Studios in our lives

What roles can studios play in education or, more generally, in personal and professional development?

A. My initial thinking on this question starts by identifying three kinds of studio:

1. A space for the practitioner or artist or professional to be focused on one’s own creative or generative work.

(The tools are all there and distractions are reduced [as in "don't open your email in the morning"].  “Tools” here is metaphorical—the toolkit may include many of the creative habits and other processes that help in Taking Yourself Seriously.)

2. A space where the practitioner or artist or professional works with apprentices.

(Taking the step of recruiting apprentices is a further step in Taking Yourself Seriously, as is designing how to supervise them.)

3. A space where teams work together on a project.

(“Space” is metaphorical, including virtual collaborations, such as Collaborative Explorations.  The character of the collaboration may vary, as is evident in variants of Project-Based Learning.  However, again, tools are provided and distractions are minimized during the focused worktime.)

B. My colleagues Felicia Sullivan and Jeremy Szteiter, among others, emphasize the need for people to “build confidence to know what one wants to inquire into.”  The practitioner or artist or professional should arrange ways to foster this confidence-building among the apprentices and other participants of studios of types #2 & #3.  A prerequisite for the practitioner doing this fostering would be, I suggest, Taking Yourself Seriously through work in a studio of type #1.

C. My frequent reference to Taking Yourself Seriously invites elaboration.  I suggest, for now, that this involves finding the “vertical unity“ of elements upon which or from which change flows naturally.  The method for exposing and clarifying such elements and their organization needs to be explored and articulated.  Some possibilities include:

a. Remembering Conversation with outsider witness retelling

b. Clearness Committee

c. Drafting and revising a professional bio for a project you really want to undertake

d. Finding your vocation (as described by Parker Palmer in Let Your Life Speak).

e. Mapping workshops

f. Scaffolding

g. Support circles

h. Other? (Suggestions welcome)

Collaborative explorations: From prototype to continuing possibilities

Participating in the MIT Lifelong Kindergarten’s Learning Creating Learning c-MOOC led me to organize a prototype “Collaborative Exploration”  (CE) in April, which worked well enough to follow up with another this month, then schedule a series for future months and envisage a continuing (perhaps growing) form of collaborative learning that, although smaller scale than MOOCs, fosters deep or “thick” inquiry that is rare in or around existing MOOCs.  As long as it is appropriate, these CEs will advertized as “Events” on the LCL google+ community.

Let me review the steps in this evolution over the last 3.5 months:

1.  I signed up for the LCL MOOC to learn a) how others teach creative learning (and compare/contrast with what goes on in the graduate program I direct on Critical & Creative Thinking); and b) how a non-corporate MOOC with a deliberate creation of small learning communities can operate.

2. On #1b, I took various initiatives to foster interactions in small groups, including a google+ group that 20+ signed up for explicitly for live hangouts at a fixed time each week.  None of these initiatives were very successful, nor was my attempt to find out why people signed up to chat at a fixed time and did not show.

3. Through the initiatives in #2, I was learning the mechanics of setting up google+ communities, events, hangouts, streaming to youtube, and synchronous chats.  The LLK people were very helpful on technical matters.  (Because I was teaching one evening a week at MIT, I was able to consult with them in person.)

4. At the same time, re: #1a, I was doing the readings, the homework, and listening to lectures (but not with my full attention when the guests rambled on).  I made various postings about to express and to elicit responses to issues I was chewing on, especially the question of what kind of creative learning goes on in microworlds.  (Most of these are on this blog, but feel free to peruse my opus of LCL postings.)  The quick story is that I was, at first, putting a premium on real-world creative learning, implying that this was the deepest or best learning.  However, I came to appreciate not only the experience of creating in a microworld, such as scratch, but the success of allowing that (and more) to happen in computer clubs around the world. (More on this…)

5.  I didn’t try out makey-makey and, instead, organized the Collaborative Exploration mentioned at the start for a digging in deep course project.  The branch in my path here does reflect a contrast I drew: learning to make something using tools (scratch, turtle, sensors) and sharing/borrowing *versus* inquiry into some case or problem that requires delving into what is known already as it relates  to the learner’s interests in the case?  (“What is known already” refers to written texts, websites, the experience of informants that we connect with via the internet, etc. )  A conversation with Natalie Rusk got me thinking about the way the physical world (or microworlds of programming) allow you to test if something works, to give you direct feedback.  The challenge is to produce analogous feedback in other kinds of learning.  The discussions and feedbacks built into Collaborative Explorations do that somewhat, but not yet with the kind of reinforcing sense of “a ha!”s or the “finally, that’s how I can get this to happen” or “wow!” of creation and sharing in microworlds.  At the same time, although I love places like the Exploratorium, I get a feeling that I have yet to spell out that the tinkerable sense of science and technology is not true to the range of scientific and technological thinking that I have been involved in.

Supporting change in creative learning

In April 2013 I undertook the following steps in thinking, inquiry, and framing of further inquiry as part of a “Collaborative Exploration” (CE) on Connectivist MOOCs: Learning and collaboration, possibilities and limitations (http://cct.wikispaces.com/CE2):

STEP 1: These schematic contrasts were intended to stimulate discussion about the different kinds of creativity that are experienced in relation to the structure and boundaries of the different spaces of learning and action.  Microworlds were highlighted in the Learning Creative Learning (LCL) course offered as a MOOC by the MIT Media lab this spring (http://learn.media.mit.edu).

Space	Microworld	Messy World	Real world
Examples	Scratch, Turtle	Project-based learning (PBL), Collaborative Explorations	Internships, apprenticeships, work, activist organizations, living in general
Tools	Pre-built, available online	Cases or scenarios in which problems are not well defined	Action Research Cycles & Epicycles framework

(See http://wp.me/p1gwfa-uU for full chart)

STEP 2: In this schema, the contrast is arrayed in two dimensions, one corresponding to the social relations involved in the creative learning, the other to the technological tools and systems. Items positioned on the schema were ones encountered during the LCL course or that otherwise came to mind.

STEP 3: The LCL MOOC turned out to be a connectivist MOOC, which led to a parallel question: What kinds of learning and creativity go on in c-MOOCs? After following some leads on the web and reflecting on the schema above, I realized that I had been putting a premium on real-world creative learning, implying that this was the deepest or best learning. Suppose, however, we accept whatever sector of the schema learning and creativity is happening in. Then, instead of pressing towards real-world embeddedness, we could try to understand the “vertical” principles that unify the creativity in that sector and from which flow all the “horizontal” possibilities of change (http://wp.me/p1gwfa-mz). We could take stock at recurrent intervals and see what would be needed if we were to attempt to shift to a different sector, that is, not to simply continue along previous lines. Understanding the vertical principles and taking stock about shifting together make up an inquiry into what supports change in creative learning.

STEP 4A: My favorite starting point or grounding for supporting change is the 4Rs, in which a well-facilitated collaborative process keeps us listening actively to each other, fostering mutual Respect that allows Risks to be taken, elicits more insights than any one person came in with (Revelation), and engages us in carrying out and carrying on the plans we develop (Re-engagement) (http://wp.me/p1gwfa-og). In the future I plan to revisit some schematic ideas about scaffolding (http://wp.me/pPWGi-wJ) as well as the diversity of considerations and tensions among them in moving from standard social science to community-engaged research (http://bit.ly/XTgUjz).

STEP 4B. Other approaches to supporting changes in learning that I looked into during the CE are:
a) Communities of Practice (CoP), including comparison between c-MOOCs and CoPs (http://bit.ly/11uZRU2). CoPs emphasize knowledge in a specific domain that one can become an expert in and doesn’t make the connection between learning and creativity;
b) the Profound Learning Institute’s i-cubed model, from Researcher, through Engineer and Designer to Visionary (http://bit.ly/10lNFmh). This has an entrepeneurial emphasis with a little faith in God thrown in. They do mention creative & critical thinking as one of their essentials, but no mention of changing society in some egalitarian direction;
c) layers of involvement in CoPs, from periphery to core (http://bit.ly/ZW2jl8);
d) SCORE–on layers surrounding synchronous online sessions (http://bit.ly/ZHUAMb);
set of actions to foster CoPs; and
e) 7Cs–levels of participation, from consult through to curate (http://bit.ly/ZXlZnP).

STEP 4C. The other participants in the CE raised issues about:
a) Think-thin and independent-interdependent learning and collaboration;
b) Valuing the spontaneous exchanges between teacher and students;
c) Lean startups, in which a prototype is developed and evaluated in a public space;
d) The importance for learning of building trust is part of why transformative learning is difficult online;
e) The value of less-than-massive online learning spaces, even in technical fields.
The contributions of each of the participants will inform my future inquiry. More detail about their contributions might be made public in the Critical, Creative and Reflective Practice google+ community (http://bit.ly/11jVZ8c).

Modes of creative learning in microworlds, messyworlds, and the real world, III

The dictum that “all learning is social” is often used in education to highlight the importance of the teacher scaffolding the student’s development and the emotional aspects of change.  It can also be invoked to imply that learning should be embedded in and engaged with real-world problems.  Yet “social” can also be the spaces that parents provide their children—the secure base they can return to after venturing out for a moment into situations that seem new, uncertain and unreliable.  The social can be a container for interactions in which the learner is insulated from the complexities of real-world engagements.  There is no need to dismiss the pleasure of creation within a well-bounded container, such as is provided by the predefined elements and programming rules of Scratch or Turtle—not the least because of the sharing and mentoring that happens among children as they develop their programming skills and products.

My schema in the previous post does hint that the right end of the x-axis and the top end of the y-axis—the real world ends—are more genuinely social.  This, in turn, led me to try to define the kinds of learning and creativity that did or didn’t happen in the less-social sectors of the schema.  I now want to disavow any such connotations.  The issue for me has become not how to move to real-world-embeddedness but, instead, whatever sector of the schema learning and creativity is happening in, to a) understand the “vertical” principles that unify the creativity in that sector and from which flow all the “horizontal” possibilities of change; and b) to take stock at recurrent intervals and see what would be needed to attempt to shift to a different sector, that is, not to simply continue along previous lines.

I am not sure that this schema is helpful, but it identifies a set of elements or angles for us to tease out as we address a & b: Activity system.  In contrast, generic claims that learning is the network and the like provide no real insight into how people identify their aspirations and develop capacities.  (I think it might also rest on a confusion between the process and product senses of the word learning.  Yes—the body of knowledge is made available via the web and with the assistance of fellow websters.  But the learning referred to in the title of this post is the process, not the product.)

It seems to me that, despite my dispositions towards the lower left of the schema (=I have skills and experience in programming and I derive some relaxation from solving puzzles that have well-defined solutions), the place I can best contribute is to invite learners into the messy world spaces in the center of the schema.  There I can use the 4Rs to help them connect, probe, reflect, and perhaps then re-engage in real-world sectors.  Yes, there are definite limitations in these spaces not being embedded in real world problems, but a) learning and creativity can be experienced—perhaps disorienting at first, but eventually pleasurable—; and b) some of the tools, processes, and connections might be carried over into real-world re-engagements.  Messy world spaces demand more effort than surfing the communities around c-MOOCs, but, for, say, a Collaborative Exploration (CE), the 9 hours of inquiry and interaction over 22 days allows participants to dig deep for a delimited period then take a break until they are ready to join in again.  A sense in which this learning is social is that, during the inquiry around a messy world (e.g., through a CE or a Project-Based Learning), there is an alternation between “I want to make something on my own” and “thanks to other for your being there with me.”

P.S.  I realize that I have not moved completely beyond judgement of some kinds of learning being better than others.  Notice my comment that c-MOOCs have a lot of surfing, by which I mean not only surfing what is on the internet, but also riding shallow waves without much chance of being dumped into deeper waters.  Notice also that I look for “real insight into how people identify their aspirations and develop capacities.”  More thought is needed about what I value and why, but my first attempt would be to say that “identify[ing] aspirations and develop[ing] capacities” is something everyone wants to do once they have (re)started to do it.

Modes of creative learning in microworlds, messyworlds, and the real world, cont.

This schema uses the distinction in the title (and previous post) in two directions.  It needs to be filled in with more examples, especially ones that are off the diagonal.

Modes of creative learning are shaped first by what things are taken as given and thereby constrain the creations–materials provide a check: Does it work? (as +Natalie Rusk pointed out to me).  One challenge is to have the social worlds check, in an analogous way, those forms of learning that are not so materially based (e.g., learning about how different communities prepare for extreme climatic events).

My intuition is that the modes of creative learning are not only specific to the sector, but also arise from helping people to move to new sectors.  For example, workshops that create spaces for “connecting, probing, and reflecting” (CPR spaces) might help participants to not simply continue along previous lines (http://wp.me/p1gwfa-uJ).

References

Chiapasgames
Collaborative explorations

Computer Clubs

CPR Spaces

Products from Lucas Aerospace plan

Makey makey

Northstar school, MA, USA

Project-Based Learning

Scratch

Turtle

Modes of creative learning in microworlds, messyworlds, and the real world

The items in this table are not intended to be comprehensive or be self-explanatory (thus the sources as entry-points at the bottom).  The schematic contrasts are, however, intended to stimulate discussion about the different kinds of creativity that are experienced in relation to the structure and boundaries of the different spaces of learning and action.

Space	Microworld	Messy World	Real world
Examples	Scratch, Turtle	Project-based learning (PBL), Collaborative explorations	Internships, apprenticeships, work, activist organizations, living in general
Tools	Pre-built, available online	Cases or scenarios in which problems are not well defined	Action Research Cycles & Epicycles framework
Processes	The tools’ simple rules allow wide diversity of products (like “generative grammar”)	Define questions for inquiry relevant to the participant’s work & lives.Check-in & sharing each session; end with taking stock (e.g, Critical Incident Questionnaires).	Action Research traditionally progresses from evaluations of previous actions -> stages of planning and implementing some action -> evaluation of its effects.  Add to this basic cycle: reflection & dialogue; building a constituency to implement the change; inquiring into the background; looking ahead to future stages.
Connections (among participants)	Free borrowing from shared material; Timely help from others; Admiration for products of others	Through listening well to each other, and to oneself, providing +D feedback and references/referrals, and pacing/inspiring each other.	Constituency-building.Also: Friendships, give or take risks to initiate new friendships or end relationships; Negotiating paths within the politics of unequal access to resources
Contributions to the Topic or field	Not required, but anything is made by individuals with acknowledgement.	Separate contributions from participants, but linked to the case.	Change, based in research & constituency-building, implemented & evaluated.
Experience in relation to Carry over into subsequent learning, work, and living	Experience of being creative -> desire to continue playing in the microworld.But the experience is dependent on the insulation of the microworld from messy world or real world complexities.	Experience of learning and synthesizing -> further digestion & directions for inquiry.  It is no longer possible to simply continue along previous lines.But the experience happens within a “container” and is not tested by application and constituency-building in real world. When ready, participate again with positive, but circumscribed expectations.	“What we come out with is very likely to be larger and more durable than what any one person came in with; the more so, the more voices that are brought out by the process.”Evaluation of the effects of an action or change can lead to new or revised ideas about further changes and about how to build a constituency around them, thus stimulating ongoing cycles & epicycles of Action Research.
Sources	http://learn.media.mit.edu	http://pcrcr.wordpress.com (Use tag cloud or category “Group Process” to select relevant posts)	http://bit.ly/113g2dg

Learning from failure?

The Learning Creative Learning course offered as a MOOC by the Lifelong Kindergarten at MIT’s Media Lab has a theme of learning from failure.  In that spirit, let me review something I tried to create associated with the LCL course, namely, a weekly live session on google hangout at a regular time, in which “we can talk and listen (and use chat function) in real time about whatever the LCL course has got us thinking about.”  My goals were:

1. to see if participants who signed up for the live session at a pre-specified time would become a community (in contrast to the communities created by LCL based on shared time zone, which mostly had not prospered).

2. to see if the synchronous voice & video connection helped to sustain such a community (as against connections made via asynchronous posts and chats).

3. to see if having people join a community with the pre-specified time front and center in its very name would prevent the problem MOOCs have of people signing up for something that they don’t then participate in.

4. to learn how to host a google hangout and broadcast it live via youtube.

5. to introduce participants to a five-phase format for getting people present and forming topics for deeper discussion (see http://bit.ly/FivePhase).

What happened?  21 people signed up for the specified hour each week community.  At most 4 participated and only one person came more than once (besides me as host).  So count that as failure on #1, 2 & 3.  I succeeded on #4 until today, when I could not see the button to broadcast on air and could not find any help items on that problem.  For the small number of people who came, I got positive feedback on #5 and appreciated the depth of discussion myself.  (One person who watched the video of the session applauded what we’d done.)

Learn from the experience?

I would still recommend that connectivist MOOCs allow people to sign up for sub-communities based on a time that they are generally available for a live session.  But I would cap these communities at 50 with the expectation that less than 10 would participate.  At least, that would be a next step in experimenting along these lines.

Another step would be to convene a group around a specific case or content area and find a time that works for the largest number of those people.

I would explore how to create a backup (alas) when broadcasting and recording of the hangout didn’t work through youtube.

Read more about the theory of learning form failure and think about whether the above is what is recommended or envisaged.