a. Comment on your reasons for joining #rhizo14, your level of participation and your experiences of the “course”.
Wanted to know more about rhizome in pedagogics. Fascinating subject, lots of people are looking for better education.
Reconnect to mooc people of other moocs.
Stay in tune with new types of mooc.
Wanted to know more about rhizomatic learning.
Continuing the course also because of social structure and processes in the group. Could one say: When content is more unsure and fuzzy, than social processes tend to become more intense?
I could not tell what is rhizomatic learning in one sentence. If you need more than one sentence to tell someone what you are talking about than some more thinking is needed.
b. Comment on your experiences of inclusion/exclusion in this community
Start was very inclusive.
Did meet some very nice people, enjoyed doing the course.
Tried to discuss critically this rhizomatic learning thing, I guess cultural and language difficulties did not help here. Got not too much critical answers.
Too much inclusion does not foster debate. I prefer some more resistance and discussion. The social processes in the groups (lots of likes and love and friendliness) prevented a more critical attitude in general? Or is this a cultural divide?
About rhizomatic learning: The idea of Rhiz Learning seems to be an attempt to change school pedagogics. Outside school and outside formal courses learning most of time is not well defined and not embedded in authoritarian structures. That informal could be called rhizomatic learning. But I still doubt if the word rhizomatic does add anything to the definition of (non-school or formal) learning. (Ockhams razor comes in mind, Entia non sunt praeter necessitatem multiplicanda)
My question ” Is auto etnography scientificly sound? Self report in psychology is low level research, how about etnography? ” is a methodological question.