This post began as a short comment to Lisa Lane’s post “A World Run by Buffs” by quickly grew into something much larger than that. I’ve been a lurker on her blog for some time now and have found her commentary to be very valuable – especially the critical analysis of the topics being discussed in the course.
Just for context, my background is in educational technology. I’m now trying to expand my understanding of learning theories and their practical application, so when educators approach me about new tools my response and recommendations can be more informed and holistic. I don’t see technology as the end all and be all. The learning is the most important factor; and the incorporation of any technology needs to support the objectives of the learner. It’s therefore dependent on the context it’s to be used in. In some cases the best technical solution is “none.”
So when Lane says “I am aware that [educational technology] is new and trendy, and subject to its own changing norms” I’m quite conscious of this and think a critical eye or healthy degree of skepticism is well placed.
In terms of Connectivism there are some big questions for me as to where and in what circumstances things are practical, and when they’re not. On the topic of Rhizomatic Knowledge things are even more complicated. In that respect some of Lane’s points are quite logical; though I do have a couple of thoughts to add to the discussion.
As a caveat, it’s been ages since I studied history, so please forgive me if I take an overly simplistic approach.
First, in terms of canonical knowledge – specifically with regards to history. As the saying goes, “History was written by the victors.” To what degree, I wonder, is this saying based in reality?
For example, Connectivism talks about knowledge being distributed and that everything – including language, and even the concept of “truth” – depends on context. If we buy that notion for a moment, then to what degree then could we infer that some of the canons of history – and in fact most subjects – are representative only of a certain context (perspective, conditions, beliefs, etc) and not wholly inclusive of the entire complex reality?
Mind you I don’t mean to imply they’re not valuable or highly significant, just that they may not be completely representative of the aggregate of viewpoints and dependencies on the matter. How could they be, really? 2,000 people looking at the same event are likely to have 2,000 different perspectives on it, and an equal amount of opinions on contributing factors behind it. So any attempt to represent them all is likely to come up short and have to resort to generalisation and interpretation.
Furthermore looking at formal education places the notion of canons in another context, that of the course’s overall established learning outcomes, curriculum, and even those of the specific instructor. So the manner in which a canon is presented in a course structure is subject to interpretation as well. So too are translations of language, and therefore the implied meaning of what learners read. For example the translation of one version of “The Illiad” by Homer may be entirely different than another.
On Rhizomatic Knowledge
That said though I’m having a fair amount of trouble coming to terms with the practicality of Rhizomatic Knowledge for certain subjects – such as Mathematics – as well as certain age groups – particularly younger ones. I’m wary of saying it’s just as relevant for emerging technology as it is for other subjects – because I don’t think that’s true. Ultimately it depends on context.
Secondly an observation. Lane said:
“Historians negotiate this understanding and this knowledge in those nasty peer-reviewed journals, where deep differences of opinion lead to reassessments, rexamination of facts, research, and the development of new paradigms arising out of conflict.”
To me that sounds an awful lot like more structured forms of Rhizomatic Knowledge, as well as Connectivism. Certainly the network of individuals involved in the process are steeped in the expertise of the subject matter, but it does also seem to reflect Cormier’s statement:
“…knowledge in these areas is created by a broad collection of knowers sharing in the construction and ongoing evolution of a given field. Knowledge becomes a negotiation”
In the case of Rhizomatic Knowledge, I can appreciate Lane’s concerns that “Networks may or may not have any canonically trained “experts”. This seems in keeping with Gina Minks’ suggestion during Session 2 of yesterday’s Elluminate web conference that a “base level of knowledge” was required.
However, as I responded to Sinikka in my post on “Growing a Network“:
“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.
Considering Practicality
The question of whether this argument – whether accurate or otherwise – in useful at a practical level is another matter, particularly in formalised educational structures.
Perhaps what is necessary then – at least insofar as formal educational institutions are concerned – is a somewhat modified form of Connectivism that ensures the presence of well-informed “nodes” exist to cover key concepts. Once they were established, perhaps the Rhizomatic Knowledge and/or Connectivism models could be promoted to facilitate the development of networks through which information could be vetted by discussion, debate, and reflection.
Theoretically the latter could encourage the development of critical thinking skills, which many institutions (at least in higher education) have already identified as important qualities for learners to have.
Maybe we could modify the phrase to be “historical documents are preserved by the victors”. They may or may not write “the history”, but they certainly impact what we can use later (ask anyone living in Stalinist Russia or rewriting history textbooks in Japan).
Whatever remains must be analyzed by people with vast exposure to documentation in its many forms, and time-tested methodology, in order to advance knowledge.
All the canonical sources of history are documents, often from a single point of view. They are therefore naturally biased, and such bias is only offset by other documents, and analysis of them within their own historical context, as well as that of the historian. But the presence of the original document is the fact that begins the process of interpretation, which with additional input and skills becomes an analysis that sheds light on the era being studied.
And yes indeed, the presentation of the canon by the instructor, his/her interpretation, is crucial — it’s the “modeling” that Downes discusses and with which I am so enchanted. Students must know why the instructor is treating the canonical readings in a particular way. Thus the canon is by no means static. In the case of translations, it is very helpful to know the historical context within which the translation is developed (I’m thinking here of some current “translations” of Beowulf in graphic novel format).
As you’ve noticed, I am similarly concerned about the balance between the freedom to explore within ones chosen network and the need for foundational knowledge. Delighted to be conversing about it!
hey mike,
in reply to your argument: “effectively you can’t have a canon; the reality is distributed across the network.” I think i can agree with this in some situations. I guess this mostly applies to the fields knowledge workers are in. But what about our formal educational structures? I wouldnt like to be negotiating with a 3th grade class on wether the earth is flat or not (alltough Thomas Friedman has given his meaning to it). Also, I don’t think oil companies would like to negotiate on ways to enter platforms safely.
I think we can use connectivist ideas in various learning settings and we really need to be considering more open and connective ways to create learning experiences in contexts that are suited for it. Loads “training” questions are still answered with…training whereas a more connective apporoach would be more effective.
Hi All,
I’m toying with an idea here, and don’t have a clear conclusion (or point) in mind yet – so please bear with me.
In terms of Joost’s point, what if negotiating with a 3rd grade class on whether the Earth is flat or round is exactly what we should be doing?
For example, if we’re trying to help them develop deeper thinking and reasoning skills, instead of asking “Is the Earth flat” or “Is the Earth round”, we’d could ask “How could we determine whether the Earth is flat or round?” or perhaps “Identify whether you think the Earth is flat or round and provide evidence to support your conclusion.”
The last two are very different questions from the first two and could lead to some very interesting and valuable exploratory research in which the learners direct their own investigation. The learning opportunities in that respect would be far greater than simply asking them a yes or no question, since they would would need to realise the overall context and interrelationships before being able to conclude the ultimate answer: “the Earth is round.”
For that matter, in gathering and developing the information needed to support their arguments learners would start to experience some of the important lessons that we did during the first two weeks of the CCK08 course. Namely, how do you start to navigate through the existing knowledge pool to locate the information that is relevant for you; how do you determine which nodes or reference points are the most appropriate; and then having done that, how do you assess the accuracy of the information.
These processes would require far more in depth planning and consideration on their part than simply telling them the Earth is round and leaving it at that.
If what Connectivism says is true, then the learning experience is in the development of connections, and especially in realising how this process actually takes place, and why it’s important; and not simply accepting information at face value and memorising facts. If we simply do the latter, then there will arguably be little or no context in which to place the information – which makes it less useful in the long run.
Cheers,
Mike
Hi Mike and all,
This is such an interesting thread, especially as it relates to areas that I am familiar with, ie. connectivism in the context of formal education.
In my experience, exposing even very young students to critical thinking and inquiry-based learning is very relevant in the modern world of fast changing and overflowing information. Schools are much criticized for exactly focusing too much on rote memorization of fragmented bits of information without nurturing students’ understanding of connections between these. Having said that, I do also believe that there are still certain facts/bits of information that need to be rote memorized. Remembering an operable number of words of a foreign language, for example, does help any further understanding of meaning in that language.
Despite the many deniably good applications of connectivism for formal education, as you Mike, I am still doubtful about using it exclusively at schools.
Hi Sinikka,
Good points
I definitely wouldn’t go far as saying Connectivism should be used exclusively. Connectivism itself, in fact, stresses the importance for context when evaluating meaning – and to a large degree needs and relevance as well.
I think it’s important to distinguish here, though, that the context of this post was more about Rhizomatic Knowledge than Connectivism. Whereas R.K. discusses alternative notions to canons, I don’t think Connectivism singles them out nearly as pointedly.
So I think one could quite easily establish a form of Connectivism that ensured certain entry pathways were in place through which learners were exposed to concepts flagged as important.
There are other differences between the two which are worth looking at I think – an idea for another post I think – but as for now I’m late for work. gotta run!
One last thought though:
You mentioned: “Remembering an operable number of words of a foreign language, for example, does help any further understanding of meaning in that language.”
Very good point. I think we definitely find subjects where Connectivism and Rhizomatic Knowledge start to have trouble in practice (as opposed to theory). So once again the context in which it’s used – and knowing when to look outside the theory – is critical
Cheers,
Mike
Pingback: Paper #1: My Position on [C]onnectivism | Lisa's CCK08 Edublog