CCK08
In this, only my second reflective blog post in 7 weeks, I want to draw out s
ome threads from the information I have absorbed, the discussion in which I have engaged on CCK08, Moodle forums and others’ blogs. It was always going to be well-nigh impossible, particularly at this very busy period of the academic year, to keep track of the readings and personal contribution, and so my engagement has been a combination of targeted reading and serendipitous finding of pearls, and the irritant grains of sand that may yet become pearls.
Originally uploaded by tuija
Entities
The use of learning as a verb rather than as a noun has already been noted http://www.situativity.org/archives/000141.html and http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/wiki/Situating_Connectivism. It has struck me that in discussion on the CCK08 forums, the word network is usually a noun, casting network as an entity rather than an activity. I found the discussion on Groups and networks to be quite frustrating. In Stephen Downes’ talk http://www.downes.ca/post/42521, groups and networks are presented as a dualism (either/or) with value-laden attributes to each. If we were thinking about behaviours (group behaviour and networking) we could think about a duality of practice (think participation and reification in Wenger). Some of the discussion in this thread made me recall my thoughts on the ‘Humpty Dumpty’ nature of this terminology - a term like group was interpreted very differently by participants in CCK08. To me the term group is fairly generic term (having meaning in contrast to ‘individual’) that operates as a gateway to the various ways that individuals organise themselves- institutions, clubs, networks, etc. The overarching term ‘group’ is quite as hard to pin down as that other ‘fluffy’ term community. Interestingly, a difference that I had observed between Stephen Downes’ and George Siemens’ views of groups and networks in particular, and epistemology of knowledge in general, was confirmed in George’s mid course review video.
This got me thinking about an excellent chapter I read in a book called ‘Data and Reality’ many years ago.
“So, at bottom, we come to this duality. In an absolute sense, there is no singular objective reality. But we can share a common enough view of it for most of our working purposes, so that reality does appear to be objective and stable.
But the chances of achieving such a shared view become poorer when we try to encompass broader purposes, and to involve more people. This is precisely why the question is becoming more relevant today: the thrust of technology is to foster interaction among greater numbers of people, and to integrate processes into monoliths serving wider and wider purposes. It is in this environment that discrepancies in fundamental assumptions will become increasingly exposed.” http://www.bkent.net/Doc/darxrp.htm#Chapter12
These ideas are relevant to CCK08. Although participants share a common interest in connectivism, they have wide range of fundamental assumptions. The discrepancies in these assumptions are exposed on the forums and it can be hard work to achieve dialogue where participants are open to changes in thinking.
Practices
A more productive way forward than thinking about networks as entities may be to examine the practices of people within their own networks. It could be argued that this privileges human nodes over non-human nodes but I am more interested in learners than objects (oops my social constructivism is showing). Looking at a learner’s own network, we would see them navigate in and traverse between networks-as-entities. In this perspective the learner’s and others’ interpretation of the quality of nodes and connections becomes as or more important than the general frequency of connections.
11 responses so far ↓
1 Ken Anderson // Oct 24, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Hello Frances. I like your approach in this reflection. I agree with the privileging of human nodes over objects, and believe that quality is of utmost importance.
I guess my stance is interpretivist, qualitative, social constructivist. There. I defined myself!
Thanks for posting your thoughts, I found this very useful.
2 Frances // Oct 24, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Thanks Ken. It’s quite something to speculate though on the ‘practice’ of non-human nodes.
3 Benjamin Stewart // Oct 24, 2008 at 3:54 pm
You make a good point in your last sentence: “…the learner’s and others’ interpretation of the quality of nodes and connections becomes as or more important than the general frequency of connections”
When I think of networks I not only think about the frequency of the connections but also how the learner can explain and apply the actual content that the connection is providing. Learners should also be able to have a perspective on that content that allows for critical thinking. It´s this interaction and engagement with other entities, nodes, objects, people, etc. that sets networks apart from communities which tend to focus more on a collective vision, perhaps at the expense of individual development.
4 ruthdemitroff // Oct 26, 2008 at 10:25 am
This network has worked well because it’s members have related to each other in a rational, tempered manner. In a high school where people relate to each other in the real world with its social drama, the network would be a bit like this one with its academic focus but also a bit like facebook without the emotional safety valve of the blocking option. As we mature, most of us operate within a much narrower range of emotions because it’s unproductive to bounce all over the emotional landscape and we recognize when our hormones have overwhelmed our brains.
5 Frances // Oct 26, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Thanks for your comments Benjamin and Ruth. I am aware on CCK08 that I alresdy knew some of the participants, and that I have made some new contacts that may persist after the course is finished. This relates to the points about quality of connections.
Benjamin, do you think we really are safe from collective vision on CCK08? It’s a human behaviour, not just a property of ‘groups’.
6 Frances // Oct 26, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Posted on behalf of Ed Webb (my blog doesn’t seem to like him)
Somewhere in the mix - right about here, in fact
http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=1007#p6195 - I noted, rather clumsily, that time was important. I guess what I was pushing towards was something akin to your network as verb rather than network as noun, a dynamic sense of what is going on. Did I detect a hint of a philosophy of praxis in this post? Possibly my own tastes applying that filter to what you say. But whatever we call it, I do think it important to get beyond the theoretical noodling to the actual practices of learners (including ourselves) and facilitators/guides/teachers (including ourselves). In other words, it is time to follow the lead of Lisa Lane and others in getting
practical.”
7 Frances // Oct 26, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Ed,
I am not sure I can claim praxis as my philosophy
I looked again at the chat of Friday’s Ustream and still don’t quite understand Stephen Downes’ objection to Lisa trying to use connectivism in a classroom situation. I am wondering if the problem might be the scale of change. To do connectivism ‘properly’ one has to overthrow the classroom. This links to your ideas about time.
Myth is that connectivism requires radical change - all new and different pedagogy, only internet-connected people and resources.
Messy reality is that teachers and students use approaches that work for them, resources they find/ are recommended.
We do what we can.
8 Maru del Campo // Oct 27, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Hi Francis!
Thanks for your comment on my blog, I guess I’m not a pearl but I hope the sand grows into something of value. I found your blog after a few dives, as you mention in your last blogger post we are not a click away.
Today I placed a new post to address your question but I’m afraid I came up with more questions. Handling emotions openly within a network is a tricky issue, all depends on the context.
See you around. Maru :X
9 Maru del Campo // Oct 27, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Hi Frances!
Your blog addres is changed in the post. I missed your input about emotions
Maru
10 Frances // Oct 27, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Thanks Maru - sorry I posted the comment twice
11 ailsa // Nov 1, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Hi Frances, I like your pointing to network as verb rather than noun. I see it the same way but hadnt named it thus. I also enjoyed the link to the flikr pearls - never knew pearls in oysters could be multiple.
You describe things about the course that I too have found frustrating. There are some inconsistencies that trouble me. Does it matter to be named group or network? If connectivism is a way of seeing how learning works then its always been with us, so whats the issue with doing it deliberately or engaging with classes in ways that increase the learning potential?
And then i get worried. Is there one ‘right’ way?
Perhaps realities are more multiple than the expert led opinion on this would suggest.
Leave a Comment