Unit 3 | Ways of Organizing for Digital Learning – Groups, Nets, Sets, Communities, Collectives
In Unit 3, you will focus on developing your ability to critically define, assess, and analyse the various ways social forms of learning are organized. We will define and examine various organizational structures for digital learning, identify and analyse the challenges and opportunities these structures have on the creation of learning environments, and use case studies to analyse how digital identity and presence are impacted by the organizational structures that are used to bound the learning environment.
Learning Activities and Assignments
- Read the Unit 3 readings; review and analyze various digital learning organizational approaches (groups, nets, sets, communities, collectives).
- Reflect on the impact these structures have on your plan for digital presence and digital identity.
- Create a visual of your own network that identifies where you are situated and how are you situated.
- Complete Assignment 2: Debate (Team).
- Complete peer and self assessment for Assignment 2.
- Participate in interactive discussions.
And we are off!
Unit 3 Readings
Read Unit 3 readings and reflect on the impact structures such as (groups, nets, sets, communities, collectives) have on your plan for the creation of your digital presence and digital identity. Post your 200 word reflection on your blog and remember to cite any literature you use to support your points and provide references at the end of your post for any works cited (APA format of course ). The readings include:
- Dron, J, & Anderson, T. (2014). Teaching Crowds. Athabasca University Press. (Note: free PDF available for download). Chapter 4 – 7. Average reading time = 2.5 hours
- Garrison, R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in text based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. Average reading time = 30 minutes
- Stewart, B., Phipps, L., & Cormier, D. (2019, April 10). The Participatory open: Can we build a Pro-Social, Pro-Societal web? [Video]. You Tube. https://oer19.oerconf.org/sessions/the-participatory-open-can-we-build-a-pro-social-pro-societal-web-o-127/ Video length = 30 minutes
- vanOostveen, R., DiGiuseppe, M., Barber, W., Blayone, T., & Childs, E. (2016). New conceptions for digital technology sandboxes: Developing a Fully Online Learning Communities (FOLC) model. In Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology 2016 (pp. 665-673). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Average reading time = 30 minutes
- Veletsianos, G. (2016). Digital learning environments. In N. Rushby & D. Surry (Eds), Handbook of Learning Technologies (pp. 242-260). UK: John Wiley & Sons. Average reading time = 30 minutes
Unit 3 – Activity 1 – Visual Network Mapping
Create a visual of your own network that identifies where you are situated and how are you situated.
How are you “connected” with others? We talk about networks and communities in this course, but what would those look like if you were to draw or map them? What would your map of connections look like?
Conduct some research on networks to gain some insight into potential visuals (e.g., by searching google images). Perhaps take a look back at the work of one of our Virtual Symposium speakers Dave Cormier for some ideas. Imagining that you are a node in a network of other nodes (people), what would your network look like? Create a visual of this network and share it on your blog with a post that describes what it is that your visual shows and represents. Here are some examples of LinkedIn networks through visualized through automated software NodeXL or Kumu or other network mapping tool you can find (and share your find with us!
Unit 3 – Activity 2 | Assignment 2: Debate (team activity)
For this assignment, you will be organized into debate teams to critically discuss a topic relevant to organizational structures of digital learning environments. It is expected that the readings (Unit 2 & 3) completed to date in the course as well as the Virtual Symposium will be drawn upon to inform the backing and rationale for the arguments presented. The debate will be carried out asynchronously, through structured posts and responses in Assignment 2 Debate discussion forum in the companion Moodle shell for this course.
For the debate topic, you will be divided into groups for and against the motion. Each group has been assigned a specific aspect of the formal debate to be responsible for (initial argument, formal rebuttal, judgement). Please see the Course Community block in the Moodle site for your teams. You can connect to plot and plan in a way that works of your team – perhaps a google doc, one of the tools you used in The Link (Basecamp, Asana, Samepage, Trello or Slack) or in a private team discussions forum in the Moodle site.
Specific guidelines around roles and responsibilities of the different teams and subgroups are provided in the Assignment 2 description, and are intended to create even division of work, with each person developing a post, and participating in the open debate (scrum) following formal rebuttals. Please review the Course Schedule for dates for the debate as timing is everything in this activity. 🙂
In a previous MALAT and DipLAT cohort we had someone who in a previous life had been a debater. After going through the debate experience in LRNT 521, he created a lovely “quick guide” about debating that he shared with us and, with his permission, I have included it below. You may find it useful as you begin to think about how to approach the debate.
Quick Guide to Debate: Written Style
Most individuals think of a debate as an argument where there is an individual attempting to prove their position as right, while the other individual attempts to prove their position as right, or simply, the other person wrong. Although there is truth to this, formal debate is more intensive in that it is not simply argumentation, but a forum in which two opposing sides seek to persuade an audience, or panel of judges, that their position is better to agree with than the other. In fact, the debater need not even agree with the position they must argue as true. There are two sides in a debate, the proposition (PRO – or affirmative) and the opposition (CON – or negative). The proposition seeks to persuade the judges that the resolution or proposition is true and the opposition seeks to persuade that the resolution is not true. Most debate is in a theatre setting where the two sides debate each other verbally and are given ‘X’ amount of time for the initial statements, rebuttals, and conclusions. However, in written debate, it is de facto written style only with no speeches or voice to be heard. This can make written style debate difficult in that one must use words on paper to create emphasis and persuasive argument without the benefit of verbal speech which can be augmented in tone, volume, diction etc…
In the initial arguments, both sides will define terms and layout their initial persuasive arguments. Evidence is presented to support arguments usually in the form of current literature available, expert testimony, statistics and other forms of information. The initial posts by both proposition and opposition should follow a logical flow in that: the topic is first introduced, terms are well defined, and subsequent arguments are presented seamlessly. If a team does not define their terms well, it can give the opposing side ammunition in which to counter their position. Arguments should be easily and well understood and not overly complicated, as this can hinder your persuasiveness. The conclusion should be a short-summarized block of information that readdresses the introductions and overall arguments laid out in the paper.
Rebuttal posts should reaffirm your team’s position and support previous arguments made in the initial papers. Arguments put forward by the opposing team should be addressed in a well-presented manner. The rebuttal should seek to dissuade the audience or judges from agreeing with the opposing team’s arguments. In written style, a good way of countering an argument is by utilizing evidences used by the opposing team as ammunition to counter the argument made. This could be in the form of using an opposing team’s references against them. Another way to counter would to make the argument that the references used are out-of-date or not applicable to the current public. E.g. If a team used a reference from 1970, your team may use a reference from 2018 to show a more current understanding of an issue being raised. Moreover, a team may use references from 1970 and 2018 to seek to persuade the audience or judges that the point they are making is valid from 50 years ago to the present. A good debater is adept at dissuading the audience or judge to consider the opposing team’s arguments.
All-in-all, remember the purpose of your team is to persuade, not provide absolute truth. The team that is the most persuasive wins the debate. A persuasive team: is skilled in how they have written and presented their papers; have used good evidence; presented their arguments well; addressed the other teams arguments to bolster their own; introduced and concluded papers well. Pay attention to assignment marking rubric to get more detailed overview of how the judgement team will be determining the result. Have a fun time debating.
The following link that might be helpful as well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi6Im-Sb6Vw