Transcript of "Communities of praxis the SL and OLPC components of a mixed-reality primer"
Communities of praxis the SL and OLPC components of a mixed-reality primer Presented at Internet Research 9.0,ITU, Copenhagen, Denmark Oct. 18, 2008 Alexandra Bal, Ryerson University, Canada
What do the OLPC and SL have in common? Image from: fuse-project http://content.zdnet.com/2346-12554_22-37929-10.html Mobile Learning Laptop Virtual World 1. They are Social Media. 2. They mirror cyberpunk culture. 3. They form mixed social realities.
1. Social Media - Facilitate users’ participation. - Mediate human relationships. - peer to peer culture based on sharing and co-production of knowledge and experience. OLPC : Collaborative activities of physically co-present peers. Second Life : Geographically dispersed and virtually embodied peers. They are becoming sociological construct : People can build their own social organizations deployed in both virtual and physical spaces.
OLPC and SL are designed as social constructionist environments Individuals and groups are constructing their own learning and social reality. Learning happens within self organizing informal learning communities. Both physical and virtual. Source: http://marianina.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/Socialnetworkingvisualisation.jpg
Learning within Informal Communities of interests Children are learning within informal social networks based on their interests. Learning happens by informal sharing of experiences (Freire, 1978) with members of communities of interests. Social Constructivism: Children learn from their and other children's experiences and social contexts (Vygotsky, 1978). Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/olpc/2784915332/in/photostream/
Learning within Informal Communities of Practices Lived experiences + Action create learning. Learning driven by discovery and experimentation (Papert, 1992). Children co-construct meaning and experiences via co-production of cultural artefacts (Ito, 2008). Source: http://bp3.blogger.com/
2. Cyberpunk Imaginaries ? <ul><li>Both OLPC and SL innovators make </li></ul><ul><li>reference to cyberpunk culture. </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>OLPC: illustrated primer (Diamond Age). </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>SL: The metaverse (Snow Crash). </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>For Stephenson: Technology is charged </li></ul><ul><li>with ideological values and influences social </li></ul><ul><li>change. </li></ul><ul><li>What type of change are innovators </li></ul><ul><li>interested in? </li></ul>
Theoretical Framework OLPC and SL designers are interested in deploying alternate social, economic and industrial models. -> promote delocalized and self-organizing informal collectives, where social agents' actions influence social change. OLPC = Desire to introduce new industrial framework (to reindustrialise (Tremblay, 1998; Moeglin, 2004)) to cultural production such as education based on social constructionist values.
3. Mixed Social Realities Networks blur the boundaries between Personal-Informal-Professional networks (Gensollen, 2007) . -> multiple value systems coexists and creates hybrid social innovations that blend: 1. Learning Styles : From behaviorist to social constructionist. 2. Economies: Product– Services- Gift. 3. Social organizational models : Hierarchical – Networked -Self-organizing Communities. -> Alternate industrial models can emerge from these new forms.
Traditional social constructivist social innovation model New social and economy models Blend existing of individuals and institutions (Moeglin, 2004) framework .
Industrial Frameworks Different educational models correspond to particular capitalist industrial frameworks (Boltanski and Chiappello, 2001) . Behaviorism: Taylorist Industry Socialize to - Institutional hierarchies - standard use of time and space - passive behaviours and routines - Competition
70s Innovation Industries Cognitivism: Hierarchies lessens. The institution functions as a collective : Innovating workers share knowledge to advance progress within the institution. Professional communities within Institutions. Socialize to: - standard use of time and space, - active behaviours and routines, - Professional Social Networks, - Collaboration.
90s: Network Industries Social Constructivism: Institutional boundaries soften. Value is created and shared by members of a network instead of by individual companies (Kelley, 1998). Creation of professional communities tied to discipline instead of organization. Socialize to - autonomy, - Coo-petition (Brandenburger and Nalebuff, 1997), - virtual space.
Peer 2 Peer Industries <ul><li>Delocalized and self-organizing </li></ul><ul><li>collectives are creating their own industrial </li></ul><ul><li>frameworks . </li></ul><ul><li>Informal communities of interests, of practice are </li></ul><ul><li>rationalizing production processes and developing </li></ul><ul><li>a collective or connective intelligence . </li></ul><ul><li>Formalizing the status of their collectives </li></ul><ul><li>in order to gain legal protection of their </li></ul><ul><li>processes (creative commons) and organizing into </li></ul><ul><li>rights to be non profit oriented. </li></ul><ul><li>Peer socialization: </li></ul><ul><li>work is mobile, </li></ul><ul><li>- Time is fluid </li></ul><ul><li>- public spaces become workspaces , </li></ul><ul><li>- co-creation, co-production, </li></ul><ul><li>- co-working (Forlano, 2008) . </li></ul>
Socio-constructionist Institutions <ul><li>Social Constructionist: </li></ul><ul><li>Fragmentation of institutions lead to </li></ul><ul><li>acceptance of peer culture within </li></ul><ul><li>Institutional boundaries are fluid . </li></ul><ul><li>Creation of learning networks tied to </li></ul><ul><li>interest and practices outside </li></ul><ul><li>profession, discipline and organizations. </li></ul><ul><li>Socialization: </li></ul><ul><li>- work that combines </li></ul><ul><li>personal-informal-professional </li></ul><ul><li>networks, </li></ul><ul><li>- mixed-space, </li></ul><ul><li>- co-learning, </li></ul><ul><li>- participants outside the institution </li></ul><ul><li>drive change. </li></ul>
Social Constructionist Framework New social and economy models stems from the cross between values, culture and contexts of users entrepreneurs (Shah and Tripsas, 2007) who create their own social reality and influence institutions (Berger and Luckmannn, 1966)
OLPC innovators Children are producing tomorrow's social, economic and industrial Innovations .
Conclusion OLCP program: Short-circuiting the traditional authorities of diffusion of culture and change the nature of economic and political territories . 3 rd world countries allow to bypass western world infrastructures which are controlled by bureaucratic processes developed over 100 years ago which stops innovation from being quickly adopted. Countries without such constrains, will develop new economic and social models which, as they become economic power themselves, could influence the western world and force it to adapt. - Global virtually embodied smart mob as a peer workforce?
A particular slide catching your eye?
Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.