas of both participation and acquisition in his work on learning. A metaphor asserts one thing is the same as another, thus the quality of one known thing are used to say something about another. Sfard (1998) argues that metaphors play a key role in thinking and shape approaches to research and the development of theory. Technologies impact on the meaning of learning. When you explore what learning means, you have to see how TEL affects this. You need to test out the metaphors against your experience of TEL.

Sfard, A. (1998) On two metaphors for Learning and the Dangers of Choosing Just one in Educational Researcher, Vol 27 No 2 (March 1998). American Educational Research Association.

- about how humans conceptualise learning, and the role that the two dominant metaphors for learning have played.
Read Sfard – 1. How Sfard defines the A and P metaphors
2. How she distinguishes between them
3. The significance of Table 1 and the difference between questions of what learning is v. how learning happens.

The AM is more likely to be present in older texts, the PM is more prominent in more recent studies.
AM – Human learning is conceived as an acquisition of something, growth of knowledge, concept development. Basic units of knowledge (concepts) that can be accumulated, refined and form ever richer cognitive structures. Human mind as a container to be filled with certain materials and about the learner as becoming an owner of these materials.AM is learning as an acquisition of goods, implying gaining ownership.

PM Knowledge is replaced with the noun knowing, which implies action – having gives way to doing. AM implies that there is a clear end point to the process of learning, PM states that there is no end to learning. PM is linked to practice, reflection, discourse, communicating and that the learner is a person interested in participation in activities rather than in accumulating private possessions. Learning is seen as a process of becoming a part of a community. Learners contribute to the very existence of the group.
AM stresses the individual mind and what goes into it, PM shifts the focus to the evolving bonds between the individual and others.

Most learning theories cannot be regarded as purely AM or PM, the act of Acquisition is often tantamount to the act of becoming a participant. Each has something to offer that the other does not. Metaphorical pluralism leads to better research and more satisfactory practice. No two students have the same needs and no two teachers arrive at their best performance in the same way, theoretical exclusivity and didactic single mindedness should be avoided.

The most powerful research is that research which depends on more than one metaphor.A combination of AM and PM would bring fore the advantages of both of them and keeping their respective drawbacks at bay. Dictatorship of a single metaphor may lead to theories that serve the interest of certain groups and disadvantages others.

But this plurality does not imply the anything goes and theory/practice should still be based on sound research.

The metaphorical mappings (table from Sfard 1998)

AM		PM
Individual Enrichment	Goal of learning	Community building
Acquisition of something	Learning	Becoming a participant
Recipient	Student	Peripheral participant, apprentice
Provider, facilitator, mediator	Teacher	Expert participant, preserver of practice/discourse
Property, possession, commodity	Knowledge, concept	Aspect of practice/discourse/activity
Having, possessing	Knowing	Belonging, participating and communicating

Comparing the metaphors to my own learning experiences (from wk 1)
a) do all of them refer to learning in terms of either acquisition or participation?
Learning how to use captivate was acquisition because I just read the instructions, but it was participation in terms of action as in order to establish the learning I had to practice it.

b) Any instances that do not fit into either AM or PM? No – all involve AM, most involve PM.

c) Is your learning process more oriented to you as an individual or to you within a social context? Social. I prefer to learn from doing, sharing and discussing than from reading/listening.