Distributed Learning
No, I have not come out of my hiatus - I have a very long way to go before I can think of that. But I did promise in my hiatus FAQ that I would honour my speaking committments, and so here I am in Tennessee to give a talk. Here are the slides and MP3 audio. The talk addresses the usual e-learning 2.0 point of view, but I also reflect a bit on the purpose of what we are doing. It's little enough, and I need to say more - I do want to thank everyone for their kind words and support, and to those special people (you know who you are) who have been there for me and who are now and always in my thoughts. Stephen Downes, , April 3, 2006. [Link] [Tags: Podcasting, Online Learning, Audio, E-Learning 2.0, Gaming] [Previous][Next]Comments
Re: Distributed Learning
Off topic or maybe not.... Regarding your April 3 podcast from Tennessee and the statement that's "it's not about technology or learning but about having a meaningful life" Stephen, how do you think this applies, for instance, to the issue of repressive regimes? I have always advocated for technology because I believe it allows an openness (more information available than ever before, easier communication, etc.) and that with that comes a societal responsibility e.g. teaching kids to use the tools appropriately. But we've had recent events like the reaction to the cartoons in the Danish Newspaper and it seems to be a fact that increased information access probably does lead to destabilization of systems that have (perhaps) kept people "happy" in some sense for thousands of years. Of course it can be argued that free speech should have its limits (e.g. things like inciting hatred, or shouting "fire" for fun in a crowd, and so on, should be disallowed) But where do we draw the line in all those shades of grey? I guess those who value freedom of ideas do have to accept a level of messiness and a knowledge that things will be constantly changing. But they expect NOT to live in fear because the system (in theory) is basically self-correcting (nobody has to buy newspapers if the views aren't acceptable, products can be boycotted, peaceful protest is accepted, etc.) In contrast, pure stability may have to involve the repression of ideas, and violence to ensure this is, I guess, seen as acceptable (again it's shades of grey because the "free" western world would certainly take violent action, such as incarceration, against anyone involved in, for example, child pornography). But -- my question to you is whether/how two systems so deeply different *can* coexist on this planet? And in the context of your statement... how do these relate to the meaningful life. And how, as educators, do we take the next step. When I really look deeply into myself, I know that I want to see the lifting the repression and the encouragement of free thinking for all, yet I also know this leads to a pace of change that is perhaps not a good lifestyle. And that may create disharmony and stress. Dilemma? Your thoughts? e [Comment] [Permalink] [Previous][Next]
Re: Distributed Learning
I do not think that violent clashes between cultures are inevitable, nor even normal. Rather, I think that the differences between cultures are exploited by people seeking to parlay the fears and uncertainties of people into political gain and personal advantage. The things we are concerned about - the enforced adherence to a religion or world view, the violent opposition to other views - are in my view possible only in societies of the uneducated and indigent. So my view is that the range of social positions I advocate - from anti-poverty measures to education to openness - act inherently against these sorts of cultural conflicts. Why is education important in this context? I liked what you sent by email: "education is simply society's expression of the meaningful life." People who take up nationalism or religion or any of a hundred various causes are looking for meaning in their lives, and this desire is strong enough that it is easily manipulated. Education provides a counterweight to this: a person who already has some sense of meaning is much less likely to be drawn into violent or oppressive factions. There is always a temptation on the part of those who defend society to ensure through some legislation or fiat that people's lives are directed appropriately - just as there has always been the temptation on the part of those who defend democracy to ensure that people's votes are directed appropriately. When the people of Chile elected a communist, when the people of Algeria elected fundamentalists, when the people of Palestine elected Hamas - we look at these events and say 'democracy failed', and seek to move with force against them. And just so, we seek to move against those who would abuse their freedom of speech, using it to hurt instead of to enlighten. But to respond by overthrowing democracy, or blocking freedom of speech, is exactly the wrong response. It is never possible to teach people how to make correct choices by taking away their right to choose. People will elect good governments, and utter good statements, when they have learned how: when they have learned what sort of governments not to elect, what sort of things not to say. And, sometimes, this can be learned only by doing the wrong thing. My own view is that we need to teach ourselves how to use democracy, how to use freedom, and that this process takes place one person at a time, through a long and difficult process, rather than through the point of a gun. And we teach people through the use of example, by modelling and demonstrating the attitudes and actions of a person who is genuinely free and genuinely committed to democracy. This is what Gandhi understood. People often oppose non-violence because there are cases where it does not work. But Gandhi would never deny that. What Gandhi tried to do was to model and demonstrate how political leadership is appropriately conducted, an act of civilization that eventually shamed the British into acquiescence. True, some people will never be shamed, and thus it is true that in some cases the injustices will continue. But everyone can learn, and the act of modelling and demonstration will, inevitably, teach. And the change will ultimately be made where it is most needed - no, not in the government, but in the people. [Comment] [Permalink] [Previous][Next]
Re: Distributed Learning
I am curious about the concept of democracy failing. If in the end a group of people come to believe they made a mistake and they act accordingly isn't this democracy at its finest? Gary [Comment] [Permalink] [Previous][Next]
Your comments remain your property, but in posting them here you agree to license under the same terms as this site (Creative Commons). If your comment is offensive it will be deleted.
Automated Spam-checking is in effect. If you are a registered user you may submit links and other HTML. Anonymous users cannot post links and will have their content screened - certain words are prohibited and your comment will be analyzed to make sure it makes sense.
Copyright 2008 Stephen Downes
Contact: stephen@downes.ca
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons License.