Connectivism, the new educational paradigm?

I'm a fan of Guy Claxton Wise Up (Visions of Education) and his work on life-long learning and the power of the mind in non-traditional education, yet to me there was always something missing. His three tenets of Reflection, Resilience and Resources made me think of a Knight (on horseback). The Knights helmet was so shiny, yet the visor had the merest crack in it, and like the Lenard Cohen song, that was to let the light in - not to see the outside world, but to reflect on what was inside themself. Why have some of the wisest protagonists in stories been blind? Does it allow them to focus on their inner world and not be distracted by the shifting sensory cacophony around them? So that is the core of learning as espoused by so many great thinkers (Dewey, Polanyi, Einstein; the list goes on...), that knowing yourself and exercising your imagination is the wellspring of learning and of thus embracing the change you perceive as necessary.

The second point is resilience. The Armour and a shield to protect this mindfulness from the slings and arrows of failure, to enable you to live to fight another day and learn from your mistakes - by reflecting on what worked and what didn't. It provides a level of confidence that you can take on the world safely, with all its detractors and pits and trap falls of counterpoints. You can trust yourself to fight your best fight without wasting your energy on doubt and negativity.

Lastly, Claxton wrote of resourcefulness, which I saw as the long lance clutched firmly in the Knights gauntlet. It was both offensive and defensive. It keeps people at bay, and can skewer them like a kebab if they have the affront to challenge. It could also be utilised in myriad ways. It could be used as a flagpole when travelling, carrying your standard for all to see for miles around when held upright in your stirrup, or even as the tent pole to pitch your canvas over when resting. A very handy tool - but an inanimate object.

For me the vision lacked the Charger, the Relationship part of the connectivist paradigm. The trusty horse that enabled you to travel to far-away lands and make connections with different kingdoms. Also the knight as a chess-piece is the most innovative mover; it provides the hook from left field that feeds innovation (like the weak ties in Social/Organisational Network Analysis). And it is dynamic and taps into how we are social creatures at heart. Behaviourism, Cognitivism and Constructivism all focus on the individual, just like the Knights Helmet, Shield and Lance does. But wasn't the Round Table the real strength of Arthurs' kingdom? United we stand, etc? Gestalt shows us that we are greater than the sum of our parts

The Goldilocks dilemma

I've been working on a collaborative paper with peers around the world, and our topic has been on the role feedback and reflection play in learning (through an online environment). It's been a gut-wrenching experience to say the least, and right now, for me, that hasn't been resolved.

I don't think of myself as a lazy person, yet I recognise that my motivations lie in the perceived rewards from my efforts. It has been interesting to note that the feeling of failure in tackling this topic has been strong, that it is too complicated to achieve a result in the time we have, yet the urgency to push on has come from my own sense of self - that I am a team player and this is a core of my self-identity. The balance between discomfort, with the drive to push through led me to Mezirow and a bit of an ah-ha breakthrough. As a learner I need to complete 'pictures' - see interconnections, and until now I have been juggling. I wouldn't have reached this point without the support and encouragement of my peers.

Is this the core of a good teacher? Pushing without shoving. Setting stretch goals and then supporting the learner to reach them. Finding the fine line of balance between too much and too little?

The exhaustion of being an Introvert

When I did the Myers-Briggs I was surprised to find I was classified as Introverted. I like being with people, it's just that I energise by spending time by myself. So I feel like I fell off the studies after submitting my first assignment. I was so enthused when I started I was like a puppy replying to every post, and that finally took its toll.

Networks - the paradox of density and Gestalt

Nicholas Christakis has a fascinating take in his TED talk on Social Networks, and the part where he showed the knitting of atoms of carbon into graphite and diamonds was illuminating. The diamond is far denser than the pencil lead, but lets in light because the atoms are arranged in a connected network much more than in graphite. It is not the property of the carbon, but of the network, that gives it its 'personality'.

This sort of counter-intuitive result is like America's use of torture to combat terrorism. I don't think anyone would argue that Abu Ghraib damaged their reputation, and made the job of their soldiers even harder, so how to you counter this behaviour? I would argue open and transparent systems, with prisoners accorded all the rights of an American in court will win the war of hearts and minds - if not the isolated battles of interrogation. Why destroy something you respect and trust? If you understand something then you can begin a basis of communication, negotiation, persuasion...At least begin dialogue.

So it is in management. Command and Control doesn't work as effectively in the Knowledge Economy as other techniques that distribute power and empower employees (which used to be known as people, before they were turned into Human Capital).

So lets start looking at the real animal, and rename it as the 'living system' that is an organisation, not the dry graphical nodes of 'social network' chart. By recognising the big picture and seeing it as having it's own dynamic life, that requires care and nuturing, we give dignity back to the people who sustain it. The gestalt is the sum all of us, and yet bigger than all of us individually. As our actions ripple back and forth across the distances between indirect connections you realise the system takes on a life of its own, it develops personality - and that can't be isolated into individual nodes.

The Paradox of Networks

I listened to the disadvantages of networks with a great deal of interest last night. You see, I'm a glass half full kind of person, my blindspot is the downside of things. I guess the GFC was a great eye-opener in the danger of inter-dependencies of a networked society - that this inter-connectedness makes us all more vulnerable to an impact in one (now non-isolated) part as it ripples through the web.

Anyway, this talk was great and it touches on something that Ralph Stacey wrote about in his complexity books. By actually concentrating on the group - and their outcomes, the individual is actually (paradoxically) given a greater respect, a more noble impact with their contribution. This is the central paradox - that group think, the wisdom of the crowd, is only maximised if all the people in the group are independent, are individuals. Everyone has to be free to voice their own concerns, not be swayed by what others think of their opinions. Because the downside is a circle mill, where we all goose-step into oblivion. Is this consumerism?

I've been returning to a problem posed to us by one of my Design professors - that we all want to be individuals, but belong to a group. Eat our cakes. We are defined by who we belong to, as much as we are by our thoughts and actions.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him... The unreasonable man adapts surrounding conditions to himself... All progress depends on the unreasonable man." George Bernard Shaw

There must be a fine line between having the courage to speak your convictions and not alienating yourself from the group with your opinions. A fine balance...

Social Networking/Media, Boundary Spanners, CoP's and Peer evaluation (+throw in information literacy)

I'm writing a Literature Review on Formative Feedback and Reflective Practices in an online environment. Our class has also been discussing the vision versus reality of elearning, and the huge chasm between them.

Firstly the talk by Clay Shirky on Social Media.
So disruptive technologies surpass Control, connecting many-to-many and destroy the one-to-one, one-to-many paradigms and replace them with many-to-one and many-to-many connections. This allows our ZPD to be vastly expanded.

Then the disadvantages of Networks and Group Think from James Surowiecki.
Circle Mills are mindless follow-the-no-leader scenario where each link thinks the next link knows what's going on. A follow them home mentality, or if I shut-up then no-one will notice my ignorance until we all see the Emperor's New Clothes scenario. So we need the courage to admit failure, not understanding, or not cover over our weaknesses - all courageous decisions that may not be in our personal interests, but by creating a greater social capital, maybe paradoxically the most direct way to serve ourselves.

Then SNA and the Power of Loose Ties, or boundary spanners within Communities of Practice.
It is the Mavericks, the unreasonable person, that advances our thinking, that helps create a new world shaped by the way we look at it. (We all live in the same universe but inhabit different worlds),

What are the new skills needed in this Networked World? Independent views supported by the skills of information literacy and the higher cognitive functions employed during the process of peer dialogue?

Transformative Learning

Mezirow seems to be using different language to describe the same phenomena Lonnie Athens' does in his process of violentization. I also believe that Bertram Brookes was onto the same thing with his 'fundamental equation of information science', i.e. you've gotta know what somebody already knows to build on it, or address their bias (and yes, we are all biased - I'm not suggesting that teaching is done without an agenda).

I've had my worldview changed over the time I spend studying Knowledge Management. I feel I have new lenses in which to view the world. It's also changed me in the way some of my convictions have been strengthened - and that was done by cognitive dissonance.

You see I was Director of Studies for a very shoddy Registered Training Organisation (RTO - Visa factory) when my first daughter was born. I was torn between being a good provider for my family and being able to provide a quality training environment for my students. How could I mentor my child if I sold out my values? I was literally feeling the cracks inside myself when I came home and shut down, drinking too much and going into a depressive spiral.

Luckily the owner forced me into a situation that made my choice easy. I was told to fire a teacher because she raised an OH&S issue. I walked out there and then, and spent the next six months unemployed, but with my baby daughter bonding. My next job has sent me on the path I am now pursuing, and I am a much happier person, better father, but still require more work on being a better husband (It's those strong convictions again, and not cutting other's the slack they deserve just because they hold views contrary to mine). You can choose your friends, but not your family... Did I really just say that?

So I've experienced by incremental change through study, and a tipping point in my professional life. And I guess although I didn't change direction, I grew and learnt more about myself in the process.