I’m going to outline some principles and then give a demo to represent those, which is in some ways the opposite of what we’ve done in learning design up till now
Learning and teaching is hard – there is no straightforward algorithm for success (like parenting)
We don’t know what the boundaries are between progress and not, between teacher and learner, between formal and informal, or when you’ve learnt something, how long it takes to sink in, how prior experience will impact upon it, etc
What works for me may not work for you, what works for Art History may not work for Geography, what works one year ma not work the next
We’re not short of theories of pedagogy – it’s not as if we’re waiting around formore theories.
So the sensible thing to do when dealing with learning design tools is to build tools that try and capture this complexity – LAMS is probably the best example, but we’ve also had our LD compendium, Phoebe. Pedagogic planner, etc
Now compare with what we know about social media – I’ve crossed out the we, because these are my personal interpretations, not generally agreed. I’ve deduced 6 principles for what works
Embed, and other data standards such as RSS are really really simple, but they cut across the web, meaning we can share stuff fantastically easily. It’s dumb but it works and I think we should use those as our starting points
Think twitter over more complex communication tools – the reason twitter works is because everyone is there
So you have to make sharing really easy and something people want to do. If embed is the data driver then sharing is the human driver
You don’t have to specify every possible function – others will develop on top if it is open and there is a point in doing so, and they’ll develop things you could never anticipate. You want an unpredictable system.
Not always but limitations are strangely compelling – you wouldn’t think you’d want to limit communication to 140 chars or 12 secs but this actually helps users frame what they need to do and get things working.
The way users interact with the system and create content and communicate generates complexity, not the app itself, so better to have a simple app that fosters a community
Maybe if learning is all those things then the tradeoff isn’t worth itHave I set up a false dichotomy between complexity and shareability?In 90s lots of money spent on knowledge management tools – similar problem really, but (arguably) twitter/YouTube/blogs are best KM tools aroundI am proposing that all those features of learning can be captured by the network not the toolWhat about really complex stuff?
Learning and social media
Social web learning design<br />Martin Weller & Liam Green-Hughes<br />
6. Complexity comes from the network not the app<br />
Questions<br />Is the tradeoff between complexity and shareability worthwhile?<br />Is this a false dichotomy?<br />The Knowledge Management lesson<br />Can you generate complexity/variation through bottom up?<br />Only good forsimple stuff?<br />