Is 'rip, mix, burn' a model for e-learning?

Remix: Leonardo's Last Supper reinterpreted by the Simpsons.

Manovich (2005) points out that traditionally, education flows from a source to a receiver; in education the teacher transmits knowledge to the student in the hush of the classroom.  However, in education 2.0 
knowledge is collaboratively constructed through multiple dialogues, as at a party. He sees this as the 'remixing' of knowledge and finds precedents in the merging of cultures as when Rome conquered Greece or the renaissance rediscovered the classics. 


Baraniuk (2006) notes that the LP has been superseded by a digital music culture which is characterised by a creative process of rip, mix and burn. 


Ripping is defined by wikipedia as a "process of copying". In some contexts such as where intellectual property rights exist this can be illegal.  In other cases it can be unethical (eg in an academic context unattributed copying is plagiarism).  But Blakley (2010) points out a "culture of copying" makes the fashion industry massively innovative.


Mixing or remixing is the creative part of the process.  An audio track can be remixed by breaking it down into its components, subtracting some and adding others. Shakespearean plays are often remixed by reinterpreting them into a new context; the extent to which this is done can lead to the new version being regarded simply as a new edit or as a work in its own right such as Verdi's Otello or Porter's Kiss Me, Kate. 


Burning is the process of recording the audio track.


I want to reinterpret (which is in itself a type of remixing) this process as a metaphor about learning. Specifically, I want to explore ripping as the transmissive aspect of education, mixing as the collaborative aspect and burning as the production of the end product.


Sanger (2010) explores the difference between information and knowledge. An unread text represents information but it is not until the student has learned it by reading it and understanding it in the context of the student's schema that this information becomes knowledge. The reading (the 'ripping') is not enough. The student needs to remix it by  analysing (disassembling) the text, examining each component, and then synthesising the new ideas with their own previous knowledge before it can be burned into their brain. 


Although Sanger attacks collaborative learning ("It is one thing to engage in a discussion .... but it is quite another to think creatively and critically for oneself"; p20) he is not attacking the belief that dialogues and structured conversations can facilitate learning. Considering ideas from alternative points of view is an important strategy in mixing. As Cascio (2009) suggests, a "proliferation of diverse voices may actually improve our overall ability to think." I think Sanger is saying that the iconic status of collaborative learning is blinding people to the fact that mixing is not enough; that ripping and burning are essential parts of the process of learning.

A typical student watering-hole

I think Sanger would see parallels between his ideas and those of Thornburg (2004). Thornburg  suggests that in our hunter-gatherer past there were three types of primitive pedagogy:

• The campfire around which an elder of the tribe sat and told stories which has evolved into the lecture or the presentation; 
• The watering-hole where people gossiped which has evolved into the seminar, the campus-cafe or the academic common room;
• The cave where individuals sat and thought through the long, dark, lonely nights which has evolved into the study-bedroom; for Sanger this is the "essentially solitary"  moment when learning is achieved.

Sloman (2001; p116) adds a fourth pedagogy to Thornburg's triad:

• The hunting party where young hunters honed their skills under the supervision of the old has evolved into the lab.

This is useful because there are some aspects or types of learning where discussion is not enough and where practical activities take precedence so I see Sloman's hunting-party as an alternative to or an elaboration of Thornburg's watering-hole. 

So learning appears to be a three-part process:

• Ripping at the campfire where ideas are transmitted;
• Mixing at the watering -hole or on the hunting-party where ideas are pulled apart, examined from different perspectives; and reassembled in novel ways;
• Burning in the cave where learning is consolidated.

This should also true for good e-learning:

• Information is presented to students using text, video, slide presentation or audio podcast (many authorities seem to concentrate entirely upon this transmissive, instructional process);
• The students discuss the information using chat rooms, discussion forums, wikis, or sl seminars
• The students then create their own paper, or blog, or artefact.

References

Baraniuk R 2006  Open Source learning TED talks available at http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/richard_baraniuk_on_open_source_learning.html accessed 24th October 2010

Blakley J 2010 Lessons from fashion's free culture TECX USC available at http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html accessed 18th October 2010

Cascio J 2009 Get SmarterAtlantic Magazine July/August 2009

Manovich, L. (2005). Remixing and Remixability. http://www.manovich.net/

Sanger, L. (2010). Individual Knowledge in the Internet Age. Educause Review, March/April 2010. pp14-24) http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM1020.pdf

Sloman M 2001 The e-learning revolution: from propositions to action Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development London 0-85292-873-4

Thornburg D 2004 Campfires in Cyberspace: Primordial metaphors for learning in the 21st Century International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 1:10 available at http://itdl.org/journal/oct_04/invited01.htm accessed 24th October 2010

wikipedia Ripping available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripping accessed 28th October 2010