ID Graph, E-Learning 3.0/ 1st draft

E-LEARNING ID GRAPH 3

So, here I am, first attempt. I thought I’d show the complexity of being a. an architect, b. in Greece, c. during crisis. Graph shows a multiplicity of roles and some of their interconnections (dotted lines): for example freelance self-employment leads to a certain amount of knowledge in construction which leads to an educational position in building technology in two universities. Same thing for my PhD research on arch education which informs and is informed by the studios I’ve been teaching in NTUA etc.

Memo: color orange indicates roles; color blue indicates the institutions I have been involved with in the past 4 years (public sector galaxy); color green shows the courses I’ve been teaching and finally yellow color shows all the activities related to my PhD research and studio(private sector galaxy). Thicker lines show first degree/ direct affiliation, thinner lines show connections, dotted lines show mediated interconnections (causal). Vectors indicate what informs what (also causal). Blogging id is both yellow as a writing activity and orange as an autonomous role.

I used cacoo to draw this graph. I’ve discovered it recently and it stole my heart.

Identity, Personality & Agency (E-Learning 3.0)

IMG_2937

One needs it to be oneself; yet being oneself solely on the strength of one’s free choice means a life full of doubts and fears of error … Self construction of the self is, so to speak a necessity. Self confirmation of the self is an impossibility’(Bauman 1988:62).

Identity: sharing an identity suggests some active engagement on our part (…) We choose to identify with a particular identity or group (…)  identity requires some element of choice and awareness on our part (…) late modernity suggests that identity matters more now because we have more choice (…) Identity is marked by similarity, that is of the people like us, and by difference, of those who are not (…) symbols and representations are important in marking the ways in which we share identities with some people and distinguish ourselves as different from others (…)  identities are necessarily the product of the society in which we live and our relationship with others. Identity provides a link between individuals and the world in which they live. Identity combines how I see myself and how others see me. Identity involves the internal and the subjective, and the external. It is a socially recognized position, recognized by others, not just by me (…) The link between myself and others is not only indicated by the connection between how I see myself and how other people see me, but also by the connection between what I want to be and the influences, pressures and opportunities which are available (…) The concept of identity encompasses some notion of human agency; an idea that we can have some control in constructing our own identities (…) identities are not fixed and constant; they change too (…) The body is also an important component of personal identity (…) identity is forged in the social sphere is located within temporal relations; a sense of the past, present and future haunts identity-work and identity practices (…) The inter-relationship between past, present and future in the on-going work of developing an identity suggests that who we are, what we do and what we become changes over the life course and furthermore, the work of identity remains fragile and unstable to the point where settlement is unachievable (…) Something as ordinary, everyday and ubiquitous as talking to others becomes central to defining oneself and one’s place in the world (…) Volsiniv identifies two poles: the ‘I-experience’, which tends towards extermination as it does not receive feedback from the social milieu; and the ‘we-experience’ which grows with consciousness and positive social recognition (…) identity is confirmed through processes of social recognition and challenged through processes of misrecognition. Identity formation from this perspective remains structured through the identification of processes of ‘sameness and difference’ (…) it is possible to see identity as relational – formed and played out in relation to those who are similar and those who are different (…) Identity can be seen as multiple: spoken through and in dialogue with a range of social categories and positions (…) Significantly, identity is contextually specific

Personality: the sort of person I am (…) it describes qualities individuals may have, such as being outgoing or shy, internal characteristics

Agency the degree of control which we ourselves can exert over who we are

 

References

Kehily, M. J. (2009). What is identity? A sociological perspective. In: ESRC Seminar Series: The educational and social impact of new technologies on young people in Britain, 2 Mar 2009, London School of Economics, UK.

OpenLearn, Identity in question: What is identity? Retrieved from here

Image: Facial casts of Nias islanders, J.P. Kleiweg de Zwaan, 1910, Rijks Museum (personal collection)

Where do trees come from? Graphs!

TREES & GRAPHS

Trees start from a root node and might connect to other nodes, which means that could contain subtrees within them. Trees are defined by a certain set of rules: one root node may or may not connect to others, but ultimately, it all stems from one specific place. The tree follows one direction and cannot have loops or cyclical links.

Graphs are non linear structures: their data doesn’t follow an order. Trees will always be graphs, but not all graphs will be trees. Graphs do not have a concept of a root node. They can have a direction or not or they could have some links that have direction and others that don’t. Every graph must have at least one single node. (a graph with one node is called singleton).

Edges (sometimes referred to as links) can connect nodes in any way possible. Edges are what differentiates graphs. There are two types of edges: a edge that has a direction or flow, and an edge that has no direction or flow. We refer to these as directed and undirected edges, respectfully. In a directed edge, we can only travel from the origin to the destination, and never the other way around (digraph). However, it’s an entirely different story with undirected edges. In an undirected edge, the path that we can travel goes both ways. That is to say, the path between the two nodes is bidirectional, meaning that the origin and destination nodes are not fixed.

In mathematics, graphs are a way to formally represent a network, which is basically just a collection of objects that are all interconnected. For example, in mathematical terms, we describe graphs as ordered pairs. Remember high school algebra, when we learned about (x,y) ordered pair coordinates? Similar deal here, with one difference: instead of x and y, the parts of a graph instead are: v, for vertices, and e, for its edges. If our graph has more than one node and more than one edge that ordered pair — (V, E) — is actually made up of two objects: a set of vertices, and a set of edges. The “unordered” part is really important here, because remember, unlike trees, there is no hierarchy of nodes.

Facebook, a massive social network, is a type of graph. Twitter, on the other hand, works very differently from Facebook. I can follow you, but you might not follow me back.

References+Image

Vaidehi Joshi, A Gentle Introduction To Graph Theory. In Medium, Retrieved from here

Learning Record Store (Downes-Shelly Blake-Plock conversation) E-Learning 3.0

tin-can-api

xAPIThe Experience API (or xAPI) is a new specification for learning technology that makes it possible to collect data about the wide range of experiences a person has (online and offline). This API captures data in a consistent format about a person or group’s activities from many technologies. Very different systems are able to securely communicate by capturing and sharing this stream of activities using xAPI’s simple vocabular

Learning Record Store

There are three things that it does as a server site abstraction for xAPI: it provides validation for any of the data that is attempting to go into that store/ it has strict and stringent standards/ it’s not just a Dropbox repository/ if the data doesn’t meet those standards it is rejected. So, LRS:

  1. provides the means to validate the confidence that one can have of that data into the learning ecosystem/ it is a great open source measure to know we are dealing with valid data
  2. stores that data in an immutable format/ we are tracking activity over time and that time of activity is stored in immutable chronology/ at any point in time we can go back and recreate that activity
  3. stores all the data on a machine readable format/ that allows other data consumers to use that data in machine driven ways defined by functions to produce all kinds of automated things (automated audio visualizations etc)

***important notes

  • Standardization regards technical standards only not content/ schema
  • Blockchain can serve create certifiable record of activity that specifically leads to competencies and credentials 
  • activity data can be success data show either that you’ve done something but also that you’ve succeeded in doing something

Privacy and Data Governance

  • anyone who types a URL into their browser should be aware on what is happening about data governance/ how we relate to any web based technology
  • any technology that’s being used in learning space needs trade-offs about privacy, one should be aware

Data to project trends

xAPI profile that maps against certain business processes / alignment between their business processes and learning processes/ mission control visualizations/

Distribution of LRSs

That is policy question than technology question/xAPI is basically inter operable. Identity management is a bigger issue, however.

Who owns LRS data?

LRSs Identities

  • easy: xAPI statement requires a unique identifier for the person who is doing sth/ people us e-mail addresses to do that
  • difficult: when the e-mail is a work e-mail.

Experience with a digital footprint is a form of media. 

Networks as predictive tools

BARABASI.png

Networks play a key role when there is no objective way to determine performance, claims Barabasi in his new book called: “The Formula: The Universal Laws of Success.” Barabasi examined the career paths of scientists and artists both successful and less successful ones by tracing their networks.  While performance is about each individual, their success is about the people they connect to, therefore for Barabasi, success is a collective measure.

However appealing this research may be I resist the predictive character the author implies. I’d love to read the book eventually, but still, this bothers me. Networks are the very representation of complexity and it is inconsistent to consider them as normative tools where quantitative/statistical data can lead to predetermined results. Networks are all about emergence; thus the inability to predict how and when they will evolve. Sure, sometimes it could be that some patterns reappear, but just like the author says, networks are bigger than us or our ability to control them.

I also fail to see the relevance of the term success in this context. It looks so arbitrary and shallow. As much as I would love to see some professionals’ networks and the way they penetrate society, I’d rather the research focused on their ability to change the world for the better. If success is a collective measure, then it should be evaluated in regard to α collective benefit.

 

For more on this book and image, click here

History/Theory

1273544_Jenks

  • 1970’s: critical theory focused on labor (or the social)/ this theory did not transition well into neoliberalism
  • theory that involved  Derrida, Heidegger, Deleuze, and Foucault tried to replace the theory that came out of modernist intellectual formations as the intellectual energy spent on mastering a difficult literature—mostly in translation—would enrich architectural discourse and trickle its way down into practice (…) It was hoped that architecture could be taken out of the deadening nexus of modernism and professionalism and be given a “thicker” disciplinary identity (…) The trouble was that the epistemology of delayed gratification could find its resonance in advanced history/theory work (i.e. PhD work), but not in the normative world of the studio (…)  with the arrival of computation, “intellectually-oriented” classes became increasingly impossible to justify in the curriculum (…) Furthermore, and importantly, with the arrival of the globalized student population in American universities, it became increasingly unclear how this Eurocentric reading list dealing with issues from a pre-globalization era could related to the wide range of issues coming from the global realities.
  • the semiotic approach evaporated away. Like the intellectualist stand, it proved to be too difficult to teach
  • Theory, if we think of it at the level of phenomenology, promised to enliven the inner spirit of the designer (…)  it promised a disguised spirituality residing not in humans alone but in materials, or even, more importantly, in joinery, in that proverbial tectonic
  • Theory tried to open up an awareness that history and its critical role in defining the “consciousness of the young student.” (…) Today, out of the around 120 or so architecture schools in the US, one half—if they teach history at all—still teach the old curriculum from pyramids onward
  • Theory—in whatever formation—could only barely deal with the problem of global warming (…) an alternative disciplinary horizon allied, correctly or not, with ethics, management theory, and building technology.
  • Theory—in whatever formation—failed to address the rise of nationalism in the post-colonial context (…) In a complex, global world, is it really a victory when Eurocentrism is replaced by nation-centrism?
  • Theory—in whatever formation—could not cope well in the expanded field of “historical architecture.” (…) no one knows how to teach architectural history, and there were few “theoretical” takes, especially since most of the effort at “theory” now tries to address issues in the contemporary world, a world often conveniently stripped of historical and cultural backgrounds. We have moved from modern architecture to environmental architecture, which serves to bring modern architecture towards its teleological end.
  • Theory—in whatever formation—passively, though in some cases actively promoted the emergence of Modernist Majoritarianism. Most schools of architecture came to emphasize the history of modernism as part of its core epistemological project (…) theory failed to critique the important institutional changes within the world of history/theory, the most important being the split between Modernism and Tradition, and now, more recently, Modernism and Pre-modernism
  • Theory—in whatever formation— failed to adequately address the digital until it was too late.
  • Theory—in whatever formation— failed to deal with the humanitarian crisis of the twenty-first century and still struggles with issues of violence and trauma (…) e need to recognize that normative theoretical systems do exist, they are just not called history/theory.2 They go by other names such as preservation, digital architecture, modern architecture, sustainability, pre-modernism, etc (…)  the very success of the last decades is now coming to haunt the system, creating immobile boundaries that mitigate against interdisciplinarity. Advanced scholars who now work in the domain of “history/theory” do indeed often bridge into the realm of political science, anthropology, colonial studies, philosophy, geography, and other disciplines in the humanities. But whereas these other fields have made strong and important inroads into developing critical positions, architecture as an educational platform has in the last decades moved in the opposite direction, cleaning out its curriculum from disciplinary entanglements, placing the entire weight of that operation on the narrow ledge of “history/theory.” (…) To make matters worse, many elite schools decided to follow the neoliberal model of labor by tenuring only a few people and farming out the rest of its curriculum to hired guns who had little vested interest in—and no power to—transform the curriculum

Excerpts from: The School of Architectural Scandals, written by Mark Jarzombek, full article available here

Image available here