THIS ARTICLE WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN A BOOK AND WIKI THAT ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE.
“The sum of the expertise of the people in the audience is greater and the sum of expertise of the people on the stage.” (Dave Winer)
In September 2006 a group of people were invited to New
Zealand to take part in the Future of Learning in a Networked World (FLNW). Sponsored
by the Otago Polytechnic in Dunedin, FLNW was variously referred to as an
unconference, an open space conference, a bar camp, or even a travelling elearning
circus or roadshow. Invited participants mostly referred to it as an
unconference - the prefix ‘un’ denoted a definitive contrast from the typical
style of ‘stand and deliver’ professional development event that we were all
familiar with
Was it a plane? Was it a bird? No it was...
What transpired in this 10 day event was actually a
combination of unconference, open space, and bar camp. The notion of bar camp
or unconference seems to have stemmed from a technological imperative. From
Wikipedia: “bar camp is an international network of unconferences - open
participatory workshop-events, whose content is provided by participants - focusing
on early stage web applications and related open source technologies and social
protocols. “
The unconference: “an unconference is a conference where the
content of the sessions is driven and created by the participants, generally
day by day during the course of the event, rather than by a single organiser,
or small group of organisers, in advance.” FLNW was an open participatory
workshop event where the content of the sessions was driven and created by
participants and it employed open space technology (OST), a term that describes
a process rather than the use of any particular technology:
“OST is a meeting methodology... its essential core is the
invitation to take responsibility for what you have passion for. The remarkable
outcome of this simple idea is that when participants do so, the needs of both
the individual and the collective are met.”
So was FLNW a bar camp, unconference, or an open space
conference? It had elements of all three. This paper will refer to it as an
unconference that employed open space processes. It was therefore:
·
open - it was free and all interested parties
were invited
·
fluid and negotiated - there was no set agenda
In the lead up to the event sponsors and location hosts did
express a desire for more structure up front so they could more effectively
promote the event. This created some tension in the group as some were very
definite about the fact that there would be no preplanning or prepared agenda.
From the sponsor's point of view one can appreciate their dilemma. They were
unsure about promoting the event as merely ‘a group of visiting elearning
experts will be here to talk about the future of learning’, with no timetable
or session titles. This highlights a subtle difference between a conference and
an unconference. One promotes a conference; one should invite
people to an unconference. It needs to be explicit that all comers have equal
rights of participation, and that everyone will help create the topics and
organise sessions. They will be part of the show. It will in fact be their show
- it's owned by those who attend.
For the most part those who favoured minimal planning had
their way. However, the group may have erred in its reluctance to impose any
structure on the process used to generate discussion topics. I think an agreed
process would have been more effective in generating the foci of sessions, and
may have resulted in more options for participants. Having to negotiate process
and the range of topics at the start of group sessions was a little
confounding, but this path was taken in a kind of pioneering spirit. Like ‘let's
see what happens if we leave it completely open?’ The group sessions were
successful. It is only in retrospect that it became clear that there is 20
years of open space theory that may have enabled FLNW to be more efficient in
the use of planning time. Or unplanning time so to speak. One can devote a lot
of time to debating why one should not plan!
Locations
Over the course of 10 days FLNW travelled to six separate
locations in NZ and took place on campuses, in museums, community centres,
private homes, schools, trains, boats, planes, bars and restaurants. Most
scheduled events were located in advertised venues like campuses and community
spaces that could cater for up to 100 participants per session.
What happened in these sessions?
Initially a location facilitator would welcome everyone and
introduce the international speakers, who in turn spoke briefly (mostly) about
their areas of interest and expertise. The invited speakers were seated around
the room, each with a laptop and data projector, and after these initial introductions
participants were free to join any of the invited guests for an open discussion
within their broad area of knowledge and expertise.
These sessions went very smoothly. Participants self-selected
their chosen focus group and floated between groups as desired. There was no
compulsion to stay with anyone group for any length of time - in accordance
with the core component of open space process: the Law of Two Feet. The Law of Two
Feet - a foot of passion and a foot of responsibility - expresses the core idea
of taking responsibility for what you love. In practical terms, the law says
that if you're neither contributing nor getting value where you are, use your
two feet (or available form of mobility) and go somewhere where you can.
“The phenomenon of self-organization lies at the heart of
Open Space.” (Harrison Owen)
Owen compares this self-organisation phenomenon with what
Kaufmann suggests happens in the natural world. Kaufmann suggests that self-organisation will
only occur if there are few prior connections between the elements; indeed he
says no more than two. In retrospect, it
seems to make sense. If everything is hardwired in advance how could it self-organise?”
How many of us at professional development events will automatically home in on
people we know and sit with them in any group activity, rather than let the
topic of the activity determine which group we should join?
Other types of events included a train ride of several hours
duration where interested parties joined the touring guests for small group
discussions on board, link ups with international participants via virtual
classroom tools, visits to schools and colleges, and a working breakfast
The Process - An Evaluation
An event of this nature cannot help but have a profound
effect on those involved. It's daring format with no set agendas or programme
other than a series of chosen locations geographically disparate on set days
meant that the touring party were effectively together for several days at a
time without a break. Many of the party had only met virtually before this
event and as happens when any group of people is thrust together for days on
end there were a range of interpersonal issues that arose that needed
addressing. On the plus side, this forced continual companionship meant that
the unconference became a 24/7 affair where issues raised in the sessions of
the day could be discussed after hours over dinner or during transport to the
next port of call.
The nature of the content under review and the wired ‘always on’ nature of the touring guests
meant that there was an extraordinary amount of data recorded and posted on the
web. Discrete sets of this data could be accessed via RSS feed, and in the
recently released ebook and DVD. (no longer available)
Though these interpersonal dynamics and the nature and
volume of content produced are worth articles in their own right, it is the
intention of this paper to focus more on the process of teaching and learning
that occurred, evaluate its effectiveness, and assist the potential relevance
of this type of professional development for the education sector. It should be
said here that the sheer impracticality of the logistics of this kind of event
make it unlikely that this model would be adopted by many organisations, but
there is much that can be adopted for one or two day conferences. There was
general consensus among the invited group that 10 days was too long and that
five days seemed an optimal amount of time. The length of the event clearly
depends on the goals of the exercise. If one of the goals is to build individual
capacity and confidence by drawing on group dynamics then an event of around
five days may be necessary.
One of the intriguing aspects of FLNW was that it did
require individual resolve to function effectively in the larger group, but
this was not a stated goal of the event. It did however highlight the fact that
working effectively in groups is not a given. It is a skill that needs to be
learned. And not all members of the group saw working in groups as implicitly
of value. Whether one sees value in working in groups, or is able to do it
effectively, has enormous implications for a group of educators ordaining
collective, collaborative learning as a core requirement of learning in a
connected world. There was vociferous debate on the nature and worth of groups
and networks during FLNW, and for several weeks online after the physical event
was over.
Group Sessions
The group sessions were surprisingly efficient and free of
awkward pauses or leave taking. Participants understood that they were free to
change groups whenever they wished, and could join other discussions mid-stream
in a free flowing movement around the room as group sizes fluctuated between
small gatherings of just a few people do groups of 20 or so. Occasionally
people in the shared space became aware of a particularly important or engaging
discussion in one corner of the room and people would drift over to that part
of the room to listen to the debate. A short movie from Derek Chirnside, our
host in Christchurch from the then Christchurch College of Education (now part
of the University of Canterbury) gives a glimpse of what typically happened
during these concurrent smaller group sessions. Another short movie from
Stephen Parker asked the questions” does the unconference model work? And
interestingly, how can the unconference format be used with students in a
classroom environment? (these videos no longer available)
“I think it's really important
to keep in mind that you can't get students to do group work and sharing and
talking together, but giving them the option to move out and get on with their
own work, that's really empowering and motivating, they might take snippets
from the discussion and then say, yes this is what I need and get on with their
own work. It's more about enabling them to learn the material in their own way.”
Yvonne Wood
On other occasions small groups would splinter off to work
on a specific task. Sometimes individuals would take photographs or movies or
interview onlookers or other guests about proceedings using cameras, PC media
recording devices, or phones. Samples of this ad hoc on the fly content can be
seen on the unconference blog.
OST suggests that these sessions should be preceded by a
listing of all interested topics up on a wall or similar so participants can
see at a glance what topics were being covered in that session, but there is no
prescriptive way of going about this. A group of staff in NSW approached the
pre discussion stage by encouraging staff to state whether they wanted to
share, learn, or do something, and formed groups around that process.
There was recurrent comment on the empowering aspect of the
unconference format for the classroom from many teachers and discussion on the
types of physical open and closed spaces that could contribute to the success.
This movie illustrates a potential classroom open space that can facilitate
group discussion or where individuals can just go off into a corner and get on
with their own thing, separate to the group activity. (no longer available)
The Role of ‘Experts’
FLNW had at its core a group of invited experts - some with
an international profile - and their presence guaranteed a basic quorum of
participants as these guests had pulling power. It also served as a bargaining
chip when canvassing for funding for the event. Funding bodies, largely
educational institutions, were more likely to fund an event that had
significant profile due to the presence of international guests.
It was to be expected at the start of the group sessions
that the work of these visiting guest experts would serve as initial focal
points for discussion. Although participants had turned up for the day's
proceedings were invited to contribute to the initial spruikings on topics that
interested them, few did. The presence of the invited experts no doubt made
this a daunting task, but OST is emphatic that this opportunity be given to all
participants. This enables all participants, not just those with the recognised
profile, to pitch for discussions on things that interested them.
Having visiting experts meant that discussion topics tended
to be formulated around their interests. Though the group discussions were
sufficiently fluid to allow for addressing topics brought to bear by
participants, it would have been preferable that sessions/discussions were
formed around the expressed interests of participants rather than the invited
experts. Given that the collective expertise of the invited speakers was very
broad, it was likely that they could have led, or contributed significantly to,
sessions on any topic suggested by participants anyway.
The role of media: personal and group publishing
The nature of the people invited to FLNW, and its focus on
education in the networked world, meant that there was a proliferation of
personal and group media created and published - that is after all how network
teachers and learners network - they publish. Every minute and every day which
is likely to be recorded, blogged, podcast, photographed or filmed and
published to the web. It is not a criterion of OST, but for the unconference,
with its origins in learning about technology via new approaches, it is a fair
expectation that there be an electronic and public record.
“All conversations, whether to
the entire room or one to one, unless otherwise stated, clearly and upfront,
are on the record and for attribution. You do not need to ask permission to
quote something you hear. Of course you may ask for permission to quote, and
you may choose not to quote things you hear.”
Many conferences publish proceedings after the event, but
these are subject to a peer review process. In an unconference, publishing is
occurring virtually as it happens without any editorial process. As Stephen
Downes remarked during the Christchurch session, this is one of the factors
that distinguishes the old from the new world of learning. In the new world,
any peer review or assessment of content happens after publishing, and the
network or networks decide its value.
However, the constant documentation of FLNW meant that
inevitably there would be a whole raft of material that was not of much value -
out of focus photographs, blurred video, poor audio quality, half-baked ideas –
all there in the public domain. Some FLNW participants consequently suggested
that not all the media documenting the event be made public, and that some
editorial discretion be used before it was published.
All professional development activities should be documented.
In the spirit of an unconference this should be done as it happens. One could
choose the path of BloggerCon and state up front that all activity may be ‘on the record and for attribution.
‘ An alternative option may be to let participants know that if they don't want
their image, voice, or ideas on the public record it is incumbent upon them to
make that request at any given time, but it would seem impractical to have
participants evaluate their input into an activity as it's happening and decide
that they don't want it on the record. It would be unfortunate too if any
hesitation about the value of one's contribution stymied one’s input. Another
core component of OST is that ‘whoever comes are the right people’, and by
inference then, whatever is said is the right thing to say at the time. Part of
working in a networked world is accepting that your input is part of the
eventual and continually evolving body of knowledge, and that it will be
adopted, modified, or discarded. It is not what you say (or how you look or
sound in that blurred video) that is of primary importance - it is what the
network does with the information you provided that matters more.
It is asking a lot of some people though to expect them to
happily accept that their thoughts and actions go on record. Some people are
private personalities; Some require time to assimilate ideas before they can respond
eloquently. As one participant on the video at an unconference PD event trial
inspired by FLNW says, “it's all about
getting used to being visible”.
Relevance for you and your
organisation
imagine that you arrive at a one or two day conference and
there is no set agenda or programme. I posed this question to a group of staff
at a professional development session soon after I returned from FLNW and the
response from the approximately 20 people present was overwhelmingly positive.
One person did comment that they would feel cheated but others thought ‘it
would be fantastic’.
If you take this approach the first hour or so of the day is
taken up with a collaborative discussion designed to formulate the day's
programme. The FLNW model showed that a more open approach to professional
development can work. Professional development events, even those of one to three
days duration, do not need invited experts or guest facilitators.
Participants knowing in advance that they are coming to
address an advertised topic, or perhaps to solve a recognised problem, and
knowing too that it is the reason that people will come - not to listen to
experts or speakers on a prearranged agenda - is a strength based approach to
professional development that promotes greater buy-in and commitment. Knowing
that the success of the FLNW event would rest on the input of all of us, a
group of FLNW participants spent the day before it got underway in engaged and
prolonged discussion: “the learning and discussion on the future of learning
had begun in earnest without a single presentation!” Such is the power of
inviting people to attend an event and letting them know they will have
significant input into the structure and outcome of the event, as it will build
on what they know and bring to the table, and not what others deem they should
know.
Workers for the knowledge era
If our educational institutions are to train their teachers
to function effectively in the knowledge era, they need to offer training that
reflects the new learning. Work in the knowledge era is characterised by:
·
processes and structures that are more emergent
than predictable
·
tacit knowledge, which can only be shared
through relationship, conversation, and interaction
·
networks: who and how you know is as important
as what you know.
A knowledge worker needs to know how to collaborate
The unconference with its open space approach to
professional development is a model more likely to foster the kinds of skills
and attitudes suitable for the knowledge era than the deficit model. The deficit
model may have outlived its usefulness as the primary means of staff
development. The unconference allows for group commitment to a process that is
negotiated in non-hierarchical network entities. It allows the opportunity to
become familiar with the unpredictable and emergent through negotiating content
as it evolves. It validates, and capitalises on, the knowledge that everyone
brings to the event and assumes that the collective expertise of the rank and
file is as valuable as the knowledge and opinions of export experts or those in
authority.
References
1.
Dave Winer; What is an unconference?
2. Harrison Owen; Opening Space For Emerging Order
dI Diana and James Oblinger: Is it age or IT: firststeps towards understanding the net generation
4.
Dave Weiner; Blogger con for newbies
5.
Maret Staron, Robbie Weatherly, Marie Jasinski; Life-based learning- a newframework for capability development in vocational education and training
6. Shen Zhang, Yvonne Wood, Steven Parker ‘FLNW#10
The Unconference Format (video no longer available)
7.
FLNW 06 - Professional Development Space of
the Future (video no longer available)
