lrnchat is a twitter based system to chatting which has been trumpeted by at least some of its users and hosts, as being a prime example of how Twitter, and social network platforms can be rich in learning.
Periodically we’ll check in and take a look at the chat, and highlight some of the features, so you can decide on its value. Feel free to surf the transcript for the Oct. 8 version here.
Topic? Research on Education and Learning? (maybe, it’s hard to tell)
As per usual the chat starts off at about 8:30 pm (and goes for 90 minutes). The first twenty minutes follows a format where a) people introduce themselves and b) indicate what they have learned during the past week. So, to reflect that, I learned from this portion that breastfeeding is hard, everyone has an ipod…and a passle more of things I’d always wondered about. Poof. 22% of the learning time gone.
Actually it’s pretty funny. It’s often the case in face-2-face classrooms that follow adult education principles that an ungainly amount of time is spent in activities where actual learning does NOT occur, just as in this chat. It’s clear that you can change the medium, but trainers will be trainers, and be equally inefficient.
So, we’ve eaten up 22% of the learning time. Now what? The conversation moves to educational research. It’s just not possible to do justice to the entire chat, so please take a look using the link above. I do want to point out a few things, particularly because I’ve stated a number of times that many of the leaders and followers of those in the elearning/informal learning/learning 2.0 jargon/business are intellectually impoverished. Is there evidence?
Yes. As you read the following quotes, ask yourself whether you want any of the authors to have any influence/sway over the education of your children, the expenditure of your tax dollars, or how you are asked to learn by your employer. In response to Q1) What are good education research sources you’ve found? Why do you like them? How do you use them?
8:51:30 pm JoanVinallCox: RT @davegray: Research tools: Love Wikipedia & Google Scholar. One often leads to the other and vice versa. Also Twitter & FB #lrnchat
8:53:12 pm joe_deegan: Educational Research: I have to say that blogs and Twitter are probably at the top of my list for any research #lrnchat
Comment: One of the scary things in the conversation is that a number of people rely on unverified, unvetted sources for their “research on learning/instruction”. It’s been a concern of teachers, for a long time,that the kids go to the Internet and have lost the ability to evaluate sources, or understand that not everything one reads on the Internet is correct. Here we have adults getting the major learning about learning on places like twitter (in 140 character bites) and blogs, where any idiot can have an opinion and invent “facts”.
8:54:03 pm tjmeister: Still feel there is disparity between what Institutions will classify as research (will fund) and what has any practical value… #lrnchat
Comment: Being a former researcher, faculty member in education, journal editorial board member, and teacher trainer, I’ve heard this comment before, because quite honestly, it’s really common. The concern expressed about “practical value” is borne of ignorance, because most people looking at research don’t understand how to read it, do it, or extend it into the classroom. They want instant “this is how to do it” instructions, and don’t want to understand what they are reading at a sufficient depth to be able to see how to apply it practically.
To be fair, some strange stuff gets funded, as is the case in most disciplines, but if folks would understand the basic differences between pure and applied science/research and the critical relationship between the two, it would help. This is basic stuff for educational leaders and advocates, to know.
8:54:54 pm tmiket: Ditto RT @joe_deegan: Educational Research: I have to say that blogs and Twitter are probably at the top of my list #lrnchat
8:55:08 pm jsuzcampos: Q1) “Scholastically” art of research lags technology. Meeting resistance when using blogs, etc as research sources. Frustrating. #lrnchat
Comment: You really have to wonder. Look, guys, if you take something from this blog and use it scholastically, and without multiple party verification, you are simply, an idiot. Or from any blog. I took a tour through Elliot Masie’s site, and was very discouraged by the misinterpretations of “research” I found.
Are you starting to understand the statements I’ve made about intellectually impoverished people as leaders in education, training and learning?
8:56:15 pm Dave_Ferguson: Are we equating “research” with “anything I find?” #lrnchat
Comment: I know Dave from previous venues. Thank Goodness for Dave. So people in #lrnchat are merrily tweeting about where they get their research, for a good 6 minutes or so, and nobody actually bothers to say: “whoa, wait, what do we mean by research?” Dave does. Good for Dave. Wonder if the “group” will address this?
8:59:12 pm kelly_smith01: Q1 unless someone already said – #lrnchat is center of my research source – at least in 140 character research reports #lrnchat
Comment: 3 minutes since Dave. Nobody responds to his critical question. Again, twitter/#lrnchat THE source for research.
9:04:23 pm marciamarcia: Finding it delightful and a little weird so many are using this forum for research. Perhaps survey is a better term. #lrnchat
Comment: Marcia Connors is one of the hosts, and for better or worse one of the loudest (and in my view, just plain wrong activists). Frankly, Marcia, I do give a damn. You shouldn’t be delighted. You should be working to move people to rigorous disciplined thinking and learning. But you don’t. Shame. 8 minutes since Dave, no response.
9:17:49 pm jwillensky: Tonight’s transcript will be incredibly valuable. #lrnchat
Comment: Well, it’s clear nobody is going to address Dave’s question, and it’s also pretty clear that they aren’t talking about research (they think they are) but about “what I can find”.
Yes, the transcript might be valuable, but the question is for who, and why?
And I’m bored with this. Let’s wrap up the commentary, and once again, if you want to view the transcript feel free, and if you find benefit feel free.
First, I think it’s very cool that there is a social group of people ostensibly around and gabbing. It’s a nice use of social technology to carry on social interactions, even if they lack depth, and have a pretense of intimacy and communication. It’s fun, on the social side. For that reason, it may be worth the time investment if that thing turns your crank.
Second, we have to address two things: the quality of the discussion (re: depth and breadth) and the accuracy of what is said. There’s not a lot there for people who have a decent formal education in learning or training. The discussion is at a high school level, and anything more demanding is ignored. There’s a lot of truisms, and lot of reinforcement of mediocrity.
I’ve actually seen worse lrnchats, where a lot of bad information is shared. One thing you will find, and this is typical of social interactions as compared to learning interactions, is that there is little controversy, and almost now challenging of idiotic statements.
…which marks this as a little cocktail party, and not much else.
The harm in these interactions lies in the lack of challenge, and everyone clapping each other on the back in agreement when, for example, the show how clever they are with their research by getting everything from blogs and twitter.
Stay tuned. But you look for yourself. Enjoy it if it works for you. But me, I don’t want these people (Dave is ok) near children, learning, schools, universities, HR departments. Leave them on twitter. Pay them to stay there, twittering amongst themselves.
Quotes are used here under the fair use provisions allowing use of brief quotations for the purpose of review, satire or commentary.
