Connectivism and Twitter snowball threads

This will be a quick post but I wanted to capture a few ideas sparked by a Twitter thread that probably started here.

I started reading at this point

I was on my phone on a car journey and didn’t notice that were already 4 people in the stream. I replied to Sue because I vividly remember my first encounter with the concept ‘legitimate peripheral participation’  (LPP). By this time there were 5 people in the thread. I was interested in what Sue Watling had to say about Jean Lave’s work on Situated Learning and went to look at the Wikipedia page that suggests that Wenger ‘moved on’ from LPP to dualities in his later work. As that work tends to focus on online communities of practice (CoP) it would be interesting to look back at how ideas from Situated Learning fed in to the initial concepts of CoP and LPP.

I then reflected on LPP in the context some work I did with Jenny Mackness and Mariana Funes a couple of years ago (Bell, Mackness & Funes 2016), and mused about how the affordances of algorithmic streams might impact on LPP and vice versa.

I included my co-authors Twitter handles for the purposes of attribution but as the stream grew very fast I slightly regretted it – sorry you two. Mariana and Jenny have written an article ( Funes & Mackness 2018 with open access preprint available here) that seems relevant to my experience on this thread. The discussion moved quickly on to Rhizomatic Learning and Connectivism, like a snowball getting bigger as it rolls. I decided to jump out of posting to the thread at this point, and to be honest that has happened quite a lot since Twitter changed to include all those mentioned in the reply. You can uncheck them one by one and/or mute the thread but I am not keen on the change myself.

via GIPHY

From that point on, I lurked on the thread and sighed a little as every like and reply of every post clogged up my notifications. There were posts on Rhizomatic Learning and Connectivism that I might have replied to at a blog or on a forum but for me the thread was too distracting.

One of the beneficial side effects of my experience was that I reread my own work on CCK08 (one of the original MOOCs an Connectivism and Connective Knowledge) and Connectivism (Bell 201o, Bell 2011), a paper that compared blogs and forums on CCK (Mak, Williams & Mackness 2010), and a blog post shared by Stephen Downes on the thread.

“The actual physical descriptions of these theories vary from network to network – in human neurons, it’s a set of electrical-chemical reactions, in social networks, it’s communications between individual people, on computer networks it’s variable values sent to logical objects.” Downes blog post)

This reminded me of the issue that this (for me) conflation of these three sets of network descriptions  within Connectivism and its principles. It seems to me to impoverish experiences  – leaving a lot out. Since that time, I have read Mejias’ work who champions the paranodes, the space beyond the logic of the network, here’s my take.

In reading (Mak, Williams & Mackness 2010), I was reminded of an incident on CCK08 where the facilitors removed the ability of participants to unsubscribe from forum topics and posts to the justifed exasperation of participants,  many of whom left the MOOC in frustration. It occurred to me that this action has something in common with the Twitter thread functionality change – agency of humans and non-humans 🙂

References

Bell, F. (2011). Connectivism: Its place in theory-informed research and innovation in technology-enabled learning. IRRODL, 12. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/902/1664

Bell, F. (2010). Network theories for technology-enabled learning and social change: Connectivism and Actor Network theory. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M. de Laat, D. McConnell, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Networked Learning 2010. Retrieved from http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fss/organisations/netlc/past/nlc2010/abstracts/PDFs/Bell.pdf

Bell, F., Mackness, J., & Funes, M. (2016). Participant association and emergent curriculum in a MOOC: can the community be the curriculum? Research in Learning Technology, 24. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v24.29927

Funes, M., & Mackness, J. (2018). When Inclusion Excludes: a counter narrative of open online education. Learning, Media & Technology, 43(2), 119–138.

Mak, S., Williams, R., & Mackness, J. (2010). Blogs and Forums as Communication and Learning Tools in a MOOC. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.). Retrieved from http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/organisations/netlc/past/nlc2010/abstracts/Mak.html

 

It’s mine – or rather, it’s his: other ways to talk about changing practice

This blog post is a reply that I posted to Stephen Downes’ review of Anya Kamenetz’s booklet on Edupunk, and a celebration of finding David Jenning’s blog.

@Stephen I think you make a valuable distinction in your first paragraph between learning by doing and DIY learning that is useful to anyone learning or trying to help others learn.
I found myself wondering why Anya Kemenetz didn’t refer to the provenance of the term Edupunk or FWIW cited OLDaily as a resource but then I checked out the comments thread here and began to think that maybe Anya would be damned if she did try to acknowledge the ‘origins’ of Edupunk just as she has been damned for not doing so.

It's Mine
This blog post is a reply that I posted to Stephen Downes’ review of Anya Kamenetz’s booklet on Edupunk, and a celebration of finding David Jenning’s blog.

@Stephen I think you make a valuable distinction in your first paragraph between learning by doing and DIY learning that is useful to anyone learning or trying to help others learn.
I found myself wondering why Anya Kemenetz didn’t refer to the provenance of the term Edupunk or FWIW cited OLDaily as a resource but then I checked out the comments thread here  and began to think that maybe Anya would be damned if she did try to acknowledge the ‘origins’ of Edupunk just as she has been damned for not doing so.
I think Ed Webb made a good point on the same comments thread.

Ed Webb says:
February 27, 2011 at 12:54 pm
I can’t be doing with all this movement theology. The spirit of the thing seems to be the most important. If it’s no fun any more, if the thrill is gone, then the breakup makes sense.
Also, this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkdqCTcDkbc

I do wonder about the value of trying to pin down and own the term Edupunk see http://bavatuesdays.com/edupunk-or-on-becoming-a-useful-idiot/

I agree with @David that it is quite a useful booklet.  I would think that if I directed two resources – Anya’s booklet and your Future of Online Learning article- to new students thinking about how be effective learners in a changing sociotech landscape, they would find hers much more useful. Whereas learners researching online learning would find yours useful at a much deeper level.

As an idea Edupunk is clearly inspirational and motivating but it’s not a completely fixed thing where you need to check all the boxes.  If it were, you couldn’t really ‘claim’ your (excellent) MOOCs as part of it.  I remember in CCK08, you and George clearly positioned yourselves on occasions as ‘teachers’ teaching a ‘theory’ despite the rhetoric of teaching by modelling practice
Being a teacher myself I felt a mixture of sympathy and amusement when you were moved to reply to a participant:

“I’m sorry to be snippy – but I’m getting very tired of students in this course saying “I disagree” or “You’re wrong” without giving me even the faintest clue about what it is that seems wrong much less concrete evidence that they’ve read the work they’re disagreeing with).

This isn’t a confessional course. You do not need to profess your faith one way or another. I don’t care whether or not you agreee or disagree with me or anyone else. What I do care about is that you have understood the theory sufficiently as to have some reason for disagreeing.” http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=956#p5802 (scroll down)

What I suspect is at the bottom of this is captured in @David’s last 2 paras how do we critique ideas and practice of learning (like MOOCs , connectivism and Edupunk) in this changing socio-technical landscape. As I commented here , I don’t find the occasionally tetchy tone very helpful.  Also, I think we should guard against the premature stabilisation of ideas .

Stephen’s post has also been valuable to my networked learning as it has helped me to find David Jenning’s blog  – so thanks to both of you for that.

Premature Stabilisation of MOOCs and other things

opεnıng hıc▲nunc pεrspεctıvε . .

opεnıng hıc▲nunc pεrspεctıvε Jef safi

I have already posted on the recent discussion on MOOCs, and I was quite pleased with the discussion that ensued in the comments. There does seem to be some interest in the nature of the MOOC discussion, at least in the outer fringes anyway.  I had thought of posting a follow up but didn’t do so until I found myself posting an incredibly long comment on Dave Cormier’s recent post about the need for a philosophy of learning. Hmm, I thought – you really do want to write a blog post about this.

I liked the pragmatic tone of Dave’s blog post, particularly his recognition that in teaching and learning that we sometimes deal with ‘points’ of knowledge as ‘facts’ to move us on to the really interesting and challenging learning  that inhabits (or is banished from) the lines and spaces between points (read his post for a better explanation).

Dave’s post led me to reflect on the (in)stability of knowledge in the context of the recent discussion on MOOCs and on Connectivism.  My main experience of both of these phenomena was CCK08 a MOOC on Connectivism and Connective Knowledge in which I participated in 2008.  I have critiqued Connectivism as a theory, questioning its premature stability  “If Connectivism is mutable knowledge as it extends its network, then it will behave like the knowledge and networks it describes in the theory.” link to Networked Learning paper.  I have argued that Connectivism is a useful phenomenon rather than a theory and suggested ways in which it might be developed and used.  In those papers I compared Connectivism with Actor Network Theory that deals with the concept of stabilisation but I was pleased to find a somewhat more accessible treatment of stabilisation knowledge in Engestrom’s writing.

Stabilization knowledge is constructed to freeze and simplify a constantly shifting
or otherwise bewildering reality. It is used to turn the problematic into a closed phenomenon
that can be registered and pushed around rather than transformed. It
commonly takes the shape of fixed and bounded categories, but also narratives may
be used to stabilize. Stabilizing categories often become stigmatic stamps on objects,
both human beings and things. Engestrom 2007.

(Note: I just found Engestrom’s writing on stabilisation and possibility knowledge – other examples of the (in)stability of knowledge very welcome)

So we are sitting in a room at something that we call a table and we acknowledge that this table means something different to all of us but we can somehow suspend these differences and have a worthwhile conversation about the table that increases our personal knowledge of this table thing as long as we acknowledge the differences and are listening to each other.
In the part of the recent MOOC discussion I saw, this was not always happening.  I would characterise some of the contributions as either trying to solidify and stabilise the concept of a MOOC, or perhaps in Wiley’s case reject it.  To me it seemed like a bit of a power struggle between Knowledge as fact to be transferred, preferably via OERs, and Knowledge as implicated in the ‘new’ concept’ of MOOCs.  In both cases, there is the risk of a premature stabilisation of knowledge taking place: in the first case of fixed knowledge artifacts: and in the second case that MOOCs are a label for something that has happened in other ways in the past, and the label and premature stability could impede future development.

So why does this matter?

I would say because premature stabilisation removes the possibility of development and can exclude valid and relevant perspectives, as I argued in my previous post.  I don’t know if Siemens, Downes and Wiley complete the assigned Belenky reading;)

Let’s have some possibility knowledge in the OER and connected learning discussions.

Possibility knowledge, on the other hand, emerges when objects are represented
in fields with the help of which one can depict meanings in movement and transformation.
One traces transitions of positions in a field, which destabilizes knowledge,
puts it in movement and opens up possiblities. In this sense, possibility knowledge is
agentive knowledge, the instrumentality of agency at work.Engestrom 2007

I am a simple soul who needs to ground ideas in my personal experience or other examples, and so my reflections led me straight back to my own personal contrasting experiences of CCK08. (Warning: these are neither points nor facts but my own subjective interpretations of what happened within my own experience).
1.Once the disrupter had left, there was some great discussion on the (disapproved) Moodle forums where I was learning and observing others (appearing to be) learning. There was a great tolerance for different views and pragmatism of approach.
2. External speaker sessions where new ideas could be introduced and these may have sparked discussions amongst participants in the chat window, on blogs or in forums (suggesting learning).
3. Friday sessions which tended to be broadcast-only by George Siemens GS and Stephen Downes SD, with slightly quizzical moderation from Dave Cormier, plus a bit of lively chat window interaction often strangely disconnected from the monologues (at least in the ones I observed before giving up on the Friday sessions).

I think that 1,2,3 are in order of greatest to least learning taking place.

If we look at each in terms of who was (apparently) learning: in 1 participants learned frequently, GS sometimes, SD rarely; in 2 participants sometimes particularly if followed up, GS and SD more likely than in forums, presenter very little if at all; in 3 if learning was taking place here I couldn’t see it except in chat window interaction.
My own very personal views were probably highly influenced by my own reactions to the different environments, and by my own growing certainty that connectivism was something to be tossed around and critiqued not ‘learned’. I argue that MOOCs and connectivism are organic phenomena that are not ready for being tied down and ‘judged’.

Useful questions are:
How are MOOCs and Connectivism like and not like other phenomena X Y Z?

How do people make effective use of them?

What can the protoganists learn?

I think that Dave’s pragmatic approach might help – that OK we know knowledge isn’t really ‘transferred’ but sometimes that simplification of what is really happening can move things forward a bit. Attempting for precision of definition of things that are still a bit fuzzy for everyone doesn’t always help matters.  It’s still time for possibility knowledge in the areas of informal learning in a digital environment and modes of organisation (such as MOOCs, networks and virtual communities).
I found it interesting that Dave referred to parent/child interactions where provisional/revisional approaches to ‘knowledge’ are most helpful for learning – parents are there for the long haul, they don’t need to the last detail on the first attempt.
I would question every letter of the MOOC acronym with the possible exception of online but that’s not to say I think they are a bad thing – I am just not yet sure what they are going to be.
I think they can really maximise learning when participants can tolerate different philosophies of learning (including “I don’t have a philosophy of learning”), be good-humoured and willing to learn.

doi: 10.1177/1350507607079026 Engestrom,Y.  Management Learning July 2007 vol. 38 no. 3 271-275