tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5117005533318160902.post2238143633349071868..comments2024-03-27T19:53:53.708-06:00Comments on growing changing learning creating: CCK09 On the horns of a dilemmaTom Haskinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12658791778134826289noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5117005533318160902.post-68572495847304052712009-10-04T09:08:39.125-06:002009-10-04T09:08:39.125-06:00Thanks for all this Frances. Furthering what you a...Thanks for all this Frances. Furthering what you added about filtering, I'm thinking there are arbitrary and considerate filters in continual use. I like what you're saying about cultivating awareness what we're filtering out (considerate). How homophilic of me! But that takes time to both review cognitively and get a feeling about what we're filtering. In his presentation at Palermo Italy, Stephen suggested that we could regard content coming into our own network as meaningless signals that we filter to arrive at a manageable quantity (arbitrary). He's proposing that meaning comes about from our personal context of associations once the signals have cleared the filters. Stephen's approach to filtering is heterophilic to yours. <br /><br />I'm glad you raised the issue of broadcasting. I associate many forms of centralized distribution with the classroom boredom problems you explored in your post: <a href="http://francesbell.com/2009/09/22/deconstructing-boredom-in-the-student-experience-of-lectures-and-small-group-classes/" rel="nofollow">Deconstructing boredom in the student experience of lectures and small group classes</a>. It seems to me that boredom is maximized when broadcasting to learners who feel like repositories, archives, disk space. The boredom gets alleviated slightly when the learners feel like aggregators, dashboards or selective filters. The boredom vanishes when broadcasting to learners who feel like fellow broadcasters facing similar issues about what to say, how to say it, how much to say, etc. When the initial broadcaster is also an aggregator of the learners' content generation, everyone is "in the same boat". The cluster supports multi-leveled connections and demonstrates resilience when stressed by antagonisms. When I use the phrase "learners who feel like" I'm suggesting their engagement is authentic, not a charade or way to game the class. <br /><br />Thus I've "pulled a Latour" here. Boredom is not an explanation for a lack of engagement. Boredom needs explaining by the varied associations with Powerpoint, authority figures, self expression/exploration and conversation. Then boredom seems relativized, dynamic, and emergent from particular contexts.<br /><br />Thanks for fixing your anonymity problem :-)Tom Haskinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12658791778134826289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5117005533318160902.post-92130388441747632652009-10-04T04:54:48.824-06:002009-10-04T04:54:48.824-06:00Regarding filters, I think that they can be useful...Regarding filters, I think that they can be useful as long we have some awareness of what we are filtering out. <br />Ed Webb expressed your last point very nicely in a comment to a recent post on my blog http://francesbell.com/2009/09/21/cck09-negotiating-the-rapids/<br />I think it is very interesting to ponder on connectivism as a node and subnet - is it clustering around it connections that go exclusively from it to them (broadcasting) or connections some of which go from them to it (that sounds remarkably like learning). Even more interesting is the process by which the latter might occur.<br />Apologies for my apparent anonymity - I had done this a year ago in at attempt to keep a private blog just that - hope it's now fixed.Frances Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15714859082584727022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5117005533318160902.post-4001662224051612602009-10-03T08:14:30.497-06:002009-10-03T08:14:30.497-06:00Thanks for connections and questions! Here's h...Thanks for connections and questions! Here's how I'd relate "resolving dilemmas" to Connectivism. The knowledge TO resolve a dilemma may not be in the person with the dilemma or in a therapist, but rather distributed in a wide ranging network that includes the Wikipedia page you shared with us, this blog post, many books, Google search results, etc. The knowledge OF the dilemma could also be distributed among coworkers, friends and relatives of the person who is torn between two irreconcilable alternatives. Their conversations with the individual may collude with the dilemma, take one side only or recognize the pattern and potential for resolution. Thus different clusters within the person's social network would maintain the dilemma, make it worse or recognize the pattern. Connectivism tells us the same complex distribution of knowledge would occur in the conceptual network of each person participating in the dilemma. Likewise for each person's neural network. Each would experience that as thinking and feeling very differently when stuck on either side of the dilemma or realizing the possibility of a resolution.<br /><br />Your question about different filters is wonderful. Speaking with different frames of reference about networks can certainly impede dialogue, foster misunderstandings and add to confusion. These are incidents where a robust set of connections fails to form. However, connections occur by associating with whatever/whomever seems salient, resonant, or emotionally stirring to each person uniquely. If we're seeking agreement with ourselves, will associate with the same frames of reference as our own (birds of a feather flock together). If we're captivated by learning from differences from our own understanding, we'll seek out conflicting frames of reference. Because the potential connections are so abundant, distributed and accessible, there's no point in despairing over connections that fail to form, simply associate with more like-minded or opposite-minded filters in people and resources.Tom Haskinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12658791778134826289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5117005533318160902.post-86145415046200336272009-10-03T01:51:06.150-06:002009-10-03T01:51:06.150-06:00When I read this post, I thought of cognitive beha...When I read this post, I thought of cognitive behaviour therapy whose"...techniques vary within the different approaches of CBT according to the particular kind of problem issues, but commonly may include keeping a diary of significant events and associated feelings, thoughts and behaviors; questioning and testing cognitions, assumptions, evaluations and beliefs that might be unhelpful and unrealistic; gradually facing activities which may have been avoided; and trying out new ways of behaving and reacting. Relaxation, mindfulness and distraction techniques are also commonly included. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy#CBT_with_children_and_adolescents<br /><br />In this approach, practical tasks are suggested by the therapist and undertaken by the 'learner' so they could be seen as making the network of ideas and ways of thinking visible but I would ask where the therapist and learner are in this network. I have noticed in discussions on connectivism that we may wear different glasses that filter our views of networks, sometimes seeing people (social) networks, sometimes seeing idea/knowledge networks, sometimes seeing diverse networks of people and things (as connectivism seems to suggest). Do the different filters help? or impede dialogue?Blogger and Taggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04788364685901838101noreply@blogger.com