Powerless during Power week

I shouldn't’t be doing this. I should be writing my paper and making sure to answer the questions. Last week I was off line, I was powerless, with no energy or power to move. I was bed ridden for days with bronchitis. I logged in to last Friday live session to find out that I arrived an hour late so… powerless, unable to connect.
This is my answer to Ken’s lasts posts about success, failure, power, groups and more.

Hi Ken!

I am glad to be back here, I enjoy very much your readings. I came here from today's daily and what attracted my attention was your post title "I made the news".
Congratulations!!! Did you write home about it as you mention? What did they say?
This is a response to your last three posts so if you don't have time now please skip it and keep the “Congrats” part.

This applies to you too kind reader. :-)

Thanks for pointing out that Stephen's readings are difficult, it thought I lacked "proper background" (whatever that is) to understand them. Now I see I'm not alone. I'm stupid in some areas, as many people are, but I thought that understanding "deep philosophical readings" was not one of them until I found Stephen's readings and videos which made me ask myself similar questions than yours. After reading your last three posts I guess they are the exception that confirms the rule, I'm not so stupid in that area.

If I don't get meaning is because they are meaningless to me, I cannot connect with them, I'm a "doer", I didn't find practical application on those readings and I have been living in a "connectivist" way for more than 20 years. Don't misunderstand me, I rather clarify.

I have been, as mankind has done for centuries, connecting with experienced nodes to learn from them or to pay them to exercise their expertise in my benefit.
In my practice I work with multidisciplinary forces or nodes, it's in that sense that I stated that I work in a "connectivist" way. From that point of view I can happily agree with the sanctum sanctorum connectivist phrase: "knowledge is in the network". As I've told you before, that way of learning is not new, I'm not buying the "theory" bit either, time will tell in that sense.

Regarding Stephen's "illusion of power" exercise: It amused me.
Why? Because for the first time he stood up and exercised his power OPENLY. As you mention in this post, he had used his power from the beginning; in a covered and clever way for me. From my point of view, this last move was not clever, it didn't empower the learners.

Rather, he is modeling his "theory":

"The pipe is not important".

He did not think about the havoc he created to some that use their employers’ hardware and software to connect, he has said so several times on the live sessions:

"I don't care if you are learning, I'm learning!".

On the other hand, let me tell you that as a "teacher" in an open non-authoritarian system you have to find ways to push your students towards the content you expect them to learn so to use your power is valid in that context. It's an effective behaviour.

Your question about the success or failure of the experiment is one that voices many participants' concerns, as you have measured with your visitors’ blog counter and comments, the question is lying there and they can easily say and justify that it was a success. Again, time will tell. But as participant you can define if it was a success for you or not. Was it a success for me? Though I cannot tell yet in a broad sense, I'm learning and I've met some valuable people not nodes. That’s for sure. Did I learn what connectivism is? It seems I didn't, I learned a new name to christen what I do.

I joined for the feedback that non-credit participants believe we, the credit ones, are getting. I have not "earned" a direct email, tweet, or comment in my blog from the "teachers". Here is an account of "my feedback".
I have not opened a thread in Moodle; I got two answers from SD in the Importance of Context thread. I got one comment back from GS on all the live sessions I've listened, one of the 10 or so times I have dared to write something "valuable" in the chat box. I got an A, also from GS, for not answering the main question on my first paper. That's all. For me, that's not clear feedback but I have not participated much as you can see, maybe I have not given them a chance (?) What it tells me so far is that in a connectivist view I am a "dependent learner" who has not received clear feedback from the "teacher" who doesn't care in the first place if I learn or not.

Turning to the alternate places where CCK08 network gathers, I just can tell you what I've seen which is not much.
I've gone just to two SL cohort sessions, the first one was on a Sunday, and no one was there. The second was on Tuesday and there was a text chat going with 5 participants including myself; I was told that there was more participation on Tuesdays, that they did not use voice to keep records of their meetings and as none of us had done the readings of the week the meeting was cancelled. To be at SL to use only the chat box did not appeal to me and then I started having problems with my graphic card and then I got sick so... I will go back next Tuesday.
The Connectivitas site in Spanish has very low participation; the Connectivitas SL weekly meeting gathers also 5 or 6 participants using voice, not keeping records and voicing questions, discomforts, positions, RL activities, etc. Some of the members (3) formed a group to do the final project. Guess... Who is one of those 3? Who started those meetings? :-)
I have not seen blogs in Spanish about connectivism; I've seen blogs posts tagged as CCK08 where the conversation is about something else. I wish I had more time to search more blogs.
In Moodle I've seen and then talked live to one participant that chose the forums to promote himself, openly as a marketing strategy to get the teacher's recognition. Admittedly not doing the readings, nor visiting blogs, nor blogging about connectivism. He opens threads and posts his papers in his blog due to lack of time. He has followed SD and GS work for 3 years or so. It's working for him, every one of his threads has SD or GS postings and some have made the Daily news.

As for your assertion that CCK08 is a group and not a network I, again, can only tell you my position. A sense of belonging is one of the main aspects that identify a group, right? If you don't feel you belong then it's not your group or you pay a high price to remain there.
For me, if I don't feel I belong, if I don't get feedback then it's a network not a group. I can abandon and no one will notice. In my groups, if I abandon without giving notice, they ask about me and fortunately they get concerned about my health or my situation. I did that just once many years ago and learned my lesson. When I logged in and found the worried messages in several venues I decided that it was not fair to worry people just because I did not think about it, one member called me home from Korea to ask about my silence, he was going to call my parents first!


Regardless of what Stephen and George learn, or how many papers or thesis or whatever they get out of this experiment; I honestly believe that they deserve it. By putting this experiment together, by keeping it going with one or 2000 survivors, they have placed and keep placing every day great effort. They are modeling and giving an example on online team work; they are very different, have opposite views in some areas and have accommodated their differences publicly. George strives to engage students while Stephen enrages them easily, the bad cop vs. good cop routine. That effort should and will be compensated somehow. Besides, they are putting themselves in the firing line, exposing their work and ideas to a vast audience. If I agree with their views or not that's my business. What they are doing is very brave and I salute them for that. = deep bow.

I did not find the "rabid mob of connectivists" here trying to set you right as before, have they gone too? Where are the non-connectivists cheerleaders?

I have used up today's fuel, I started to feel dizzy again so...
Si tienen tele... ahi se ven! :-)

CCK08 My Cmap

After many hours, a thousand clicks and lots of fun, I came up with my Cmap.

I uploaded it as an image. I exported it as a Scheme but I could not make sense of it as text, it looks like waves, it must be my tired eyes.
We have covered many concepts, I trimmed it and left the more relevant ones for me.
I did not read my email nor logged in to Twitter to concentrate better, I´m paying the price though, I feel lonely but I have many things to do at the office... I'll send a tweet.



Now I just have to find out how to share it and someone to share it with.
Intriguing how each of us makes sense in a different way. I confirm again that color is clarifying for me.

Tommorrow is connecting day, I'll start at Elluminate with CCK08 participants, then with my mum at Yahoo, later in SL with Dolores to end up at Elluminate. Gonzalo usually laughs when I tell him it's my resting day, I don't see patients on Wednesday mornings. :-)

How do we deal with emotions in a network?

Ed Webb, Sara Stewart and Francis’s comments in my post “Design. Following my hearth, prompted me to write this post. The tone of my previous post has also influenced my decision, my emotions are somewhat obstructing the way.

Edd comments: “But I was most struck by your personal note at the end, about your 'core network' and the emotional impact of the course. This, too, is learning, and I think we should be open to sharing and discussing our emotional insights and reactions as well as our more cerebral ones. Those are also important elements of connection and something we need to consider as educators as we design connectivity into our teaching and learning. Does your core have hard boundaries, do you think, or is it more a question of degrees of connectedness, of a more fuzzy notion?”

As usual I see an example of the importance of Context. One member of my core network passed away recently, I am still in mourning. He was 85 years old and left me as legacy the custody of his Templars books to share them with others; he left me clear indications about how to do it.

My core network does not have hard boundaries, as Ed mentions is more a question of degrees of connectedness, it’s also emergent. Sometimes I am connected with part of the network depending of the issue at hand and the rest becomes kind of dormant. Sometimes it shifts in a day to day basis and sometimes it takes weeks to shift. There are even times when it shifts several times the same day. I feel I have been blessed with the core network I have, that feeling and my resent loss brought about the tears.

Sara mentions “Thanks you Ed and Maru for starting a thread on the emotional aspects of connectivism. How would you do that with your students, in a way that keeps both you and your student’s safe?”

I believe that if you communicate frequently with your students, deliver prompt feedback and keep a netiquette code in your course, you and your students would be safer than if you leave them wandering around on their own. To do that you will need a bunch of trained moderators. Sometimes it’s not possible because there is no money to pay them but you can have willing connections within your network that will do the job on voluntary basis. It’s easier said than done, you need to have a strong tie with your moderators and be sure that if they need to abandon they will place at least someone to cover their position.

While Sia Vogel writes about her feelings in Being there and suddenly very lonely. I think that if CCK08 course had spared a week for introductions, as again my dear Webheads usually do in their EVO workshops (sorry for being so redundant), we could have acquired a sense of belonging and then move to the content itself with more ease and a sense of recognition. I see clearly that my views regarding online learning and teaching may be biased, I believe that if you set a friendly and warm tone with participants it’s easier to get them focused on the content.

Regarding emotions, as a private email points out and Frances comments: “The emotional aspects are important but can be difficult to discuss 'in public'. I noticed that Stephen D had praised someone sharing their grade as 'living the spirit of connectivism'. What is the place of private discussion in networks? Important to me.”

While I a agree with Ed, on that “we should be open to sharing and discussing our emotional insights”

I am finding that it’s complicated to do it in public as Frances comments, it may also be risky. I would like to find out more about this issue because it may have deep implications, I think that if by sharing your feelings you are bringing something valuable to the network it will be appropriate to do so.

In the case of my last post the valuable thing for me was to bring emotions to the table but… Will others consider it valuable?, Are we willing to discuss our emotions openly?, Does dealing openly with participant’s emotions really promotes learning? The netiquette suggest to deal with flame messages by private email, is this the only way?, If we do it in private how will the rest learn about it? Emotions are important for connections but how and where do we deal with them in a network?. I bet some research been done on this, could any of you share links on the subject?

My comments to paper 1 feedback

I am sharing the comments and mark given by G. Siemens as some other participants have done. If you want to read the file sent to me an hour ago please feel free to do so here.

The comments I sent by email are the following:

Hi George and Steven!

I just received your email with your mark and comments on my first paper, thanks.

To answer your comments I will quote you first to address them later.

“Some statements – such as “engage or enrage” aren’t cited or supported. I believe it’s a Prensky quote, but I don’t understand what it means.”

I thought that by posting in my paper the video itself, that would do as citation for the phrase "I strive to engage my students, not to enrage them."  You are right, it’s from Prensky. Here is the citation and link to the video: "Prensky, M. (2004) What Can You Learn From A Cell Phone?". With all due respect, to get the meaning please watch the video.  As your connectivist model states, I could go on with a series of explanations but if you don’t recognize the pattern it would be of little use.

“The focus of this paper was for you to state your position on connectivism – strengths/weaknesses, etc. You provide a series of personal reflections rather than stating clearly your view of connectivism. If you provided the latter, then you can use your reflections to strengthen your overall argument.”

In my paper I stated that my position was ambivalent, it was too early for me to view the strengths/weaknesses, etc. Even now, it’s difficult to explain clearly with words my views about something that cannot be defined but rather lived to grasp it.

If you read my blog and follow the links to my activities you will see that online and offline I work and relate to others in a “connectivist” way. I experienced connectivism before I met the term, it’s a way of living and working that I started since 1993. I had to leave teaching institutions to accomplish that, formal education is still traditional and curriculum centred.

Online I experienced it with the EVO sessions. The difference between your course and those workshops is the frequent feedback, encouragement and warm, free atmosphere. In a sense, I'm immersed in connectivism; my actions define my position. Sorry if I cannot clarify it more that this.

Design. Following my heart.

I understand that many people don’t agree with the way I do things, online and offline. I learn by doing. I saw a learning opportunity that could be shared and beneficial... I followed my heart. In this post I will describe the background story behind the creation of BaeL project and the instructional design issues that, with my interactions on the CCK08 course, I see now.

My contact with Andy Pincon from Digital Workforce Education Society or Digibridge was triggered by a final comment I posted at BaW07. He contacted me by email, I told him that it was an incredible coincidence that he saw me because I had been learning with Mercedes (the voice in the video) about his long distance Chicago project with immigrants . As part of Mercedes’ workshop I trained for free a digitally illiterate adult to learn basic computer skills like turning on the PC, use of mouse, use of keyboard, etc., using Alado as virtual classroom. The student was in another place of town with a moderator by his side listening to me and following tutorials. By the way, the Mexican organization linked to Digibridge is Innovative Soft.

The following year, at BaW08, I mentioned in the mailing list that I wanted to practice what I had learned, I did not want to spend another year away from online teaching and that I would get a group of students to do so. Sharon Betts suggested me to connect my students to hers at TLG, Andy Pincon suggested me to contact Unete and to consider LearnFree programs. Bernice La Lucerne, Jose Antonio Da Silva, Ronaldo Lima, Nergiz Kern and Dennis Oliver’s generous ideas and questions about the issues I was considering, helped me to decide how to go about it.

For me the process described above shows that, as George Siemens mentions again in this Instructional Design week, all learning starts with a connection and that attributes of connections influence knowledge. By talking, visiting sites, exploring web 2.0 platforms, asking questions, interacting with them and their experiences I decided to leave BaeL at 21^st Classes inactive, to create BaeL at Ning as virtual support community and designed a short four weeks online workshop using AprendeLibre computer tutorials as content material, Yahoo Messenger as live sessions site and BaeL-PC Yahoo Group as forum and mailing list. The workshop was launched the 24th of March 2008.

According to Renata Phelps’ paper, I designed a complex non linear learning environment. If I had read George’s Learning Development Cycle or watched his presentation on Instructional Design and Connectivism maybe I would have done things differently. I say “maybe” because the Context, Readiness, Tools, Equipment Available and Resources were the Impacting Factors to plan the design of the workshop.

It was a free activity, not related to school in any way. My students and I were working from Cyber Places which created difficulties due to the “strange” sites I required access to. The target group age range was 14 to 18 years old, some of them worked and studied, some went to school in the morning while others went in the afternoon, non of them spoke English, the older ones used the computer to chat, the e-mail to send PPP presentations and had Metroflogs to post images. Some of us did not know how to use a computer properly. The sites are still active, the last member is a young single mum who wants to learn to use computer programs to get a job as a secretary or receptionist. I am glad to help and continue learning with her participation.

The trip to my hometown was… different! I lost the 10 AM bus, took the next at 2:00 PM, trying to fix SLExperiments wiki. The movie I saw on the bus was “The Count of Montecristo” I ate my lunch and drank my soda… different. The last scene of the movie shows the hero’s core network; in my mind I saw a picture of my core network and started crying softly. This course is having deep emotional impact on me.  But that’s another story.