All Discussion Threads]

Dialogues (help!)

Commentary by zapotepetl () on link by gabriela, Dialogues (help!), February 7, 2011.

Hi Ak!
Thanks for your comment.
You said: "While distributed is good, it's also poor if you want to get easy participation. We are all busy professionals so it's not as easy to get to deeper levels of understanding with such a widely distributed method of communication."

I think there are 3 different "problems" there:
(1) The distributed nature of this MOOC proposal WITHOUT a place (&tool) to dialogue.
(2) The bussy we all are
(3) The combination of both.

Number (1) helps chatting, commenting, small talking easy. That's a great advantage for number (2). But condition (2) doesn't imply unability to go deep. It just needs to adecuated tools for enhacing own time. The distributed nature of 700+ participants (145+ blogs) is great, but very complex. Places (&adecuated tools) for dialogue will make a big difference.
I understand that previous cck moocs edither used forumes on moodle or on google groups. Not using moodle is just a way to say "stop thinking in a class", and it's ok. Google is not providing anymore Groups. It seems this gRSShoper-discussion threads is the alternative. But it is not an adecuate tool for deep discussion.



(Hits Today: 2523 Total: 2523)

[Link] [Tags: none] [Previous][Next]

---

Comments

Re: Dialogues (help!)

rose, February 8, 2011
I agree with Gabriela, though I have failed to engage at anything like the deep level she already has.

I think we are missing the kind of threaded discussion possible in Moodle discussions or forums generally, which can lead to much deeper conversation.

Blogging + comments, or Facebook/Linkedin, while very useful, are not the same.

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Stephen Downes, February 8, 2011
> Blogging + comments, or Facebook/Linkedin, while very useful, are not the sam

Why not?

What is the difference between this forum and Moodle, and how does that difference prevent deep discussion?

Re: Dialogues (help!)

rose, February 8, 2011
I wouldn't say it prevents deep discussion but it doesn't facilitate it in the same way and therefore may prevent it for those of us more used to threaded discussions. For me personally it has to do with the linear structure of commenting (whether on FB, LinkedIn or blogs). Nested comments in a discussion thread, while nightmarish to unravel sometimes, enable groups of participants to develop an argument regardless of what might be going elsewhere in the same forum.

Day job getting in way so will have to rush off .... but will try to think through better.

PS I am no advocate of VLE discussion fora - so let's do it elsewhere if possible.

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Stephen Downes, February 8, 2011
I think they are nightmarish to unravel. And my own take has always been that the threading takes away from the flow of the conversation, replacing it with little side-groups that spin away on their own, away from the main conversation.

Re: Dialogues (help!)

jaap, February 8, 2011
Nice to meet you,


The facebook group on cck11 is a good discussion place. in linkedin a discussion is going and on twitter sometimes discussion.
and not every student in cck11 wants this discussion.
this network without a central node needs some work to get involved, and that is networking. you wil have to be an actor in the network.
it is impossible to discuss with 700 or 134 people, so side groups are a blessing.
What about this: If you want a central place, make it and convince us to follow you there.


kind regards

Re: Dialogues (help!)

rose, February 8, 2011
And nice to meet you Jaap ...let's see what Gabriela thinks - I am loathe to start anything else at the moment but I agree with G that we don't seem to have adopted (been provided with) the equivalent mechanism to Google groups or Moodle discussion fora. But maybe we don't need it - enough of this I need to do some real discussion :-)

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Scott Johnson, February 8, 2011
I'm starting to recognize a characteristic reply from adherents of connectivism: if you don't like it here, go there and if that doesn't suit you then start your own. At first it seems like sage advice designed to empower by freeing you to seek your learning as best suits you.

Alternately, it means "beat-it", we here have no obligation to accommodate your needs or even acknowledge your presence. Anyway, we have a theory and all you have is questions.

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Stephen Downes, February 9, 2011
Yes, there is an aspect of connectivism which essentially says, "go create your own." There is a definite shift in approach from "we will accommodate your needs" to "you create your learning environment yourself."

You can choose to interpret it as "beat-it" and take it as a personal dismissal, but that would be incorrect. A connectivist approach entails that invididuals manage their own learning. There are many reasons for this, but one is that it is not reasonable nor feasible to design for the needs of every single individual. We don't "accomodate your needs" because we can't. Not with 700 people in the course and zero registration fees.

You might say, "well why not reduce enrollment, charge fees, and design a single multi-function environment for everyone?" Because that's been done many times by other people. That way lies the world of the LMS and centrally managed instruction. It has well-known permutations, and well-known weaknesses.

We prefer to approach diversity not through reduction and standardization, but through distribution. By allowing people to select their own environment, and then linking them, we support many more people at a much lower cost and without forcing them into a single mode of support.

It is a different way of learning online and we recognize that people are uncomfortable. But calling us unfeeling will not change the approach.

Re: Dialogues (help!)

ken427, February 9, 2011
Hmmm. So the emphasis on 'distributed' has the paradoxical effect of reducing the 'openness' of the course. In essence, this course requires a learner to participate in a specified manner, and does not address the learner's stated needs/wants. How is this new?

As far as fees, I wonder if this course is still being supported by U of Manitoba, and if there are credit and fee-paying students? If so, wouldn't Moodle be available? I see that CCK11 says it is in partnership still, and U Man lists this course for credit, so I wonder that Moodle wouldn't be available? On the other hand, CCK11 did announce that they just chose not to use it, instead imposing a different structure.

I wonder at what point the imposition of a structure removes an approach from the theoretical category and places it in the practical category. Enforcing a distributed blog mode seems to be a bit of a 'rigging of the deck' to support the theory of distribution, by forcing distribution. How is that theoretical? How does that move support theory-development? It seems like the results are pre-determined: connectivist learning is distributed because we made it so.

p.s. My questions are not intended to offend. I would be offended if they were interpreted that way.

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Stephen Downes, February 9, 2011
> My questions are not intended to offend. I would be offended if they were interpreted that way.

Sorry, you don't get a free pass just by declaring an intent. That's like saying "my punch isn't intended to hurt you; I would be hurt if you felt pain when I punched you."

As for ther content of the reply:

'Open' has not in any of my reading ever been defined as 'accommodating the needs of everyone'. And while *every* course requires that the participant participate in *some* manner, it is a twisting of words to interpret "in whatever manner you please" ad some "specified" manner.

I agree, it "does not address the learner's stated needs/wants." And when you ask "How is this new?" the answer is that it rejects the implied contract to "address the learner's stated needs/wants" that other approaches endorse.

We are not an education service provider. We provide access to a community and resources, but *you* adapt them to serve your needs.

Really, the complaints are like people complaining about email because they no longer have a postal service. "By making me use any email reader I want, rather than delivering letters to my home, you are making the system less open and forcing me to interact in some specified manner." To which I reply: tough. It's faster, cheaper, and after some experience with it you will never be content to sit around and wait for a letter carrier again.

The Moodle is still available; we are not using it. People seem to have adapted quite nicely; there is a very active Facebook group (that is not susceptable to fragmentation, user issues and power games the way the Moodle forums were). The Facebook discussion continues very strong, while by this time in other courses the Moodle had dwindled to a half-dozen die-hards dominating every Moodle thread.

Finally, to say we "impose a structure" is a misrepresentation of what we've done. *Everything* has some structure; we have *removed* most of the structure that exists, and allowed people to select their own. Call it "imposition" if you want; I call the response "passive-aggressive feedback trying to indimidate us into giving you a personal forum and captive audience." Since I feel such are destructive to online learning, I don't enable it.

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Ken Anderson, February 9, 2011
Like you, I think it is important to state one's intentions. No free pass was sought. I don't know what you intend with this remark.

Thank you for addressing my questions. I find that this is an interesting stance for a learning theory to take:

>I agree, it "does not address the learner's stated needs/wants." And when you ask "How is this new?" the answer is that it rejects the implied contract to "address the learner's stated needs/wants" that other approaches endorse.

I would have thought that U Man was in fact an education service provider. I'm not sure what your characterization is: you are a community access provider?

The e-mail analogy doesn't really work for me, thanks anyway. I do agree that Moodle had its pros and cons. It certainly generated some engaging discussions, at least in the beginning weeks, before drying up. It will be very interesting to see what the history of the Facebook group you mentioned turns out to be; I haven't looked at it yet.

Was this last comment really called for? It seems to set a very negative tone:

>I call the response "passive-aggressive feedback trying to indimidate us into giving you a personal forum and captive audience."

I hope you have a good day.

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Stephen Downes, February 9, 2011
> Was this last comment really called for?

I don't like being accused of things like "enforcing" and "rigging", etc., and it turns out you don't like being accused of things either.

I personally don't see why it would be objectionable to offer a course on Connectivism in the manner prescribed by the theory. Attributing our decision to do this to deeper personal motives, however, is objectionable.

Yes, but...

vtaylor, February 9, 2011
Actually, I am starting to really like this new way of learning, connecting, distributing, whatever... It has been a bit chaotic to start but that's ok. That's what I'm here for.

I was finding the Moodle threads too dense content-wise as they seemed to attract the academic folks. Individual blog posts are great, and now they are gathered up in the daily newsletter, that helps a lot. I have been pleasantly surprised to find much to like about the Tweets now that they too are corralled into the newsletter. And this linear blog is working, but then I have always had a preference for one long page with lots of headings, clean layout and white space.

I'm more of a feet-on-the-street practitioner - community college, high school academy-within-a-school. So this new "structure" works better for me and those I will be encouraging to come on board with CCK.

Re: Dialogues (help!)

zapotepetl, February 9, 2011
On tools:
Stephen Downes sais: "What is the difference between this forum and Moodle, and how does that difference prevent deep discussion?"
Tools have agencies (ant!), they are not the same in what they facilitate or not.
If you want to associate with a tool for killing, it is not the same if you associate with a gun than with a knife. Killing could happen anyways, but it will only happen if you choose the appropriate marriage (tool+yourself, that will work).
I do have a good marriage with forums (I can subscribe rose's likings and not Stephen's, and I can add more reasons for that if anyone is interested –maybe "tools" are worth a conversation?). I am not finding this distributed way useful (so far).

On what the experience is meaning:
The first answer I've got at my blog (sorry, it's there, not here), from Jaap, told me what I should be doing, like "this is the way" (a way I have been trying and hasn't worked for me). Stephen says "we prefer to approach diversity not through reduction and standardization, but through distribution. By allowing people to select their own environment, and then linking them, we support many more people at a much lower cost and without forcing them into a single mode of support." So I understand from that, that they are not pretending it to be one only way (good!). I also agree that a structure must always exist, and that is always a choice. So I understand from Stephen's answer to ken427, that the structure they choose seeks to reduce structure (another thing interesting thing to discuss sometime could be: the agencies of different structures).
But still, people sort of feel that it must be "that" way (the one in Jaap's suggestions). That "that" way, is the way to go in connectivism. I think is more like a question that is in the air: for example, AK (again, at the blog's original entrance, not here) says "Honestly when you've distributed the discussion this much, it's really hard to move to deeper levels without spending a lot of time on it - I guess that's just connectivism."

I think, this far now (at 1/3 of the course) an interesting question is... from our experience on going through this course, what is connectivism?

On "place":
Another interesting comment in the original post, from Scott, addresses ideas around a network and "non place". The non place, that seems rooted in the network idea, helps the feeling of being alone and sometimes disoriented.
That made me think about the "community" idea. Communities, before internet, used to be always placed in a physical location (by anthropologists, at least). Of course, when the online communities discussion started, the concept of "community" had to removed the physical location idea. But I don't think the "placed" one. At least so far, I have always conceived (not consciously) the idea of a community "placed" somewhere, and a sociotechnical space on the internet is a place.
This "networked cck11environment" is "non placed". But Stephen says "We provide access to a community and resources [..]... What holds the community if there is no place? How are "network "and "community" concepts related?

Ok... this is too long... a summary of things that can go deeper into discussion:
- Tools and structures, both have agencies. Choosing tools and structures (even if they are just starting points from where "people can select their own way") is not without a message and a meaning.
- Our own experience on going through this course is a key element to understand connectivism.
[- The last part on communities-place-networks are only musings on questions I have in my head].

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Scott Johnson, February 9, 2011
My original comments were not meant to offend, be passive aggressive or accusatory. Provoke might be the right word? Yes, that would be the right word.

Zapotepetl and Ken Anderson are pushing this discussion in a positive direction so I'll leave it alone for a bit.

Scott

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Ken Anderson, February 9, 2011
>I call the response "passive-aggressive feedback trying to indimidate us into giving you a personal forum and captive audience."

>I don't like being accused of things like "enforcing" and "rigging", etc., and it turns out you don't like being accused of things either.

I don't take your accusations personally. I guess now that you intend me to. I have no interest in a personal forum or captive audience. I find it really interesting that you would make that remark though. How would it be possible to have a captive audience/personal forum in a course that is 'open' and 'distributed'? Seems oxymoronical in nature, don't you think?

But I think that blaming Moodle for what ailed previous iterations of this course may be missing out on a bigger picture. I'm not sure what that picture is just yet. I mean, Moodle was just one area of discussion, favoured by some, disliked by others. The same can be said for other means: blogs, facebook, whatever. Even this Moodle-replacement forum called grasshopper.

btw: For whom is the course created? If not to meet the interests of the learner, as you said, then who is this course for?

>I personally don't see why it would be objectionable to offer a course on Connectivism in the manner prescribed by the theory. Attributing our decision to do this to deeper personal motives, however, is objectionable.

Why would you object to having 'deeper personal motives' for offering the course on Connectivism 'in the manner prescribed by the theory"? Are you not trying to broadcast your theory? Isn't that a motive? What's wrong with that?

I've enjoyed the discussion here, and was very interested in the comments made by the other posters, both pro and con. It seems that some sensibilities are easily ruffled, however, and that part doesn't interest me very much. So, adieu for now.

No complaints whatsoever

veronica, February 9, 2011
This is my first MOOC and I can't be anything but thankful.
To me it's like I was invited to a magnificent banquet, where I am welcome to see, smell, try and eat (and even have seconds) of everything.
I'm so happy and excited (and still overwhelmed) by this incredible opportunity to meet new and wonderful people, to learn new things... to see, to listen, to read, to share, etc.
So, thank you very much, Stephen and George, I really appreciate your time and effort, thanks a lot :-)

Verónica.

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Scott Johnson, February 9, 2011
It seems my comment about Connectivists fired up an interesting exchange. Since it doesn't particularly suit me to play the innocent here I'll state my case:

• I am a tuition paying student in this class, though expect no special status from this-and don't get any, I even have to print my own tuition receipt.
• Not a novice and understand the process here from taking the PLENK MOOC last year plus completing 3 other courses in the U of M Certificate in Emerging Technologies.
• To me this indicates I have more than a passing interest in Connectivism and its part in the future of educational delivery, but again, no special status.
• My observations as a student should matter though, and if Connectivism cannot find room for comments then let's drop the theory label and call it an ideology.

Presuming (as I believe) that Connectivism itself isn't an ideology, but a theory capable of holding its own, then what we are talking about here is potentially the future of education. Big stuff that needs to grow past the make-of-it-what-you-will shrug. There are obligations here to look at questions of student engagement when "content" is scattered. To account for those who don't excel at assembling their personal learning, or feel ignored, pushed aside or not worthy because the system can't be bothered with everyone's needs, so who are they to even ask for help?

I'll stop here as I'm drifting into rhetorical questions. It wasn't my intention to create an atmosphere where discussion sidetracked to the personal. I should have considered my words better and I hope we can get back to a productive discussion.

Scott

Re: Dialogues (help!)

klwilcoxon, February 10, 2011
This is an interesting thread! In his own way, I think Scott has identified one of the inherent characteristics of Connectivism. Namely, it is incumbent upon the individual to create his or her learning path.

This presupposes a set of skills and orientation that supports such an approach. Without them, the learner may indeed drift or thrash about. So this might mean that a certain amount of didactic training is in order for the uninitiated.

Or am I way off track?

Kevin

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Scott Johnson, February 10, 2011
Kevin,

Agree there needs to be training for people engaging in Connectivist knowledge collection.

This may sound unpleasant but most people are neither curious nor care to know anything beyond a certain small circle of interests. Beyond a certain age an odd contentment sets in. I've seen it all my life in the trades and now see it in faculty presuming a master status for themselves which they believe exempts them from further learning. Laziness, entitlement, narrow viewpoint all suggest themselves as explanations. My guess is to appear inexpert or to revisit the status of a novice freezes people--especially teachers who have developed the persona as the "looked-to" person in the room--the keeper of knowledge.

Curious people I know are driven to question almost as a carelessness for their public image. It's as if they missed the lecture on "appearing competent" and relish the thrill of a really well performed screw-up.

To me, a true connectivist, if there is such a person, is pretty rare. Its an attitude that needs developing in an environment where mistakes are tolerated and genuine effort counts. That leaves the school system out, so where else do we look?

This is a hard question that needs solving. We're dreaming to think everyone will self-actuate simply because it suits the economy or supports a theory. We might start by doing something very contrary to the way we insist education should operate: allow people to be "wrong" without instant reprimand. Allow feedback to work its way to the surface before we step in to explain--we explain too much anyway.

Good call Kevin, maybe connectivism is based on letting the world explain itself? Not that what we find out shouldn't be processed in our heads, but to back off on the need for things to "fit" or meet expectations. This is an active, demanding process.

Scott

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Stephen Downes, February 11, 2011
> This may sound unpleasant but most people are neither curious nor care to know anything beyond a certain small circle of interests.

I think that insofar as this is a fact (it seems to me very common for academics to misrepresent the apathy of the 'common man') then learning is relevant to this person only with respect to that range of interests, and ought to respect that.

Of the two elements required to function in a connectivist environment - critical ability, and motivation - I think that motivation is by far the more important. And I think that motivation is not a factor if we get the salience factor right. If the content is of interest and important to the person, they will be motivated to take part.

In domains outside those labeled by - well, us - as important, we can observe the 'common man' being engaged and critically aware. Take sports, for example. People who would otherwise be depicted as apathetic are capable to deep investigation and insight into sports, both as spectators and participants. They are 'true connectivists' just as much as someone who studies learning for a living.

Yes, there are things that could be done to improve their skill level. Yes, the technology and connective methodology could be animated and simplified to make networks more accessible and more fruitfully usable by more people. But a study of these conditions is in my view far more accurate a reflection of connectivism than the casual observation that 'most people are lazy'.

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Scott Johnson, February 12, 2011
Can't speak to the academic attitude to the "common man" as I've only been in the community college field as an non-credentialed course editor for 3 years part time.

I had the impression of Connectivism as being a theory chiefly directed at educational and professional upgrading. A mechanism to explain (and defend the value of) self directed learning.

Agree that is a narrow view, limiting the scope of the theory. But is it fair to attach every pursuit of interest to Connectivism? During the years I spent working as a roofer I also spent evenings and weekends in graphic arts classes and involved in an extensive paleontological dig on Vancouver Island. I also read trade magazines and took small-business management courses. This continued when when I switched over to hearing and sheet metal. These pursuits were an odd mix if measured by general expectations of the interests of construction workers, but felt as "natural" to me as beer-league baseball or salmon fishing were to fellow trades people.

I see no need to have a new theory to explain how people seek variety and wonder in their lives. People already do that. I would like a theory to explain why people don't attend professional development days or seem so uninterested in keeping up in their chosen career knowledge. Simply making things fun may actually produce the opposite by saying everything is just a hoot.

Scott

Re: Dialogues (help!)

jaap, February 12, 2011
"I would like a theory to explain why people don't attend professional development days or seem so uninterested in keeping up in their chosen career knowledge. Simply making things fun may actually produce the opposite by saying everything is just a hoot. "

I would like a working solution to the problem as well. I have been to these professional development days. My own feeling was the content of these days and courses and presentations never connected to my needs or questions. Once in my professional life a met a coach and she started asking questions about me and my needs. I did learn a lot of her, because she connected. Maybe this is Connectivism, as a theory to foster personal development by starting where the learner is and what questions the learner has??

Re: Dialogues (help!)

jaap, February 12, 2011
"I would like a theory to explain why people don't attend professional development days or seem so uninterested in keeping up in their chosen career knowledge. Simply making things fun may actually produce the opposite by saying everything is just a hoot. "

I would like a working solution to the problem as well. I have been to these professional development days. My own feeling was the content of these days and courses and presentations never connected to my needs or questions. Once in my professional life a met a coach and she started asking questions about me and my needs. I did learn a lot of her, because she connected. Maybe this is Connectivism, as a theory to foster personal development by starting where the learner is and what questions the learner has??

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Ken Anderson, February 12, 2011
>Finally, to say we "impose a structure" is a misrepresentation of what we've done. *Everything* has some structure; we have *removed* most of the structure that exists, and allowed people to select their own.

So what you are saying is that you have applied a structure (a construct) to your courses, but your applied structure has less structure than other courses. So I guess that a connectivist course is LMS-lite, and grasshopper is Moodle-lite.

Is connectivism (the theory of) another construct?

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Jennie Scott-McKenzie, February 14, 2011
Some great tensions here to get at the heart of our belief systems!

I think it's better to remove any controls like the walled garden of Moodle. There may be depth lost for some, but for the "lazy" ones like me... I will engage where I feel I can contribute and where there is something that sparks inside me. Hopefully, this alone will push me beyond my current knowledge.

Yes - this may mean that I don't go deep in an intended area, but I might go deep elsewhere in a more diverse way. I feel elated that this isn't a restricted area to keep us focused because I have been able to connect some of my outside networks to this conversation and bring some outside actors in.

I believe this is the future of learning as we know it - as many others have stated about innovation and disruptive cycles. But, I do hope we will still see small groups coming together to tap into the bigger network - the end of physical learning communities would not be healthy for societies.

So far, this course has exceeded my expectations. I am sure this free model will swing to an extreme and then a new business model will settle in. Once that happens, the door to quality, affordable learning will stay open.

Re: Dialogues (help!)

paulbmckenzie, February 14, 2011
@Jennie (other half) as an "outside actor" I can, and have been able to jump into this open conversation.

As a Moodle administrator (among other things) at an international k-12 school I couldn't be happier these dialogues are not being corralled into threads ultimately resembling incestuous medieval royal family trees. When Facebook was blocked at our school and students and teachers forced to deliver (and delivery it became) courses through Moodle, the social media muscle atrophied in us all. Engagement and discourse with the outside world fell away.

Walled gardens do not provide for differentiated learning - yes, they are equal (standardized), but they are not fair. The only Universal Design for connectivism must surely be through an open landscape of social media mashups. If you connect, curate, and aggregate with even a modicum of purpose, good things happen.

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Scott Johnson, February 15, 2011
Jaap –

On the general failure of professional development to engage: I just received the multi-event staff development day announcement from work.

I suppose the first mistake was scheduling the event for Feb 18 and scheduling the major announcement on who gets cut from staff on March 16. (A date deliberately released and held over everyone for no purpose beyond declaring who has the power and who doesn't). Though this is a failure specific to the place I work, it does point up the clear disconnection between the generic institution and its "valued employees." The institution as an entity clearly has no sense of solidarity or human connection with its employees, so why should they care to participate?

I could go on but think the notion of connection is the key here. Professional Development efforts are locked to the interests of the institution and simply don't engage people at the level of their professional identity or the personal qualities that drive that professionalism. Who wants to celebrate their corporate identity? Especially when your membership may expire in less than a month? Every institution is an abstraction that needs a certain shared belief to exist and continue. An abstraction that serves only its own needs is not something to invest care or cooperation in.

Is this an open door for connectivism? Maybe as a strategy to find a coach out there on the net that fits your personal needs and goals? That there is a collective mechanism out there that can enhance us without playing loose with our trust?

The missing personal seems to block my understanding of the Connectivist method of obtaining knowledge. Labelling it "theory" has the same distancing effect that the terms "corporate" or "institutional" have on me. Instead of the big-picture, massive-change or network as algorithm themes we need this theory to come back to a human level?

Scott

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Ken Anderson, February 15, 2011
Hello Scott

I was just working on a blog post entitled "What is missing in Connectivism" when my e-mail service notified me you had posted here. I don't think I have to complete my blog post now; I agree with what you have identified. I think what is missing from connectivism is a concept of 'self', here you call it 'the missing personal'. I think we are talking about the same thing.

Connectivism, with its philosophical foundation in an eliminative materialistic, epiphenomenal paradigm, denies a concept of self, as I understand it.

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Scott Johnson, February 16, 2011
Hi Ken,

It could be that for connectivism to qualify as an academic subject it has to reside at a level of abstraction that makes its application incomprehensible. Or maybe to suggest it needs to display concrete functionality is to soil its purity?

I don't mind that the theory can be understood at the highest levels of network science. But connectivism claims to apply to something more than a well plotted fictional representation or a closed theory that proves itself.

If the network exists outside the self then what does it have to do with education? Isn't education centred on self? The offering of self to enhance the selves of others and in return to be enhanced by the process?

Scott

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Ken Anderson, February 16, 2011

Hi Scott. I agree that education is centred on self, in fact, I think that is the whole point of it. And that good teachers offer themselves up, to educate others. Maybe the self-directed mantra is a both overworked. I think we all need a little help, from time to time.

I wonder if the lack of a concept of soul or self in the philosophical underpinnings of connectivism is causing some problems in its applications. Maybe connectivism needs to incorporate a soul, or maybe we need to look at another theory that incorporates both soul and technology, in order to feel more welcome within it.

Ken

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Scott Johnson, February 16, 2011
Removing the element of personal experience gives a theory the neutrality it needs to claim to be scientific. Removing the the personal from a theory trying to explain how humans seek knowledge turns it into a mechanism that can be understood in the realm of scientific "knowing." This is handy as a working model in the laboratory but released into the wild, connectivism has to be more than just proof of itself.

It might be interesting to find how sociologists, anthropologists and others who study the human experience deal with the dual role of neutral scientist and avid participant in the human adventure. As you say, a "theory that incorporates both soul and technology."

For instance, is the urge to share something you know that may be helpful (or simply interesting) with others reducible to the metaphor of an electro-mechanical twitch on a circuit board? For those who see the world that way it might suffice, but the spectrum of human understanding isn't just confined to one method of knowing and theories need to deal with that.

The what bothers me with connectivism is it seems to care not a fig for humans. Why should we accept crap that replicates the crap we already have to deal with?

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Ken Anderson, February 16, 2011

Hi Scott. Yup, we don't need more crappy theories.

>It might be interesting to find how sociologists, anthropologists and others who study the human experience deal with the dual role of neutral scientist and avid participant in the human adventure.

Anthropoligists used to study 'natives' like they were some form of object, and from the perspective that the anthropoligist was some form of objective observer. This practice has diminished; the word 'native' has been criticized and reduced in usage in the lexicon, and the researchers now acknowledge that they are a part of the study they are making, in the sense that (full) objectivity is not possible and a researcher always impacts the research, through the choice of observations to make, the choice of observations to write about etc. Interpretivism is a concept in use. Colonialist approaches to research are out.

There are those in the (natural) sciences that understand this perspective. For example, Michael Polanyi says this: (according to Wikipedia)

"Polanyi claimed that absolute objectivity (objectivism) is a delusion, and therefore a false ideal, because humans are not capable of removing themselves from the universe they are observing, and because humans necessarily have biases that influence the scientific questions they seek to answer and the answers they hope to discover.[1] He also criticised the notion that any scientific method yields truth mechanically. Instead, he argued that all knowing is personal, and as such relies upon fallible commitments."

I did publish the blog post I was working on, there are a couple more links and ideas there if you're interested.

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Scott Johnson, February 16, 2011
Ken,

Thanks for the reply and the quote from Polanyi. In his book "One River" I believe Wade Davis talks about the difficulty of being an objective observer. People following a calling have a passion for the subject that must be almost impossible to subdue.

I'll check your blog.

This report on Culturally Situated Design Tools I think is related: http://csdt.rpi.edu/teaching/papers/aa.2006.108.2.pdf

Allowing for other voices and interpretations strengthens a theory. Maybe connectivism just needs a wider base?

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Ken Anderson, February 16, 2011

>Maybe connectivism just needs a wider base?

Maybe. But the owners of the theory are wedded to their paradigm and seem unlikely to entertain perspectives that might alter it. I suspect they would entertain research that supports their theory, if you know of any.

Thanks for the link. It looks like a useful article.

Ken

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Stephen Downes, February 17, 2011
> the owners of the theory are wedded to their paradigm

There's no need for this. Talk about the issues, not about the people.

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Ken Anderson, February 17, 2011

>There's no need for this. Talk about the issues, not about the people.

I don't think I need to take direction from you on what the issues are, but your request is noted. I think the paradigm of the proponents of a theory is a large issue. That is my paradigm, and I am wedded to it.

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Stephen Downes, February 17, 2011
OK let me be more blunt. Any more personal attacks and I will kick you off this site.

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Ken Anderson, February 17, 2011

>> the owners of the theory are wedded to their paradigm

Ok, just so I know what the boundaries are then. Is the above considered a personal attack?

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Stephen Downes, February 17, 2011
It's an easy call. Look at the subject of the sentence. In the sentence above, the subject is 'the owners of the theory'. If the subject is a person involved in the debate, then the sentence is discussing the person, and not the issue in question. Such sentences should be avoided.

The only exception to the above is the attribution sentence. The attribution sentence uses a proper name, and attributes a statement or quote to that person. "Person X said 'such and such'." Proper form requires that attribution sentences be non-pejorative. "Person X argues 'such and such'" is fine, "person X sneers such and such" is not fine. The use of descriptions (eg. "the owners of the theory") instead of a specific name is also not fine.

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Scott Johnson, February 17, 2011
Stephen,

I was having a conversation with Ken and you decided to step in. Does Connectivism include the monitoring and control of discussions that don't suit you?

My understanding of the power of Connectivism is of an open process where people don't "own" ideas and I think you are over-personalizing the discussion and in the process creating a silencing effect. Perhaps you are too close to the subject?

Scott

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Stephen Downes, February 17, 2011
@Scott - this is a public forum, not a private 'conversation', therefore, things that are said here are read by everybody, and not just heard by a few.

If you and Ken want to go off-site -- to Facebook, some blog, or instant message -- and talk about people instead of ideas, that's fine with me. That's why we set the course up as a distributed environment so people can say whatever they want wherever they want. Go and have fun.

But if you want to use this site to host your conversation, then you are required to keep it civil.

My experience though dozens of boards and thousands of conversations is that allowing rude, personal or uncivil comments to persist on a web board creates a much greater "silencing effect" than the removal of such comments.

Again, you are free to disagree with this policy of hosting discussions, and to go host your own discussion somewhere else, according to your own rules. Many people have already done that in this course. That's what connectivism is all about.

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Ken Anderson, February 17, 2011

Hi Scott. Let me try to patch things up with Stephen, and then maybe we can resume our conversation. I was enjoying the sharing of resources.

Stephen says:
>"Person X argues 'such and such'" is fine, "person X sneers such and such" is not fine. The use of descriptions (eg. "the owners of the theory") instead of a specific name is also not fine.

Ok then. I'll change the statement to:

"Stephen argues that his paradigm is the right one".

Hope this helps. Maybe we can resume our conversation from that point, and present any differing paradigms we may have.

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Ken Anderson, February 17, 2011

@Scott

My paradigm, as noted previously in this discussion, attempts to find room for concepts such as the 'soul', or 'self-identity', or 'agent'. I like this perspective, because in my belief system, as I noted with quoting Polanyi above, the distinction between subject and object, or human observer and what s/he observes cannot fully be made with any assurance of accuracy. As Freud says:

"It is a mistake to believe that a science consists in nothing but conclusively proved propositions, and it is unjust to demand that it should. It is a demand only made by those who feel a craving for authority in some form and a need to replace the religious catechism by something else, even if it be a scientific one".

Freud goes on to argue that it is ok to operate with uncertainty, to work with approximations, as he says "Science in its catechism has but few apodictic precepts; it consists mainly of statements which it has developed to varying degrees of probability".

I interpret Polanyi and Freud to be saying that absolute truths are few, and that there is wiggle room within science, probably because of the inherent biases a human observer brings to any observation. I think the human brings an interpretive stance to their study, research, and findings. I think this interpretive stance (IS) differs for different people. I think it is as important to understand, examine and probe the IS of a theorist as it is to understand, examine and probe the theories that the theorist professes. There is no personal attack in this. (This is getting a little lengthy, so I'll save the connection of my paradigm to connectivism for the next post).

Re: Dialogues (help!)

alqpr, February 17, 2011
I share Ken's skepticism about Connectivism as a *theory*
(and feel the same way about other "Learning Theories" as well - see http://qpr.ca/blogs/2011/02/17/learning-theories ).
But as an ideology and as a practice I find it attractive.
One aspect of that ideology, as I see it, is to value and support learning through a process of mutual interaction between independent agents. This does imply expecting those who want support for a different kind of process to find it elsewhere and I don't see how failure to "support" all learning styles can be held against the proponents of this one.

I interpret the abandonment of Moodle here as one step in the process of experimenting with more distributed control and organization. It is incomplete of course, since replacing Moodle with gRSShopper, while forcing discussion threads out onto individual blogs, still does not eliminate the focus of control. Presumably the next step is to give us all implementations of gRSShopper (or equivalently to add more features to our current RSS aggregators) so that any one of our blog sites can be used in place of this one and so that statements like "I will kick you off this site" will become essentially empty threats.(Not quite though, since in a scale-free network the controllers of some nodes will always have more power than others)

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Lindsay Jordan, February 17, 2011
I've been diligently using my blog for the last five weeks and keeping an eye out for other cck11 bloggers through the cck11 twitter stream. But about 7-10 days ago the comments (and the tweets) really dried up. I didn't realise I was losing a game of Sardines (is that just a British thing?) until I discovered you all in here, hiding under the bed.

so when 'alqpr' writes "replacing Moodle with gRSShopper, while forcing discussion threads out onto individual blogs..."...? Um. It would seem that this isn't the case....?!

Ah well - I prefer this - I get lost in threaded forums too. This is more like listening to a conversation that's going on around a dinner table.

Ken and Scott - I found your discussion really interesting. The personal comments did make me wince a bit, but it's great that you recognise this and have corrected your words/made amends. I hope Stephen doesn't kick you off and that you continue to contribute!

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Ken Anderson, February 17, 2011

@Lindsay

Thanks for the comment. I hope to continue to contribute. Under the threat of eviction I will choose my words very carefully going forward! On that note, maybe Al's words are better choices for expression. Rather than paradigm, maybe ideology is a better fit.

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Jennie Scott-McKenzie, February 17, 2011
Too funny Lindsay - I'm Canadian and had to ask my NZer husband what you meant by the Sardine game. What a hilarious image you paint!

Good points here about us still grouping together no matter how open the format. There is another bunch of us hiding under the Facebook bed.

I personally don't like posting on my blog - it feels like a dead end node that will be "pruned" (but it is the only area in which I think deeply). My blog is only as good as my promotion of it through tagging and tweeting links.

Facebook has been great for developing our ideas through casual conversations and shared links. It may also sustain a network after the course, as we are getting to know each other socially and what we individually bring to the table. Some are moving over to (like pulses through a synapse) another related facebook.

Twitter is like using a wormhole to leap into a entirely different network that one may not have gotten to through normal network connections... oh, I like that idea... I'm going to tweet it!

I wonder if Howard Gardner has seen my learning intelligence "Bad Analogies"?

Re: Dialogues (help!)

alqpr, February 17, 2011
Lindsay, I agree that most of the cck11 discussions seem to be hosted by Stephen here, though that may be just what I see because I don't like having too many different access points to keep track of and so haven't really looked for other nexi of this course. In order to work with distributed discussions I need a tool for collecting them all in one place. And in the spirit of the program I guess I should have my own copy of that tool. If the comment streams and trackbacks for all tagged blog postings could be amalgamated and nicely presented in a local RSS reader then perhaps we'd be at a point where we could each own our own comments and choose for ourselves whom we wanted to include or exclude in our view of the overall discussion, but so far as I can tell we aren't there yet.

Ken, actually I think "paradigm" may be a better word than I chose to describe what is embodied in most of our so-called theories of leaning - though often the choice of paradigm may be (consciously or unconsciously) motivated by ideological considerations, and some people may be more able and/or willing than others to switch between different paradigms (and of course calling them "theories" makes it harder to switch, because a theory is something we think of as having a truth value to be believed in or not, whereas a paradigm is just a simplified way of looking at things which may well be regarded as a mere tool of the moment).

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Ken Anderson, February 17, 2011

Hi Al

When you brought the word ideology into the discussion I kinda perked up, wondering if it might be more appropriate than paradigm. Googling the pair, I came across this website: http://www.modern-thinker.co.uk/1a%20-%20Paradigm.htm

The author argues that ideology produces a paradigm. He states:

"A closed system of thought occurs when any framework of knowledge tries to ask and answer all questions concerning values and standards within its own boundaries. Such a system does not lead to the acceptance of any knowledge that is outside those boundaries. So another name for a closed system is an ideology.

Hand-in-hand with a paradigm goes an ideology, which is a self-contained system of values. In essentials, an ideology is a perspective for encapsulating power, and how that power is used. It defines what is, and what is not, real. Power can be exerted on what is real, but not on what is 'unreal'. Only what is defined to be real has value."

I don't know if I understand this correctly, or if I agree with it or not. I will need some time to digest it. But it does raise some interesting questions. If connectivism is more ideology than theory, as you've suggested, then I'm guessing that the practical applications of it might be viewed in a different light, maybe as a way of driving the values of the ideology forward rather than as having a theoretical truth value as regards a learning process.

Re: Dialogues (help!)

alqpr, February 18, 2011
Thanks Ken.
That looks interesting, but like you, I too am not sure I agree with all of it.
In particular I don't see an ideology as necessarily being closed or complete. For example I would say that Connectivism appeals to me at least partly for ideological reasons because I value both freedom from authority and learning through interaction with others, but these are not necessarily the only things I value and there may be contexts in which they compete in conflict with other values.

I do think Connectivism also has practical utility that is largely independent of ideology as well though, both because of the higher proportion of people now needing mid-career re-education and also in order to help us make effective use of the available network resources - and it may well be that a theoretical understanding of the practice of Connectivism will help improve its effectiveness. What I still don't see though is Connectivism as a theory used to explain or predict something else.

Re: Dialogues (help!)

jaap, February 18, 2011
You are free to call and name a theory an ideology. But you should know that naming a theory an ideology is not friendly discourse. Ideology in my network has strong negative connotations, and among scientists this naming a theory an ideology is regarded as an insult.

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Ken Anderson, February 18, 2011

@jaap

Thanks for pointing this out. I guess it is something to be aware of. The scientists that I know of aren't upset by the word ideology, and don't mind discussing it. Maybe they are the minority?

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Ken Anderson, February 18, 2011

@AL

I think I understand your points. A value system (ideology) can change with the context in which it finds itself. I agree that the affordances of the internet, being able to connect with a wide audience across the world, having almost instant access to information etc. are wonderful, and freeing. I hope these affordances continue to break down the walls of the silos that different disciplines have erected around themselves, and that the human race improves itself as a result. That is part of my ideology!

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Ken Anderson, February 18, 2011

How about we move the conversation away from ideology (I don't wish to be chastized again for my use of words, and the threat of eviction remains) so that any scientists present won't be insulted? I noted this statement in an above post:

zapotepetl, February 9, 2011
(another thing interesting thing to discuss sometime could be: the agencies of different structures).

Using a definition of agency like this one, in a learning context:

agency - how a result is obtained or an end is achieved; "a means of control"; "an example is the best agency of instruction"; "the true way to success"

Maybe an examination of the agency of connectivism would assist in learning about it, and further the discussion. For example, "Stephen Downes has argued that the power laws can be overcome in a distributed system". He cancelled the use of Moodle in this course, in order to promote the use of blogs and other distributed spaces so that no one individual or small group of individuals would monopolize the discussions - "Stephen Downes has argued that Ken Anderson wants a personal forum and captive audience", for example. Grasshopper was introduced to aggregate these discussions, and the hope was that the power law would not be evidenced in this less-structured new structure. I can't say with certainty whether Stephen Downes' experiment has been successful or not. This article by Clay Shirky suggests that power laws are an inevitable result where freedom of choice and diversity exist.

http://www.shirky.com/writings/powerlaw_weblog.html

If Shirky's argument is accurate, then it would seem that the best way to remove the power law result would be to reduce the freedom of choice and diversity offered in a course of instruction.

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Scott Johnson, February 18, 2011
My Report:

CCK11 Connectivism - First Report
Feb 18, 2011
Scott Johnson

Rough attempt at explaining my understanding of Connectivism.

We live in a complex society driven, we are often told, by innovation "...where we expect to know more than our parents' generation, and suppose that our children will experience still greater advance. No society before [the post- agrarian] could afford the constant retraining of personnel and replacement of the infrastructure that innovation on this scale demands." (page 164)1

In order to keep up with the employment market, many of us have jobs that are poorly defined or in a state of perpetual re-definition. It's not that these jobs are without a known skill-base. Only that, by necessity of turnover, they tend to exist in a state of hybridization. Again, this doesn't mean each new job is a previously unknown and completely unique species-more like an adaptation that that's only a tiny percentage different-but different enough to require a pause to regroup or understand from those who may work with it.

This "becoming acquainted" period in a vocation is an example of where Connectivism might be a significant driver. Floating in a network of known characteristics or processes, a question could nudge around for a solution that could then spread back into the network much faster than an individual query could resolve and adapt. In some ways I find it difficult to see a difference between a network approach and, say, an old style laboratory (committee?) approach. It's not a given that either will spit out an innovation or have a moment of brilliance. But I expect there's something entangling and solution-stalling about in-place infrastructure or the need to use up old stock that hobbles a physical laboratory. Maybe it could be vested interest in a familiar method or the form of intellectual stasis that sets into groups that I've heard referred to as "the failure of success" where one triumph becomes the model (damn! it worked before) even when conditions don't warrant it?

Or it could be just in the numbers spread across a net where one carefree node embedded in sea of dozer-nodes blurts out a whacky idea that works? Maybe networks (I still don't know who/what they are), are less prone to propagating bad ideas and spin fewer wheels on the low-potential politics and gossip that mires human groups?

This is awfully abstract. A personal example: My current job, by appearance, is very different than my previous career. Within the institution where I work the designation on nice days is "research assistant", but mainly it consists of proof reading, minor editing and shovelling data from one site to another. The basic drudgery of building online courses for Community College students. I got this job by chance and good timing and keep it by staying ahead skill-wise-just a little bit ahead. So when asked "can you do this, blank, little job for us" I say Yes knowing I can quickly cover my butt by scanning the net and schmoosing.
In a sense, the information on the internet allows me to micro-skill and "diversify" without sinking under a huge skill load. I connect to what I want as needed and through the miracle of a short attention span "embrace the new" almost daily.

As a curious person I'm not sure if I like Connectivism poking around looking to take credit for something I feel is natural. I'm the one standing there with a very obvious "I don't know but will find out" look that enrages those who don't know, don't care and have the power to get away with it. That said, curiosity seems mostly an attitude, while Connectivism might actually be a conscious practice that is learnable.

The dark side? My job is temporary-contract without benefits and attracts the lowest pay in the department. I'm more an all-purpose tool than a team member and after being asked to write up a job description of what I do last year the position went to someone "more qualified" and I was laid off. Connectivism might break down some of the tyranny of membership that is built into human organizations but only until someone remembers they left the gate open and "just anyone" might walk in.

Things that interest me touching on Connectivism:

Adaptive Structuration Theory

"AST is a viable approach for studying the role of advanced information technologies in organization change. AST examines the change process from two vantage points 1) the types of structures that are provided by the advanced technologies and 2) the structures that actually emerge in human action as people interact with these technologies.
1. Structuration Theory, deals with the evolution and development of groups and organizations.
2. The theory views groups or organizations as systems with ("observable patterns of relationships and communicative interaction among people creating structures").
3. Systems are produced by actions of people creating structures (sets of rules and resources).
4. Systems and structures exist in a dual relationship with each others such that they tend to produce and reproduce each other in an ongoing cycle. This is referred to as the "structuration process."
5. The structuration process can be very stable, or it can change substantial over time.
6. It is useful to consider groups and organizations from a structuration perspective because doing so: (a) helps one understand the relative balance in the deterministic influences and willful choices that reveal groups' unique identities; (b) makes clearer than other perspectives the evolutionary character of groups and organizations; and (c) suggests possibilities for how members may be able to exercise more influence than they otherwise think themselves capable of." http://www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Organizational%20Communication/AST_theory.doc/

Collective Wisdom Initiative: Centered On the Edge - Mapping a Field of Collective Intelligence & Spiritual Wisdom
Coyote and other Archetypal Tales: Synchronicity, Surprise and the Unexpected Moment
"I think the meta conversation in every group is about inclusion and exclusion,
it's archetypal. And it's interesting to watch the drive for inclusion and
the fear of exclusion, and what that sets up as a matrix for competition or
comparison, rather than cooperation and collaboration."
http://www.collectivewisdominitiative.org/CenteredOnTheEdge//thebook.htm

1. Jacobs, J. (2004) Dark Age Ahead (1st ed.). New York: Random House
Quoting Karen Armstrong

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Ken Anderson, February 18, 2011

Hi Scott, thanks for sharing your paper. I was particularly drawn to these statements, as we have seen a lot of this activity right here in CCK11, and we might try to learn something from it:

>Connectivism might break down some of the tyranny of membership that is built into human organizations but only until someone remembers they left the gate open and "just anyone" might walk in.

>I think the meta conversation in every group is about inclusion and exclusion,
it's archetypal.

One of my current professors, Dr. Jen Gilbert (York U) wrote this paper on the hospitality of education (using the acceptance of gayness - LGBTQ children) as
an exemplar of the need for hospitality.

http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/jcacs/article/viewFile/16993/15795

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Ken Anderson, February 19, 2011

I watched the Elluminate recording of the facilitator's session of Feb 18th and found it to be the clearest articulation of the ideology of connectivism I've yet seen.

From this articulation I would thus describe connectivism as being wedded to the paradigm and values included in the words diversity, autonomy, openness and connective, as used to describe distributed networks. Centralized networks (e.g. groups) are wedded to the paradigm and values included in the words unity, coordination, closed and distributive. These values were not elaborated upon in detail for either value system; it is possible that the rest of this course may address them further.

Stephen Downes argues that a major motivation in seeking a distributed network is to discourage a power law manifestation. Power law has a tendency to concentrate activity in a few nodes, or hubs, and tends to steer a network towards a more centralized structure. Stephen Downes places a higher value on the distributed network, although it is odd to note that he maintains that one of the values of the centralized network is distributive. He argues that centralized networks, though faster that distributed networks, accumulate too much power or influence in too few nodes, and this is bad due to the potential of a cascading effect: knock out one of the powerful nodes, the other nodes loose their connection to it and the power and information it distributes. Knock out a node in a distributed network and power and information will flow around it.

Clay Shirky argues that diverse and autonomous networks (he uses the term freedom of choice) tend naturally towards a power law distribution. He bases this argument on empirical study. Stephen Downes argues that there is no empirical data to support connectivism, and that this course is the empirical data.

If Stephen Downes is right, then I wonder what observations can be made about the network of this course? It seems that there is lesser activity occurring in the distributed blogs, and that people have been gathering in central nodes like this grasshopper forum and the Facebook group.

I would like to know what Stephen Downes thinks about Shirky's findings and his own findings so far regarding the data from CCK11. Shirky has a caution about trying to force a distributed model:

"Because it arises naturally, changing this distribution would mean forcing hundreds of thousands of bloggers to link to certain blogs and to de-link others, which would require both global oversight and the application of force. Reversing the star system would mean destroying the village in order to save it."

http://www.shirky.com/writings/powerlaw_weblog.html

Re: Dialogues (help!)

alqpr, February 19, 2011
Ken, Just with regard to "distributed" vs "distributive", I think the similarity of the words is a source of possible confusion. While a distributed network may be relatively "flat" (with the distributed quantity being connectivity) a distributive one is focussed on the act of distribution (with the distributed quantity being something else). For this purpose it appears (on the basis of some theoretical modelling as well as on observing what has evolved in various biological and economic contexts) that a non-flat "power law" of connectivity distribution is the most efficient for a distributive network.

Of course if the quantity to be distributed is knowledge, and knowledge "is" connectivity, then this leads to something of a conundrum. But resolving such things and/or working through a situation of competing priorities are what make life interesting.

Re: Dialogues (help!)

alqpr, February 19, 2011
According to Ken
>It seems that there is lesser activity occurring in the distributed blogs, and that people have been gathering in central nodes like this grasshopper forum and the Facebook group.

IF there is a natural tendency for networks to evolve towards a power law, then it will take some countervailing force to resist that. So IF we value a more distributed network (perhaps, for example because we see encouragement of *creation* of new ideas as more important than their rapid *distribution*) then we will need to work at it.

To that end I have a couple of suggestions:

One is that we all make more effort to pose discussion topics on our own blogs and encourage comments and (especially?) trackbacks there as well as here.

Another is for Stephen and/or other tool builders. And that is that it would be nice to integrate the discussion streams here with the comment streams on the relevant blog postings - and also to be able to filter/search the list of all discussions (preferably in a tool that could in principle be conveniently hosted by any of us).

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Jennie Scott-McKenzie, February 19, 2011
If this is a study in how learning networks evolve and distribute, are we interfering by trying to convince each other of the best way (and place) to learn? Or, are we demonstrating what will happen naturally with social media that involves both (wo)man and machine?

>biological, economic... or socio-mechanical

At this point, the aggregation tools can't pick up the activity in facebook. I would argue that facebook has created a power law because of it's ability to easily facilitate learning for this course.

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Ken Anderson, February 19, 2011

Hi Jennie and Al. I think these are very good subjects for debate. Should we push learning in a direction that is not natural, force learning to take place in a way that goes against its biological, economic or socio-mechanical proclivities, IF there is a natural tendency or power law at work?

(on the other hand, there might an argument to be made that this is done all the time in the teaching of students in our current systems, in order to produce some form of conformity as is being discussed in the FB group)

I guess one approach is to determine if it is even possible to push learning in the direction Stephen Downes is arguing for, and I guess that this course is an attempt to do just that. I guess that another aspect of this is whether the push can have a lasting effect, or if the natural tendencies would re-establish, after the push is made. So far, it seems that the latter is holding true, at least with what I know of CCK11 and its results.

The other side of the coin is the desirability of making the push. Al suggests that a more distributed network is more creative than a distributive network which is faster. What do you base the first assertion upon? How does the slowness or relative inefficiency of the distributed network affect creativity? I wonder if there are more laws at work than just the power law, for example, if the power law tends to steer networks towards centralization/distributive properties, is there a law that shakes up the statis of the distributive network to redistribute the hubs such that, for a time at least, a more distributed network appears. The shake-up law might be a naturally occurring phenomenon, a naturally occurring redistribution law that has yet to be 'discovered' or articulated properly, take your pick.

I can think of a naturally occurring re-distribution law that takes place in the social realm over a period of time. The law is that of death and natality (the latter a concept of Hannah Arendt used in her discussion of education). Death naturally 'shakes up' a social network by removing nodes. Natality, the continual birth of new humans added to the social realm, adds new nodes to the network. Maybe the focus could be on ensuring the new arrivals and their curiosities and creativity are welcomed, rather than worrying about interfering with the network.

The efficiency of the distributive network must have some value, I think, in that it permits widespread information to reach many people quickly. If the internet is one big node or hub, I'm thinking that it may be like a distributive network. Since it distributes info efficiently, I wonder if it has the effect of increasing creativity. I suspect that it has done just that, for me anyway, by giving me timely access to a wealth of information. I don't see the internet as a closed group, but I do see it as a distributive network.

Re: Dialogues (help!)

alqpr, February 19, 2011
I didn't really suggest that a more distributed network *is* more creative than a distributive network, just that we *might* see it that way (perhaps because "distributive" sounds as if it implies mostly passive receivers rather than transmitters). My own reason for preferring flatness is ideological though, since for me equity is a core value (not the only one by any means, but one which carries a fair weight in my evaluation of things).

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Ken Anderson, February 20, 2011

Hi Al

I'm guessing by equity you mean something like fair and just treatment, and not smoething like shareholder's equity. Do you distinguish equity from equality? I found it interesting in Shirky's article that he argues that inequality is mostly fair, in the distributive nature of the social network he is describing. When I think about equity, and equality, I get all messed up over the values involved. For example, do I think it is fair that some people, or nations, or groups have control of a lot of resources, and others scramble to feed themselves? Obviously, I don't see the justice in that. On the other hand, (I don't know if you are a hockey fan or not), do I think that Jeff Tambellini and Henrik Sedin should be paid equal sums of money for their efforts? Well, no, I don't.

I do think that fair access to knowledge is very important. What Gates said about reducing the costs of higher education from $20,000/yr to $2,000/yr certainly seems to be a step in the right direction, and I think the distributive nature of the internet must have a lot to do with that. I like the idea of access to people who have knowledge to share; I don't know if a flat network provides that so much.

Anyway, I wonder if this division of distributed vs. distributive networks is really the whole picture. What if these are just temporal positions in adaptive systems that are more complex than this simplistic dichotomy? What if, over time, the tendency is to move back and forth within phases of more/less distributed, more/less distributive, in a natural way? What if in networks the relationships, or connections, between nodes change over time, and stars emerge for a time, then fade away etc. If this was the case, would it be necessary to worry about shaking the system to make sure it is flat?

Re: Dialogues (help!)

Ken Anderson, February 21, 2011

Stephen Downes argues that distributive networks (which he characterizes as groups) are closed and distributed networks (which he characterizes as networks) are open. At the 51:00 mark of the February 18th Elluminate session he states his proposition that some network structures are better than other network structures. He argues that the network structures that are more resistant to cascade phenomena are better structures than those that are less resistant. He argues that groups are of the latter variety, and networks of the former. Stability of a network is defined as being less susceptible to cascade phenomena. Stability and resistance are highly valued in Stephen Downes' argument.

From these premises, he distinguishes four differing characteristics of groups and networks: Unity/diversity; coordination/autonomy; closed/openness; distributive/connective. He states that his ideas are just observations he has made and that they need to be verified empirically.

When I think about what is happening in North Africa, I wonder if there is evidence of cascade phenomena in the protest movements that are occurring?

Groups vs. Networks

Ken Anderson, February 21, 2011

I'm still obsessing over this groups vs. networks thing, and this seems like a nice safe place to put my thoughts, no teacher figure about to slap my hands....

Ok, at 56:00 of the Feb 18 Elluminate session Stephen Downes presents his flip chart on Groups vs. Networks, arguing that the characteristics of each type of network are polar opposites, binaries. A group is closed, and a network is open, in his argument, for example. His analysis serves to divide networks into two camps, groups vs. networks, ineffective vs. effective, however, he does indicate that he has not empirically studied the matter, and hopes to do so.

The CCK11 FB group offers the opportunity for empirical study. This group exists within the centralized and coordinating structure of FB. It has a property of distributiveness - there is a one-to-one link between a member and FB. As such, transmission of information is rapid, cascading rapidly through the network members. The group is also open - anyone can join (provisos - must have a FB account, must not be in countries that ban FB). It is also diverse, members from around the world, operating in an autonomous fashion. It is also connective, being democratic in that there is no central authority (other than the FB environment itself); every member is an administrator. No one teacher exercises authority in the group, everyone is both teacher and learner, sharing what they know, engaging in unhindered discourse, participating as they choose to. It all seems to work very well, unified in the interests in connectivism and other concepts.

It seems on initial study that the CCK11 FB group has all the qualities that Stephen Downes argues belong only to either a group or a network. Is the FB group a special case of a network?

Great Discussion!

stevemac121, February 22, 2011
Great discussion folks - Do you know what though - I'm itching for the facebook like button, just to register some empathy with points made!

As an example Jennie Scott-McKenzie, February 19, 2011 would be getting a like from me for arguing that "facebook has created a power law because of it's ability to easily facilitate learning for this course."

Ken Anderson, February 25, 2011
I think this post is a good read:

http://helistudies.edublogs.org/2011/02/24/social-self-organisation/

Your Comment