Marram grass

Want to rethink lurking

Miranda Warning

The elusiveness of the term community, or perhaps the jaded quality of the word raises the challenge of mapping “community” in any useful sense. The idea of community as curriculum could be understood as essentially getting rid of the concept of curriculum and working with the “community” at hand. This is a useful approach that I have found works well with demotivated learners, and though I have not participated UMW’s ds106 course seems to work in a similar direction very successfully.

If however curriculum is still a useful notion, and we wish to frame community as curriculum, then we need to further discuss what community involves. In a previous post I mentioned some of the elements that may form part of it, but left out perhaps the most important one, perhaps because it is so obvious, interaction. Communities involve interactions between individuals and groups of individuals and indeed with other…

View original post 117 more words

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Marram grass

  1. The notion of interaction is important but so is genuine participation. A community can virtually glow from the movement of interacting exchanges and still be a falsehood of privileged membership or the deadness of genuine outreach responded to with flippancy or obvious un-hearing. Maybe this is what is meant by “serial monologue”? An exchange without touching? Just received a copy of Böhm in the mail and will need to see what he says.
    Do you think the idea of community needs updating for the dis-locality of the online space? Or are we building this space as we go? Thanks for the posting.

  2. Hi, thanks for commenting. This community question again. It is difficult to name a new howshallwecallit like the people in #rhizo14. Some teachers do like their classes to be a unity, a community. And classes seldom are more than a bunch of students sharing the same teacher. The #rhizo14 network is a network, people connected by a common website, subject, teacher? Some of the network are more close than other parts. That could be groups?

  3. Listening to Bonnie’s interview today has me thinking of something without a centre but still somehow bound like a river between its banks. Is there a word for mutual sharing? I don’t want to become too exotic but we are attracted to the unknown we might draw towards someone or something that shares knowledge which brings us closer to balance? We don’t need to be alike to balance each other. Or maybe not balance but steady each other? So instead of having a common centre we have a diversity of needs and understandings that mingle in a way that is alive. Not stationary or resolved but coherent.

    Can this coherence apply to all contexts and all mixes of participants? This level of connection seems to happen almost purely by chance, uncaused and in-deliberate. Need to think more on this.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s