Skip to main content

Sharing Knowledge and Networks: Synchronous vs. Stigmergic (Part 3 of 6)


“You’re trying to get at two things—sort of the latent capacity of knowledge that exists with this system, and secondly, you’re trying to connect people as part of a network.” (Siemens)

A shared knowledge base and vigorous, responsive innovation.  These are the purposes, in my mind, for a robust network of open education resources.  Without open knowledge, we cannot accumulate a shared knowledge base, we will continue reinventing the wheel in our classes.  Without an open network, even if we are able to establish a shared knowledge base, we will not be able to foster the creativity and innovation in education necessary to keep up with the creativity and innovation in the world we are preparing our students for—while also keeping our eyes on what is and ought to remain timeless.  We must establish a shared knowledge base, and we must be able to be as nimble and responsive with that knowledge base as other industries are.

Siemens and Wiley articulate this in two slightly different ways.  Siemens speaks of the “latent capacity of knowledge that exists in the system.”  I understand this to mean that Siemens is looking to capture the existent but unarticulated professional knowledge of educators—knowledge that we all know teachers have, but which has not been shared—and looking to capture it by connecting people in a vibrant network.

Wiley explores the mechanics of this:

“In some cases, that network is synchronous, and you know who those other people are, and you’re collaborating with them in real time. And in other places, it's more of a stigmergy kind of approach, where other people have come before. They've left the artifact in this state, and when you pick it up, you're like, oh, I can see the next thing that needs to happen, and you pick that up and take it. And maybe both of those things are happening in parallel, in some ways.” (Wiley)

First of all, thanks for the word “stigmergy”—that’s a good one!  

What Wiley gets at here is that, first, synchronous knowledge sharing is a powerful tool for growth.  We see this every day in our best department meetings and professional collaborations: we’re working on something, have questions, talk with colleagues, and we all grow into something better.  We’re starting to see online versions of this in Video conferencing, Google documents, and more.  And Wiley also describes “stigmergic” interactions, when we work asynchronously on some kind of shared object (Wikipedia) or forking objects (GitHub).  Stigmergic collaboration is best exemplified, perhaps, in the great tree of academic scholarship, in which we all, in the words of John of Salisbury (way back in 1159), stand “on the shoulders of giants.”

So: we want to capture knowledge, collect it, connect people around it, and enable people to change it.  This reorders the five R’s a little bit for me.  At the foundation are: retain, reuse, and redistribute—these are capturing and sharing knowledge.  And then, to function in a changing world: revise and remix.  These are changing and innovating.

(Several years ago I assembled a taxonomy for creative design, for understanding and analyzing creativity, and the stages of work follow a similar progression: imitation, variation, combination, transformation, and original creation.  We start with the object, and then we change it.)


In the field of education, where the object is a shared knowledge base, and change means making it flexible, revisable, remix-able, in its entirely, these two stages are both enormous tasks, and we have much work to do.  Which comes first: establishing the knowledge base or the network?  Surely, they must be developed incrementally together.

~

Six reflections on open learning and platform technology:
  1. Learning by Sharing: Why We Do, Sometimes Can't, and Often Don't (Part 1 of 6)
  2. The Commons: It's the Community (Part 2 of 6)
  3. Sharing Knowledge and Networks: Synchronous vs Stigmergic (Part 3 of 6)
  4. Resolving the Reusability Paradox (Part 4 of 6)
  5. Platform Design: Research Directions (Part 5 of 6)
  6. Should We Try to Open the Past Before Trying to Open the Future? (Part 6 of 6)
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Four Ways to Measure Creativity

Assessing creative work has been a bugaboo for a good long time.  In schools it's the constant refrain: “How can you grade creative writing?”  or “It’s a poem: however it comes out is right.”  In businesses and elsewhere, people demand innovation--and are stymied with understanding how to measure it. But this is not the bugaboo we think it is--in the classroom, or in the broader world of creative work.  Here are four different ways to assess creativity, each designed for different settings: 1. Measuring How Creative a Person Is - The Guilford Model 2. Measuring How Creative a Work Is - The Taxonomy of Creative Design 3. Measuring Creative Work Against a Program - The Requirements Model 4. Measuring the Social Value of Creative Work - Csikszentmihalyi’s Model Notably, in each of these cases, what we mean by "creative" changes a little.  Sometimes "creativity" refers to divergent production (how much one produces, or how varied it is).  Sometimes "c
8 comments
Read more

Taxonomy of Creative Design

Strategies to improve creativity are many, but they are also diffuse.  Little ties them together in a way that offers a coherent vision for how creativity can be understood or developed incrementally.  The Taxonomy of Creative Design, a work in progress, offers a new theory for doing so. Since creative work can be measured along spectrums of both and form and content, the Taxonomy of Creative Design offers a progression from imitation to original creation measured in terms of form and content.  In doing so, it organizes creative works into an inclusive, unifying landscape that serves not only as an analytical lens through which one might evaluate creative work, but also as a methodical approach to developing creative skills. Here is a closer look: Imitation Imitation is the replication of a previous work.  It is the painter with an easel at the museum, painting her own Mona Lisa; it is the jazz musician performing the solo of the great artist note for no
11 comments
Read more

A Cognitive Model for Educators: Attention, Encoding, Storage, Retrieval (Part 2 of 14)

So how do  people learn?  What are the mechanics of memory?  Can we distill thousands of articles and books to something that is manageable, digestible, and applicable to our classrooms?   Yes.   In brief, the cognitive process of learning has four basic stages: Attention : the filter through which we experience the world Encoding : how we process what our attention admits into the mind Storage : what happens once information enters the brain Retrieval : the recall of that information or behavior Almost everything we do or know, we learn through these stages, for our learning is memory, and the bulk of our memory is influenced by these four processes: what we pay attention to, how we encode it, what happens to it in storage, and when and how we retrieve it. Here’s a closer look at each: Attention: We are bombarded by sensory information, but we attend to only a small amount of it.  We constantly process sights, sounds, smells, and more, but our attention se
Post a Comment
Read more