You said:

“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”

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

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

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:

“…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?”

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:

1. We have a need to externalise;
2. We have a need for frameworks or structures for sense-making;
3. We have a need to socialise and negotiate around knowledge;

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

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

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

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.

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

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