- via @lucychili Watching Back: a list for kids who care about technology and freedom [craphound.com] #
Powered by Twitter Tools.
Take a guided tour of the Dekita Orchard.
Below, you will be able to follow feeds from the Connectivism course, ELT participants and other sources of interest. Click on a folder to view individual feeds; click on a text link to read the most recent posts.
The Orchard runs on Gregarius.
Powered by Twitter Tools.
Powered by Twitter Tools.
Powered by Twitter Tools.
Powered by Twitter Tools.
Powered by Twitter Tools.
Powered by Twitter Tools.
Powered by Twitter Tools.
Powered by Twitter Tools.
Powered by Twitter Tools.
Powered by Twitter Tools.
"As Jimbo mentioned at some point, the challenge does not really come from the technology itself, which is continuously being improved to facilitate connections, networking and working together. The real obstacles to an open culture of collaboration are deeply imbued economic/social/educational processes, practices and the need to control, which hamper these conversations and the possibility of exchange and sharing."
This week my interest and involvement with social media in education granted me another invitation to participate as an “interaction facilitator” by twittering the Roda Viva interview with Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia founder), together with Pedro Markun (communicator and social activist) and Pedro Valente (journalist). It also led me to the WikiBrasil event in the evening, featuring well-known figures of the São Paulo intelligentzia , who gathered to share their experience and debate open and participatory media in diverse areas.
Update (video)
I am also taking part of the II ABCiber Symposium (Brazilian Association of Cyberculture Researchers) at PUCSP, covering a variety of related themes, studies and propositions on how these new technologies are impacting our daily lives, uses, best practices and threats.
Though severe brainfry has set in after listening to so many people speaking, I am also having some difficulty in following the tempo of this generation C - (connected, creative and click). So, I have forced myself to sit down this morning, set some time aside, concentrate and focus on some of the common traits I have noticed during these events:
As Jimbo mentioned at some point, the challenge does not really come from the technology itself, which is continuously being improved to facilitate connections, networking and working together. The real obstacles to an open culture of collaboration are deeply imbued economic/social/educational processes, practices and the need to control, which hamper these conversations and the possibility of exchange and sharing.
Off to one more afternoon and evening at ABCiber and tomorrow a whole day with Práxis members at BIT (Bradesco Institute of Technology) in Campinas for a meeting and lunch with Mitchel Resnick, from the MIT Media Lab, with whom Bradesco partners.
Powered by Twitter Tools.
I think our habits of candour and intimacy are changing in response to the internet because it functions like a one way mirror.
I think we still imagine a specific kind of audience for our writing, participation, or media online, but the mechanics of technology networks and the persistence of our works in public searchable space mean that the audience can be a changing thing, access over time, shifting context due to linking to the item from different related materials, and scale of response to something we have posted online are all a part of how the audience can shift, and can shift the meaning of what we have contributed.
I feel like this is different because it feels more like a fluid collective presence than the kind of interactions we have offline. Online audience is also more likely to happen between people who have never met
ie the correspondence itself has to carry all the meaning.
i am self conscious about writing openly it feels like a kind of persistent live to air broadcast.
Wesch's video of so many people taking up the meme and all doing a dance at their computers is an example of what I mean. Each dancer was contributing something frank and personal, they were all intimate moments sent to an infinite audience or no audience at all.
For me there is a kind of directness in reading text online which shorts out for me if i read something and then the author is not online or not alive: It changes the mutability or 'in the round' ness of the text i am reading.
Offline cultural participation in our cities is also in a changing state. A graffiti group participated in the Adelaide Fringe Arts Festival. We made throwies at a workshop which were LEDs strapped to magnets
which you could attach to buildings to make a sign or shape. Kids and children-at-heart made them and put them around the city, meanwhile in Perth a graffiti artist was arrested.
There is also something timeless about posting something to the web -something said once can reverberate long after a person has had a change of heart or mind. That can be expensive for future prospects because there is no division between the private person and the employable citizen in open web search.
During the recent NZ election both parties tried to trash each others' reputations by making
something unhelpful rank as the top link which appeared when you googled for their name.
This would take a considerable effort so was not a small trivial mischief - they must have spent a fair bit of money or time on it. In a context like that the kinds of things which are 'close' can be very loud and some kind of impersonal or unfriendly.
There is another aspect of intimacy which is changing and that is the tension between apparently addressing a known f2f audience and presentation where the comments are being twittered or live blogged. The presenter may not be aware of their context in this way either.
Some face-to-face meetings are traditionally private and handled with few participants, employer, employee meetings, challenging meetings where we might be trying to negotiate for an agreed outcome or commitment between people present. These kinds of events may be diluted by the kind of partial inattention which can happen when someone'has their thoughts elsewhere' when is it important to have the audience known. How does that kind of intimacy differ? Is it still important?
Is it unrealistic to assume traditional characteristics of intimacy in any digital context when the pixels and
bytes travel openly and can be simply replicated and sent on?
One of these words is a challenge to the others.
These opportunities feel like vital aspects of our ability to learn as a modern, connected, responsive and responsible society. But our systems for learning and our governments are risk averse. They are choosing systemic, universal, centrally scoped solutions for making the internet safe, for making school safe.
Surely there must be a way to engage in learning and in developing skills to keep ourselves safe which do not cost us the vitality of our opportunities to learn, share and be heard as participants in this emergent networked culture.
Much of the interesting potential of the internet is found in being able to connect with other people, to follow a meme and find people who share your thinking and questioning, and to be able to respond honestly and as best we are able to the challenges which arise out of these journeys.
These powerful opportunities risk being trumped by the governance of our infrastructure.
There must be a way to move forward with a sense of due care and positive engagement, not just by learners but also by the systems and communities which enable them.
Powered by Twitter Tools.
Powered by Twitter Tools.
Powered by Twitter Tools.
Powered by Twitter Tools.
Powered by Twitter Tools.
Elizabeth Hanson-Smith sent an invitation to members on the Webheads in Action list to participate online in the Colloquium on Global Communication for the The Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia in Moscow. I accepted to give a presentation together with Sus Nyrop from Denmark, Cristina Costa in England, Rita Zeinstejer from Argentina and Ronaldo Lima Jr and Erika Cruvinel from Brasilia. After a series of mail exchanges, I set up a wiki , where we all gradually added our information, links resources and slides. I also used the presenters’ abstracts to compose the Wordle image that appears on the front page and which Elizabeth added at the bottom on the other pages as a sort of a logo.
As Natalie Udina (the organizer of the event in Moscow) and some of the presenters were not very familiar with the Elluminate platform in Learning Times, we set a number of rehearsal times for people to test and ask questions.
On the day of the event (October 24th) I almost missed the session because of the heavy traffic on the ring when coming back from the countryside, but fortunately I managed to arrive almost on time. Among the people present at the conference in Moscow, there was Dr. Anastasiya Atabekova, a representative from the culture section of the US Embassy in Moscow, some members of the local government, the University Dean, the pro-rector in science and other participants from different countries from Eastern Europe.
As my sound quality was poor and the wifi connection uneven, I have decided to record it again. While the original raw footage is archived and a bit difficult to retrieve inside the Webheads in Action room at Learning Times, the polished and interactive recording is here for those who do not want to log in.

Powered by Twitter Tools.

Powered by Twitter Tools.
Last night, Bel Colluci, from TV Cultura asked me (through a quick message on Gtalk) to participate in an “experiential participatory transmission” they are conducting: streaming the Roda Viva interview program raw and live footage on the Web a week before its polished taped version is shown on TV. The idea is also to get online participants to interact with the program through the Radar Cultura page and Twitter while the interviews are being carried on.
The whole setup in the studio consists of a mobile unit : a laptop connected to the Internet, a mini DV video camera, a tripod, a photo camera. Live transmission is done through streaming using Mogulus (video), Cover it Live (multimídia chat), Flickr (photo storage), YouTube (video storage) and Twitter (live coverage). The crewman follows what happens to the guests and journalists from the moment they arrive until they leave.
Bel confided she was happy to have been given this opening and space for action. I accepted as I was eager to check not only the environment but also the efforts that are being made in this very traditional broadcasting mode to incorporate new technologies and make it interactive - the same challenge we are facing in education. Not all schools accept experimentation and going beyond the fixed walls of their “studios”.
The interviewee for this event was Jana Bennett, CEO of one of the largest media conglomerates in the world - the BBC. I read about her a bit before going to bed and, as I decided to tweet in English for an international audience, I sent word through the various lists and communities I belong to around the world.
A chauffeur came to fetch me, Lucia Freitas and Bel early this morning and off we went across town to Fundação Padre Anchieta, where TV Cultura is housed. On arrival, we met Aloisio Milani, our fellow twitterer ; the other journalists who were going to interview Jana: Lilian Witte Fibe, Carmen Amorim, Patricia Kogut, Eugenio Bucci, Lucia Araujo, Nelson Hoineff and Paulo Caruso, a live cartoonist. After a scrumptious breakfast in the best Brazilian style (orange juice, coffee, pao de queijo, sandwiches, fruit and cake), we were led to the make-up room (no shiny noses or disheveled look permitted) and then to the studio .

update - Lucia Freitas has just sent me the cartoon Paulo Caruso made of us
Lucia, Aloisio and I sat on the perch at the top, overlooking the scene.
It was fun but more like quick note-taking for me, as I had little audience - Vance connected but I missed him on the scrolling page and Dennis (from the Webheads) made a number of comments. I must confess I found it difficult to multi-task on so many levels: pay attention to new faces and context, what people were doing in the studio, what journalists were asking/what Jana was answering, reporting/commenting and paying attention to what was streaming from outside and responding . I guess that like all in life, it’s a matter of getting used to it and practicing. I would have definitely adopted another strategy had I had an audience watching the stream and asking questions or making comments, which is what happened in Portuguese. My own tweets (in English) can be found on a filtered Tweetscan (reverse chronological order), everyone else’s both on Twitter search (keyword rodaviva) and Twemes.
Good marketing for TV Cultura and Roda Viva program - an attempt to make a TV program interactive and showing all backstage live one week before the recorded program goes on air. Twittering also provides a written record of what went on from different perspectives - which finally converged in spite of the different languages. Some blogging will divulge the event and maybe bring on more people to watch it next Monday.
I found that many of the questions (fortunately with some good exceptions) were navel gazing, asking for advice or models for a cultural and societal context which is entirely different from the UK. Most did not really probe or unveil anything that you cannot already find on Google about Jana or the BBC annual reports.
Jana Bennett was very much herself and emphasized the importance the BBC gives to quality programs, international partnerships, catering for the different needs/ages/tastes and how new technology is being used to interact with the audience and integrate user-generated content whenever possible. Also important - the absence of political/commercial pressure when producing and broadcasting. According to Jana, quality depends on money (95% from license fees paid by viewers who trust and endorse quality), time alloted to production, independence and autonomy for program producers who (unlike in Brazil) are free from political, commercial (and economic) pressure. A Trust Committee, with different members chosen according to their expertise (not affiliation), regulates what goes on by reflecting and discussing the choice of controversial programs AFTER they are broadcast. Differently from the American or Brazilian TV, whose use by a younger generation is declining (for lack of quality content), Jana mentions that in the UK teens enjoy TV to cool off, relax and choose their programs according to their mood and time of the day as they are made relevant to them. She gave an example of an educational “reality show” which brought together teens interested in fashion - they were taken to different production areas both in England and India, exposed to quality work and sweatshops and asked to reflect upon this experience. The American PBS series follows a similar concept (Merchants of Cool).
It was interesting to participate in this - wondering now how we can mobilize our schools to follow a similar path, discarding the mouldy, senseless layers of bureaucracy which seem to have gripped the system and frozen it. How can we converge by giving value both to what is past and present quality and inviting young people to pave the future by contributing, innovating and creating new channels for expression and interaction . Although education and culture evolve in a slower tempo than art, fashion and commerce, once the infrastructure and governance are laid out, we should feel the change- slow but powerful. As an ancient proverb says “the journey of 1,000 miles starts with a single step”. Have you taken yours?
I've been meaning to do this for some time. It's a Worldle tag cloud from my Delicious feed:Powered by Twitter Tools.
Powered by Twitter Tools.
Powered by Twitter Tools.
Instructional Design , presented by Paula Carolei and Andrea Filatro , will be the next meeting (of a series) organized by Praxis. Once a month, actors from various institutions of the educational scene here in Sao Paulo get together f2f to network and talk about our practice. Although we are all highly connected and/or very much interested in new technologies, the online exchange is still incipient, centralized on a Moodle platform mostly used as a message board and list, with very little leeway for collaboration ( something I have already complained about some time ago), and which fortunately our two newcomers seem to want to challenge with a preparatory activity.
As a warm-up, we were asked to brainstorm on what instructional design means to us, deconstruct it and contribute to the forum with a non-verbal representation of how we see it. We are allowed to use images, symbolic audio-visual material or daily and concrete images of our professional space.
This is how I represented my vision of Instructional Design using CC images I got by typing tags to Peter Shank’s Flickr CC and uploading them to Flickr Toys Mosaic Maker. I could have used VoiceThread and some music…but then words are forbidden.
Not sure it makes much sense without explaining but maybe you would like to give it a try. How would you interpret it? Is there anything you do not quite understand or missing from your perspective?

Powered by Twitter Tools.
Enjoyed the course so far. The idea of the need for reconsideration of a learning theory resonates with me. Being a teacher today, I feel the need to find a way to teach differently than I was taught. Kids today don’t seem to be the way generations before were… They know more and dare more, they question, comment, openly show disagreement, correct when they know better… Not all of them, but some do.
I can’t expect to be listened to simply because I am a teacher (i.e. finished a university programme, which made me fully qualified but not quite prepared for the teaching reality). Lots of theory, little practice or modeling to stick to from my university days… still remember well one of my university profs rewarding generously students who cited word by word paragraphs from his book (the only required course reading, which included a paragraph stating we should not ask kids to learn stuff by heart). Such is life, isn’t it? There are things that make sense and things that don’t but you put up with, because at the time it’s simplest that way.
Urgently feeling the need for better examples of good teaching practice , I went on the net, … and looking back I believe it was then that my real professional development began - when I took MY learning in MY hands. It definitely helped me feel better, more responsible, more critical, and more comfortable. Now - should I consider myself lucky to have attended so many ‘institutional’ programs in the past, which made me search elsewhere what they themselves hadn’t given me ? In every bad thing there is some good, right?
Such kind of learning is one’s personal choice whatever way I try to look at it. It cannot be prescribed. And I don’t think it can really be evaluated. So in a way it’s no wonder it’s ‘officially’ accredited professional development that counts in the real world… even though it may not necessarily be as helpful as we’d like. It is more likely to open the way for pay rise, promotion, etc. So one needs to compromise, ‘waste’ valuable time doing things that ‘count’ to buy time to do things that ‘work’.
I like seeing modeled what is being preached in CCK08. I’m a lurker, guilty of observing, following, but not responding much to threads. Much as I’m fascinated with this course (I do the readings, follow the Daily, check Google Alerts, also most of the recordings of discussions, but only on rare occasions drop a short comment on blog posts here and there). I can’t do better than this at the moment without neglecting something else that I can’t afford to or don’t want to neglect.
As I’m writing this I realize I’m sticking to the ’structural’ part of this connectivist course missing its ‘connective’ part. One can only connect efficiently to a certain point … it’s a matter of choosing priorities. Network combination is not additive ; networks share nodes, Valdis Krebs showed in week 3. And I guess the processing power and productivity of ‘us’ nodes too are not additive: when we make new connections, the power and productivity get distributed among the active connections.
CCK08 is huge… its ‘connectivist’ part provides a lot of views for consideration, lots of ideas to digest, allows for a lot of possibilities to interact… it’s fascinating, serendipitous, but possibly scary when measured in time and short-term efficiency …a walk in the forest, the forest that knows .
The structural part on the other way looks more like a highway to me, there are signposts showing the way, chosen by Stephen and George whose judgment I trust. It’s funny to think that it’s the non connectivist part of the Connectivism course that I have been sticking to so far – I wonder if time constraint is the only reason or is it perhaps that I’m the kind of the learner that needs some kind of a common base before being able to jump and swim in the ocean with the rest of the fish (and dolphins and sharks and the dead)? Is perhaps this common base most efficiently reached through traditional approach? Perhaps for some participants? Perhaps for me?
I’m fine with the tools and technology used, it’s the theoretical part that is new to me. Can I reach this common base - my lacking (non-technology related) Prerequisite Literacies, perhaps more efficiently through traditional approach ? I don’t know… I’ve been happy sticking to the structural part so far (knowing I’m missing a lot of fun in the sideways tracks but also knowing I can’t afford to wander around much, and that I’m not sure I have much to add anyway). I cannot be everywhere, so I’ve constrained myself to the highway. I guess I’m an average reader, but a rather slow writer – English is my second language, but I don’t think I could have written much more if communication was in Slovene either.
I think I’m taking CCK08 to see if I can make more sense of what happened to me back then when I started weaving my first connections. A whole new world opened up. I wonder if CCK will help me better articulate the directions I feel need to follow, personally, professionally, …directions that I feel help me do things well, or at least help me feel better at doing them….
Connectivism as a learning theory definitely resonate with me, can see it provide more room in the future for encouraging autonomy, diversity, individuality in class, in professional development, in general life… But much as I like being autonomous and free in the areas I like and feel comfortable in, I cannot function so everywhere. .. I see Connectivism as complementary to traditional learning. It’s good to be able to choose what works best for you in a given situation.
Last week (it’s already old news), we had the 1st WebCurriculo conference, which took place at PUC SP and was blogged and streamed live. I submitted a paper about my 10-year school experience using social tools, networks and interaction in the classroom to complement, extend and transform the curriculum. 
This was a challenge I set out for myself . It was the first time I sent my work to a Brazilian university . Ironically, what I have been doing at school was first shown and recognized abroad instead of inside my own organization (school) - which does not even know about this paper…so closed it is inside its own processes. The web and networking was an outward movement. I am now coming back and trying to find my place in the local educational environment. Not easy. Second challenge (minor and fun), believe it or not - I had never made an academic poster before. Incredible how fussy some people can be over standard, form and norm and how anxious you can get for fear of not being accepted if you do not “conform”.
I had already written about my experience in Portuguese for Praxis (a 30-page ) but needed to condense it twice - first for the submission paper: “Ferramentas Sociais, Redes e Interação” (webcurriculo - (thanks Neli for lending me a hand) and then later for the poster. In spite of my lack of experience in this field, I managed to make one after after a quick search on the web. It was a good exercise in synthesis and visual distribution/impact. Once it was printed, and hung, I immediately realized I should have done it totally different. This how one learns - set yourself a challenge, go for it, do your best, verify results, adjust, lather, rinse and repeat…or is it the other way round?
As I listened to the various presentations, I compared the reactions to mine and was reminded of the steps I have made these years towards trying to find a balance in my courses. At the language institute I first worked, I was just an instructor, training people to develop their communication and linguistic skills in a foreign language, not really engaged in any reality but the service I was delivering. However, when I moved to the secondary school, although the job profile was the same as before, I increasingly became an educator and as such, gradually much more aware of the social engineering we are subjected to through the uniform, over-structured, inflexible and centralized programs imposed . While trying to implement these new technologies in the classroom , I was constantly confronted with the unresponsive wall of institutional bureaucracy.
While writing this post, I dug up this drawing made by the Time Project team and compared it to a sketch late Lee Baber asked me to check some time ago. There is so much talk about different curricula. Education surely involves some amount and quantity - skills and competencies - but I’d say it is mostly about quality - values and a better understanding of action and knowledge in time - Chronos and Kairos. How do you achieve it on the Web?
1. Core Subjects and 21st Century Themes
2. Learning and Innovation Skills
* Creativity and Innovation Skills
* Critical Thinking and Problem Solving Skills
* Communication and Collaboration Skills
3. Information, Media and Technology Skills
* Information Literacy
* Media Literacy
* ICT Literacy
4. Life and Career Skills
* Flexibility & Adaptability
* Initiative & Self-Direction
* Social & Cross-Cultural Skills
* Productivity & Accountability
* Leadership & Responsibility
and four 21ST CENTURY SUPPORT SYSTEMS:
1. Standards and Assessment of 21st Century Skills
2. Curriculum and Instruction
3. Professional Development
4. Learning Environments
Powered by Twitter Tools.
Powered by Twitter Tools.
I have been increasingly invited to take part in events, conferences and even keynotes. So far so good - it means people deem I have something to give and share. However, with very few exceptions, I notice a recurring pattern - the invitations are one way only - not only you are not paid for the time you spend on preparing and presenting your work, but in many cases you have to disburse money from your own savings to share your knowledge.
While in the past big conferences were the only opportunity to meet people and share knowledge, they have now become a ripoff for independent teachers who are not funded by the institutions they work for, have a business or sell the wares of a publishing house. Technology has facilitated access and you apparently can now “build on your social capital” through the web. Increased cooperation on wiki farms with experts from different fields is a more efficient way of discussing “potential collaborative, learning, or creative applications of emerging technologies”. You can do all this from home - wonderful - saves on flights, lodging and food - and you contribute to the common good. “The primary costs are the investment of time required for participation”. Now, I do not want to sound materialistic or utilitarian but haven’t you heard an expression somewhere that time is money?
During a recent conference on digital citizenship, there were debates on how information networks, digital communication in an increasingly mobile scenario alter political practices and challenge us to defend and expand citizen rights. Professors Quéralto and Andoni Alonso bring to attention that we live today in an eras of strong pragmatic rationality and would like immediate results so as to change the world. However, we are progressively being alienated by an increasing number of activities which take time. We are now not only our own marketeers but also our own bureaucrats and have even more work in shadow time which consumes our rest, family and pleasure and does not fill the supermarket trolley at the end of the month. Knowledgeable digital educators and ” visionaries” furnish complex and specialized work in a totally abstract system which apparently does not envisage survival.
Catherine Fitzpatrick in one of the Connectivism forum threads mentions “One of the deep problems with Creative Commons is that it provides no easy way to say “use a copy of this if you pay me here: _”. Instead, it lays social pressure on people to make their content free and copyable for attribution only, with a vague notion that this will lead to…consulting or something. If no one can make a living from their content and the economy, if their intellectual property is always under pressure from “wanting to be free” for others to grab, they walk away. They stop making content. This has played out in Second Life with all the problems of IP and ripping of content there and people simply going out of business.”
So the nagging question at the back of the mind persists. Is this the price of reinventing yourself permanently, sharing and trying to remain creative, free and independent?
Powered by Twitter Tools.
After reading this in The Daily, it was much easier to create my CMap No.2 (not related to connectivism, basically my CMap notes for a staff meeting at school)… Working on my CMap No. 1 I too, like some other participants, wasn’t sure why there are 2 boxes to fill in when I try to link a new concept to the existing one… - one for the linking word showing relation between the two concepts and the other for the new concept.
For No. 2 I followed the suggested steps from the paper:
It worked better.
Powered by Twitter Tools.