Apologies for using the title Good CoPS, Bad CoPs in the context of Communities of Practice. I believe I have seen this in someone else’s blog but cannot source (despite a Google search) so acknowledgements to whomever.
(Found it 04/10/12 at: http://phdblog.net/good-cops-bad-cops/ and it is a very good read).
I am going to be confessional here and spontaneous, which is, for me, is one of the delights of blogging. Wesch would refer to this as media ecology, in that the media often shapes the way we express ourselves.
I have just watched The Machine is Changing us: YouTube and the politics of Authenticy, which will be the focus of my next blog because I found it so inspirational (see below). If you haven’t seen this YouTube clip yet, make yourself a cuppa and nestle down for 30 mins. You won’t be disappointed.
So with this new information as a backdrop and an insightful Skype session with dear Craig I have come to the conclusion that this blogging project we have been asked to do has created something inbetween a good CoP (Community of Practice) and a bad CoP. I love it and yet I am frustrated by it’s artificiality. It’s aim seems to be misaligned with its purpose if we explore Wenger’research on social learning and CoPs and Yacci’s dissection of interactivity. I wonder if this relates to Bigg’s Constructivist Alignment Theory? http://www.johnbiggs.com.au/constructive_alignment.html
Are we learning from each other? Yes.
Could we learn more from each other? Yes.
How? By spending more time on what really counts – and that’s on interacting with each other. The pressure of writing lengthy academic posts seems to take away the reciprocity and authenticity that makes blog work.
Are we therefore achieving our goals?
Yes and no. We will (hopefully) meet the criteria set by the task at hand (module brief) but we will have had the opportunity to weave our web with each other that captures those difficult concepts to make them stick! I must resist the need to insert a spider’s web here…
Perhaps my empathetic disposition leads to this frustration and this is highlighted in my battle in the Reciprocity Quandary post. I think this blog would be more fruitful if we simply had more time to read and comment on each other’s posts! I suggest that this is how others may feel from reading everyone else’s posts. Wouldn’t it be lovely if all we had to do was exactly this? Choose 5 Web 2.0 technologies from the outset and really delve into each one and then collaborate, communicate and interact with each other without having to aspire to the monologue that I feel is expected of us. Surely this is active learning, participatory learning at its best? How could we showcase that we had met our learning outcomes? Wouldn’t our blogs and interactions be evidence of this with perhaps a short F2F presentation on our key themes and findings? Instead I am feeling I am letting people down and being discourteous by not completing the interactivity loop and commenting on everyone’s blogs in the way I would like.
Yacci speaks of the affective benefits of interactivity and in his definition concludes that “a physical response is a necessary condition of interaction” (Yacci, p.4) and that “perceived interactivity is a pyschological construct of each student“. I would be interested to hear how everyone else feels when we meet up.
There is an imbalance for me in this CoP in that the “task/content” interaction outweighs the “social interaction” and both are seen as “key variables in web-based learning” (Yacci, p.9). I need an image.
So now my confessional is out of the way I need to roll up my sleeves and ponder why I am not like the crowd in trying to create an identity through YouTube…whatever!