Edupunk?
There’s a nice debate going on out there, this posting is just my own perspective and a signpost, if you want to engage more fully take a wander over to the funnymonkey posting and follow the trail.
“Punk-related ideologies are mostly concerned with individual freedom.”
Looking at the wikipedia entry for punk it identifies a plethora of social, political, fashion, music and philosophical standpoints all under the term punk. The views ascribed are not only diverse but in some cases diametrically opposed.
“Punk-related ideologies are mostly concerned with individual freedom.”
And so it is with great unease that I find that my educational technology inbox is filling up this month with a new phrase ‘Edupunk’, even the Guardian is on the bandwagon. I started to write this post because I was disturbed to find another fashion term on horizon that described what so many of our practitioners are doing, edupunk is another label, it comes hot on the heals of the 2.0 movement - you know, learning 2.0, learner 2.0, student 2.0 - and I’m as guilty as the next person for doing it. Here’s the irony, edupunk isn’t edupunk once it’s edupunk. The wikipedia entry as of today reads:
Edupunk is an ideology referring to teaching and learning practices that result from a do it yourself (DIY) attitude. Many instructional applications can be described as DIY education or Edupunk. It describes inventive teaching and inventive learning.
There it is, some ‘edupunk’ as defined it as inventive teaching and inventive learning. Here’s the thing – that’s been happening since the concept of teaching and learning. So that surely can’t be the defining thing? So do we mean, as some commentators have suggested, that edupunk is associated with the 2.0 movement. Web 2.0 tools in education are allowing individuals to make small changes in their practice - the ability to ‘do different’. That might work.
Back in the mid 90’s I worked with an edupunk, he built stuff himself out of toolbook and used these small homemade programs in his teaching, he retired before we had web 2.0, but if he was around now he’d love it. I suggested that John was an edupunk, but I was corrected apparently he was a protoeducpunk. Is the creation of labels and the advent of a ‘new cool’ really what we want to be the defining characteristics of innovation in eduction. I’ve ranted about language before, arguing that these terms form exclusive cliques, and here I think we go again. I actually believe by inventing the term the originator thought they would do some good and that it was inclusive, however the debate started almost as soon as it was posted. I think the best thing I’ve read on this issue is from Bill Fitzgerald over at Funnymonkey:
I am not an edupunk, I work in education and try an make a difference through the use of technology in practice.
Immersion or Augmentation: A culture or just another tool?
As well as developing technology and processes many of the Users and Innovation projects are also engaged in much wider debates, pushing our understanding of the role of technology in the wider education sector.
The Habitat project is currently exploring the role of virtual worlds such as Second Life, which may on one hand be described as ‘immersive’ but in some pedagogical circles may be described as ‘augmentative’ The immersion verses augmentation debate may become more important as the sector looks at integrating these technologies into educational and research practice.
The immersion ‘camp’ tends to describe virtual worlds as a culture or society in which we play a role and/or become a member while the augmentationist ‘camp’ describes them as simply an addition to the range of tools we already use to communicate. Whilst for people not in either camp the debate looks reasonably esoteric, the debate is actually quite divisive and feeds the desire of those involved to be in a particular ‘camp’. In this way it is similar to the classic mac vs PC discussion we all like to partake of occasionally. Nevertheless the immersion vs augmentation concept could act as a useful yardstick for the projects such as the Habitat project which is piloting the
educational use of virtual worlds with art & design students and philosophy students.
When the project is developing its pilots, for example, for their philosophy students, the students may simply want to have a discussion at a distance so the only valid reason to use something like Second Life is if it brings a sense of presence beyond that of a straight text chat. In this sense the measure for the success of the pilot is focused on immersion. In contrast to this the art & design students will be in the same room whilst building aesthetic artefacts in world. This is a direct extension of their real life practice in the studio and could be said to fall into the augmentation category. Clearly the division between these principles and between the pilots is not black and white. Each aspect of the pilots contains elements of both immersion and augmentation. The Habitat team’s role is to delicately use the distinction to guide the pedagogical design of the pilots and to evaluate the success of their activities.
To keep an eye on the debate, and to contribute, monitor the Project Blog. Alternatively, if you are attending the Next Generation Environments conference (further information from Lawrie Phipps) there will be a chance to engage the Habitat team in the debate on day one of the event.
-
Lawrie is available through Skype
-
