1. Pedagogy (& course design)
Within the Information Design course at UiO we have developed a way to weave a number of desirable educational design patterns together.
1.1 The course implemented “flexible exploratory learning”, where the course as a whole operated as an information design project. The students and instructors co-create the course and the learning materials. They learn (50%) information design by designing information for each other, and for the future generations of students.
1.2 If education should be self-guided, flexible, project-based etc., then the question is how is the curriculum organized, and the exam and… We developed a way in which all this can be elegantly recreated by using a technical tool we called Polyscopic Topic Map, and which we now call the Domain Map.
1.3 We offered a common core, which is a “mountain top view” of the entire field, which everyone should be familiar with. Much of this are themes to deeply understand, not to memorize. I propose that the focus in Dubrovnik will be on this part, including the sharing of the resources.
1.4 And that the last two days, and then for the rest of the semester, students and instructors collaborate on projects online.
1.5 Last but not least — here comes the ‘federation’ bit: I propose to federate the course internationally. Indeed in three ways
1.5.1 By having the course designed (federated) continuously by instructors and students; bringing in what’s being learned from GEFF and other sources; hence the course structure represents the current state of the art in education design; creating a ‘living’ (evolving) educational model (more generally socio-technical system…)
1.5.2 By having the course content co-created (federated) by international experts; the idea here is that instead of everyone creating and teaching own corse (isolated points), and instead of a MOOC (integration, and putting everyone else out of business), we include instructors and eventually all kinds of other experts such as media artists etc., … the economies of scale then enable the use of immersive and other technology etc. etc. (…)
1.5.3 By having the students federate the course resources, solutions etc. over the Web, within their projects
2. Subjects
Regarding what is learned, I proposed that this should be federated — i.e. that we have an open and expanding boundary of the course; and that we at the same time have a common core
I propose to have people propose modules (alternatively that we commission them from people), and that there is a curation function etc, putting resources on the map (we or the Program Committee acting as the National Geographic Institute, organizing the Domain Map(s) based on what everyone has brought)… I am imagining already among us a variety of truly exciting themes emerging. I tend to like teaching that is sharply pointed, rather than descriptive (trying to cover a large terrain, but in a more boring way).
I can imagine offering for example a module that begins with the Information Age Paradox — what V. Bush observed, for ex., that information production has been extended beyond our ability to organize and comprehend it… and some quite fascinating instances where basic insights of great people have not been communicated to the public, or incorporated into conventional systemic practice… adding the basic proposals how to go about solving this problem, by for ex. Doug Engelbart , Erich Jantsch and others… telling how we go about this in Knowledge Federation (it’s a methodology based on the ideas of the mentioned greats). And then invite the students to creatively contribute to this potentially most impactful evolution. It might be nice to notice that what they are experiencing as a course, i.e. the course design, already embodies quite a few solution patterns for this most timely challenge
And I’d like to add one more principle. I believe I’ve mentioned it already, but now I want to make it more concrete or palpable. This will be in two parts: (1) Principle and (2) Exemplar
And actually, let me introduce this proposal with a bit of meta talk.
Thinking about the question “what should information (education…) be like to really make a difference”, in the context of a ‘designed’ (conscious, informed, which responds to vital or urgent needs of our time) approach to information and knowledge, I (once upon a time...) proposed two points of focus, which I called perspective and gestalt. The first has to do with seeing the whole thing in right proportions (nothing’s hidden, nothing’s distorted); the second has to do with interpreting the data and the situation in a way that points to action (“our house is on fire”).
1. Principle
I propose that before (or parallel to) we engage in problem-based learning, we create and contribute modules — each having a ‘facilitator’ or whatever we want to call this role, proposing it. Each of them will add to our shared perspective of collaborology, by sharing a relevant and interesting point of view, which opens to a wealth of insights and resources. And it will also have a moving gestalt, orienting our shared action, and energizing our engagement in the domain that the module is about.
2. Exemplar
I have been thinking about a kind of module that I would like to offer. Here’s a very rough sketch (for now just thinking aloud, but let’s rather think together…)
Title
Collective Intelligence by Knowledge Federation
Description
From a collection of insights, each of which is in principle capable of re-directing us toward a new Renaissance, and toward thriving, we arrive at a general key insight — namely that we the people have all but lost the ability to create and share basic direction-changing insights, of the kind that might now make a difference that makes a difference. A view of a leverage point, and of a key question, follows: Can we rebuild communication? (It will turn out that this question is a pattern shared by four historical visionaries, Bush, Fuller, Engelbart and Jantsch; this will further energize our quest.) This module will then initiate an organization of a variety of resources that might help us tackle this key challenge — and open up an illuminated (by suitable information) space for creating suitable projects.
Synopsis
1. Four Insights To Begin the Renaissance
1.1 Technological view (Information Age Paradox): Information technology did not really improve our communication about the things that truly matter (this insight is supported by a collection of rather spectacular examples)
1.2 Political view: By learning to see the systems, not the symptoms they produce, we become empowered to (…) (further spectacular examples)
1.3 Pragmatic view (Convenience Paradox): When we learn to base our pursuit of happiness on good information, the nature and the direction of this pursuit will radically change (here too…)
1.4 Fundamental view: We are building a culture on a ‘faulty foundation’ — this follows from some of the core insights reached in 20th century science and philosophy (…)
2. Four Insights by Historical Visionaries
2.1 Vannevar Bush: Organizing our knowledge/ synthesizing connecting insights, with the help of technology, is the task that must be given highest priority
2.2 Doug Engelbart: Information technology can help us create a ‘collective mind’ and enable us to think, create and solve problems together
2.3 Erich Jantsch: Innovation must become systemic; (design for) evolution is the key to large-scale systemic change
2.4 Bucky Fuller: We have sufficient resources to thrive; but to get there, we must learn to collaborate and not compete; the World Game exemplar
3. Four Leverage Points In a Strategy To Rebuild Communication
3.1 Foundations (epistemology): The assumption that the purpose of information is to tell us how reality really is has been discredited; beyond it, a wealth of possibilities open up
3.2 Methodology: The ‘scientific method’ was never really created for the purpose; but it can be tuned to the purpose
3.3 Social organization of knowledge work: We can function as parts in a collective mind, instead of just massively broadcasting documents
3.4 Education: This is the The Game-Changing Game strategy — to do systemic change, we empower the next generation to embody new systems
4. Four Methods with Corresponding Prototypes
4.1 Design epistemology: Considering information, knowledge and knowledge works as parts in a larger system, that must fulfill certain roles; then designing them accordingly)
4.2 Polyscopy: A ’scientific’ approach to knowledge capable of organizing and reconciling multiple views, on multiple levels of generality, and (most importantly) of synthesizing big-picture views or gestalts
4.3 Knowledge Federation: A strategy and method to rewire the ‘collective mind’
4.4 Tesla and the Nature of Creativity: A method to federate culture-changing scientific insights; corresponding prototype and experiences with making it part of the public sphere