Value assumptions in clMooc

First some vocabulary. Equity might be ownership, educational equity , fairness in distribution of resources. Or just fairness or justice.

Manuscript Illustration Depicting the Taking of Damietta During the Fifth Crusade

First:  Try to understand why this equity value is so important in clmooc.  Is it something like equal rights? Is it about equal admission and access for all?  Is this  value important in USA, in education in USA?
In the declaration of human rights access to education is mentioned, is this what you mean by equity? in a Discussion of connection learning values it is explained. I think Open, as in open source is living next-door equity. I do value Open, that is why I am not very pleased with Google+ as a central place in this MOOC.

The other value is called  Full Participation. Is that a value that expresses the duty to do as much as you can? Or is it a value like (my understanding of) equity, is it the value of equal access? Is this one of the values of democracy?  Is it what feminist value in equal rights? CLMOOC has some problem with full participation, because it is rather ‘creator-centered’

Social embeddedes-ness. I have a feeling I do understand this word. But I do not know what the value is behind this word? Does it mean that in a Mooc and in connected learning one has to be connected to other people?  If this is so, is this social embedded-ness  a form, a way of doing learning?  Part of being human is connectedness and is social embeddedness in my view. But why call it  a value? What do I read wrong in this value?

My values are things like curiosity and freedom. Education is the way to guard freedom and curiosity is why I am learning.

We could talk about values, but credo’s are not my  favorite texts. (Look at the picture why) So I will just ask questions about values this week.

(image Emyoku project)


10 thoughts on “Value assumptions in clMooc

  1. I’m not comfortable with “credo” either or with how some of the points expressed have a prescriptive quality to them ~ and, as you point out, aren’t clear, at least not matching my understanding. Open that is not and Full Participation both go the connectivist grain. I’m still working on reflections (plural) and (low bandwidth, housebound) mapping anyway ~ not just because it is an assignment.

  2. Reply to Vanessa: A credo is just a way of getting at values, yours in particular. I completely agree that learning philosophies are not “one size fits all”. To me the credo is like a touchstone. When you rub your own values across it, what happens? For a gold merchant, it decides whether or not that rubbed object is made of gold. What does it mean for you? Even if you don’t like the word’s connotations, I think there is value in them. The idea in this week’s make cycle is not to glorify and internalize these values as if from Mount Sinai, but rather to clarify them, to keep some, to change some, or to reject altogether because, ultimately, it is your values we want to clarify. And you want to clarify them in your own time and in your own way then I sing and celebrate your choice.
    I think of the values as an analytic tool. They are like a particular knife among many in the drawer and you want to try it out. When the task is complete you may decide that it was the wrong knife for the job. It wasn’t the knife’s fault. It just didn’t fit. In the same way you may decide like Jaap hints that the values are too narrow. That they need to include curiosity and freedom. Or maybe that they need to be re-articulated to be made to do so.
    My final point is that you already have a default value system and that connected learning values might be as handy as a pocket on a shirt for you or …not. Help us with your understanding because I guarantee that I and others have similar questions that you might be the answer to.

  3. I am so pleased that you are asking these questions. I am asking them, too. I think that I will use your questions as a starting point in tonight’s discussion of connected learning values. I personally believe that these are not the only learning values nor that they are the best, but I do think that they are at the core of the discussion about what our learning values should be in a digitally connected universe. They are not American values. I know it is unpopular to say this but I think that they are universal values. I think that if we don’t have the discussion, then what we get are the default values–and who knows what the hell they are anymore.

  4. I’m still reflecting and mapping, #clmooc is 3-4 networks down the list. Two are unpaid (not drinking the Queen’s shilling says no to shilling) public and community service networks. Other include educational outreach. Short version: wysiwig.

  5. PS then there are the Open and access issues. Don’t get me started on G+ ~ more than half the time it won’t load completely on dial-up, too flash heavy and a bandwidth hog. I can’t run most of the suggested apps for makes. So much for Full Participation (not defined but should clarify as access permits and recommend bandwidths). At the very least, if #credomaking were open, the resources doc would be open for collaboration.

  6. Jaap. I have been thinking about embeddedness (that word looks odd) a lot. Folks who have been researching and writing about this just say ‘social connection’ but I think that there is a continuum of connectedness. There are people who lurk. Some might say they are disconnected if they don’t engage in any way, but I happen to disagree. Even if we don’t know who those who lurk are, they are connected at least one way to the #clmooc. They are accessing something and getting something out of it even if that something is that they don’t want to engage. Then there is the connection people make who post and don’t comment. They are engaging with the G+ community in a way that suits them. This might be full participation to them. We invited them and they posted. There are a lot of nuances here, but at some point if you lurk long enough and you post long enough and you comment often enough you begin to feel embedded in the community. There is an expression in English that comes from poker players. In poker you have to ‘ante up’ to even get to play. To be embedded means that you have ‘skin in the game’ . You can win and you can lose, but either way you are a player. Not a lurker. Not only a poster. The word embeddedness comes from David Gauntlett in his book Making is Connecting.

  7. Interesting thread – I’m also thinking about ‘credo’ as a made thing. I like the notion of an open resources doc for collective credo making.

    But mostly I’ve been cross-walking between the creation of the connected learning model and this discussion. Two things that this discussion really brought to mind for me are
    1) that the model is a set of design principles that is intended to be inspirational as opposed to definitive/defining. Of the values, one would ask, how can I design more broadly for these values? But one does not achieve them in absolute sense. The questions about access and participation deeply point that out. The related,
    2) the value statements in the CL model refer to design elements of an environment but not, necessarily, for the learner. So an environment that values full participation may not achieve it (as point #1), but such environment does not of necessity demand that each participant devote fully to participation. Individuals choose, manage, decide and cannot be compelled by the environment to perform.

    There may be companion values that learners would espouse. An interesting dive might be into the online learner’s bill of rights … which caused much controversy last January.

  8. I think we need to find a way to open up the collaboration up with you or if you are too busy (and it certainly sounds like it) to folks like you who because of whatever issue don’t feel included, no–aren’t included.
    I identify with the bandwidth issue living in rural Kentucky like I do. Commercial providers cherry pick the higher density population centers and leave the ‘boondocks’ to fend for themselves with dial-up or satellite Internet. And that is, in the end, a political issue. And politics is all about values or as the political philosopher Harold Lasswell once defined as “Who Gets What, When, How.” I am part of both a rural electric and rural telephone cooperative that was enabled by the federal government over sixty years ago. I had to bang the drum slowly but hard for quite a while to get them to bring DSL to the boondocks and as Frost said, that has made all the difference.
    So how do we do this? How do we make dial-up amenable instead of treating it as a pain in the ass that is easier to ignore that address? When you think about it we aren’t really doing a thing to make the collaboration possible for folks who are blind, are we? That is one of those values we do not live up to, isn’t it? This is the Model-T digital era in so many ways. Not only is it difficult to include everybody but corporations are doing their level best to hijack the whole shebang! What you are asking for is not unreasonable in light of what we say we stand for, but I need help figuring out how to do that. I am grateful for the head’s up. I had not really thought in any particular way about access and I should. How many people in the world can actually afford hardware and real access?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s