Introducing #DigCiz: A “place” to discuss digital citizenship – My take aways from #HumanMOOC

What does it mean to be a person on the web? What is it like to think of the web as a place? As a group of people in a place what are our responsibilities to each other?

I just finished up #HumanMOOC and it was a really good dance. I got to wax philosophic about what it means to be human and how we can transfer that human element to online learning. I’m finding more and more folks are talking about how important human relationships are to online learning and it is one of those big questions that I think takes multiple perspectives to figure out.

I’m thankful for #HumanMOOC’s dual layer design that allowed us to “go rogue” as Amy Ostrum called it and do a bunch of participant hangouts along with the scheduled conversations. One of these came about through twitter when I was having a conversation with some folks about digital citizenship and Sundi Richard suggested that we get together and talk about it a little bit.

Prior to the start of that hangout we were playing with the idea of a hashtag for discussing digital citizenship and came up with #DigCiz. I’m interested in continuing the conversation because I’d like to start teaching a first year seminar on digital citizenship in the fall. Some others have expressed interest in the conversation as well so Sundi and I got together the other day and planned a series of chats.

We decided to do alternating synchronous live video chats and twitter chats and to start off really broad and then narrow the topic. If you would like to join us feel free to check out this schedule and let us know if you want to join. Of course use the hashtag any other time or create whatever fun stuffs you would like out of this.

Week 1: What is digital citizenship?
Sync Video Chat
Wednesday, Jan 20th – 11am CST/12pm EST

Week 2: Why is digital citizenship important?
Twitter Chat
Wednesday, Jan 27th Friday, Jan 29th – 11am CST/12pm EST

Week 3: What resources around digital citizenship have we found helpful? Are there public resources that are needed and can we create them? 
Sync Video Chat
Wednesday, February 10th – 11am CST/12pm EST

Week 4: Participants choose this topic – Wellness – How do we maintain a healthy citizenry?
Twitter Chat
Wednesday, February 17th – 11am CST/12pm EST
Tuesday, February 16th – 1pm CST/2pm EST.

Week 5: Do we want to continue this conversation? What questions are still unanswered? What kind of timing should we continue with?
Sync Video Chat
Wednesday, February 24th –11am CST/12pm 1pm CST/2pm EST

 

To Err is Human: Listening, Forgiving and Forgetting

It t’was the MOOC before Christmas

And through the interwebs

All the creatures were stirring and…

… I actually found it kind of hard to keep up with everything but that was ok. (I know that part doesn’t rhyme – I’m not that kind of poet)

It’s not every year one gets a Graduation Solstice Birthday Christmas New Year but 2015/16 is the one for me. It’s travel time and I’m off and about staying true to my wandering nature. Along my way I’m carrying #HumanMOOC with me – no worries; it’s not so heavy. I have been paying attention and participating as I find fit and I thought I would reflect some.

First off – Wo! The participant hangout thing actually took off a little bit and that has been pretty awesome. It has me thinking about my thinking and wondering about differences in processing information synchronously vs asynchronously. For instance, the other day we had this one about digital citizenship put together by Sundi Richard and I found myself answering a question about what it means to be a good digital citizen by stating that it had to do with participation but in the same breath I somehow threw listening in as an act of participation. I could write a whole other post on this idea and of course it stands on the synchronous #HumanMOOC convo with Kate Bowles, tons of #HumanMOOC async convo on twitter and probably all the way back to my musings in #rhizo15 about lurkers, but my point is I had never really thought about it in relation to digital citizenship in that way before. That is, the idea that listening is a responsibility of being an active member of a society. But there it was, all manifesting itself as it came out of my mouth in that moment. Live on the Internet… Recorded. There is something kind of magical and terrifying about that.

In taking on a reflection here at the 3/4’s mark of #HumanMOOC a part of me wants to reflect on the competencies for weeks 1 & 2: Instructor and Social Presence, but alas I have these other pesky constructs coming out of the conversations that I have been participating in (yes some of them were only listening) that are screaming in my brain and making it hard for me to hear anything else. I might be down the rabbit hole with the questions.

Warning rhizomatic mind wanderings below

This first for me is the big question. What does it mean to be human? Can we humanize an online course if we don’t take a moment to consider this? I recognize that this is the big unanswerable philosophical question that flies in one’s face making lewd gestures and strange noises. For this reason it is often only taken on by those that bring it some air of seriousness for it is so easy to just go out drinking with it and let it get the best of you. And while I have not been known for my seriousness in these open online adventures I can’t resist it. So, please forgive this uptake of a big question by a not so serious girl who is only moderately read.

In considering what is human I have to wonder what is not human? Is it the wild? I found myself revisiting my public vs wild post from #CLMOOC due to #HumanMOOC convos. 

I’m tempted to reflect on what it means to create such a thing as good or bad or mediocre and then apply that construct to others and one’s self. Is this human? As I consider this question of what is human the phrase “to err is human” comes to mind. And this makes me wonder what it means to err. Didn’t humans create the idea of error? Maybe not, I’m not so sure that this separates the human from the wild. I suppose the wild could err if there is a pursuit that ends in failure or setback – perhaps a hunt or a gathering. But it seems to me that those kind of errors would not lend themselves to forgiveness.

To err is human; to forgive, divine

Is woman/man caught in some kind of middle here? Between wild and divine do we find human? This seems like a common enough of a thought. 

But I think I reject it. I think it might be a fraud. I think woman/man is wild as well as divine and dances in the liminal space of chaos in the universe.  So humor me with this as a foundation while I reflect a bit on how this relates to my recent thoughts inspired by #HumanMOOC.

What if to forgive was not divine? What if to forgive was just as human as to err?

We’ve had some talk these last few weeks about digital forgiveness and what that might mean. Alec Couros started this in a #HumanMOOC hangout with reflections of what it means to err in a wold that does not forget. He referenced his recent blog post where he comes to the conclusion that forgiveness may end up being the answer. I agree and I think that this is attainable because I think that forgiveness is not divine – but human. I worry that if we think of forgiveness as divine that it seems too unattainable.

Not everyone seems to agree – some would rather focus on forgetting rather than forgiving. Perhaps they think forgiveness is more than human and beyond what the human can achieve. That the only way to give someone hope would be to wipe the slate clean and erase all hints of the error. Some would even call this forgiveness.

In thinking about forgetting I can’t help but think of Socrates and how the old man warned us all those years ago on how writing stuff down would ruin our memories. Apparently there is some truth to that but I would argue the effects are not all that bad and that the benefits of writing outweigh what we have lost. Now, here we are worried that writing stuff down will ruin other people’s memories of who we used to be. Maybe the written word is ruining our history more than our memory? Or maybe it is just forcing us to rethink some things and asking us to be better people. Maybe it is doing both at the same time.

If forgiveness is something attainable by the human how do we learn to do it? Alec gives us guide points in his post such as considering context and intent. These seem helpful and clear to me but with some limitations. I wonder how many of us will take the initiative to seek out transgressions to forgive or (more likely) when encountering transgressions as they come will think to consider forgiveness as an option. The thing that seems missing (to me) in all of this is the willful act of asking for forgiveness; of realizing that a wrong has happened, recognizing the weight of that wrong, as well as who has been wronged, and genuinely asking for forgiveness.

What would it mean to request digital forgiveness? To realize a wrong, look it in the face, feel remorse, know it can’t be wiped away, yet ask for the right to go on in a particular direction? And what would that kind of forgiveness look like? It certainly sounds familiar to me. It kind of sounds like learning.

A call for more #HumanMOOC discussion groups. Or. The very human problem of access with more thoughts on the Interpersonal Multitudes Barrier (IMB)

So I planned this participant led discussion inside of #HumanMOOC. In terms of process I tweeted that I wanted to do this and asked who else might be interested. With those that responded I opened a DM channel and configured a time. Then I advertised the time on the tag to see if I could get others involved.

But then I got this tweet

And it brought up such a little flurry of thoughts in my head that I had to blog about them.

My first reaction was a pretty human one… I’m not an organizer of #HumanMOOC. I can’t please everyone ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I’m not responsible to please everyone.

Then I thought “that was a pretty selfish reaction”.

Upon reflection I can see this process is filled with possibilities of inequality.

  1. Those that answered may have done so because they already knew me – feeling more comfortable responding to someone familiar.
  2. They had to of seen that first tweet so they would have to be paying attention in the right place at the right time.
  3. I did offer 12 Noon EST as a suggestion and it just happened to work for others but it was based on my own subjective availability.
  4. I’m more comfortable doing this because of experience with Virtually Connecting and others may not be.
  5. I’m sure there are a ton more – I am planning for the hangout to be conducted in English (cutting out everyone who does not speak English). I am going to live broadcast it and record it (cutting out a large number of those that will be uncomfortable with that for whatever reason). The list goes on and on…

These all seem to fall on limitations of access, experience, and participation… probably other things too. Yes it is true the sun does have a part to play here (or perhaps it is the old archaic beliefs that accentuate the sun’s importance) but those are hard to overcome and trying to impact that is hard with small incremental reward over long periods of time. The real question is what can we do provide more access, experience, and participation to everyone.

Because I’m of this romantic notion that the more diverse perspectives we can intersect with the better we are as (a) people.

We got the time zone thing worked out and then Maha tweeted this

Of course this is the Interpersonal Multitudes Barrier that I have been talking about. I know this may have a nicer name and be fleshed out somewhere in communication theory elsewhere (please let me know where I’m looking for more info on this). But it is the basic idea that as you add more people to a discussion you loose that interpersonal connection a little more. Maha seems to be keenly aware of this. This is another barrier to group dynamics. In this case is mediated in a Google Hangout by the fact that the technology limits you to 10 participants.

And after all of this it turned out I misunderstood Maha in the very beginning. 

Because she started with my name I thought Maha was addressing me but I think she was just trying to start her own participant discussion group.

Ah Ha!! That is the answer. For more people to do what they can to bring people together. I love our #HumanMOOC way-finders as they are calling themselves (organizers, profs, teachers etc…) but they can only do so much and they have already done so much. This is our learning experience. Let’s claim it.

There are so many things that are standing in the way of us all talking to each other. The sun, the IMB, lack of experience with the technology… it goes on. But if more people tried to do these things maybe it would break down these barriers. We could offer groups in more timezones and in more languages. Maybe try different technologies other than GHO to see what limitations are going on there.

I’m more of a subjectives girl myself but check it out… I also notice that demonstrating uses of an interactive tool is a competency in the #HumanMOOC syllabus… so huh… go figure.

I say start a #HumanMOOC discussion group of your own and see where it goes.

P.S. I will say that the garden has some dangers out there so this call is not without possible downfalls. Remember the other part of Maha’s tweet where she said she wished that there was a way for people to just jump in and jump out.  The only way I know to do that is to publicly tweet the join link. I’ve done that in the past and it has been bad with someone who we had never seen before coming in cursing and talking about things that were not relevant. Not horrible … but it could be worse.

Still, it is hard for me to condemn this process. Last year I saw a tweet from Sean Micael Morris with a link to a hangout. I thought it was a view link but it turned out to be a join link. I joined though I mostly listened. This Dave guy showed up and reminded me about this rhizo thing he does. At the time I had only heard about it peripherally. I joined and participated. Yeah… that kind of made a difference.

A Paradox of Now, Efficiency, and Creativity: Initial thoughts on #HumanMOOC. Or the very human dichotomies in the nature of technology

I stumbled into #HumanMOOC. Well okay I have been hearing about it for awhile but I had not really planned to participate – so it was not like I just came upon it out of the blue. I saw this tweet that they were kicking things off with a conversation between Matt Crosslin and George Siemens. I got to meet George and Matt at #dlrn15 and find them to both be interesting guys so I tuned in.

It was a Google Hangout On-air and I was happy that it was not an opportunity to participate directly but rather an opportunity to listen.That is – they did not share a join link to the hangout but just a view link.

I had decided on a lingering late Saturday morning/early afternoon; by the time of the hangout I was still in PJs and making some brunch. I really enjoy Matt and George but I didn’t want to talk to them at that moment. I was making eggs, toast, OJ, and coffee – and then eating all of that – as they were talking. (Yes, it was 12:30pm stop judging me).  After the hangout I checked out the #HumanMOOC tag and found a lot of friends there. Many had “missed” the hangout for very human reasons such as grocery shopping and putting up a Christmas tree. Still many lamented that they had “missed” something.

I may have felt like I missed something too if I had not viewed live. Having viewed live, I didn’t think that they missed much. Not that the conversation wasn’t great but just that it was a viewing kind of experience and they recorded it so…

Now is a paradox after all. Here we are living our human lives and coming together to talk about humanizing online learning only to lament over missing some particular now.

I think it is human to crave the now that once was or the now that could be and then forget about the now of now.

Technology is also a paradox. For instance there was conversation in there about how we have not been able to give attention to things like creativity, affect, compassion, emotion, etc. because we have been too busy with our lives and being workers. And then this bit about being on the precipice of a dawning of unprecedented human creativity because we are able to offload some of that busy stuff.

I’m all for that! That sounds great! Can we do that?

The paradox comes in with how do we create that space made for those more fuzzy things? What are we offloading in those things that have been taking up so much time with our work and our lives and such… How is it, again, that we can make time for this great influx of creation? Most often it is here that I see automation in drive toward efficiency.

These efficient uses of technology all at once give technology a bad name and are touted as a way to open doors. They give a bad name in that as they mechanize things we start to wonder what those things really are and question what we are giving over – could it be our thinking, our being, ourselves – that has been mechanized? Are we just becoming robots? At same time… it is that kind of mechanized, efficient, boring, dull work that we wish to automate so that we can give room for creative passions.

It seems to me that creates a power struggle and it makes me wonder if we aren’t just slugging off the work we don’t want to do on someone/thing else? But it’s okay cause it is a machine right? I actually don’t think it is right or wrong. It is just an exchange and like all exchanges we have to weigh what we are getting and what we are losing. Maybe we gain time but we lose experience. If we can turn in the time for an even richer experience then perhaps it’s a good deal. If not then maybe we need to rethink some things.

I think I might be okay with this dualism. I know there was a lot of push back on binary ideas at #dlrn for instance with Mike Caufield’s Gardent and Stream approach. #HumanMOOC adopted these metaphors and it seems that it plays on this split between efficiency and creativity that I am seeing when we discuss the nature of technology. The stream seems rather efficient with it’s fixed pathways and anchored foundations. The garden… well oh gosh what is even in there? It is all over the place and could be anything that anyone dreams up using tools of their choosing – pretty creative.

I wonder if the efficient and creative sides of technology happen to be in a kind of symbiotic relationship where they sort of need one another?  I wonder if they are reflections of the complexities of the creatures who made those technologies? I wonder if trying to separate them is possible and if so what is the point of doing so? It may seem I’m trying to deny the dualism with such questions but it seems wrong to me to deny them or to pretend that they do not exist apart from one another. Can’t we recognize their separateness and still see the relationship between them? Without pulling them apart or denying their uniqueness. Can we accept the paradox?