Jeffrey Keefer said to me today: “You seem to have a large and wide network yourself. How do you foster that?”
The short answer to this is: “I actively seek out my network contacts and go where they go” or as Robert Scoble has said before: “I go where the conversations are.”
The longer explanation, as you might expect, is more involved that that.
Background
I’ve heard a couple of CCK08 students state that they had implemented Connectivism in practice long before they even knew what it was, or that it had a formal term. I’m starting to wonder whether the same applies to me.
I never made a conscious decision to follow the path that I’m on now, it just happened that way. The learning process I’ve experienced was never scripted or planned in advance. When I had an interest, I explored it. If I didn’t understand something, I researched it. If I couldn’t find the information I was after, I looked for people who might know where I could find the information.
I discovered very quickly that learning what you want to know is as much about who you know (depth, quality and diversity of connections) as it is about the subject matter itself. One of the interesting by-products of this is I’m no longer afraid to say “I don’t know.” There’s just too much information in the world to know everything. For me the only crime is to not ask questions, or to let uncertainties go unresolved. When I say “I don’t know” now, it’s inevitably followed by “…but I’m going to find out.”
[Often times this is then followed by, "Who would be a good person to talk to about this?"]
Developing my networks
In response to Jeffrey’s question, my approach to fostering networks has more or less always been the same – even when I wasn’t consciously doing it. I begin by determining my own position on something – my values, opinions, objectives, goals, ideals, etc. – and then start to seek out others who shared these characteristics.
For example, in my early blogging life I was a left-wing political blogger. When establishing that network I began by searching for bloggers who had similar opinions and values as I did. When I discovered a potential candidate I would read everything they wrote and would contribute comments as frequently as possible to try and build a relationship or connection with them. I’d also start to pay attention to the people they had listed as contacts, or who were contributing comments themselves. When I discovered someone I’d visit their blog and go through the process all over again.
Overtime this caused my network to slowly grow, and with it my awareness of what was going on in the world.
Even after shifting focal points to elearning and emerging technology my approached has remained more or less the same – though at times it took me a while to realise it was up to me to seek people out.
For example, when I first started using Twitter I thought it was really stupid. I made no attempts for months to establishing any contacts, and as a result I felt like I was talking to myself and the application was a complete waste of time. Then eventually I followed one person. He had some interesting people in his contacts list, so I followed them. Eventually I began to reply to their Tweets, share information about myself, ask questions, and respond to the questions of others.
Ultimately what had started as a “stupid” tool has over time become something I rely quite heavily on to link me into my learning network.
Go where the conversation is
The other important idea for me is the network is key and the environment in which the interaction occurs is just a detail. I have slowly but steadily expanded my online activities across a web of different tools – each of which is suited to a different purpose.
The above illustration depicts what I like to call my core “PLN toolset.” Each item represents a different way I connect with my learning network. It’s important to note here though that my PLN includes information resources as well as people, and is not limited to online activities. Phone and face-to-face interaction is just as important and just as valuable.
The key for me, ultimately, was the realisation that the building of a network requires action; it requires an investment into seeking people out, getting to know them, and over time helping them get to know you.
What! No gmail chat?
Hi Artie,
I will use Gmail Chat from time to time but have never really liked having my chat clients tied to a browser. I prefer having them independent because I’m fairly minimalistic in my computer use. I have as few programs running at a given time as I possibly can. I also find I tend to miss messages that come through via Gmail Chat – that’s just a personal usage preference though really.
Then again that entire diagram is one big usage preference
The problem with GoogleTalk though is it’s never integrated AIM connectivity. I hate the fact Gmail Chat offers it but not the desktop client – it makes no sense to me. Not like Google is short on cash or developers or something!
Cheers,
Mike
Hi!
I find what you write very interesting and helpful. I started connecting through Internet 15 years ago but only with emails to my overseas friends and students, three years ago I took an online course and got hooked.
Your post made me realize that instinctively we look for people with our same views to share what we know and ask what we do not know.
Your idea of connecting with a goal, to be honest, produced relief. I struggled with the idea of “using” others,though I have seen that is beneficial for those involved somehow I was not comfortable with it.
Only after reading your clear exposition I understood better what I do with my connections, I have a clearer picture of why people follow me and why they stop doing so and vice versa.
I am too far from you, the tools I use to connect are few, I invest long hours using them. I guess that as soon as I learn how to use them comfortably I will add more.
Thanks for sharing. Love: Maru
Mike,
Your readers might be interested in following your advice, by reading the advice of a number of ‘connected’ educators. A while back I posted a survey about “Building a Learning Network” and the results provide plenty of sage advice.
The survey is here:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?key=pQx_n-2yR_9R2EYIZOFSiEA
And the results of the survey appear in a table below… Just scroll down to see what others have suggested as tools and strategies for ‘growing a network’.
Hi Maru,
Glad that post was of some use to you, though I would like to clarify a couple of points.
Sharing a common view isn’t necessarily a criteria for me in the people I learn from. In fact some diversity and differences of opinion can and are quite important to have. In a purely homogeneous network I think the learning opportunities would be far smaller.
The significance to me at least is in network cohesion and mutual respect. For me at least this is a critical criteria in order to ensure openness to other view points.
For example, I thrive in healthy discussion, am reluctant to participate in passionate debate, and flatly block out arguments.
Regarding the notion of connecting with a purpose, I think it’s important to differentiate between establishing an open connection with someone who shares a similar vision or experiences, and just using them to achieve an objective.
Another characteristic of a healthy network for me is two-way flow of information and support. I think it’s important to contribute as much – if not more – back to your network as you absorb.
This isn’t to say that every person you seek out for information or advice will – or even should – become part of your network. Rather that our motives should be fairly clear to others from the outset. It’s only fair to them. Besides, I think transparency is an important element in fostering trust.
Finally regarding the number of tools I use. It’s important to note several ideas here:
First of all this is just what works for me. It’s not a recommendation for other people; just my particular circumstances. If you have everything you need in one tool, so much the better
Secondly, by profession I am an eLearning Researcher, and as a result I experiment with a ridiculous amount of stuff. I have accounts in more places that I can remember and rule out a large proportion of applications. What you see in the diagram is just the tip of the iceberg of all the different things I’ve tried.
So my PLN is quite possibly far more involved than other people’s. In fact in some cases there are tools that aren’t even crucial to me; I’ve just grown to like them.
At the end of the day the only significant criteria for a PLN is whether or not it works for you, and enables you to connect with the people you need it to.
Cheers,
Mike
I’m an early adapter of Twitter, and now a user perhaps a few times a week. You could accomplish the establishment of a network with probably half the tools you are listing because they overlap, and quite a few of them are useless and silly, like Lively is now (without UGC or ad-share) or Pageflake (its name describes it).
I will continue to express skepticism and speak out forcefully with my criticism of the Web 2.0 shill, and your efforts to silent such critiques by branding them triballing as “trolling” will get a pushback from me.
Hi Catherine,
As I said previously, all this is just what works for me. It’s not a recommendation for others. If people don’t see use or value in an application, there’s no point in using it. Personal Learning Networks are called Personal for a reason after all.
Secondly regarding skepticism, once again I have no problem with dissent – in fact I think it’s a healthy thing. I see no logic in adopting something just because everyone else has, no matter how big the fad. The ultimate decision needs to be founded on something of far greater substance that that.
The problem I have is in the mistreatment of others during debate. Being passionate in an argument is one thing; being insulting is entirely another. I see no place for the latter in this course at all.
Realistically though I think people do themselves and their arguments a disservice when they adopt that tact anyway. To at least a certain percentage of people, harsh language immediately discredits the overall argument. This may not be the case from a factual standpoint, but if people stop listening to you, you’re no better off anyway.
If the point is to convince people of your opinion, couching the argument in language that is palatable is likely to be far more successful.
Cheers,
Mike
Hi Rodd,
Thanks very much for the link. I’ll read through the responses with interest!
Cheers,
Mike
Hi Mike, So nice to ‘meet’ you (thank you for stopping by my blog). Thanks to your advice I have now successfully reduced the inundation of CCK08 emails in my inbox. I also decided to follow your example and focus on reading blogs rather than all the discussion threads. I have found quite a few very informative and useful blogs today, yours being one of them. As I am an absolute beginner in forming my own PLE I found this post of yours particularly helpful. Your experiences encourage me to finally try Twitter, which I’ve hesitated to start using fearing it would be another dangerous ‘time eater’. Later on I’d like to use what I learn personally for the benefit of my students, too. The only dilemma in my mind at the moment is, though, how to avoid boring teacher-initiated school-style stuff, but instead truly facilitate students’ personal discoveries. But as you wrote, by participating actively I’m sure I will find some good answers along the road. Thank you once again for your inspiration!
Cheers!
Sinikka
Hi Sinikka,
Glad I could be of some help to you
As far as developing your PLE/PLN goes, this will come in time, so not to worry. I think starting small early on is a safe way to go – this helps you avoid information inundation until you’ve established a way of working and navigating through everything.
As far as Twitter goes, I did find there was a usage curve with it. As I was growing accustomed to it I only used it a bit; then I saw the personal value in it and used it too much. Now I’ve more or less reached a healthy middle ground in which I use it when needed and turn off when I need to focus elsewhere.
As with PLNs, it’s all a matter of finding your comfort zone I think.
If you do end up using Twitter with your students I’d be really interested in hearing your experiences. I don’t know of many – in fact only one person – who’s tried it, but I can’t recall the result of his experiment.
If there’s anything else I can do to assist please let me know. In the meantime it’s great to meet you
Cheers,
Mike
Just a quick question for clarification: Is the networking you are talking about tied in Web 2.0? People did network pre-Web 2.0 and much earlier even pre-Internet as we know it now (web) using technological tools available then. Was that not networking or is the our context is really just Web 2.0?
Cheers,
wl
Hi WL,
Very good question – I should have been a bit clearer about that. In my case almost my entire learning network is online, so I didn’t think to make the distinction.
But you’re too right, “networking” (at least in my interpretation) doesn’t have to be online to be external/social in the sense that we’re talking about in Connectivism. In fact I don’t think there needs to be any technology involved at all.
For example I think that much of what Etienne Wenger talks about in Communities of Practice could be considered a “network.” In some ways it’s a bit unfortunate that the word “network” is being used here, since there are so many different interpretations and connotations for the term, which can give way to misunderstanding. So I’m glad you pointed this out.
Personally when I use the term I tend to be all inclusive and refer to the idea of people connecting with one another in some form – be it face-to-face, telephone, online, or even snail mail.
The importance for Connectivism – and in fact for all learning in general I think – is that in connecting with a network (or interacting with other people if you prefer), we are able to externalise and “socialise and negotiate around knowledge”. Then having done this we’re better able to establish “frameworks or structures for sense-making”.
In the case of the latter I don’t think externalising is a prerequisite for establishing frameworks and structures, but I do think it helps.
Basically I don’t think Web 2.0 has cornered the marked on ways to connect with others, but it certainly has facilitated it on a massive scale.
Does that answer your question?
Cheers,
Mike
Yes thanks Mike. Appreciate your response and it has helped clarified my initial question on networking. I certainly agree that Web2.0 has facilitated this on a massive scale and where there is Internet or mobile access.
Someone remarked on the forums that there is no one from Africa in the course and I noticed that for some other parts of the world, too. This connectivism is also contingent on Internet access and there is a digital divide in some parts of society both in developed and developing countries. I was reminded of this recently when I asked a student to download a piece of s/w. Even though he is in Hong Kong, he only had 56k modem access… and it was timing out. So had to resort to snail mail to send him the s/w. That is like some of the students we have in remote parts of Australia: they don’t stay connected for long periods just when they need to: it’s expensive from them to connect and they experience slow connectivity. SL won’t work for them.
Cheers
wl
Yeah that’s definitely an issue anytime you start to involve technology I think – the accessibility considerations. Accessibility is an important issue even before considering a distributed learning model; this increases the complexity enormously.
Adding to that there are comfort and learning preferences to contend with as well. For example I love learning this way, but some people hate it. So for institutions there are several big questions to resolve I think.
I think students should be given the opportunity to explore this learning model, but there will have to be an avenue that is preserved for students who prefer more traditional instruction. The question is how to actually implement that – especially given the shrinking budgets and expanding expectations.
This is the aspect of Connectivism I’m particularly interested in exploring with everyone – the practical elements of it.
Do you have any thoughts on that (that question is open to anyone for that matter)?
Cheers,
Mike
Great thinking here, Mike. Glad my question urged this on (though wish you would have pointed to it and not to my blog’s home page!).
While what you are speaking about seems like networking skills 101, something I have never been tremendously good at, part of my hesitation has always been what I perceive as salemanship or marketing. In other words, I often have the perception that people network because they want something, and it is in the WIIFM (What’s In It For Me?) that I often feel some motive that is beyond simple interest. I want this, so I will follow you until I get it, or I will network with that one because I want the contacts, and the like.
I have always struggled with networking for its own sake rather than seeking meaning or pushing thinking along to new and more complex levels. I suppose this may be an oversimplification, but am glad you are raising these issues as they are indeed furthering my own thinking here.
Hi Jeffrey,
First off I’ve updated the link to point directly to your post.
Secondly you make a very interesting point (WIIFM), and I definitely share your reservations there. That’s one of the things I wanted to clarify on Maru’s comment when I said “I think it’s important to contribute as much – if not more – back to your network as you absorb.”
I don’t mean to imply we’re building up networks in the sense professionals do with business contacts – to me establishing networks in a learning context is a very different thing.
I need to think about the best way to describe what I mean (watch this space), but essentially I believe that learners can benefit each other best when there are some commonalities between them. So perhaps it’s better to think along the lines of seeking out friends who you share things in common with; or alternatively which neighborhood you would like to move into. Does that make sense?
So when you referred to “seeking meaning or pushing thinking along to new and more complex levels” that’s where my interests lay as well. I’m just having some trouble expressing my point clearly
Cheers,
Mike
just wondered what software you had used for this map, thanks,
ailsa
Hi Ailsa,
This particular map was created with MindMeister. I’m sort of experimenting with several options to figure out which one I like the best. MindMeister was definitely easy to use but it’s somewhat restrictive in that you can’t create cross-linkages to show more complex relationships.
For my preliminary concept (shown here) I used CMAP.
Have you found one you like yet?
Cheers,
Mike
Hi everyone, Very pertinent points raised here, eg WIIFM, which alone is certainly not a desirable starting point for educational networks. Coming across teachers who tempt you and your students as partners in international online school projects only to get eg. kudos for themselves, case examples for their PhD or a monetary prize in a competition, in my experience, restricts the dialogue and usually makes it only one-way. Partners feel being used. The same goes for teachers who simply get excited about new technology (nothing wrong with that!), or start using it in the hope of some bonus salary from their employer. They typically choose a topic from their curriculum that somehow involves foreign countries, then find suitable international partners, but only use them as informants. Again only one-way. Sometimes, I’m sure, teachers do this without even realizing, as they get so carried away with the enticing world of web 2.0 and motivating their own students. I have met all these types, and learned a lot. Surely made similar mistakes myself – *blush*. I couldn’t stress the importance of two-way dialogue, give and take, enough. At least I still want to instill empathy, mutual respect and true collaboration in my students even in these rather market force led times of looking after number one. Personally, though, I am struggling with gaining enough understanding and experience to be a worthwhile partner to others. It does help enormously not having to ‘reinvent the wheel’ when there are helpful colleagues around the world to learn from, but by reading their blogs, asking them questions and benefiting from their ideas, aren’t I just as guilty of using them when my own net presence is still in its infancy? I agree that this learning model is definitely not for all students (or teachers for that matter). A lot of inner motivation, self-directness, and social skills are needed, but as Mike pointed out above, how to implement this for those students who are ready and keen is a very complex question.
Hi Sinikka,
Fantastic points – I’m really glad you used examples to express your point too because for me at least it really shined a light on the difference between transparent, two-way collaboration, and that which has a premeditated outcome that disproportionately serves the interests of only a few people. I’m definitely not trying to advocate the latter.
As far as your comment here is concerned:
Personally I don’t think you are guilty of WIIFM here. In my view, the opportunity to help others is critical in a network for several reasons.
There is of course the opportunity to give back some of the benefits that you’ve reaped from others – as I’ve said that’s an important value IMO – but to me there’s far more to it than that.
For example, I find in trying to help someone make a conceptual connection I come to understand the connections better myself – this may serve to reinforce my existing understandings of something, or in the case of this thread force me to re-examine my position. In both instances the outcomes realised through the interaction is one of mutual-benefit. We’re both better off after the discussion than before. Plus the knowledge realised through the connection can start to spread across the network, which strengthens and enhances it.
This seems to be part of the first three principles of all learning theories that was outlined in the Week one readings:
It’s sort of like the idea that you don’t really know if you understand something until you can explain it to others I guess.
Also, I think that the shared exploration of complex concepts in this way can foster a healthy network too in that we begin to develop shared experiences and a common history.
Would you agree?
Late for work, gotta dash
Cheers,
Mike
Hi Mike,
Yes, I agree with you very much. I remember seeing a slide at a conference once (sorry, can’t find the reference straight off) of how we only learn a small percentage of what we hear, or see, but we learn best what we teach to others. Which, of course, begs the question about traditional teacher-centred classrooms whether it’s actually the teacher there who keeps learning the most
It’s quite challenging, but so exciting, to be a teacher today learning to negotiate meanings and knowledge with the students, instead of the old one-way transfer of information.
It’s so true about the need to externalise. I feel as though all I do in this course is to externalise my introspection about some of the contents. But you know, I think there is probably a difference in communication cultures playing a role here, too. I come from a culture leaning towards the ‘high context eastern’ type (according to an old theory by Edward T. Hall) where ‘silence is golden’, and people in general are very hesitant to say anything (let alone write about it on the net!) unless they are absolutely certain that they have an informative, well justified, carefully formulated fact-like view to express. Maybe this applies to many people in other cultures, too? Somehow seeing your thoughts ‘printed’ in black and white on the screen seem to require a lot more expertise than most believe they have. Add to that the use of a foreign language, and many will feel even more on thin ice. But this is rather beside the point…
Tonight I will concentrate on learning about ‘rhizomatic knowledge’ and after the weekly reading I am going to read your blog post on that.
‘See’ you around!
Sinikka
Hi Sinikka,
You said:
Too true
You know, your point about cultural differences never occurred to me for some reason and it’s a very interesting one that warrants some exploration I think. As a matter of fact I don’t think it’s besides the point at all – it’s quite an important one actually.
What we’re talking about in Connectivism (among other things) is how connections take place – since that’s where the theory says the learning process occurs (hope I’m saying that right). When we start to consider aspects like cultural norms, language differences, and those of self-perception – all of these have a direct impact on how we choose to connect (or choose not to), and conditions in which connections take place.
I have a suspicion it’s not something most people ever think about. After all, when we’re online the sense of geographic boundaries is largely eliminated and I think there is more of a feeling of “One Internet Nation” of which we’re all digital citizens. Differences in culture and interpersonal communication may not be as apparent – or I wonder if that’s actually true (not sure). What do you think?
In the context of internationalisation, there are some really interesting implications for things like Rhizomatic Knowledge and how people interact with each other online.
Taking this one step further, someone in Session 2 of yesterday’s Elluminate meetings (I think it was “gminks”) asked about the need for a “base level of knowledge”. If we were to get really philosophical, we might say that there is no “base level of knowledge” since it would relate to how the individual perceives the knowledge – which is not going to be a universal attribute.
Also because each individual’s circumstances are different, their context is different and they’re therefore likely to see the same knowledge pool differently.
So, at least insofar as Connectivism is concerned, if no two people look at the same pool of knowledge in exactly the same way, and knowledge, language and truth are dependent on context, effectively you can’t have a canon; the reality is distributed across the network.
Am I making any sense here?
Cheers,
Mike