[Options] [The Daily Archives] [Feeds] [Posts] [Places]
In my presentation this week, I returned to three levels of how we can view networked learning. Matthias comments: "In this week's discussion of networks, the topmost of the three layers (social-external, conceptual, and neural) seems to be the most attractive, probably because research of the large numbers of social nodes involves both qualitative and quantitative interests. I am particularly fascinated about how this social level interacts with the conceptual level through mechanisms like "People who read this also read that". In a way, this makes people's networks function as a fuzzy sort of classification scheme for concepts or subjects that is much more flexible and powerful than explicit taxonomies." How do these three levels relate? How do our social networks inform conceptual? I hope Stephen and I can explore this a bit more during our live sessions this week. Matthias Melcher, , September 23, 2008. [Link] [Tags: none] [Previous][Next]
In Matthias Melcher blow he asks if trees/hierarquies are different for networks/webs.
For sure trees are very peculiar hierarchy networks. They are the less interconnected networks. But it is very curious that whenever we ask a manager to describe its organization a tree is what we get. In the corporate culture org charts, which are trees, are hidding the forest, a very complex interconnected social network. And till now, managers are blind to these rich an complex way of organization. [Comment]
[Permalink]
[Previous][Next]