This (see under) text makes me think, so I will rip it to pieces and comment on it for some days. (is this a reductionist way of reading?)
“…What are the limitations of this [rhizomatic] approach? Cormier admits that it fits some areas better than others. It is well suited when learners whish to push beyond current limits. However, much of education consists of finding out what is already within the boundaries. …” (1)
“… To acquire all knowledge the rhizomatic way, seems inefficient, involving a lot of “reinventing the wheel.” It is building on the knowledge of others that allow people to proceed quickly to the boundaries. …” (1)
Knowledge is a very special thing. It is not clear how one could acquire knowledge on building on the knowledge of others. Maybe you could know knowledge your learned and build more knowledge on it?
The constructivist (amongst others) view on learning is reductionistic, (Keith Hamon). To view a difference between rhizomatic learning and constructivist or other forms of learning is a reductionist view, based on identity. Don Steward mentioned the cyborg theory of Donna Haraway Deleuze did not so much ‘invent’ another way of thinking, but wanted to underline unity and connectedness of views.
Rhizomatic is not a choice of a learning student or a teacher, it is a philosophy of knowledge. And Dave Cormier uses the rhizome of Deleuze as a metaphor for learning.
“… I was thinking that courses were about CONTENT … What the rhizome metaphor is meant to impart is that the learning process is rhizomatic, it moves, shift, sprouts at different times and places (and different for different people). It’s many. …. By starting without a set curriculum, by thinking of the learning process (and by extension the content) as growing OUT of the learning process, i offered up all the options, the ways of seeing things to my students… allowing them to find their own paths… (to be nomads)….” Dave Cormier
What is the difference between learning with a rhizomatic teacher or a constructivist teacher? Is the learning dependent of the view of the teacher?
“… This is not to say that the approach should not be used until the boundaries are reached. Providing a space for individuals to extend the limits of their knowledge can be very exciting and motivational. It can also be very tiring, even tedious to be required to do all learning this way. Rhizomatic learning is one approach, but not the only one. Use it, but use it along with other approaches. …” (1)
As a student I did not follow exactly the course (In Dutch course has two translations, ‘koers’ meaning the route of a ship and ‘cursus’ meaning a set of lessons) the school prescribed. Does any student follow a course without excursions and bypasses. Is tailored education a more rhizomatic way of learning and teaching than ‘normal’ teaching?
“… I don’t think rhizomatic learning can be used particularly effectively to address grading, or curriculum, or most of the structures of systemic education. The rhizome is not a way of tweaking the systems we have. …” Bon Steward
I have a feeling serendipity and regarding knowledge in the rhizomatic way somehow are connected. ”Serendipity is like searching for a needle in a haystack, and roll out with a country girl” , as a Dutch researcher (Pek van Andel) said . Haystack and plate with noodles are images of the rhizome metaphor.
(1) text is from http://cbran250.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/rhizomatic-learning-why-we-teach/ Attention! It is my opinion and my reading of this text that is discussed on this blogpost and not the intentions and meanings of Cbran250 .
