A multi-disciplinary conversation about Collective intelligence – reflection on some missing elements

The mobile phone and its connectivity with the internet allows growing numbers of us to find, connect, and interact. That was the technological foundation for the original vision of cMOOCs (developed by George Siemens and Stephen Downes) as a democratic learning experience, and connectivism as a learning theory for a digital age (Siemens 2005).

Collectivism, as discussed in a multi disciplinary context at Nesta http://www.nesta.org.uk/event/roots-collective-intelligence, relies on the same technological infrastructure. What is collectivism and how does it differ from connectivism? We heard that the Internet allows for a new form of activism for example, political. How do individuals participate? We were given the example of number of Facebook likes as an indicator of collective intentionality, a starting point. However, how to sustain collectivism i.e. participation, was a recurrent question; how does an individual move on from the Facebook click to participate?  Participating in connectivist learning opportunities requires good infrastructure design and from the individual curiosity, motivation to learn, to contribute, openness, digital literacy (a fair amount) and I would argue that digital fluency and socio-emotional experience are the elements that sustain on-going participation.

Intelligence. Summing up the day Colin Blakemore focused on intelligence. His considered opinion was that we hadn’t spent enough time talking about what we meant by intelligence. He is a cognitive neuroscience and so unsurprisingly, he also spent some time reflecting on the contributions made by the speakers who were cognitive scientists. Those mainly cohered around what, when and how collective intelligence occurs with when and what depending on group size (Robin Dunbar) how on noise reduction, competence, persistence, reputation (Chris Frith). Others concentrated on decision making as investigated in the laboratory; the role of argumentation in decision-making and the quality of decision making. This was a useful contribution as we had already heard that a binary response as the norm could be the problem for collectivism in political contexts. Also, it has some connection with learning science, where design for collaborative learning (i.e. group work) requires a joint task and the opportunity to propose ideas, discuss them with others, negotiate a solution to disparate ideas, and contribute to a shared outcome.

Overall, the multi-disciplinary approach was very successful. However, there was a sense that the individual was objectified. The subjective was largely missing from the day; purposefulness and socio-emotional experience. Therefore, it was interesting to learn about the fall off in Wikipedia contributions since bots were introduced. The explanation provided was that the bots were overly obedient to protocol and rules - another example of the clunkiness of bot interaction as described in a previous post and that the uniquely human nature of socio-emotional experience is so often neglected

Surely, design is important both for successful knowledge building and the socio-emotional experience of collective action.

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for a digital age. International journal of instructional technology and distance learning, 2(1), 3-38.

Teacherbot, useful tool or just another example of the allure of innovation

When I read the following article

Teacherbot: interventions in automated teaching by Sian Bayne. Teaching in Higher Education. Published online 16 Apr 2015. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/13562517.2015.1020783

I noted with interest that students had dropped the descriptor ‘teacher’ from the bot developed for the E-learning and digital cultures MOOC (University of Edinburgh).  Perhaps like me students could not discern any teacherly function of botty (the name that students adopted for teacherbot) that could not be otherwise achieved by providing a repository of curated resources and a frequently answered questions (FAQ) list.

Undoubtedly the agent that follows the MOOC hashtag (#edcmooc) and harvests student questions and comments is useful, but what did botty achieve? The behaviour of teacherbot (a rule based agent developed by the teachers to automate tweet responses) is problematic for me. Instead of making queries about the course (for example, about assessment procedure) available to all students in their collated form i.e. as a list of FAQs, botty responds to each student individually through twitter. Furthermore, although 60% of the enrolled students are postgraduates (as is the case for many MOOCs) with a professional interest in digital education botty pushes individual resources to individual students. Surely, for this demographic it is access to a curated resource repository that is valuable. 

Teacherbot is positioned as a research initiative that seeks new ways of understanding and developing automated teaching through adopting a critical posthumanist perspective.  While arguing for a critical posthumanist approach Bayne reviewed a previous initiative for automating teaching that was funded by the ESRC http://www.tel.ac.uk highlighting efficiency and productivity as the dominant discourse for that program. However, that section of the Bayne article mystified me. A closer look at the title of one of the targeted articles[1] offers a very different interpretation; higher quality and more effective learning are the outcomes that were envisioned. Nevertheless, Bayne develops a narrative that characterises the current conversation about automated teaching as dispute, with efficiency gains and teacher resistance oppositional views that need to be resolved. By response teacherbot is positioned as  ‘an assemblage of the human and non-human’ unhindered by humanistic assumption and efficiency agendas and thereby provides a new way of revisiting teacher automation.

Does teacherbot make a research contribution? The article is eloquently written and intriguing to read. However, the outcomes are mainly descriptive and anecdotal. As a teacher (and on occasion student) continuously and actively involved in online teaching and learning for more than two decades I have never considered the automation of teaching to be a threat.  Indeed, I can envisage how automation (for example, the collection and collation of learning analytics (LA) data) has promise and I would not object to it being considered as co-teaching provided that the automated information and myself were appropriately assembled so that LA information is monitored throughout.  However, I cannot discern any evidence to suggest that botty and the MOOC teaching team are entangled in a way that merits a claim of co-teaching or that this initiative has informed the scholarship of online teaching in any useful way. Furthermore,  the evidence presents botty as not very accomplished when it comes to recognising and responding to the socio-emotional needs of students – perhaps because it is not human.

1.         Laurillard, D., Productivity: Achieving higher quality and more effective learning in affrodable and acceptable ways. 2011.

http://www.tlrp.org/docs/ProdBeta.pdf.

Taylor & Francis Group partners with researchers, scholarly societies, universities and libraries worldwide to bring knowledge to life.  As one of the world’s leading publishers of scholarly journals, books, ebooks and reference works our content spans all areas of Humanities, Social Sciences, Behavioural Sciences, Science, and Technology and Medicine.   From our network of offices in Oxford, New York, Philadelphia, Boca Raton, Boston, Melbourne, Singapore, Beijing, Tokyo, Stockholm, New Delhi and Johannesburg, Taylor & Francis staff provide local expertise and support to our editors, societies and authors and tailored, efficient customer service to our library colleagues.