Do we have to read and study ‘Rhizome’ a chapter in ‘Capitalisme et schizophrenie, mille plateaux’ of Gilles Deleuze et Felix Guattari in order to understand rhizomatic learning? Is reading D&G about rhizomes necessary for #rhizo14 participants?
Dave Cormier did some writing on rhizomatic learning and added a long list of sources. The metaphor of the rhizome is of Deleuze&Guattari but in the list of sources is more than D&G. In a post on a garden Dave Cormier does use the rhizome as a metaphor. It is about the complexity of our knowledge. Here Dave does explain ‘rhizomatic’ without even mentioning Deleuze. So why did he introduce D&G in the discourse about rhizomatic learning?
Why should we read D&G to improve teaching, to improve learning, to understand knowledge?
What do D&G add to the concept of rhizomatic learning?
Why should educators and teachers start reading philosophy before improving teaching and education?
Dave Cormier: There is an assumption in both theories [social contructivist and connectivist pedagogies,] that the learning process should happen organically but that knowledge, or what is to be learned, is still something independently verifiable with a definitive beginning and end goal determined by curriculum.
That could be true, but D&G are not necessary in this debate, for this view is shared with a lot of epistomologists. Knowledge is not independently verifiable and knowledge is a very abstract concept without clear borders.
Or: Looking at the data from another angle, we can clearly see that Elsie cow (far left) has 65 edge duplicates, a clear distinction in opposition to Clara (far right). Or as D&G would say, there is a clear topography of strawberries aligning themselves with both smooth and striated spaces.
We could discuss rhizomatic learning without talking about D&G.
Image NONAKA. I: TAKEUCHI. I H. Criação de conhecimento na empresa. Rio de Janeiro : Campus. 1997. (about knowledge creation)