Sheryl Nussbaum-Beach presented for our class last Tuesday, and among the many informative slides was one that spoke to me especially:
A number of people in the room picked up on “Persevance toward deep thought”, and that idea is striking. Online many of us do something, then just move on. For me, it is a strength in that I am exposed to a great many things. But it is also a weakness in that I tend to drop my ideas, and when I come back to them sometimes I don’t realize that I am revising and unpacking. I often begin writing a post or a note on paper, then realize I’ve already written it. Lying around the house right now, in a couple of different Moleskin books and several sheets of my favorite lined notepad paper are writings exploring my doubts about the value of being connected. They pull together in different forms (such as my last post), but don’t seem to reach a clear point. And if they do, I’ll move on.
Since one of my main complaints with today’s technological world is that there is little need, opportunity or motive for deep thought, I really ought to do a better job of Perseverance.
“Desire to be transparent in thinking” goes beyond this into what it means to be open. This is one of my main goals for the course. “Alacrity to share and contribute” is an objective on the way to that goal. Another weakness for me is apparent in the idea of co-learning. I’m still not sure whether I’ve drunk the Koolaid on that one. Obviously I believe in classes, and if we all learn together that’s great, and if we reference each other while we’re doing it that’s great too. But are we co-learning?
Co-creating, sure. Co-leading, absolutely. Some of the best workshops I’ve ever given have been with a marvelous colleague, Jim Sullivan, at my side. At times it’s like George and Gracie. We play off each other. We lead together all the time.
The Elluminate session was enriched for me by something that wasn’t on the list explicitly: bringing others to learn beside you. When our session started, another colleague of mine (from my college) IM’d me. I am being evaluated this semester, and she was looking at my online class. When she popped in to comment on an exercise she liked, I invited her to join our Eluminate session. It had just started, and this colleague, Pilar Hernández, has given many workshops for our professional development program on building community in online classes. Getting her perspective on Nussbaum-Beach’s points, at the moment they were being made, was enlightening. Is that what’s meant by co-learning?
I really liked Sheryl Nussbaum-Beach session. She was an extremely engaging presenter. She kept an eye on the chat channel while presenting. I think every single participant was engaged in such a presentation.
Co-learning, hummm my fellow teachers do that especially when it comes to activities. We teach about 6 hours a day and we need many activities to engage students. Thus, we share activities. We organize sessions for sharing activities to explain grammar and other stuff…
I wonder, though, is sharing stuff co-learning? Our history faculty learn from each other; we meet to share ideas.
She did keep an eye on the chat, but the slides went to thick and fast for me as she realized she was running low on time!
I do think sharing can be co-learning if you are transparently reflecting while you share.
I wrote this in a blog post after coming home from TED-X-NY
But this idea of when we transparently share what we are learning, we become teachers- caused a schematic shift for me. I talk all the time about allowing ourselves to be learners, to be ok with reversed mentorship (our students teaching us), to be ok with modeling how we all start at ground zero as a learner and being comfortable with our students watching our disequilibrium. I talk about how when we share transparently and honestly what we are learning, that we position ourselves as learners. I feel it is important as teachers to be transparent in the sharing of our mistakes, our ah ha moments, our lessons learned, our failures and our success. But where George’s and David’s ideas made an impact was that I had never made the connection that transparency as a learner is part of a learning-teaching continuum or in essence that education is the process of sharing what we have learned.
David Wiley said, “Openness is the only means of doing education. If there is no sharing, there is no education. Education is a relationship of sharing. Successful educators, share most thoroughly with the most students.” (to which I would add – and with each other)
I find it interesting that this concept is not an either or proposition, but rather part of a continuum in how we learn as connected learners. That it isn’t learner first, teacher second- but rather teaching is an embedded piece of what happens when we learn transparently, whether we are student or teacher, and because the two are meshed together they can’t be put in some chronological order like learner first, then teacher.
I do agree that I went too fast when I saw I was running out of time. I told Alec as much. I struggled with not allowing time for process and discussion and getting through what I considered to be the meat of my presentation or to do both and simply share the meat quickly– since folks who wanted to understand more deeply could go back through the archive.
In hindsight, less information- more discussion would have been better.
Thanks for your post.
Thanks, Sheryl, for coming by my blog! Transparently sharing (which I guess involves a certain level of meta-cognition?) is an interesting layer, but that seems to be co-teaching instead of co-learning to me. Maybe I’m just picking nits here….
Recording and archiving of sessions should perhaps be considered more systematically. Should we change what we do because we know the session will be archived, or focus on the experience as it’s happening? Or, as you were doing, both?
Transparently sharing what you are learning as a learner first and having others interact about that learning– as we are doing here about my presentation format is co-learning. At least I do not think either of us is teaching… are we?
Pingback: Learning is messy and complex… « Learning out in the Open
Co-learning is something you should be doing throughout your career as an educator and your life as a learner. We all create new knowledge through the exploration of new ideas and challenges. Sheryl talks about being open to new ideas and being a co-learner this to me is vital to learning. Imagine the shift in thinking if your teacher invites you for input and then incorporates your ideas into the learning environment or experience? This isn’t about technology, this is about being an effective facilitator of learning.
The idea of taking time to think deeply and engage in learning is something that I think educators lose sight of. We can get wrapped up in the administrivia of the job and the pace of the environment, however, we need to model this to our learners and engage in it ourselves. To think deeply and reflectively about specific topics and to challenge our learners to do the same is hard work, it takes time, trust and an atmosphere of mutual respect. But think back to all of the educators that have made an impact in your life….I bet they were doing that!
Thanks for the modeling reminder, Deb. I set a lousy example flitting around to everything. Sometimes it’s good my students aren’t seeing me learn!
But wait a minute – sometimes flitting about, connecting ideas rapid-fire and processing or thinking deeply about them later IS valid learning. Just as there is not one type of teaching that is best in all situations, there cannot be one type of learning that is best for everyone in all situations.
Don’t get me wrong: deep, reflective, penetrating thought is ESSENTIAL, but it is NOT essential ALL THE TIME.
My best analogy here would be doing a puzzle: sometimes one needs to “flt about” finding edge pieces and putting things together quickly to get a framework or outline. Other times, one needs to sit and observe quietly for a longer period of time to see how the more obscure connections of the central pieces need to be made. Neither approach is right or wrong – they are just different approaches for different stages.
Hi Lisa,
I always love reading your blog posts! You have so much to offer.
I came across an article talking about co-learning called Empowerment Pedagogy: Co-learning and Teaching. http://www.indiana.edu/~leeehman/Brantmeier.pdf. What I found from reading this article is that a co-learning environment is a lot like a community. There has to be a value of knowledge, care and trust for the co-learners and everyone has to share. Actually, I think that sounds a lot like ECI831.
I think your example is co-learning, as is what we are doing in this class. I feel that we are all learning from each other, some are learning more as some of us are on a steep learning curve, but all knowledge has been valued.
Thanks again for your posts Lisa… keep them coming
Angela, I feel the same way about your posts — so much that’s useful!
It is the “co” that stumps me. I have trouble thinking of it as just learning from each other — that seems like, well, learning, like everyone does. “Co” seems to imply somehow tied more closely, learning with, entwined…. Sorry, probably not being too clear here!
I think for it to be co– the learning just has to go both ways, but I am not sure… now you have me thinking too
The point I was trying to make was that education needs to shift from teacher as teacher and student as learner and we need to learn from and with our students and they with us.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Notes on Nussbaum-Beach: Traits for Connected Learners | Lisa's EC&I831 Blog -- Topsy.com
Pingback: So Karl Marx posted on my blog… | Lisa's EC&I831 Blog