Individual and network or rhizome #change11

Drawing an image as reflection and contemplation on the subject. (inspired by Geetha Narayanan Slow Learning). Trying to close a gap between connectivist learning and individual learning. The creative impulse behind art is for me the most fundamentally human intellectual activity. I art therefore I am.

This image is of a rhizome, the rhizome connects some ‘branches’.
The red figure is the rhizome inside a person.
This red figure is called ME.
In the red figure is a yellow spot S, S for subject. The person is chewing on a subject, is thinking of a subject, is concerned by the subject.
The yellow spot is connected to other subjects (S₁) This person is busy, with more than one subject to take care of.
The subjects are connected.
The yellow spot is connected to personal knowledge, to actively searching for knowledge, and to ‘Finds’.
The Finds (serendipity) are these ideas, dreams, visions, flashes of wit, thoughts which come to mind when we are not expecting them.
The search is an active process. The person connects to information in the environment with questions.
In the environment we see some green spots. The environment is sources, persons, a MOOC, and more.
Most connections are black = the information connections, some are green = the personal connections.
For the Me it is important to connect to other persons for psychological and other reasons.

In a person, thinking and thoughts are connected in unknown ways. Our brain connects information by association.
When we are involved in learning, our mind goes on on the subject when we ourselves are involved in other subjects. (When I did leave the study for shopping or for coffee it could happen that some new idea on the subject is presenting itself) Thinking sideways, maybe even the thinking of the unconscious?
In the drawing time is missing. (But no one learns new habits in one day!) The personal history of the ME is relevant. Connection do change in time in activity and intensity. Personal emotions and physical changes do influence learning. Retrospective reflection is part of learning.

The person is active in a search for an image, for words. Activities are interrupted, disturbed.

I do prefer the biological metaphor of the rhizome. The mechanical metaphor of a network sometimes makes knowledge understandable, but the rhizome is more fruitful for me.
A rhizome is growing, like knowledge is growing.

Karl E. Weick’s Konzept des “Sensemaking”

Intentionality is the subject in a discussion on Dave’s Educational Blog between Keith Hamon and Frances Bell.

In very short: the question is if a node in a knowledge network/rhizome, like you and me, is more than a reacting powerless object of the network/rhizome. (this is too short an abstract of the discussion, you should read it yourself)
This discussion reminds me of the problem of the Collective Unconscious and the Self of Jung. This collective unconscious of Jung is much wider than the personal unconscious of Freud. The collective unconscious of Jung connects us to the history of mankind, the myths and stories of our ancestry.

Karl E. Weick and Sensemaking could shine a light on this subject of agency in a network.

George Siemens mentions the nature of connections. Wonder if we could say that some/all connections are sense-making-connections?
“…Understanding. Coherence. Sensemaking. Meaning. These elements are prominent in constructivism, to a lessor extent cognitivism, and not at all in behaviourism. But in connectivism, we argue that the rapid flow and abundance of information raises these elements to critical importance…” George Siemens.

In therapy Jung tried to make sense in the lives of his patients, it is a nice parallelism.

Image: In Franfurt am Main (Deutschland) you find this statue “Ich” of Hans Traxler. (Ich = I / me). The statue is empty.

If you want to scoop my blog, do read the copyright first

In some scoop it publications people do publish texts of other people, without the name of the author of the copied text.

===============
LS
in your scoop it you mention one of my blogposts, as follows:

connectiv.wordpress.com – Today, 4:30 PM
Mensbeeld (Imaginem Humana) in a connectivist world #change11
If we want to know more about Connectivism as a theory of learning or knowledge or teaching, we could look at the “view of man” (mensbeeld) that is implied or expressed in connectivist texts.

Name of person
================

I think it is very strange your name is under this text. I did write the text, and I am willing to share it but you must mention my name. (I have a creative commons mention on my blog where you can find the rules for copyright)

I do not write this blog to get as much followers or readers as possible. You do not do me a favor by scooping my texts. I would rather want to read your comments on my blog.
Using scoop-it, could you tell me why you do scoop blogs? Nobody can make comments to your scoop-it publication.

The scoop-it team has a solution:

Hi,
Just like on any blog platform, you can use the edit part of the post to enter any kind of free text, including the author’s name. Here’s an example: http://www.scoop.it/t/web-content-digital-curation/p/1234597561/content-and-the-new-marketing-equation-by-brian-solis
NB: the original Web site is always mentioned as a source at the top of the post.
The Scoop.it Team

Rhizome or network in #change11

My network view of knowledge is simple: entities (broadly defined as well, anything: people, a chemical substance, information, etc) have attributes. When entities are connected to other entities, different attributes will be activated based on the structure of those connections and the nature of other entities that are being connected. This fluidity of attribute activation appears to be subjective, but in reality, is the contextual activation of the attributes of entities based on how they are related to other entities. Knowledge then is literally the connections that occur between entities. [http://www.connectivism.ca/?p=329]

in my drawing: E _n (a_n) :  Entity  has attributes.
aa _n: activated attributes.

1. Could we know all attributes of Entities?

2. Could we know which attributes will be activated?

3. Could we know the structure of the connections, and how this structure influences the activation of attributes?

4. If E ₁ is connected to E ₂ and to E ₃ lots of attributes do get activated. Can we know how the activated attributes influence Entities, structure of connections, other Attributes?

Can we know all attributes?

If Entity is a person, I do not know all attributes that influence learning. (health, drug use, personal history, earlier learning, motivation). I cannot know all attributes that do influence learning, and I cannot know how all these attributes do influence learning.
If Entity is information, attributes are name, value, authority of source, source, quality, minimum and maximum values, reliability, etc.
I cannot know all attributes because every attribute of Entity _information is another Entity_information

Information seems to be an infinite set.

Can we describe the knowledge network of a person or of a group?

Some networks have boundaries. the network of cells in a human body has boundaries. But do networks of knowledge have boundaries? Or maybe a better question, can we know the boundaries of the network of knowledge of a person or a group? Could we describe and make an inventory of all the knowledge and attributes and connections in a given network?
Could we make a difference between a network of knowledge and a rhizome in this regard? “…Rhizomatic learning is about embracing uncertainty. That’s the goal. Getting to the point in oneself, or helping someone else to get to the point where they are able to confront a particular system, challenge, situation whatever not knowing the answer and feeling like they can decide about it. I try to thinking of teaching, then, as mimicking the process of being confronted with uncertain situations, that develop the literacies required to deal with uncertainty…” [Dave Cormier]

Structure of connections in a learning knowledge network

Structure of connections could be: direction, one-way, two or more directions, capacity of connection, nature of connection, selectivity of connection, conscious or unconscious connection, etc.
Could I know what will be the structure of connections in a learning network?

Creativity

In a network of knowledge that is well known, mapped, described, creativity would be difficult, because creativity could be “connecting in a new way”. If creativity exists, than the network has some unknown corners.

I do not know if the differences between the metaphors of a network and a rhizome are that big.

I almost forget this: metaphors are not facts, metaphors are not theories.

Mensbeeld (Imaginem Humana) in a connectivist world #change11

If we want to know more about Connectivism as a theory of learning or knowledge or teaching, we could look at the “view of man” (mensbeeld) that is implied or expressed in connectivist texts.
A mensbeeld we call a set of assumptions and stories that relates to how people view human beings. Mensbeeld is Dutch for View of Man, Imaginem Humana (Latin), image humane (Fr).
Three bits of connectivist text to start with:
“Connectivism presents a model of learning that acknowledges the tectonic shifts in society where learning is no longer an internal, individualistic activity. How people work and function is altered when new tools are utilized. The field of education has been slow to recognize both the impact of new learning tools and the environmental changes in what it means to learn. Connectivism provides insight into learning skills and tasks needed for learners to flourish in a digital era.” [Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age, 2004, George Siemens]
Do people change when their culture changes? (are people autonomous and independent or are they victim of external forces?)
Do humans change their culture?
Is it human destination to flourish?
Has learning ever been an internal individualistic activity?

“This implies a pedagogy that (a) seeks to describe ‘successful’ networks (as identified by their properties, which I have characterized as diversity, autonomy, openness, and connectivity) and (b) seeks to describe the practices that lead to such networks, both in the individual and in society (which I have characterized as modeling and demonstration (on the part of a teacher) and practice and reflection (on the part of a learner)).” [What Connectivism Is, Stephen Downes, 2007]
Is success an important goal of humans in a connectivist mensbeeld?
Are autonomy, openness and connectivity and diversity also part of the connectivist mensbeeld?
“Active MOOC participants are individuals high in the psychological trait of conscientiousness, geared toward duty and achievement” Individual experiences in MOOCs, part 3 diversity openness, Heli Nurmi
How does connectivism deal with uncertainty and questions with no known answer?

“Where structures of connections (ie., networks) differ from sets of observations or measurements is that there is in principle no external entity to which we can appeal in order to check our understanding. In a networked society, every person is a member of the network, and all things being equal, there is not some other networked society against which we can test our conclusions (prior to the days of global communications, societies did test themselves one against the other, but unfortunately though war and other conflict, a solution that was worse than the problem and which clouded their ability to interpret connections in a rational and dispassionate way).” An Introduction to Connective Knowledge, Stephen Downes, 2005
Is being a member of a network a major property of the mensbeeld?
Will humans improve and forget war?
Will there be a future of peace and justice for all mankind?
Is the mensbeeld rational and dispassionate?

” …Creatagogy? This would be based on a pedagogy for human being where learning is viewed as a growth of creativity and capability for people, with technology as affordance, together with digital pedagogy and netagogy. ” Sui Fai John Mak
Is creativity an important trait for the mensbeeld in Connectivism?

(to be continued)

Ethics of connectivism in #change11

A MOOC is an attempt to apply connectivist theory. A MOOC is not only an applied epistemology and way of organizating learning, but also an ethic community.
Connectivism is about knowledge that exists in connections. Connections between people and their devices, and connections between information and knowledge components, etc. Without connections, no knowledge.
A MOOC is a way of learning. For higher order learning one needs attention. Alexandre Jollien, Le metier d’homme, éd. Du Seuil, Paris, (I did enjoy this little book) on attention and why we need other people. Jollien says autonomy does not imply non-connectedness. In his view connections, supportive human relations are crucial to autonomy. Heli: Psychological autonomy is a broader concept
Connectivism needs an ethics on connectivity and participation. I do not want to reopen a discussion on “lurking”. I do not want to make accusations. But without people investing time and attention in sharing knowledge a MOOC would be a dead environment.
A MOOC needs connected people.
An understanding of the complexity of social, conceptual, and biological connections along with the complexity of human needs and the diverse circumstances generating and emerging from these connections is an emerging process for connectivist understanding.

The ethics of connectivism is not an ethics of law and law-enforcement. The connectivist ethics is not of commandments, rules and accusations. In my view connectivism and philosophy of life do connect perfect.
The ethics of connectivism does not want to oblige people to connect, but to tempt, to invite, to seduce, to persuade to connect and to learn. If you want to enjoy the MOOC than you could help us by connecting. You could help us by making the MOOC a happy environment that fosters learning. We would love to share your enthusiasm and your company would make us happy.

Sui Fai John Mak: why do people leave the course (MOOC)? Could be a lack of motivation, due to the lack of connections, engagement and feedback when learning online.

In a MOOC are technical ways to connect. Howto connect to MOOC’ers.

Look at: http://www.fullcirc.com/2012/02/14/relating-community-activities-to-technologies/

Learning Design #change11 Questions from abroad.

(click for larger picture)
Some questions for this week of #change11:

Picture: I did enlarge the field “Global Elements”. This field is not connected to the other fields in the diagram. Why not? *)

How do “Learning Designers” manage to adapt to the diversity of learners (read comments!) and teachers?
How do Learning Designers design a rhizomatic learning course?
Do exist learning designers in a connectivist educational environment ?
When one is a learning designer and not a teacher how does one keep in touch with teachers and learners?
Is Learning Design still connected to behaviourism?
Do schools employ/use learning designers or do businesses?
Are teachers and students involved in Learning Design?
What are negative points in Learning Design? Does it really work? Do Learning Designers a better job than teachers who design their own course?
One could say I do Learning Design because I edit a teacher website with sources for teaching. http://softskills.kennisnet.nl, but I did not know this until now.
Is Learning Design Custom Made Education? Or is it one size fits all?
Does Learning Design need Testing and Assessments?
Is Learning complicated or complex or chaotic? Is Learning Design possible because of the complex or complicated nature of Learning?
According to Snowden, in the 21st century University we should be looking at more originality in undergraduate courses, as opposed to just teaching information. Is Learning Design able to originality in learning?
*) The question is how could distance/online learning address this context in the educational discourse, while designing curriculum to address the contexts of the global village?

Picture from Current Research in Learning Design, Rob Koper, Open University of the Netherlands, Educational Technology Expertise Centre changed by me.

#change11 Rhizomatic knowledge and translation

The question “Would it be helpful to translate knowledge with help of a symbolic, artificial language for better use of our information?” has a hidden presupposition in it. Behind this question is a view on information as an asset, as a possession. Another view is that information is endless, connected, and not a possession.
To translate is to lie, is an old saying. Translating a text will change the meaning of the text. ( “man” in English could mean “human being” and also “male person”. The translation of the English “man” in Dutch is “mens” (human being) and this Dutch “mens” sometimes is used for “female person”.)
Knowledge is not equal to information. The difference is not clear. For most people knowledge has more human-connected connotations and information sometimes is viewed as more independent of humans.
How could we use knowledge or information in a collective way?
Knowledge in a rhizomatic view is in connections between people, bits of information, sources like books and data-bases, in logical connections, creative connections, intuitive connections, analogical connections, in skills, in words pictures schemes sounds, etcetera.
Translating knowledge or information is making new connections, it is adding and subtracting information in an unexpected way.
Knowledge is endless.and uncertain. In the picture is a piece of stone. Just a little piece of granite from Sweden. If you could listen to the stories connected to this piece of granite! A geologist and a chemist would talk endless about this stone. I could tell you when and where we found it, why I kept it and why it is connected to the other pieces. Endless stories on a little piece of stone.

When we want to translate information of a piece of stone in an artificial language in order to make use of the information in a collaborative collective way, we would have to know what part of the endless information would be useful. But that we cannot know that, because that would depend on the outcome of the process.

To connect knowledge you need to connect people.

IEML questions #ieml #change11

So many questions on IEML? Why, what is it for?

The language target applications are ” collaborative semantic tagging (`balisage’) of any idea or concept available on the Web (blogs, images, software, documents, data in general) ” (source: http://www.ieml.org/spip.php?article152

I do not know the meaning of the “collaborative”. Is it the machine that does the tagging, or is it humans that do the tagging?
If it is the machine, to tag means to understand, do machines know what they say?
If it is the human, why this new language?

“.. collaborative semantic search, including comparison, merging and navigation … “

Again, this collaborative-word, Is IEML a way to Artificial Intelligence? Is IEML a kind of Esperanto for machines or for humans?

You write ” EML is more for the categorization of digital data than for direct expression ” (Facebook) How could a language make categorization easy? Is categorization a kind of abstract thinking, finding meaning?
The categories are not given to data in a automated way, categorization is a way to add meaning to data. How could a computer do that?

Brick and Mortar schools #change11

OECD rapport on education: Primary schools, schools for young students/pupils do need more money. Universities do receive 2-3 times as much as primary schools.
Teachers for younger pupils ( up to 12 years) should be paid better, get more assistance and better education on the job.
Where is your country in the diagram?
Do you agree on OECD?
More care for better education in the first years of Life?