LearnHub

Good vibes are there to be tapped!

A simplified version of a larger point i kept trying to make: most teachers don’t tend to think of their salary as hourly wage. And most dedicated teachers work countless hours. Same thing for rehearsing musicians. Remarkably different from private lawyers.

Addendum: teaching is my hobby, learning is what I get paid for.

Meri,

Thanks for the elaborate reply. The delay doesn’t matter much as I’ve been thinking on my own, in the meantime. I’m still torn, but I now see some ways I could manage things to be comfortable.

I’m glad we can discuss these things thoughtfully, avoiding personalized debates as much as possible.

I was writing a long post about diverse ways learning happens. But I guess it wasn’t appropriate in this context. Let’s just say that there’s a lot to say about multiple forms of learning which are, indeed, free, open, fluid, and organic. Language acquisition, enculturation, and even the forms of “learning” associated with non-human species can serve as useful examples. Direct instruction is clearly not the only process through which learning happens and even the most formal teaching methods rely on students’ learning strategies. Money isn’t at stake, here. Learning is a cognitive process, not a financial transaction. In other words, I really don’t think that teachers can “make people learn” but I do see diverse things teachers can do to facilitate or even enable learning on the part of other people.

Specifically on the statement which is at the basis of this debate. Yes, I do agree that “charging for learning support is blatant capitalism” and that charging for learning support “diminishes the dream of equal access to all.” Though I do hold the ideal of “equal access to all,” I do perceive it as a dream.

Even though I’m not a citizen of the United States, I too greatly value some forms of independence. Yet I don’t see how working on my own would increase or enhance my independence.

[Edited version. Can somebody delete the previous one?]

Nellie,

We can also get into all the informal advising, teaching, and tutoring many of us end up doing with different people, online or offline. Much of the learning which happens around the globe is informal, open, no-cost, and free. In fact, much of it is conversational and “organic.” It just happens.

Even in more formal contexts, such as university teaching, much of what is really valuable happens in such contexts. Informal advising during office hours is among my favourite things to do, with a student. Yet, it’d be hard to monetize this directly. In a seminar-like setting, I’m usually learning as much if not more as the students. And provided some basic organization, much of the same can be done without any amount of money changing hands.

http://univcafe.org/

Because I care a lot about this type of experience, I’m sometimes afraid that charging for tutoring sessions or some such would somehow make these experiences rarer or more difficult.

Yes, sometimes it is hard being an idealist.

Some of it has to do with trust and friendship. Much of my life revolves around building those types of relationships with people. Without ulterior motives or with fluidly negotiated motives which are adapted through personal histories. Of course, being an ethnographer has a lot to do with establishing rapport and genuinely caring about people. So, there’s a kind of obstacle, in the way I approach contacts with fellow humans, to charging for something which can be provided at no-cost.

There’s also an issue of confidence. Yes, my range of expertise in certain domains is pretty valuable. But it’s rarely much more extensive than that of many others in that domain. As a “creative generalist,” I tend to be a “Jack of All Trades, Master of None.” Makes it hard to sell myself as an expert in any of these domains.

Coffee and beer are good examples. I do know quite a bit about these beverages, I’ve been interviewed by a few journalists about them, and I can write quite a lot about many topics related to them. But I’m not nearly as knowledgeable about coffee as a commercial roaster or pro barista. And my knowledge of beer is mostly the basis of informal exchange about brewing, during which I learn more than do other participants in the conversation. Some people do get paid to do something I can easily do (doing a sampling session, for instance). But their status in the brewing community changes through this monetization.

Knowledge isn’t a service, it’s an outcome of collaboration.

In a way, this gets me to think more about institutions. Like many others, I often react against top-down structures. I often feel universities are too constraining and, certainly, the “publish or perish” system seems completely inappropriate. But, at the same time, I realize that I do enjoy it when I’m part of a system or structure of some kind. Being hired to teach a course is much different from charging for lessons. A big part of the difference is between either collaborating with a consistent group of people in some learning program they’re enthused about or working on some educational material with some disconnected individuals. A “class” can be a very interesting learning context and material often becomes secondary in class contexts.

A small part of the difference is in the value of the intermediary, something which many of my friends in Mali have understood quite well. There are mediators between learners and teachers, in case something happens. Quite reassuring. Changes the rapport quite a bit.

A related factor is about “indirection”: tuition fees are indirectly related to instructor salary. Students aren’t paying the instructor. They’re paying for a series of services provided by the institution, including a library card, some form of accreditation, and a learning environment. The teacher isn’t an employee to the students, even though some people do behave as if this were the case. In public contexts (including pretty much all universities in Canada and in much of Europe), the community as a whole pays for a big part of the university’s budget and the university should give back to the community, not just the student body or some corporate sponsors.

Another factor has to do with the benefits of being a “dependent worker,” who doesn’t have to set up a small business just to be able to build learning environments. Freelance work can be difficult and it may not be for everyone, even though many people are forced in it.

And there are personality factors, such as the relative value we may give to leadership, authority, and independence. I actually don’t want to be my own boss.

All this to say, maybe I shouldn’t “jumpstart an online teaching career.” Maybe it’s “just not me.” But, at the same time, I’m basically unemployed and there are dimensions of direct online teaching that I would probably enjoy.

I guess I just wish I could be hired by an online “institution.” Especially if that institution were rather open.

Nellie, We can also get into all the informal advising, teaching, and tutoring many of us end up doing with different people, online or offline. Much of the learning which happens around the globe is informal, open, no-cost, and free. In fact, much of it is conversational and “organic.” It just happens. Even in more formal contexts, such as university teaching, much of what is really valuable happens in such contexts. Informal advising during office hours is among my favourite things to do, with a student. Yet, it’d be hard to monetize this directly. In a seminar-like setting, I usually learning as much if not more as the students. And provided some basic organization, much of the same can be done without any amount of money changing hands. http://univcafe.org/ Because I care a lot about this type of experience, I’m sometimes afraid that charging for tutoring sessions or some such would somehow make these experiences rarer or more difficult. Yes, sometimes it is hard being an idealist.

Some of it has to do with trust and friendship. Much of my life revolves around building those types of relationships, with people. Without ulterior motives or with fluidly negotiated motives being transformed through time. And being an ethnographer also has to do with establishing rapport, genuinely caring about people. So, there’s a kind of obstacle, in the way I approach contacts with fellow humans, to charging for something which can be provided at no-cost.

There’s also an issue of confidence. Yes, my range of expertise in certain domains is pretty valuable. But it’s rarely much better than that of many others in that domain. As a “creative generalist,” I tend to be a Jack of All Trades, Master of None. Makes it hard to sell myself as an expert in any of these domains. Coffee and beer are good examples. I do know quite a bit about them, I’ve been interviewed by several journalists, and I can write quite a bit about many topics related to them. But I’m not nearly as knowledgeable about coffee as a commercial roaster or pro barista. And my knowledge of beer is mostly the basis of informal exchange about brewing, during which I learn more than other people in the conversation. Some people do get paid to do something I can easily do. But their status in the brewing community changes through this.

In a way, this gets me to think more about institutions. Like many others, I often react against top-down structures. I often feel universities to be too constraining and, certainly, the “publish or perish” system to be completely inappropriate. But, at the same time, I realize that I do enjoy it when I’m part of a system or structure of some kind. Being hired to teach a course is much different from charging for learning sessions. A big part of the difference is between collaborating with a regular group of people in some learning program they’re enthused about and working with some individuals on some learning material. A “class” can be a very interesting learning context and material often becomes secondary. A small part of the difference is in the value of the intermediary, something which many of my friends in Mali have understood quite well. A related factor is about “indirection”: tuition fees are indirectly related to instructor salary, the connection isn’t direct. Another factor has to do with the benefits of a “dependent worker,” who doesn’t have to set up a small business just to be able to build learning environments. And there are personality factors, such as the relative value we may give to leadership, authority, and independence.

All this to say, maybe I shouldn’t “jumpstart an online teaching career.” Maybe it’s just “not me.” But, at the same time, I’m basically unemployed and there are dimensions of direct online teaching that I would probably enjoy. I guess I just wish I could be hired by an online “institution.” Especially if that institution were rather open.

Glad to see this “debate.” Shows awareness of some issues we may have. I tend to agree with the statement we’re “debating” in that charging for learning support does seem to at least lead us away from some of my own dreams in terms of access to knowledge, and such. The “blatant capitalism” expression is a way to put it in terms of political economy, but I usually react at other levels. Haven’t solved this for myself, let alone for others. But it seems to me that there’s a difference between charging for access to information and charging for a service which will help increase or enhance knowledge, experience, etc. Some of the things we do are clearly valuable and there’s some logic to making them cost something. As I usually teach in universities, the fact that students end up paying tuition fees doesn’t seem completely absurd. But the fact that students who pay the highest tuition fees aren’t getting a better university experience than those who pay much less does affect me. So does the fact that university training, while considered a requirement in many contexts, ends up being really affordable to very few of the autonomous people I expect to have in front of me. The fact that parents “pay for college,” in different parts of North America, is still somewhat foreign to me and does get in the way of the “quest for knowledge” which has been driving my university career. Now, having said all this, I’m in a situation which leads me to “teach for hire.” I also want to do my part so that changes in the way learning happens are compatible with my approach. But it does still feel like I’m a mercenary. It’s a weird sensation. Another difficult thing with which to cope is the fact that the monetary value of what we do depends as much on people’s own approaches to lifelong learning as it does to actually working. I just know that a lot of what I’ve done for free has had financially beneficial consequences on the lives of different people. And I’ve had students complain that what I was teaching wasn’t what they were paying for. Of course, those latter ones were often exhibiting this “sense of entitlement” which often comes with a specific social class. But it made for difficult teaching experiences. As I give some thought to the notion of “jumpstarting my online teaching career,” these issues are especially tricky. I love teaching, I need an income, I have no problem with working online… I’m just not sure I want to deal with all aspects of this.

well, the soundfile je available for download

Interesting. A friend produced a video which has a similar effect on me. http://www.swiss-smiles.ch/index.html YMMV. Obviously, to each their own.

BTW, sorry for the typo, himsing was talking about Dokeos, apparently: http://www.dokeos.com/ It looks rather neat, in terms of “look and feel.” But it also looks less learning-focused than Moodle in the sense that it seem oriented toward content (SCORM packages, tests…) rather than on the people. It’s also costly to deploy in a full version. In other words, it looks like a closed-source Content Management System with some education-specific features. What’s kind of interesting is that most Content Managements Systems are either Open Source or no-cost. The basic thing is, these are different approaches to achieve some of the same goals. Personally, I prefer the Moodle approach because it does put people at the centre. But other programs may work better for other people.

Good question (so I agree… ;-) ). My feeling is that there should be less focus on making installation easy and more focus on training users to work with a preinstalled Linux. Installing new sofware and updating the install should still be important but installing the distro itself isn’t that important. Especially if there’s good institutional support for Linux use…

Good point about the OLPC. It might even be a more important impact the project has had than this move to push laptops on governments.

My 2¢: Twitter’s still the name of the game, in networks with which I interact, but it’s “clunky” enough that people are looking for the next big thing. FriendFeed, SocialThing, Plurk… Semi-educated guess: Twitter-like functionalities will eventually be integrated in a broader platform, probably with more features for social network and probably with “regular” (not just “nano-”) blogging.

Never tried Dokeo. Thanks for the notice. Did try Sakai, on and off, since 2004. I like some features and could see myself using it more extensively, but I still prefer Moodle. Partly because of the Moodle community, some members of which are active on LearnHub and other “edugeek” venues. While “community support” may not frequently work as factor in an institutions choice of CMS, it does count a lot for some people. Having said this, I wish there were a general CMS-related community with a clear focus on learners. Meaning that I wish there were a site (or social network) which could link users of a CMS from the learners’ perspective.

Good point about the thrust of the piece. Moodle and Linux “suffer” from similar issues, in edu contexts. People can get very enthusiastic about them (especially because Open Source as a process is so compatible with learning). But it’s easy to get bogged down in details and evaluate tools as either appropriate or not based on features or degree of adoption. In cases like these, it might be important to stress that Linux (or Moodle, etc.) may not be “the solution to all your problems.” But to show what makes Linux appropriate in a given context. Helping people evaluate their needs. Get them to try Linux out. Your WiZiQ presentation was quite good for this. Like an increasing number of Linux enthusiasts, you’re able to describe Linux in a thoughtful way, without resorting to the tired “you need to use it because it’s better” line.

It might be a good idea if you posted a discussion since my approach to the topic is still as a semi-outsider. It’s easier for me to get involved once things have already started.

That could work. Especially if it’s well-contextualized. Not that I’m so attached to the topic but I think it’d be an interesting one to bring to discussion. Diverse forms of feedback in diverse learning contexts. What has worked or not worked in diverse situations. What are we trying to achieve. What roles are assumed through feedback-giving.

“I recommend you take a look at his blog and read the comments that others are leaving on the entry where he announced the report, for a bigger perspective.”

Skimmed them before, went back after reading your reply. Many comments are about Will’s decision to provide those files for free. As an Open Access advocate, I’m quite sensitive to these issues. But, in my part of the academic world, “giving away” research results seems like the logical thing to do in most situations. As much of the research in fields I’m more accustomed to is publicly-funded, I simply expect that the results are made available to the public. In fact, I associate “publishing” (in peer-reviewed journals, in books, on blogs) to “making something public.” But that’s probably because I don’t spend enough time in the “private sphere.”

The exchange of comments between Will and Mark is getting somewhere, in part because of the way the report is positioned. I sense that Mark has perceived something similar to what I’ve perceived, in some educational contexts where results of research are conceived as revelations and are integrated as they are in a program, a reform, a workshop, a retreat. I call it the “studies have shown” attitude and I have serious qualms about it. Probably because I sometimes dwell in a tower made of ivory.

“And, I’d love to hear more of your thinking, as you read more in this area…”

Well… I did read more about feedback, in the past. And I did skim Will’s report. Would you have suggestions for some openly available resource on the topic of feedback in, say, cooperative learning?

“recommends that folks think of them as benchmarks against which we measure our own experience, not rules”

Fair enough. But I’m still afraid that some people (say, in a teaching resource centre) will use them as rules or as support for the “studies have shown” attitude.

Anyhoo… Assuming the summary on Will’s blog (reproduced here) does give a fairly good idea of what Will’s major findings are (and, skimming the report, I get the impression it does)...

I can easily imagine how Will’s benchmarks would “work” in contexts of direct instruction with clear criteria for evaluating retention and understanding. Language learning is an obvious example, for me. Job training is more foreign to learning contexts in which I’ve participated but these benchmarks seem appropriate there too.

But, honestly, I have a hard time grokking what they bring to, say, seminar learning sessions on broad sets of issues, let alone to more cooperative learning contexts. In fact, I can’t help but think that these benchmarks strengthen the position of the “feedback-giver” and make the learning context more formal and more “directional” (one-to-many, instead of many-to-many). I’m personally interested in learning that is cooperative, flexible, collaborative, informal, open, and culturally aware. Not sure I hear Will’s specific points as directly useful to me.

Also, while skimming the report itself, I didn’t notice much about the feedback learners give one another, give themselves individually, receive through the task itself, give to someone with a different role, or receive informally. These all seem quite important, to me. Granted, my idea of feedback comes in part from theory of performance and ethnography of communication.

What I might like to see would be a discussion (with multiple participants) about different ways to receive and provide feedback on learning, using a wide array of micro-level descriptions as well as macro-level characterizations of diverse learning contexts. It’d be especially useful if the primary focus were on cooperative learning. Surely, these must exist. But I can’t rely on Web searches to find them.

Those reports do sound interesting and I’m glad that there’s an acknowledgement that some feedback may only work with certain students. For some reason, I get the impression that these items have mostly to do with situations in which learners are separate from a person giving feedback (such as a teacher). In fact, I even get the feeling that many of them relate quite directly to ESL and other L2-related fields. For instance, the advice about not interrupting the learning event seems directly related to the advice of not correcting an L2 speaker while s/he speaks. There are many occasions during which the “learning event” has very vague limits and it might be especially hard to determine if feedback is appropriately timed, given that advice. Do the reports contain something about different types of feedback such as oral, gestural, auditory, numeric, written…? Altogether, these items sound quite reasonable. I hope they won’t be transformed into “rules of thumb” or even official rules but they can certainly help provide support for some methods teachers and learners are using to give feedback to one another.

Well, I agree with the question and the obvious answer is both. Another question is: are there other methods to ensure a fairer market for coffee or other crops? I’m convinced the answer is yes. The Cup of Excellence auction and the direct-relationship movement, for two clear examples. I even think that fair-trade has outlived its goals and should be rethought. But that’s just me.