Introducing the Little Library 1.0

Finally, a full version of the Little Library is out in the wild! After extensive testing on multiple platforms in Beta 1 & 2 (and a lot of failure), the Little Library 1.0 is ready for a gig on the mainstage. Take it out for a spin. Expect automatic updates as feedback comes in.

Check out, fork, and modify the source code for the Little Library on Github.

You can also find out more about the Little Library at http://thelittlelibrary.com.

Mo Learning

Mobile learning = mo learning. At least that’s what Teemu Arina has to say on the topic (see videos below).

Arina views the subject through the lense of learning spaces. Do we learn in cubes, or is learning open to the world — to the larger environments in which we actually find ourselves from day to day? Can mobile learning foster situated applicational learning better than more formal educational settings? From personal experience, I’d say “YES!”

While Arina focuses on the value of mobile learning as being in its ability to allow for greater social interaction, to connect people and ideas, to share conversations, and to connect the virtual world with physical contexts, I find myself turning instead to a different focus: mobile learning is real world learning. Situatedness really does have an impact on how well we can assimilate new information into our present schemas. And real-world contextual learning may allow for more authentic tasks and for the construction of new ways of thinking and acting, both socially and personally. Beyond this, at its heart all learning is mobile learning. People learn on the go. People learn as they are doing. In a way, traditional in-classroom learning could be considered one (limited) phase of mobile learning, because learning happens not only in the room itself, but in the hallway, in the dorm room, in the library, and on the way to work. People are thinking while they are being, and we are called human beings for a reason (one thing we know how to do well is be). While we are being we are becoming with the help of education (whether formal or informal). And becoming is situated across times and places. Learning spaces are living spaces and vice-versa.

One particular manifestation of mobile learning is learning while using modern mobile technologies (laptops, mobile phones, mp3 players, etc.). These tools help us to connect with other people and to situate our learning experiences in real world contexts. We are here. We need the knowledge here. We can apply the knowledge here. It seems an obvious conclusion that here is where we should learn. These tools bring our living and learning together here. Do we want people to learn only in a cube, or do we want them to be learning, to become in the here and now?

The World as Classroom

In Dr. Curt Bonk’s newest book (as yet unpublished) on the open world of online learning, a particular passage in a chapter summary on educational resources on the Web caught my eye: “With all these [free online] lectures available, how can we not learn? What is to stop someone from learning any topic she wants at any time of the day? How will ambitious, self-directed learners be mentored or tutored into and through all of this content?”  This passage got me thinking. What if someone really did create such a service for high schools, Colleges, and self-directed learners. What if there were a resource on the Web that provided not merely repositories of online learning modules, lectures, videos, OCW, and learning objects (as if that weren’t enough), but also provided tutoring, mentorship, and guidance through these ever-growing and changing Web resources? A team of instructional designers, reference librarians, and computer programmers could staff an online Web 2.0 service that provides these things (for money or ads as financial backing, or it could be volunteer work). Instead of “Online Tutor,” it could be called something like “Tutol” (TUTor OnLine). Or accreditation could be sought for such a service, leading through OCWs, independant studies, searches, research topics, etc.

One might ask: “Isn’t a wiki a form of such guided learning through a topic?” Not really. While they are participatory in nature, wikis (at least the ones I’m familiar with) have very few integrated question/response or guided participatory learning tools. Online forums can come close to this, but seem to lack a broad enough scope. Also, forums often suffer from poor information architecture, making finding your way around (or sequencing instruction) a little difficult. FAQs are sometimes well organized, but are too static and are not usually participatory in nature, nor do they allow for extended discussions.

On the other hand, there have come to my attention interesting ideas about the automization of such a service. The US government-sponsored Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) has done research into just this topic. Here are some of their wide-ranging interests in the field of instruction:  http://www.adlnet.gov/technologies/index.aspx. The ADL also helped in the creation of SCORM (the shareable content object reference model) which standardizes learning resources and repositories to be easily accessible and reusable. Along these lines they are also developing Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) which are “computer software systems that seek to mimic the methods and dialog of natural human tutors, to generate instructional interactions in real time and on demand–as required by individual students”. These tutoring systems are being developed for the fields of artificial intelligence, computational linguistics, and cognitive science. Is there hope for such an artificial tutoring system? Can these sytems be applied to other fields as well? Could something like this be the next Google (which automates Web searching) by automating Web tutoring? Not only could a person find anything on the Web, a person could also learn anything on the Web. Is such a thing possible? Are we being swept up into an Isaac Asimov world where we learn from robot mentors? I’m guessing not. I think, though, that social learning using automated Web 2.0 or Semantic Web tools is a distinct possibility for great growth in the next five years. So whether or not instructional designers, librarians, and computer programmers will be used to actually assist in tutoring individuals on the Web in the near future through this maze of online resources, these experts will be needed at the very least to design and implement the systems that will eventually do the tutoring. Somebody needs to teach the machine before it teaches us (tongue in cheek).

Connecting to Learn

Is a network capable of learning? Can learning reside in a network? According to connectivism, the answer to both of these questions is “yes.” Check out George Siemens’ views in this video. These arguments seem to me to be counterintuitive. How do other more established learning theories approach this issue?

Constructivism would say that the learning is a result of learner exploration and discovery, of trial and error, of guided social interaction within a learning environment. However, social constructivism (a flavor of constructivism) would find learning in the midst of social networks. The question is “If a network is not social, can learning reside there?” Or “If a network is not presently being used by an individual or group can learning be said to reside on the network still?”

Perhaps cognitivism is the learning theory closest to connectivism’s views on learning and networks (though I certainly doubt cognitivists would agree with my assessment). I say this because cognitivists often view learning as memory acquisition, sythesis, and development with an output of changed skills, knowledge, and attitudes. In this view, neural networks are one of the most important bases of learning. How do neural networks learn? One might answer “the same way any other network can be said to learn.” What is the difference between data being stored and manipulated in a brain and data being manipulated and stored in a machine or on a jump drive? Can my jump drive learn then?  I think data and information are being confused here with knowledge and learning. Technology may help humans communicate, store, reorder, represent, and organize information or even sometimes knowledge (take Wikipedia for instance), but is the technological network the tool, is it the environment, or is it the basis of learning (or is it even learning itself)?

Behaviorists will only talk about what a person can see in a person’s behavior as the way to evaluate learning. But on this basis, can not a computer learn as well? It may give the same output as a human. For instance, videotape an instructor, host the video on YouTube, then play the video on your computer. According to behaviorism, hasn’t the computer and the network just learned? After all, it showed that it learned the instructor’s content perfectly by spewing out a carbon copy. It mimiced the behavior that the instructor was seeking to assess. Voila, learning.

Perhaps what connectivism does best (at least in my very narrow opinion) is that it points out a very common weakness in modern theories of learning: philosophical materialism. If what cannot be measured cannot be said to exist (positivism), and if humans are no more than phyical (philosophical materialism), and if learning is therefore merely a physical phenomenon not embued with any true and eternal significance (it is merely changed behavior, memory, or society), can not learning be said to reside also in our less organic counterparts–the computers that inhabit our homes and offices and the networks that tie them and us together? Isn’t this the basis of the idea of “artificial intelligence?”