[Home] [The Daily] [Wiki] [About] [Aggregations] [Readings]
November 23, 2009
From Frances Bell:
One of the wonders of the CCK09 course is that bottom up organisation is encouraged and supported. Arising from a thread in the Moodle forum, we are organising an Elluminate session with short participative slots.
Check the time here.
Title: Responses to connectivism
Date/time Wed 25 Nov, 2000 GMT
Each presenter picks one (controversial or not ) idea from their own research or just a response to connectivism, presents it in 3 minutes and invites audience reaction.
Ulop O'Taat will help facilitate.
Speakers (more welcome)
1. Ailsa Haxell will speak about Actor Network Theory and Connectivism t.b.c.
2. Sui Fai John Mak will talk about Peer Leadership Networks in Connectivism
3. Leila Nachawati -Modern teacher vs. traditional institution
4. Eduardo Peirano - topic to be announced
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: CCK09Re: Presentation topics for 25 November Elluminate Session
Session now confirmed, current details are at http://francesbell.com/2009/11/21/cck09-responses-to-connectivism/
I will add new speakers as I find them - keep 'em coming.
Is anyone using Google Wave? I would appreciate an invite and join in on a wave. Thanks!November 23, 2009
I've sent you an inivtation to Google Wave. It probably will take some days before you get the message from Google Wave admin.
Can a workplace, which even in a best case scenario will be a mixture of dictated things you must learn/do and things you identify and pursue yourself, be a connected learning environment in the spirit of connectivism? What if the employer provides a bunch of tools and some training in how to use it or other tools? What if the employer insists that you must use certain tools for certain tasks? How much do you let/want people to mix their personal learning with their workplace learning - do you insist that they keep seperate email addresses for example, or seperate blogs, (for either legal or confusion reasons) or do you say that the individual has both work and personal elements and let it all jumble up together after all it is mixed in their brain. How much support/encouragement is needed/wanted from the employer and how much gets in the way?
I think these are some things that it would be very useful to know an answer to, for me. This is the area that I think I might choose to do some research in should I get into a masters program.
Maybe the first question should be if the employer is dictating any of it is it really connectivism - or is it a connectivist style? I am left with the impression that connectivist learning should be directed by the individual as much as possible. Am I off target?
AndreaNovember 23, 2009
I don't think you are off the mark, in fact you have valid points. The workplace (in my case, a public high school) often restricts what the employees and students can access. We cannot access YouTube in the school among other things on the net. Sometimes I tell my students to do some blogging, research, etc. at home and report back next day. This is frustrating as the teaching and learning loses opportunities. Often the technology decisions in the workplace are made by people who are IT and not educators or other professionals in the field.
East and South East Asia - The Environment - An Annotated Directory of Internet Resources -
URL: [http://newton.uor.edu/Departments&Programs/AsianStudiesDept/general-environ. html]
Maybe asking and answering the question "To what extent can workers be connectivist learners in fulfilling their work (including learning) goals within this workplace?" could open up an interesting discussion about the nature of the workplace and the effectiveness of the workers.
So for example in a highly managed environment such a customer service centre, managers would object to workers pursuing their personal learning goals (e.g. learning continental knitting technique using youtube videos) during work time but might tolerate it in break times.
Conversely, there might be a much higher tolerance of totally self-directed learning in academic, particularly research environments - though still a low tolerance of learning knitting techniques in most subject disciplines;)
I don't really think we could use connectivism as some sort of yardstick of the quality of a workplace.
I do think that connectivism can be a theory in use for individuals though (in workplaces and elsewhere).
I don't understand the wave. What is it and why do I care?November 23, 2009
Yes, sure, a workplace can be connected, connectivistically. Perhaps it is a matter of degree, for example as regards tool usage, wherein traditional tools may be required until the employer determines another set are preferred. If an employer is dictating (as might well be expected), perhaps said employer could be viewed as a very influential node in the network instead?
Perhaps all environments are learning environments, with the degree of connectivism related to the affordances found within. Some environments are more connectivist than others?
>I don't really think we could use connectivism as some sort of yardstick of the quality of a workplace.
@Frances: Curious, why not?
I am specifically thinking of a school district, which is a mixture of academic and support roles.
From a technical support point of view if many people are using a tool it is easier to support if it is inhouse and everyone uses the same tool than if it is user pick and choose.
Ulöp, I like that - next time I am explaining why they should do it a particular way I get to decribe the activity as originating at a very influential node!November 23, 2009
1. A workplace is not a network - it's bounded and organised by the organisation / company/ institution
2. Many of the Principles of connectivism relate to what individuals do.
I can see that workplaces could be more or less conducive to connectivism but it's about knowledge (in humans and non-humans) emerging from the network.
Anyway I have had a pretty bad day - so ignore this if I am not making sense!!
I spent sometime today to catch up on the LearnTrends Conference 2009. Many of the presenters do consultation work for corporations and one presenter, at least among the video's I watched, was a corporate librarian for Sun Microsystems who incorporates information services into their web/IT infrustructure. Initially, learning in the corporate world was the focus. The idea of converging the informal and formal learnings was interesting. I enjoyed Harold Jarche's discussion on "personal knowledge management." We have so much access to many things and so many convenient tools available. Yet we all need how we make of the abundance environment. His presentation drove reality home that ultimately the learner needs to spend sometime to reflect on the things bookmarked or tagged and to publish something in his/her take on blog. Connect =>Exchange=>Contribute. At individual level, connectivism works as more you contribute, more you get (learn).
Other discussions in the Conference assumed that in a corporat environment or any institutional environment, things are bound. At least, some corporations are trying to incorporate new web trends into their working enviornment. I would be interested in developing some case studies of organizations adopting some form of connectivism. First of all, we need to define what that is, and how it successfully adopted it and what are the impats on the members involved.
As I write this, I remember the fact that I regularlly watch Japanese documentary TV program in which they follow somebody or some organization facing some problem and end up showing how they go about their problem solving. The Japanese organizations, at least some that are represented in this particular program, encourage their employees to freely participate in their problem-solving activities and they really get kick out of the efforts. In many cases, in many trials and errors.
I think Eva (above post) made a good point about the decisions being made by IT people about what tool(s) can be used. This has been my experience as well: IT Rules, and tries to make the rules, and control is often their game.November 23, 2009
N.B. This session is subject to confirmation by George Siemens
Hi - confirmed on my end...same elluminate url as we use for our regular sessions each week...
Thanks for organizing this!
Hi all, this isn't exactly connectivism research due to being on a very small scale but I'm unsure exactly where to post this so apologies if I am adding unnecessary confusion.
Surrey University has a Centre for Excellence in Professional Training and Education (CETL) called SCEPTrE, which is a 5 year funded project to explore this area at Surrey, currently in year 3.
I worked very closely with them on a number of projects last year and met with Norman Jackson who runs it, today. We started to talk about Connectivism, learning networks which are self-initiated - this fits in very well with the lifewide curriculum and experiential learning that is being promoted and delivered through SCEPTrE.
He thinks it would be great to run a workshop then students go off & explore by creating small learning networks, then a follow up workshop a few weeks later. This would be part of the Cultural Academy, also a paper
This may provide some interest in relation to exploring diversity further - as per Roy/Jenny/John's CCK08 paper. It could also be about emotions. Or connecting without words - so no bias from me at all
Seriously, at the moment it is completely open to be designed and thought about however anyone wants to take it forward. I don't know if we can draw on any of the SCEPTrE resources - they have in-house musicians and artists, but definitely photos, videos are all part of every event they run.
I don't know if there would be any budget other than refunding UK travel expenses if someone was attending in person. But we haven't discussed money at all.
You would get publicity through SCEPTrE's general publicity because the Cultural Academy is one of their key areas. Last year students submitted a research paper from it and presented it at a conference. I'm sure there would be options for writing your own research paper and submitting as well, with support from SCEPTrE.
If you are interested, please can you reply to this thread. Norman is very excited about the possibilities, creativity is one of his specialist areas and for want of a better way of putting it, we would have access to his thinking too.
Hi Frances and George,
I have posted notices in Connectivism Education and Research Ning, Facebook and Twitter.
Where else would we like to post?
JohnNovember 23, 2009
Here is peer leadership network.
JohnNovember 23, 2009
Great John. Is that your topic?November 23, 2009
Forgot to mention last night but my movements are quite restricted in my current job so may not be able to be involved at all - if someone wants to run with this, very happy to help with connecting with SCEPtrE / Norman if wanted, or step away completely.
Just looked back at the timings of last year's workshops and it was one in Dec / one in Jan so if anyone is interested, will need to move fairly quickly on it.
Session now confirmed, current details are at http://francesbell.com/2009/11/21/cck09-responses-to-connectivism/
I will add new speakers as I find them - keep 'em coming.
Hi Frances, I will participate in the Elluminate Session Wednesday 20.00 GMT. I request a slot of 3 min. My English is bad but I made presentations in English in other conferences before. My topic is still to be determinedNovember 23, 2009
Brilliant Eduardo. Got you on my list and I am sure it will be great. Looking forward to hearing your topic and receiving your ONE slide;)November 23, 2009
Nicola, in principle interested, but I would like to think about it, and am open to the idea of doing it jointly with a few others. Any thoughts?November 23, 2009
Hello Nicola. I am interested in this. I am keenly interested in the experiential learning/storytelling/experiential narrative field(s).
I am also interested in a joint facilitation of the workshop(s). Share the wealth, and workload, so to speak.November 23, 2009
As a first year edupsych student, I always have trouble understanding the research papers that I have to read. They are so much more harder to read than plain theories. At least I don't get any excitement even reading a research about connectivism, which for me is intuitively interesting and plain exciting and thought-provoking.
But I know academia is kinda build around this research ritual. I understand sometimes we need to investigate and get more information, e.g.: people's viewing habits for TV. Sometimes we need to confirm some theory so as to advocate it: e.g. some people would use computer self-directed agent models(which I don't understand a bit) to prove the point that diversity is good thing for organizations and groups. sometimes people do research about really basic things, e.g.: to find out if people distinct the bigger number in 0.56-0.45 faster than 0.56-0.47;
Ignorant as a first year grad student as I should be, I still can't make sense of a lot of the researches and frameworks and models that was build to conduct researches.
I wonder: if complex systems are by nature transient and ever-changing, influenced by multiple variables that interact with each other, can complex phenomena as human learning be researched? What kind of research is appropriate and more valuable? Should I continue the media-comparison studies as they always do? Is it valid to ignore all the effect of other variables by focusing on one variables at a time or by focusing on few variables that matters. Should I use our intuition and emotion and just use the theories? Should I just abandon all the urges to research and actually jump into the movement to lead others, to pass down the messages as preacher do?
Love to hear your comments and advices.
Hi Roy, Hi Ken - thank you so much that's fantastic news! Nellie has also offered to be involved as well.
Shall we give people a few more days may until end of Sunday (29th)? unless anyone wants to start adding ideas for possible formats here in the meantime ?
Hi Nicola, you could also add me if you think I can helpNovember 23, 2009
I have the same questions about the practical application of theories we have been exploring in this course. I work in a corporate setting, and a lot of what I am responsible for training is what I would call "black and white content" which includes technical application training, and information such as business rules and that are legislated by the government.
As I have progressed through the course it has finally dawned on me that perhaps one of the ways I can apply what I have learned in this course, is not so much establishing connections to help learners with the content, but how I can apply these theories to support, coach and mentor through the establishment of connections using technology. Eureka! Allowing staff access to a diverse network of experts (not just trainers) in the organization to facilitate learning after a training event (ILT, e-Learning, seminar etc.) is where I see value.
What do you think? Do you agree??
Thanks Eduardo that would be fantastic tooNovember 23, 2009
Diana that makes a lot of sense. Having that sort of network would help people clarify and apply even what they gained in the initial training event.
You ask some great questions! Theories have it easy! they can be presented as prescriptions, hypotheses,etc. It's harder for research that needs to supply evidence for its claims.
You say "if complex systems are by nature transient and ever-changing, influenced by multiple variables that interact with each other, can complex phenomena as human learning be researched?" Well, that's a good question to which I would answer yes! But I think we need to apply appropriate methods - do rich qualitative studies that help us understand learning by individuals and in networks, and shed light on the impact of interventions. It's not simple, but then learning in complex sociotechnical contexts isn't.
Thanks for the input. Maybe there are personal preference about whether to research or not. As a learner, I found that reading stories about theories and apply the theories to my own learning more interesting. I am not sure if I do research and would find some definite answers that could be generalized to everybody and every situation. It might give me more info about "what's most likely to be true or right". But it might also equally likely to focus my attention to what the theory focus while neglect the variables other theories advocate. By focus on the validity of this theory or that, I have to categorize this and that first. e.g.: I need to distinguish openness from semi-openness, very diverse to highly homogeneous, which is also a hard enterprise.
I then think, what if all these theories are all argument about what should be the priority and focus. e.g.: connectivism has given me totally different(good) perspective of viewing my own learning. And sometimes I might equip myself with particular theory and try to emphasize the importance of connect and open and diversity. Why do I have to cite research? Why don't I just tell the stories?
I feel like research is just one literacy in academia. it's a more accepted/expected way of story-telling. It is academia-oriented, not mass-oriented. By practicing research and get published, ideas and new theories might be well received--otherwise few people in the academia would understand what I say. Maybe one reason connectivism needs research because research is the only language that academia understand?
As you mentioned, we need to "shed light on the impact of interventions", maybe even add something to theory, it is also an important goal of research. I was wondering trial and error on individual bases might be more efficient in the end.
What are the end goal of research? To change the world? Can I change the world by trusting more on my intuition when I found the the theory just plain interesting and make senses.
In that sense, facebook, twitter and linkedin might be the best application of connectivism...
It might be that the people who are actually interested in connectivism are more likely to be educators, elearning consultants, corporate training manager, i.e.: leaders, interventers, aka "controller".
I wish they teach leadership courses in teacher training...
Maybe that's what corporate version of twitter is good for: to help people connect better with each other. A lot of social events in corporation might be designed for the same purpose: to build your network. Then maybe the controllers' job is to design better environment, games, systems for people to connect. And lots of people is asking: how?
But I found the best thing about connectivism for me is the perspective it bring to my own learning. Closed, rule-following, formal corporate situations? Nothing as fun as the open, diverse Internet of vast possibilities.
I'm glad I'm not the only one with these questions!
I'm completely lost with this week's question because I have never had to start with a theory and then figure out how to research it. I start with the research and then I try and figure out what is going on.
Research for me is about asking questions and then looking to see if I can find an answer. Sometimes the answer isn't what I expected, but it is still an answer.
I think there are lots of neat research questions about how human beings learn, like things about brains and language and so forth. What stumps me is the theory. I don't work in overarching theories (British History doesn't really use them) so it just seems like it sets us up for seeing the patterns we want to see if we start with the theory first.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It's very valuable for me, because that's just the opposite of my ways of doing things.
I wonder how the theories prevail in the history of science. Take constructivism for example, it used to be just a way of metaphysical thinking. No research, just practices(according to my narrow understanding), and it then tipped and was accepted by the educational academia.
This sounds like innovation diffusion.
And sometimes I am just afraid that by studying the sand and soil under my feet would make miss the revelation that earth is round.
I read this article about complexity theory and educational research.
It posted some questions:
Is it traditional research methodology of reductionism missing the mark of the irreducible nature of the phenomena of learning?
Is the positivism assumption of universal reality valid? Should the multiple view of reality be taking into account?
Of course, a lot of new ways of conducting research could find some balance in these challenges.
But I also start to wonder: if their is multiple reality and truth is relative to some level, why don't I just treat every theory as another argument, which might only find its validity on individual level?
..... the effect of hormones upon the nervous system? I think the endocrine system may be regarded as more 'scientific' than acupuncture.....there are a lot of nerve endings in the skin though.....so energy's flowing right through us......in ways that we may not understand properlyNovember 23, 2009
I'm interested in the notion of the individual. Even so, I'm very interested in Halliday's ideas about language as a social semiotic.November 23, 2009
Addit: Thank-you for your comments, Oriol. I've just been thinking over what I've done at universities...I completed courses at four universities but I didn't do a PhD. One of them was a BA Hons / Performance Studies. In this case we were encouraged to consider the power relations in some cases - and decision making processes involved in enacting a performance. While it's rather some time ago since I did these studies, I've thought about refocusing upon things we were thinking about then in relation to e-Learning.November 23, 2009
Post in Twitter and use the hashtag #cck09 to be listed here. (These should be fresh. Still working on improving the Twitter display.)@leilanachawati Thanks for the topic - Any more speed presenters stepping forward? http://bit.ly/7CKVE0 #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.