This title refers to a book chapter from Emergence and Innovation in Digital Learning (Veletsianos, G. 2016) that I've just read. It's Complexity, Mess, and Not-Yetness from Jen Ross and Amy Collier. In this chapter they tackle the utopian vs dystopian narratives currently found in digital technology - from tech determinism to tech imperatives. They suggest a shift away from simplistic narratives and binary reductionism to build on three dimensions of emerging technologies in education - design, embodiment and socio-political contexts of accountability. They argue for messiness in thinking and practice, for working within complexity and being productive within 'not-yetness' (p 20).
First - designing online learning with emerging tech should be 'born digital' not application of face to face experiences transferred to online spaces. Instructors and designers should examine how to thrive in the tensions between complexity and rigidity e.g. "How might instructors design for complexity in learning in spite of these rigidities?" (p. 20). This includes the use of asynchronous, multimodal, collaborative, using speed, brevity, serendipity as pedagogical possibilities. Designing with a 'born digital' perspective means "embracing the open web as a vehicle for complexity and emerging practice (p. 21). Examples such as DoOO and Rhizo14 are shared, where 'emerging' is not fully understood or set in stone.
This connects for me in terms of the CDL course design that was 'born digital' and continues to live digital - in all it's messiness and complexity. Some of the students are enjoying the experience, thriving on the loose, less rigid, multiple means of expression. Others are challenged in this type of environment - requiring more guidance, structure and frequent 'announcements, emails, and notices' to keep themselves organized in the 'flow' of the course. Since I've been there, done that, know the experiences as a student (with the MET program) it's easier for me to live in this complex, messiness than other instructors could/would be.
Second - Ross and Collier examine the messiness that is the 'embodiment' of the instructor within emerging tech spaces. Face to face embodiment involves issues relevant to power, gender, race, sexual orientation, disabilities, etc - all of which disappears in digital teaching spaces, where it's believed that the 'body is left behind'. [This specifically links to the COI model of instructor presence, which isn't mentioned here.] Emerging tech and immersive environments further the need to examine the embodiment of 'instructor' through the use of avatars and digital representations. Relating to this is Audrey Watters' writing about the importance of 'bodies' when we learn in communities. Ross and Collier conclude this section by stating that "theories of online embodiment should acknowledge the complex interplay between physical bodies, the digital objects that are constructed or perceived as the instructor's online body, and the online learners and their physical and digital bodies" (p. 24).
This connects to my current work as both a face to face instructor AND an online instructor - how I use my 'presence' in each space is dramatically different. In the online course, I reach out and 'meet' each of the students in a google hangout just so they have a sense of ME as the instructor. In the physical classroom, I sit down at the table or wander around the room as conversations and technologies are being used so this 'embodiment' is still challenging but differently. The 'negotiation' required in the online, digital sessions requires agreement between student and instructor to determine the time, space, location. In-class 'embodiment' requires little negotiation or navigation.
Third - Ross and Collier address the idealogical framework and current cultural context in which emerging tech is bound - where there exists "narrow views of how products and services can demonstrate value to consumers" (p. 24). This tackles the messy issues of value propositions, return on investment (ROI) and accountability (what counts, counting clicks and time). Mechanisms of data collection, learning analytics and data trails aim to simplify the learning equations, where 'what counts as learning' is not always what is counted or revealed in the data. Within teaching and research with emerging technologies, the messiness should be exploited and complexity embraced. Narrow outcomes don't capture the lived experiences or holistic learning, often closing off areas worth investigating or exploring, privileging some while failing to acknowledge others. This heightens the need for qualitative approaches to contribute richer pictures of learning in emerging tech spaces that 'accountability-based analytics' can provide.
For me, this echoes the feelings I have in managing the 'click' tracking that can be done within an LMS juxtaposed with the fluid data trails found in the open, exploratory spaces such as Twitter, Slack, and web productions. This 'collecting evidence' is time consuming but I do it as a model for 'reflective practice' in digital spaces. Keeping a record of what I said, when I did it, what I was thinking, while I was doing it, are all pieces that are default mode for me. This is not true for my students. Curating and managing their own data trail through a course is not something they've ever done - most courses they consume information and producing disposable assignments. Keeping a record, journal, copy/paste of digital contributions is an add-on for them, where it's a next step for me. This is a messy practice, many switch-backs, rechecks, revisions as I collect, curate and manage the digital trails for the students. The technology supports this, but the technology cannot do the analysis and reflection for me - or the students. It is their 'lived experience' in the confined and open spaces of the course - a reverse map of their digital journey through the course.
Finally, Ross and Collier share their purpose - to "persuade you that what we need in the practice, conceptualization, and investigation of digital education is MORE rather than LESS complexity and mess. For me, their call to find 'fruitful learning' that can come from "thinking of the body as a relevant site of exploration of the online instructor's role" (p. 27) is a challenge - to think about how emerging and digital technologies opens or closes the image, expression, emotion and connection that individuals have with/from/toward each other in digital spaces. This has direct impact on how we, as instructors, learners, supporters of open educational practices 'dial it up' into the OPEN.
Reference:
Ross, J. & Collier, A. (2016). Complexity, mess, and not-yetness. In G. Veletsianos (2012) Emergence and innovation in digital learning. AU Press. DOI: doi:10.15215/aupress/9781771991490.01 Retrieved from http://www.veletsianos.com/2016/06/14/complexity-mess-not-yetness/
