My Notebook

In a recent article in KM World penned by Mat Murray, attention was drawn to the way the boundaries between work and home and learning are breaking down and to the need to adapt our ways of doing things accordingly. I already wrote in praise of a way of life that makes little distinction between play and work and learning in my article about the hacker ethic. The author in KM World concludes that such changes require new approaches to creating and sustaining suitably stimulating environments if one is a knowledge worker.

While it is true that boundaries between these areas of life are becoming more and more permeable and that these changes require adjustments, it is important to remember that intrinsically boundaries are what make sense of life and the world around us. Without such boundaries (whether they be these or others) we would surely feel lost and be unable to carry out the complex activities we are used to in modern life. Even if these boundaries are entirely “man-made”, or should one say “cultural”, they nonetheless contribute largely to helping us make sense of where we are and what we do there. Note that boundaries can also create confusion rather than sense. I refer you to my article about boundaries and peripheries where I write about the difficulties caused by rigidly adhering to institutional boundaries and overlooking the more fluid peripheries of communities of practice.

If key boundaries in the modern world are weakening in the sense that they are becoming more permeable and less rigid, they may no longer satisfactorily play their role as elements that structure our life in a meaningful way. Will we invent new “hard boundaries” to replace the “failing” old ones? Or will we adapt to boundaries being softer and more flexible? To understand what the latter might be like, just think of the notion of family as it has evolved in some countries to include marriages between people of the same sex or families recomposed of parts or all of several families.

The Coop is the second largest retailer in Switzerland. The major Coop supermarkets in some Cantons have begun a new high-tech system whereby customers can use a mobile device to enter the items they buy in the store and thus save the cashier checking each item separately at the cash desk. The system is optional and requires customers to sign a contract. They then electronically sign in when they enter the supermarket using their Coop card and receive a small, bright green device that can scan the bar codes of purchases. Each caddy has a place to lodge the device or it can be held in one hand. You need to press a button to tell the device you want to scan an object before passing the object in front of the scanner which emits a red light to help position the bar codes correctly. When the scan is successful, the device emits a beep, the price and name of purchase appear on a small screen and the price is added to the total. A repeat button enables noting the purchase of the same object several times without repeatedly scanning them. Using the device means that you need to keep the caddy close at hand which tends to cause additional congestion as people struggle to scan bar codes oblivious to the fact that their caddy is blocking the alleys. 

At the check-out, the central computer carries out occasional random controls where the customer is required to empty all their purchases on the belt and have them tallied in the traditional way. I was first controlled on my tenth use of the system. It was irritating to have to take everything out of the bags in the caddy. Despite the supposed randomness of the checks, it was also embarrassing to be controlled. I asked the girl at the desk if there was any difference with what I had logged up on the mobile device. She was unable to tell me. The next time I went shopping I was apprehensive that I’d be controlled again. And I was. Two times in a row no longer seemed random. I asked to see the manager, a very polite but stern-faced fellow. Having explained the idea that controlling was a random decision of the central computer, he admitted that, should the computer find a mistake, it would tend to control people more often. So much for randomness. 

The Coop introduced this system to reduce their staffing costs. As customers, we agree to use the system because it theoretically makes buying easier and quicker. No doubt the Coop have worked out the percentage of “errors” they can afford. Statistical random controls then should serve to check that that percentage is not over stepped. It is based on a mutual system of trust to the benefit of both parties. Once the computer controls are guided by passed errors on the part of customers it is no longer a question of trust but rather of control and enforcement. Even though I did not knowingly make a mistake in checking goods, I was upset at the idea that the two successive checks seemed to point to a possible dishonesty on my part. The bar of chocolate with which the manager sought to placate me couldn’t remove the somewhat bitter taste the experience had left.

The next time I went to shop at the Coop, I went back to the traditional way of checking out goods at the cash desk. I was surprised to see how relieved I was. I hadn’t realised to what extent the need to be careful when scanning the goods (and no doubt also the effort to locate the bar codes - which are rarely in the same place on goods - and to successfully scan them) was a source of stress for me. I wonder to what extent other “brilliant” innovations are also an unnoticed source of stress and discomfort for those adopting them.

I read a hilarious (but also alarming) scientific article this afternoon about co-presence which convinced me that scientific specialisation can make some people blind. Co-presence? The article defines the concept in terms of a group of individuals who regularly share the same location at the same time. So if you travel home on the bus every evening, you are part of the co-presence community of all those people that take the bus at that time. You don’t need to have any communication with these people to be part of the co-presence community. The article goes on to suggest that such “communities” could provide useful mechanisms for informal social networks to share knowledge. The authors imagine using elaborate capturing mechanisms in conjunction with Bluetooth-enabled telephones to know who we are with at what moment so we can share “content” with them according to the context. What a strange idea. Why would we want to share unspecified content with people we don’t know just because they take the same bus as us? Imagine yourself being bombarded by “content” from various people around you on the bus. When would we get time to think quietly or to dream or to look out of the window at the countryside or simply to relax? How can money be spent on scientific research designed to “facilitate knowledge sharing within weakly-connected groups that otherwise would not have any means of disseminating information”? I wonder where they get the idea that we individually want to increasingly disseminate information to the people around us, even those we don’t know? Not to mention the fact that many people might not like being tracked in public places or being molested by their fellow travellers with information about things not necessarily of interest to them.

Composition? It was Prof. Murray Saunders who pointed to the concept of composition yesterday at a meeting about the Palette project in Lyon. By composition he was referring to the way we recompose a past event when we are asked to relate what happened. In answering a question about what we did some time in the past, we restructure what we remember with hindsight. We tidy things up: what was messy and possibly illogical is rearranged. What came afterwards is shifted back in time if that makes things appear more coherent to us. Just like we tend to reconnect dots to make a line so we reconnected and reorder what we remember of what happened and that “composed” story of the past becomes reality. In a way, the past as we lived it was never the way we retell it.

In the article I wrote the other day about the innovative mindset for Connected Magazine (http://www.connected.org/learn/mindset.html) it was tempting to give the impression that the concept of mindset was an intended part of the discussions from the outset because of the significance it took on for me later in the discussions. What I wrote might well also have given the impression that the whole group partook of the discovery of the significance of the term. Although I mentioned it at several moments in the discussion, I can in no way be sure that other participants necessarily saw any particular significance in the words and might well have wondered what I was going on about.

When we talked about the Next Curve back at the Policy and Innovation Committee (PIC) meeting in Belfast in 2005 and subsequently at Xchange in the same city, I don’t think attendees were really aware of the importance of that to them but also of the threat it constituted if they didn’t pay attention to it. What is the “next curve”?  Constellations of major policy issues generally go under a banner that acts as a call to arms: the integration of ICT in education; education for all; personalisation in education; empowering schools; innovation; life-long learning; … As the campaign advances, the political priority of such actions follows a rising curve that gradually steadies off before beginning to decline. Then a new curve overlaps and rapidly takes off, replacing the former issue. Those actors involved in the former campaign have to reorient and realign their own strategy, developing new skills to respond to the new challenge but still using their earlier competences, for example seeing ICT as enabler rather than the subject of their work. (See http://www.connected.org/learn/nextCurve.html)

I have received a considerable number of messages from friends and colleagues indicating that their activities related to ICT in education have been reduced or even stopped. Staff are redeployed or laid off: knowledge and experience being scattered to the winds. When I half jokingly suggested that we set up a network (with some of the characteristics of an informal “union”…) to stand together and defend our interests maybe I should have pushed that idea more strongly. Shouldn’t we be using our social networking tools for something like that? Although I am in no way opposed to change when it makes sense and improves the way things are done, those people “higher up” are squandering a lot of competence not to mention good will and motivation with their approach to change. Our institutions have very serious problems with inappropriate leadership and institutional ecology – but that is another subject which would require more time to explore.

The emphasis on innovation by the European Commission at the moment is a typical case of a next curve. Institutions currently centered on ICT need to take innovation on board and see how ICT can be used as an enabler in the drive to increase innovation. In that way they will add skills related to change management and creativity to their institutional “portfolio”. Then, when the new next curve comes, say the increased importance of formative and empowerment evaluation in education especially related to lifelong learning, then they can apply their knowledge portfolio to that task bringing both ICT and innovation as enablers.

[Partly from discussions with Bert Jaap van Oel and Huguette McCluskey] 

Mid October 2007 the Economist launched an online education debate about the premise that: “… the continuing introduction of new technologies and new media adds little to the quality of most education.” This subject worked like a red flag for a bull: it had people charging in from all directions to make extensive comments. No doubt the Economist was satisfied with the results, measured in terms of participation and level of passion. But in terms of an in-depth debate, the results are questionable. Why? Because the provocative nature of the statement and the eagerness of people to react to that provocation occult the weaknesses of the statement itself as a useful starting point for discussion about what is happening in education. Before any debate can begin we need to clarify the meaning and intention behind some of the words used.

For example: What is meant by “quality” when it comes to education? Depending on how you define (and measure) quality in education, the apparent impact of any new policies will vary considerably. In fact, by clarifying the “quality” question, you define the underlying goals of the education system. If quality is measured in terms of individual performance using standard tests we are talking about quite a different system from one where the goal is communication, collaboration, mediation and creativity. Note that advocates of technology often see it as a Trojan horse designed to bring about changes in methods and goals from within against the will of the system. Should this be the case, the ways the existing system gauges impact may well not (want to) capture the changes advocates of technology are trying to implement.

Another question this statement raises is: How is the “introduction” of new technologies and new media in education to be understood? To what extent is the use that technology is put to appropriate to the goals of the system? Technology can be used to “reinforce” learning by drill and practice but doing so would hardly be appropriate in a context where collaboration and creativity are the prime goals of education. The other way round, technology can be an excellent tool for exchange and collaboration, but that may well only have a marginal measurable impact on a system that assesses quality in terms of individual performance in tests. In literature about the introduction of ICT in education, there is much talk of the degrees of integration where the higher the degree of integration the greater efficiency and the more impact on education goals. If this is the case, then the impact of the introduction of technology on the system will depend on the degree of integration.

The other day Dan Sutch of Futurelab wrote asking for a one-sentence definition of innovation. I replied: “Innovation is the creative process of transforming practices in communities of practice such that participants see those changes as a breakthrough.” Innovation can be both a process and the result of that process. However, very often texts about innovation give the impression that it is a “thing” that can be “applied” to situations like a miraculous pomade that cures all ills. It might be more accurate to see innovation as a characteristic of a process that we can identify in the way that process is being changed. People might not be able to define it, but at least they can recognise it and most would agree on what they have recognised. In my definition, I wanted to focus attention on the process. I also wanted to set that process in the social context of a group of people and the way they do things (no product however “innovative” has much impact on society if it does not change our practices). Finally, by combining the words “creative”, “transforming” and “breakthrough”, I tried to cover different aspects of innovation. Newness is not enough. For something to be innovative it needs to be not only creative, but also it must transform the way people do things and those transformed ways of doing things have to be seen as a breakthrough by the people involved. By using the word “breakthrough” I imply that there is a break with what went before rather than a gradual evolution and that that break is seen as bringing advantages to those who adopt the ways it brings. In looking at innovation in this way, I hope to avoid the trap of separating innovation from value systems: rooting innovation in the appreciation of those carrying it out. 

Talking about practice as “ways of working” might be misleading. The latter expression could be seen to suggest institutionally decided procedures that are explicit and conscious. Whereas in fact many community-based and individual “practices” are rooted in tacit understanding that, as Wenger points out, do not directly serve the goals fixed by the institution, but rather reconcile the objectives of the organisation with the multiple and sometimes conflicting aspirations and situations of the members of the organisation.

We understandably think of the way we do things as instrumental in getting those things done, especially if we seek to change and improve those ways of working. However, it is also true that practice - that is to say, the organised way we do things either individually or collectively - gives meaning and structure to our activities and life. Rather like roads and the paths we regularly take along them, in one sense, grant structure and meaning to the countryside, so practice brings sense and structure to our activities. At the same time, as roads have a negative side to them in that they deform and even deteriorate the countryside, so practices also have a down-side in that, through their natural inertia, they tend to cut us off from other ways of doing things and different and possibly enlightening perspectives on what we do.

Why would we want to augment learning? A legitimate question surely if you consider how much investment goes into finding ways and means of speeding up, improving, extending and increasing learning especially beyond traditional institutional learning contexts. What is it about learning that we are dissatisfied with? Or what it is it in our changing circumstances that call for a change in our learning? In the quest for that augmented learning, strategies include maximising exchange, reuse and sharing of information and knowledge between people. But can we be sure that this “maximising of exchange” really does “augment” learning? And if it does, what is it about learning that is “augmented”?