Connected without modem?

Before going any further let me tell you that I just installed Snap Shots. I have found it handy in other blogs. Should you decide this is not for you, just click the Options icon in the upper right corner of the Snap Shot and opt-out.

Yesterday I got my modem back. It burned last Monday morning so most of week 5 I was off line, I joined two live sessions and missed my weekly meetings. However, I was not disconnected, I kept thinking about the course, tried to link more concepts and explored my wall. This is a late post, I will address here the specific questions required for this week: Have you begun to see the rudiments of a learning network forming?, Has some of the conceptual uncertainty settled?

While Lisa does not recall conceptual uncertainty she mentions the grading system. I was only aware of the 40% assigned to the papers and learned the rest from her post. You know? I am not concerned with the grades, I joined to learn, have feedback and to get my efforts documented somehow.

I saw a network forming from the beginning, a huge one with more that 2250 participants. Following Stephen's ideas on Groups vs Networks: The Class Struggle Continues,which for me are kind of rigid or don't leave much room, I could say that we have somewhat a learning network. It has the following attributes: diversity, openness, distribution, interaction, it changes and the topics are emergent. What I see in conflict is the autonomy attribute as described, we are not autonomous, we have guidelines, tasks and readings assigned, live meetings to attend and formal leaders. In fact, part of this post is "homework".

On the other hand, looking at George's Groups and Networks presentation which I find flexible and gives more room I could say that what we have is a learning network with a high level of autonomy. It is important to note that he considers, as stated in the first slide that:

"groups and networks cannot be compared, groups are a type of network, they are not something altogether different from networks so, in a sense, it's almost impossible to compare the two because they are the same".

So, taking into account the three critical elements he mentions: Agent Autonomy, Complexity and Task Specialization, the picture changes. I could say that the type of network that we have in the "course" is one that has a high level of autonomy (we have to archive a focused outcome but we can organize ourselves to do so), a high level of complexity is not required (the task can be managed loosely, they are not concerned about what the final outcome could be) and the task at hand does not require high levels of specialization (no one will be killed if we get it wrong).

We come back again to the importance of context. Being aware of the two points of view I can say that I see a learning network forming, not only the rudiments. There is huge amount of work to get this going and a lot of effort to plan this "course", design the network and set it flying. I am not overlooking that. What comes clear, from the educational point of view, is that depending on the objectives of your course you need to decide which type of environment is more suitable, a traditional group where you have more control or a network when you can afford low control.

To give a course using this learning model sounds attractive to you?, Are we willing to pay the price?, Is your student's criteria solid enough to achieve something in a network?, Is the subject fit to be learned connectivelly? Is your school or organization willing to support you on a learning network adventure?, Is your country technically equipped to use web 2.0 tools?, Are your students digitally literate to cope? There are many factors to consider.

Regarding the second question. I have had my share of conceptual uncertainty, I cannot say that the uncertainty has gone because I find more with every new subject. This is not a bad thing, I am enjoying expanding my contacts, I am learning to get ready to launch my BaeL digital literacy project as shown in this video but we need to get on board a charity organization to do so. We started in March so it has been a long road.

As I mentioned at the beginning, I have been thinking about my wall. I still laugh when I remember the image "You are not longer subscribed to anything" at Stephen's blog. Well, my wall is related to trust. George's presentation touches a bit this point.
I do not know how to relate to someone that I hardly know, to someone who interacts very little with me, I tend to doubt when facing closed people with no chance to talk to them. It may be silly but if don't place the wall out it will be harder to tear it down. I know we are not supposed to get validation or recognition, that's what my head says.
However, my emotion reacts, I am human. I have seen some behaviourism taking place in the feedback or lack of feedback given, I perceive some kind of light coercion going on, not in a direct way. It is in a vicarious way, I ignore your behavior and acknowledge the behaviour that I consider right for you to imitate.
Let me explain myself, I feel kind of forced to post in a certain way in order to receive feedback, no one has sent an email or left a comment here saying something like "your posts lack focus" or "your map is not linked" or something of the sort. I observe a distinct pattern in the posts that do receive feedback so it's kind of a behavioural pattern. Well, the wall is out. I hope this helps.

My concept map is still very similar to the first I posted, I have the elements, the concepts, disconnected except in some parts. As soon as I see some sense in it I will post it. The YH Group for credit learners is picking up slowly, not all the credit learners have joined. The survey to get information to plan live meetings has even fewer quorum. We are all fighting to get time to do things, I know that people with very limited time prefer to hang at Moodle and be visible there.

As I luckily can manage my time, I can afford to have live meetings several times in the week. Today I was at the SL CCK08 group for the first time, the meeting ended quickly and I stayed around with Louise for a nice cosy chat. It's a pity that they do not use voice in order to document the meetings; I find it sad, like a waste of resources, I connect better with voice and get tired of typing :-)

Talking to her I saw that I have now a network at Twitter, before I followed just my friends and now I am following people I hardly know.

Later on I invited Dolores to my launchroom. We were talking about the course, our questions and the way we are engaging, I will meet her again at Conenctivitas tomorrow at 13:00 SLT 20:00 GMT.

I am glad my modem is back!

Diving board and an empty pool. Week 5.

I thought I had started the week on the right foot. I did the readings and audio files for the week on Sunday, I also prepared the images and links for this posts which was planned to be released on Monday afternoon. I printed “That Group Feeling”, read some blogs, left comments, started answering at Moodle and WOA! The no break started making unusual fast beeps in the middle of a message to Carlos! I had barely time to post my answer to him, sorry Carlos I did not say goodbye, and turn off the PC. Unfortunately, the modem ended up fried due to the high variations on voltage and the telephone company promised to come to check it today or tomorrow.

Nevertheless, I am posting my diving board for week 5 at a cyber place and hope to use it from here because the Internet pool at home is empty. I decided not to reply to comments in my blog, I will go the owner of the comment's mblog and reply there, in that way I will learn more and probably connect better. I may be able to come on Friday for the live session. I will reflect on dry land :-)

To leave a comment at Stephen’s post “Groups vs Networks: The class struggle continues.” I was prompted to subscribe, which I did. The following image showed up and I started laughing. I though this was Stephen’s doing, a way to say that there are not walls at his site, but later I understood that probably I had done something wrong.



My comment there was:

Hi Stephen!
It took me a long time to stop laughing after I registered, it took a screenshot of the image, I thought it was your doing but maybe it isn't, I'll post the screenshot in my blog.
Well, I enjoyed your rambling. I believe I understood what you mean, I will see the
presentation as well just to kick the wall. I guess there is a wall that's preventing me from understanding your concepts, I suspect what is it, I want to work it out. While I know very well which are my groups I am not sure which is my network or if I have one. As you mention, the two concepts are fused in my mind, rather, the concept of a network is new for me. I sense I am developing one right now with the connections of CCK08. Some of the people I contacted during the 1st week have a period of more than 15 of without logging in at Moodle, some have posted in their blogs and some appears to have vanished, that network is evolving; few people of my groups have joined the course but we don`t talk about it in our gatherings which comes as a break because I have been spending too many hours engaged in it.
See you around. Love: Maru

I found that placing the items to read and assimilate in my blog helps me a lot, so here it is this week's slideshow

| View | Upload your own

In the following video you can see Stephen in action explaining this chart:

My Position in Connectivism

Week four is coming to an end. After four weeks of being exposed for the first time to Connectivism philosophical concepts as well as to the inherent confusion of the practice as a student, mi position is somewhat ambivalent. From my two standpoints, context is important, I see drawbacks and incongruence while at the same time my innate dreamer nature feels attracted by the holistic, democratic or ideal principles of it.

Before going any further, bear in mind that my views are permeated by pre-conceptions and very limited, knowledge is not yet growing in me in a noticeable way as I mentioned to Jenny in the comment area.

Why am I taking this course? As Stephen and George happily said at the October 3^rd. USTREAM live session (the recording is not available yet), no one has a gun pointed at me to do it and they are willing to give a refund to anyone that asks for it.  If we, the students, were not experiencing confusion, this little experiment would not be doing its job. What attracted me was the definition of the "course".

I am not teaching online at the moment, I am acquiring the Digital Literacy required to do so because I view myself doing it in the future. Taking a course on Emerging Technologies for Learning makes perfect sense. I believe that students learn about a subject they are interested in not only from someone they consider versed in the subject but from someone they care about and feel cared by.

I strive to engage my students, not to enrage them. I do not consider myself a vessel of knowledge, I usually mention that in any class or course I give, I am a long-life learner but that does not prevent me from gently pointing my students and patients towards a place where they might find answers or from asking them about something I don’t know. I avoid dependencies as Stephen does, I don’t’ let them cling to me for answers, rather I encourage them to look for them.

However,  I make sure they know I care even if I don’t or can't give away the answers.  This caring and nurturing is something I have not seen yet in this course, keeping in mind that it is a massive course kind of softens my view but if I ever engage on giving a course with this approach I will make sure to count with a bunch of moderators to help out and to have a help wiki as the Webheads have.  Don't misread me, they also do not answer questions but provide a place to find them. Adrian Hill seems to have a similar view, he suggests the use of simpler language and more caring.

What Resonates with me.

Connectivism as a way of being, a way of seeing, a way of understanding, a way of thinking is very appealing. From Stephen as well as from George introduction video presentations the ideas that resonate with my Humanistic approach are:

• Center the teaching on the student.

• Knowledge is grown, not transferred.

• No one has the whole truth.

• You are responsible for your own learning.

• Believe that your students will come up with the answers.

• New and novel connections open new worlds and create knowledge.

 

Connectivism states that knowledge can be gained through “a set of connections formed by actions and experiences” not language, that “knowledge is distributed across networks, and learning is the skill one gains by travelling through them.” 
It  theorizes that learning happens by travelling through
our developed networks to human and non-human nodes.

I see that the suitable way to gain knowledge in a connectivist adventure is "networked individualism".  To socialize I need to develop strategies and tactics for self-advancement.  In the solidarity area I need to foster a sense of being an autonomous individual, loyalty is to myself and the network I am  developing while the commitment to network members and nodes is variable, according to the needs.

Stephen Downes on Sep 12th 2008 wrote: "I believe that this is because the theory is neither collectivist nor individualist. It doesn’t argue that people (students, whatever) should subsume themselves under some sort of general will. At the same time, it doesn’t suppose that people live their lives as lone wolves, responsible for and to only themselves. There is a middle ground between these two extremes, a half-way point between joining and not joining, which (we believe) may be found in the network. Oh, b ut to get to this point, which doesn’t come up until week 5!"

What is making noise.

I will not engage here in explaining why I consider it a model instead of a theory, I did that in an earlier post. This ideas sound very good in paper but, as I stated before,  I don't see them applied in a traditional school end even less in Mexico. In addition to have a traditional educational system which focuses in the curriculum rather than in the student, the vast majority of  teachers in Mexico at best use email to contact students.  A minority uses digital technology in their classrooms as Rocio does but she teaches parents and teachers. Moreover, she teaches in one of the most expensive schools in San Luis Potosí and not even there the students count with a computer for each one. 

George Siemens is promoting his views as a Learning Theory for the Digital Era. My questions are:  Is Mexico already in the Digital Era?, Do Mexican teachers know and use digital tools?  When not all the students have access to computers Do the PC's at the cyber places in Mexico are set to connect with web 2.0 tools?  As part of my BaeL adventure I visited several cyber places in Toluca and San Luis Potosí and when I accessed the web 2.0 sites I found that the PC's were not ready, plug inns were missing, programs were not installed, camaras and microphones did not work, etc.  Of course that SL is even more out of reach. Sounds unbelievable but I am working to change that.

In his paper George goes on saying: "Learning theories are concerned with the actual process of learning, not with the value of what is being learned". How do you sell that idea to a school?How do you manage a connectivist course and ensure that the subject is known? Are we pursuing a golden nugget? or Are we planting the seeds of knowledge?

While I have my eyes on the Connectivism nugget striving to get knowledge I am making the connections to plant the seeds of knowledge in me and then spread those in my country.

CCK08 Riddles?

My trip to the forum left me more confused, it's not a surprise.
As I sometimes find hard to locate the threads I will place an extract here and ponder about it during the week.



If you wish you can visit Stephen Downes original post.

"I have advanced a position in my own work proposing four major principles of association:

*resemblance - a.k.a. Hebbian associationism
*contiguity or proximity - a.k.a. salience
*feedback or back propagation
*balance, or entropy a.k.a. Boltzmann mechanisms

Conclusion

A lot of what I've tried to argue in this (admittedly long) post is that Connectivism is a non-intentional theory of learning and knowledge.
What this means is that, in connectivism, learning is not about content. It is not about entering a certain representational state with respect to the world.

Such an account makes the representational state - rather than our actual thoughts, perceptions and feelings - the arbiter of what it is to know, what it is to have learned.

But connectivist learning does not require representational states. It does not require on the part of the learner that they commit to a particular account of the external world.

It allows - indeed, encourages - the idea that people may have different, and individual, accounts of the external world.

Which means that what is negotiated is not some set of statements about the nature of that world - not representational states, not meanings - but mechanisms for communication, protocols for interaction (which may indeed be, and probably are, understood differently by each person engaged in communication)."

To add to this confusion I stumbled into Ken's blog, it did not clarify my ideas but I had a good laugh which I welcomed.
Will I someday be able to understand the riddles?
Time will tell.

Values. Overnight reflection. CCK08

The last post I read last night was from Tom.
He ponders about disfunctional families and disfunctional netowrks, it was almost midnight so I went to bed. I woke up with some thoughts and before rushing to answer, because he is asking about networks, I decided to place them here.

What moved me was that he is somewhat touching my area of expertise. I deal with disfunctionality every day at the office, the people that function in an acceptable manner for them do not come to visit.


How do I know if something is functional or disfunctional? Something functional for me can be disfunctional for you. What I do first is to get into their perspective and ask from there to gain clarity. Few people can tell others what is right or wrong, what is valuable and what is garbage; it deppends on the circumstances, everything is relative.

Sometimes they come saying: "I am lost, I cannot deal with this, I am losing my mind... am I crazy?"
My usual answer is: Crazy people don't go around asking if they are crazy, they believe they are not, they believe they are Napoleon or that someone is after them, or whatever and behave accordingly. If you are asking yourself if you are crazy it probably means that you are not.


Some other times they come expresing: "I don't feel safe, I am insecure, how do I know if my decision is correct?"
My answer would be: Don't look outside, look within. Observe what is bothering you, is the pain enough to complain but not enough to move? If you choose to keep complaining maybe it's not time yet for you to move. On the other hand, if you choose to move, imagine yourself in the new position... Does it feel right? Does it suit you?, What's lacking? From the answers we make an action plan.

It is easier to write about it than to do it. My main concern is to get them going where they want to go. I do not approve or disaprove their decisions or actions, if that's right for them probably it's right. What I have to watch out, precisely, is that whatever they do, they do it looking at themselves first. I often find myself saying: Convince me, I don't buy that, "you" are not talking, someone else is talking here, whose eyes are you wearing to look at the situation?

The point I want to make here is that to wander in the values, measures, evaluation or assessment area is a serious matter. It is relative. The same fact, the same behaviour can create havoc in one place and heaven in another.

What's funcional? What gives you comfort, a sense of well being, what allows you to move, interact and enjoy the path.
What's disfunctional? What causes discomfort, a sensation of being wronged, what keeps you rooted in one place unable to interact and enjoy.

Don't overlook the fact that sometimes is healthy to feel discomfort, it is part of the growing process. Sometimes by exploring the disfuncion or discomfort for a while you get some answers. Sometimes you save your life by not moving. Sometimes you enjoy discomfort. We come again to the same point. It is relative.