[Home] [The Daily] [Wiki] [About] [Aggregations] [Readings]
November 4, 2009
An Elluminate session (access Elluminate here) will be held on Wednesday 4th November 09 at 20h00 - 21h30 GMT (Time Conversion). The session is being hosted by CCK09 participants. Topic: How we can best describe networked learning in late 2009. This will be based on a presentation by Dave White's presentation on Visitors and Residents. More details and RSVP on Ning Site (registration required) on Connectivism Technology Web 2.0 Education Learning and Research.
CCK09- Power and Authority
Francis Bell reflects on poower and authority, and in particular, some of the discussions that have characterized her interactions in the course. She writes, "This strikes me as an essentialist approach, this attempt to strip the discussion of context, to try to discuss the behaviours of networks that contain as some of their nodes the complex things that are human beings which have complex relationships with other (possibly complex) things and people in their networks."
Essentialism is, as characterized by Wikipedia, "the view that, for any specific kind of entity, there is a set of characteristics or properties all of which any entity of that kind must possess, and therefore all things can be precisely defined or described." However, as the article notes, "In social thought, essentialism as a metaphysical claim is often conflated with biological reductionism." This is what I (Stephen) think is happening here.
If you read Learning Networks and Connective Knowledge, and especially the section titled 'The Argument Against Cognitivism', where I identify numerous forms of context-sensitivity, you see I cannot be called an essentialist. But there is, to be sure, a tension between the idea that "it's all networks" and context-sensitivity.
Here's the resolution: the shape of any particular network will be affected by context, ineliminably. But (to my mind) we really don't get anywhere talking about the context of particular networks (no more than, say talking about particular sentences). You get lost and hopelessly drowned in the details, unless you take a step pack, and look for patterns in the behaviour of networks, as understood in terms of the underlying structure of networks.
See more from Francis Bell here - definitely worth the read. Francis Bell, Weblog, November 4, 2009 [Link] [Tags: none] [Comment]
Here's what course members from around the world had to say. Want to join the conversation? Submit your feed. Then put this at the beginning of your post: CCK09CCK09 Use of ICTs – Australian Aboriginal Languages
These links are comments posted to the Moodle Discussion Forum, Week 8. If you want to participate in the discussion, but don't want to set up a blog, then you can post here.Re: Openness
Ken, I'm not sure I want to know what you had for lunch, but I do like to know what you were thinking at lunch time (an alternative "Witter", which asks: what are you thinking, anyone?)
See the conversation that Nicola sparked off in week 3, on writing to learn.November 4, 2009
Hi Maijann. You raise some very interesting points. I have worried about my writings (blog and otherwise) somehow causing my professional career some attribution grief; consequently I often use pseudonyms/pen-names to express myself. These types of concerns do inhibit free-thinking/learning/discussion, I think. Perhaps the internet needs to be viewed in a different way, maybe as a playground, instead of being taken so serious by some....November 4, 2009
I blogged about this earlier this year, but after hearing/reading again and again (even suggested by our president) that we should post online with a wariness about what Google shall reveal about us in the future to some potential employer, publisher, etc. I always see a lot of head bobbing when this is said in public.
And of course this should apply when you are about to post some beer induced photo of you in mexico with farm animals, but in terms of the writing, we do? thoughts? ideas? software we try and create? artistic efforts? music?
The thing is-- if you turn this around-- it suggests we should create some false persona of ourselves online, aiming for some level of perfection, free of flaws.
And that seems wrong.
I for one have little interest in working for someone who will weigh some ranting blog post or college paper draft I wrote 10 years ago in the same light as the more relevant things I am doing now.
Am I just idealistic? Does the fear of being googled keep you, your colleagues, your students from being open? Unlike being pregnant, I guess you can be "sort of" open....
In this How the internet enables intimacy there were interesting points raised:
(a) tensions between people and institutions
(b) democratisation of intimacy
(c) changes in social habits and relationship
(d) team building
(e) social transformation
What are your views and stories?November 4, 2009
Asako, I am not sure that I understand "investing in the non-nodal". But let me try...
It strikes me that in a flat-earth utopia, we might envisage all the nodes on the same horizontal plane, even though some may be bigger than others.
0.From Latour' wonderful piece on Einstein (late 1970's), I derived the idea that power comes not from transparency, but from the way you are situated within it: how you are sited, therefore how you are sighted (you vantage point for surveillance - or Foucault's "gaze"), and consequently how you are cited
(depending on 're-spect' in two senses - recognition, and 'looking back').
1. I fear the reality is at least as complex as this, and that the topology and the fabric of networks is very uneven, and very high, with some nodes way down, and some nodes way up.
2. In fact many nodes in academic discussions (like CCK's) are part of a stratospheric layer which many people have little or no access to (openness notwithstanding).
3. So I see many different gradients between nodes and layers of nodes, and if you poke around, I'm sure you will find many virtual glass ceilings - that you think you can see through, but actually they distort and refract, and are more opaque than strikes the eye, and you often bump your head against them.
The Declaration on ICT for Development, sponsored by the World Federation of Engineering Associations, 11th September, 2009, Beijing includes the following:
"1) Millenium Development Goal, for remedying the unbalancing boat
2) Information Stage, New Stage of Human Society
3) ICT, Effective Tool for the Development in the New Age
4) Education, Key to the Use of ICT Tool
5) Responsibility for Governments and Citizens
6) Responsibility for International Organizations
7) Public Call".
In this regard, the role of educators/education is viewed as a key factor in the United Nation's 'Millenium Development Goal' of 'halving the world's poor population before 2015'.
Hi Brenda. Some interesting thoughts on what you´re mentioning were raised here: http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=2777November 4, 2009
Post in Twitter and use the hashtag #cck09 to be listed here. (These should be fresh. Still working on improving the Twitter display.)Visitors and Residents Elluminate with details in OLDaily http://bit.ly/2JdxO8 All are welcomed #CCK09
This newsletter is sent only at the request of subscribers. If you would like to unsubscribe,
Know a friend who might enjoy this newsletter? Feel free to forward The Daily to your colleagues. If you received this issue from a friend and would like a free subscription of your own, you can join our mailing list. Click here to subscribe.