I’ve just started working on a major competency-based education (CBE) initiative with Lumen (specifics coming soon), which has helped me see that the principles of open education are, generally speaking, nowhere to be found in the competency-based education space. To be clear – many institutions are using OER in their CBE programs, but almost every institution doing CBE seems to hoard their competencies like the family recipe for a secret sauce. You know what this made me think…

As part our new project, Lumen will be creating openly licensed competency maps. Not just openly licensed lists of competencies, or even the imperceptibly more nuanced indented lists of competencies. We’ll be openly licensing full on, multi-dimensional maps of each competency space, complete with membership information about which competencies fall along which dimensions of expertise (based first on a theoretical model, and then continuously improved over time using statistical models driven by empirical data) together with difficulty estimates of each competency in each dimension (again, based initially on a theoretical model, and then continuously improved over time using an IRT-based model driven by empirical data). These continuously improved, openly licensed competency maps will provide much deeper insight into the multiple trajectories from novice to competence in each domain, together with a characterization and ordering of the smaller competencies inside each dimension of competence.

If you don’t know my work on Quantitative Domain Mapping, you can see the technique applied to first semester music theory in this working paper from 2001, which also draws out some of the pedagogical implicatons of discovering that the relationships between the smaller competencies in your domain are not actually what you thought they were. (If you’re really interested, the QDM line of my work actually began in my dissertation, where it’s described in pages 59-67.) My thinking has of course evolved over the years, but it’s exciting to be picking up this strand of work again. The synergies between DQM and openness are amazing and full of promise.

I believe work of this nature – that is, bringing the principles of openness, sharing, and continuous improvement – into our work on the competencies themselves is some of the most important work lying ahead of the field in the next five years. It is utterly absent now, and we need to integrate openness into our work on competencies while this body of work is still relatively young and flexible.

{ 4 comments }

Making an Impact

If you’re interested in learning how to make a sustainable difference in the world, you absolutely must study and meditate on the caps lock wisdom of FAKE GRIMLOCK, the Robot Dinosaur. No matter how often I read him, I find his writing inspiring, hysterical, and worth pondering at length. His halting style of writing practically begs you to stop and reflect on what exactly he’s roaring at you. And you should.

{ 1 comment }

The Incompleteness of Connectivism

Stephen has written a terrific post on connectivism as a learning theory. This is one of the briefest – and consequently, best – statements I’ve read on the subject.

Let me begin by saying that I’m a fan of connectivism. Personally, I’m inclined to be persuaded by the connectivist account as Stephen, George, and others have articulated it. But – while I haven’t read every piece written on the topic – those I have read contain a gaping hole which I feel must be addressed before the theory can be considered complete and, therefore, a legitimate alternative to longer established learning theories.

Stephen explains:

When I say of connectivism that ‘learning is the formation of connections in a network’ I mean this quite literally. The sort of connections I refer to are between entities (or, more formally, ‘nodes’)… In particular, I define a connection as follows (other accounts may vary): “A connection exists between two entities when a change of state in one entity can cause or result in a change of state in the second entity.”

In Stephen’s account, connections are defined as a kind of relationship between entities. However, I have never read a connectivist account of where entities come from, or a connectivist description of their nature. And defining an undefined word exclusively in terms of a second undefined word kicks the semantic can down the road. And building a learning theory on a term with such a definition seems “risky.”

But as I said above, this is not a critique of what has been written about connectivism – I’ve found that writing to be quite persuasive. This is simply a statement about what remains to be considered and written about before connectivism can be considered sufficiently complete.

{ 10 comments }