At the End of Week Two
sdownes on Sep 20th 2008
So the second week has ended. George has returned from England and the course has begun to find its stride.
Week two begun with admonitions by both George and myself for peopel to focus their readings. The course opened with a flourish – and not a little chaos – with a lot of content from all over the place. People were quickly overwhelmed. The main message in the first few days of week 2 was to encourage people to be selective.
I began the week by writing a script for a video. I never did shoot the video, preferring to simply post the text. I had intended to do more of these, but I began to feel that simply adding more reading wouldn’t make the reading clearer. People didn’t really like the coal analogy.
What this made me realize (and I should have been clear about this all along) was that people, especially those who are educated, are going to view these things from their own perspective. I could say the voal analogy was about ‘knowledge’ as much as I wanted, but people still took it as a (poor) analogy about learning.
The genmeral sentiment this week was that people didn’t want to hear about knowledge. We heard that a lot (even george said it a few times). It is odd for me to think that educators don’t want to learn about knowledge. But educators are about process. They are about doing. They are outgoing, not introspective. I read about a year or so ago of a survey showing that something like 85 percent of educators are ‘extroverts’ according to Myers-Brigg testing.
But that said, we nonetheless had some good discussions about knowledge. The blogs, especially, began to make themselves heard. I also thought we had three very good audio sessions – the two sessions on Wednesday and the UStream conversation on Friday. I think George and I laid the foundation for more in depth discussions in later weeks. I personally think of connectivism as a theory of knowledge, while I think George emphasises the teaching more. For more, internal consistency of theory is more important. I think George is more pragmatic. And George definitely communicates in a way that is more likely to draw on, and from, what people already believe.
I think the actual distinction became most evident in Friday’s discussion. George is much more heavily influenced by social constructionist theories than I am, I think. As I said in the conversation, I don’t think that knowledge from friends and contacts is privileged; any sensory input produces knowledge. I think George sees knowledge as that which is obtained from one’s network, while I see it as produced by a network. Just as we wouldn’t say that neoroine in the brain get knowledge from each other, nor either do I see such a process working in society.
The text I posted at the beginning of the week was intended to be a first step in making this clear, but it became clear tyo me that I woiuld not be able to advance, at this point, beyond those statements. Meanwhile, the discussion of connective knowledge was complicated by the inclusion of the dicussion of rhizomatic knowledge, is is yet a third perspective.
With ten weeks to go, there remains a lot of time to explore these issues.
The most striking thing about week 2 has been the way the discussion on the blogs and on the Moodle forum has completely diverged. The Moodle forum is not dominated by bitter, spietful, even hateful duscussion. Some people are making a game effort to keep the discussion moving, but as statistucs released part way through the week show, a few people have completely dominated the discussion.
The pattern is familiar to anyone who has ever used a discussion forum. Basically one or two people dominate discussion and crap on anyone who dares disagree (or dares make any point that does not cater to their particular interests). In the gaming community, such people are known as griefers: “they seek to harass other players, causing grief. In particular, they may use tools such as stalking, hurling insults, and exploiting unintended game mechanics.” In the world of online discussions, they are known as trolls.
Discussion lists are particularly vulnerable to trolls because of the way they are constructed. Although the standard response is, “Do not feed the trolls,” in a discussion list, since everybody seesthe same content, any post anywhere on the discussion board is food for the troll. Consequently, the only response is typically to either ban the troll, or shut dowen the discussion board. Perversely, this is exactly what the troll wants.
The structure of blogs works differently, and we can see that in evidence in this course. In a blog network, each person controls his or her own blog. So it is not possible for a troll to dump on everyone. As a result, what we see then we look at the collected blog posts, we see a very different discussion. Were we to read only the discussion board, it would appear as though the whole world absolutely despises this course, its authors, and connectiovism in general. In the unhgarassed world of blogging, the opposite is true.
Consequently, for this week, is was a priroity for me to get the blog network working. I god the harvester running properly and installed as a cron job, so it harvests from blogs automatically (one blog every minute). The blog bosts page was set up, and should be updating on its own as well.
Still, technical difficulties plagued the week. I forgot to send out the week 2 overview with Monday’s issue of the Daily. The University of Manitoba website went down Thursday, and then Friday morning I sent out the wrong newsletter.
I’m hoping for better next week. I’ll be on the road in San Jose and will bridge that Brandon Jall conference with this course in some as yet unknown way.
But for now, time to rest.
Filed in Uncategorized | 20 responses so far
Mike Bogle Sep 20th 2008 at 10:49 am 1
Hi Stephen,
This week definitely felt different from last week – certainly not in a bad way. I got the impression as well that the activities, reflections and discussions had begun to spread out across the blogs. There’s been a whole lot of activity there that’s been fascinating to watch unfold.
It seems as though week one involved people coming to terms with what we were doing, how we were doing it, and discovering our place within the landscape. This week seems to be more about taking action to start making connections – both conceptually and external/socially. At least that’s the way it appears to me anyway.
Movement to the blogs has definitely been my preference, not just because of the forum elements you mentioned – I just generally prefer blogs to forums.
In that respect the memetracker has been really valuable – as has the Daily.
Thanks for all the effort,
Cheers,
Mike
Michelle Sep 20th 2008 at 12:56 pm 2
Hi
Watching from “afar” on this CCK08 thing! I have actually blogged about it to a certain point – http://amusinggenius.blogspot.com/2008/09/what-hell-is-connectivism.html and http://amusinggenius.blogspot.com/2008/09/how-when-where-who-with-and-why.html
Obviously, my initial feelings and reactions were in the cynical “It’ll never last/work/succeed” basket but I AM interested in connectivism as a theory for new ways of learning and knowledge management. It will be majorly great if you do manage to rid yourselves of the griefers and trolls and the serious egalitarian sharing of knowledge between educators and p2p can get down to business!
In time I’m hoping to go on to do a BA in Internet Studies anyway. I’m doing that online too but still within the more or less “traditional” confines of University academia so this material about CCK is almost perfect fodder for a future thesis on the new tools and methodologies for future learning!
At the very least, your concept may be the first stone thrown into the educational pond, so the ripple effects of change in all forms of learning exchange, will prove to be the greatest indicator of success (or not) over time anyway. Perhaps!
Well okay – I’m a mere fly on the wall on this one. It’s interesting but I am only barely beginning to scratch the surface at the possibilities inherent in the project. Good luck with it and if you need someone to spell check your blog posts anytime Mike – give me a bell! *wink* hahaha
All the best in the coming weeks
mi
Michelle Sep 20th 2008 at 03:11 pm 3
oops…not mike! my apologies *blush*
Nellie Deutsch Sep 20th 2008 at 03:49 pm 4
In the process of removing myself from the clutches of the trolls and griefers on the Moodle, I lost contact with other course members. I am enjoying the connectiveness in the ning site: http://connecting-online.ning.com and the live online sessions on WiZiQ: http://www.wiziq.com
Join me if you have time.
Warm wishes,
Nellie
Prokofy Neva Sep 20th 2008 at 06:45 pm 5
Re: “The Moodle forum is not dominated by bitter, spietful, even hateful duscussion. Some people are making a game effort to keep the discussion moving, but as statistucs released part way through the week show, a few people have completely dominated the discussion.”
I find this a really biased and silly exaggeration. There is very little “bitterness, spite, and hate”. There is normal skepticism; normal questioning; normal challenging. Why does this bother you so?
There aren’t any “trolls or griefers” on the Moodle. I certainly am not one of them. I repudiate the notion generally, as it is a vestige of old Internet culture and the clutchiness of Founding Fathers’ syndrome, but even taking the term at face value, I don’t see any claim has any merit that you are foisting on the public here, Stephen, that I or anyone else is “deliberately disruptive” or “trying to incite hate” or any other “trollling” classics. You have a very, very new theory, with very, very little substantiation. It sounds very, very propagandistic. It’s more than fine to keep questioning that; it’s a necessity, given your ambitiousness about spreading yourself to the masses.
Your notion that you can have “better” conversations in culled, mannered, muted, banned blogs is suspect, because it means people are smug and smarmy about the entire enterprise.
When we read the Moodle, we don’t think that “the whole world despises the course”. That’s just downright silly. There is nothing of the sort there. Instead, we see “the whole world” (the class 2-5 percent) fawning praise, gushing enthusiasm, and getting completely giddy on the topic. A very few people are questioning such faddishness. That’s all.
Just listen to yourself, Stephen, and ask if you can have *any* credibility mounting a preposterous thesis such as this one:
“As a result, what we see then we look at the collected blog posts, we see a very different discussion. Were we to read only the discussion board, it would appear as though the whole world absolutely despises this course, its authors, and connectiovism in general. In the unhgarassed world of blogging, the opposite is true.”
The collected blog posts in fact contain some very intelligent criticism (i.e. on history, on knowledge) that essentially raises some of the exact same critiques of the forums — but on pages where people moderate and show off their university credentials, so maybe your comfort level is higher.
There is nothing “despising” the course as you imagine.
Ah, the “Unharassed” world of blogging where you moderate, mute, and ignore.
And you call that *science*?!
Prokofy Neva/Catherine Fitzpatrick
Prokofy Neva Sep 20th 2008 at 06:52 pm 6
@Mike Bogle Gosh, those evil, evil “forums elements”. They must be rooted out mercilessly from the Rhizomatic Learning Machine!
Andreas Formiconi Sep 20th 2008 at 06:55 pm 7
The coal example was fine. Perhaps people didn’t really like the coal analogy because they insisted on the analogy while, I believe, it was a very good starting point.
The forum makes me sick. It recalls me the awful degeneration of political language in Italy, where you do not cooperate with others by really exploring the subject at stake but you try to overwhelm antagonists. Appalling.
I prefer very much the blog community. Thanks for working (also) on blog network.
Prokofy Neva Sep 20th 2008 at 07:03 pm 8
Also re: “The pattern is familiar to anyone who has ever used a discussion forum. Basically one or two people dominate discussion and crap on anyone who dares disagree (or dares make any point that does not cater to their particular interests).”
I’ve seen a lot of that done to me, in fact. I dared to disagree, and I have faced dozens of people telling me I should shut up, stop criticizing, work and not talk, etc. Of course, criticisim *is* work. There have been at least 3 people on Twitter, including MBogle, actively calling for me to be “removed” or “banned” as if I’ve said or done some outrageous thing in the skepticism threads, for example, when…all I’ve done is said:
“I don’t believe.”
“Prove it.”
I’ve also gone now and read every single blog post for September 19, the last Daily. And…it’s rather disappointing. In fact, there are only a half dozen or less bloggers, and of them, only 3 are actually writing essays of substance. Of these, at least 2 are critical — Lisa’s for example. They are thoughtful and good, but they don’t represent the breadth of ideas and critiques and pieces of information that you can see on the forums. Quite a few of the blogs are just idle and content-free musing on the course mechanics or someone’s day, etc.
Driving everyone to blogs you have only achieved one thing, Stephen: dumbing down your own network. You should encourage openness, diversity, free expression and not be attempting to cull.
José Mota Sep 20th 2008 at 09:51 pm 9
@Stephen Downes – your analysis is, of course, correct, but I think you dismiss forums too fast as a good environment for discussions. They provide a way for quick and lively exchange of views and opinions, while not requiring as much investment and writing skills as blogs, which makes it easier for most people to participate in the conversation. The thing is, forums have to be moderated to avoid and deal with the problems you mention. How much they need to be moderated will depend on the nature of the forum itself and the objectives it serves. In most circumstances where education or training were involved, a highly toxic and offensive participant as Ms. Nova/Fitzpatrick would have to be reasoned into expressing her legitimate views in ways that are socially acceptable and, in case she didn’t, be banned. That is what happens in any context – on or off line – with someone whose behavior is repeatedly offensive and improper, and prevents the others from doing what they are there to do. In the case of this course, because of its nature and the type of participants it attracts, I think leaving things be is not a bad approach either. There are many valuable posts, and conversations, and conflicting views in the various discussions where people are producing very good ideas and stimulating questions. As for Ms. Nova/Fitzpatrick, she definitely gets a kick out of being sometimes obnoxious, as any troll does, but people can choose to just ignore her posts
.
Stephen Downes Sep 21st 2008 at 01:55 am 10
> There aren’t any “trolls or griefers” on the Moodle. I certainly am not one of them.
A statement belied by the fact that the very same person felt it necessary to post three times onto a thread (at the time) of four posts.
Week 2: Rethinking epistemology « Sjohast’s Weblog Sep 21st 2008 at 08:04 am 11
[...] “trolls” in discussion foras and how they can skew and halt discussions. Steven writes “In a blog network, each person controls his or her own blog. So it is not possible for a trol…. I never thought about this before, but it is definately a good argument in favor of blogs. [...]
Prokofy Neva Sep 21st 2008 at 08:45 am 12
No, Stephen, not belied whatsoever. Posting three times isn’t proof of “troll” status, which in any event, is an inappropriate term for the problem of conformism and dissent on line. Your blog doesn’t enable people to go back and add things to one post as they think of it, and edit the post; hence multiple posts. Multiplicity of posts doesn’t prove anything. But it is important to keep coming back in a setting where a powerful influencer already has seized the telegraph station and keep trying to diversify the information they are putting out, so that it is not so propagandistic.
It’s helpful to go back to the original thread “Skeptic” at this point and see what I wrote, which is legitimate, which is not “trolling,” which is merely a statement of disbelief in your ideology:
http://ltc.umanitoba.ca:83/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=473
Under the guise of making and explaining new media tools, you are welding into them your own biased ideology, and that has to be called out. You obviously don’t think you need that sort of mirror.
Stephen Downes Sep 21st 2008 at 11:05 am 13
> The thing is, forums have to be moderated to avoid and deal with the problems you mention.
Yeah, I know. But that just invites problems in the other direction – not simply the abuse of moderation power (which I’ve seen enough times) but also the perception of abuse of moderation power.
Bradley Shoebottom Sep 21st 2008 at 03:09 pm 14
Here’s my view on the discussions to date:
Some people seem to be able to dive much more deeply into the theory of knowledge and learning than others (Ken Anderson). Some have more expressive criticism (Catherine Fitzpatrick). Perhaps both have dominated the conversations because: 1) they are more intelligent on the subject 2) have more time to devote to the course. This is not unlike graduate school where the smartest or person most able to spend time on campus is heard to express themselves more. I haven’t dived that much into responding to either (even though I am now taking the course for “credit” and would normally jump at the challenge) because I fell I can’t articulate the argument well enough with them. I work a 55 hours week with a 6 and 3 year old on top of taking this course. I am happy to watch their conversations, chime in on a minor point, and get exposed to some new tools and theories.
I have started to form the tentative theory that while Web 2.0 makes us more connected (if we chose), it does not make us learn much better. As the discussion statistics point out, a lot of chatter did not revolve around substance. At most, it exposes to a larger interaction group which may lead us to obtaining more information (George S’s view) or producing more learning (Stephen’s view). The course has already caused me to use CMAP to more use than I did during a software trial, use Blogs more than I had time for, and produce an Ontology on my belief system (http://bradleyshoebottom.wordpress.com/2008/09/22/an-onotology-of-my-belief-system/). Oh crud! I guess connectiveness has just caused me to learn something and I hereby refute my tentative theory. But that’s me. What about the next guy or gal.
Oh yeah, the spelling has been atrocious, so could everyone run their posts through a spell check first. We are coming across as illiterates.
Prokofy Neva Sep 21st 2008 at 04:48 pm 15
Apparently you’re moderating anyway? Because my posts are not going through. I’ll try one more time.
No, Stephen, not belied whatsoever. Posting three times isn’t proof of “troll” status, which in any event, is an inappropriate term for the problem of conformism and dissent on line.
Your blog doesn’t enable people to go back and add things to one post as they think of it, and edit the post; hence multiple posts. Multiplicity of posts doesn’t prove anything. But it is important to keep coming back in a setting where a powerful influencer already has seized the telegraph station and keep trying to diversify the information they are putting out, so that it is not so propagandistic.
It’s helpful to go back to the original thread “Skeptic” at this point and see what I wrote, which is legitimate, which is not “trolling,” which is merely a statement of disbelief in your ideology:
http://ltc.umanitoba.ca:83/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=473
Under the guise of making and explaining new media tools, you are welding into them your own biased ideology, and that has to be called out. You obviously don’t think you need that sort of mirror.
Pat Parslow Sep 21st 2008 at 09:40 pm 16
I am often concerned that people perceive me as ‘trolling’ – if it requires intent, however, I can rest easy. I do like to be involved in the discussions though, and, I confess, from time to time I take pity on trolls and feed them.
Forums provide a dialogic space – whereas blogs provide a space for putting one’s own point of view in a ‘position of power’. Any dialogue which occurs in blog-space will tend to be between author and commenter, not between commenters (if done in a thread) and very hard to follow if done across blogs. Consequently the forum is a suitable place to have discussions which require many voices to take part.
Daily Bookmarks 09/21/2008 « Experiencing E-Learning Sep 21st 2008 at 10:16 pm 17
[...] Connectivism & Connective Knowledge » At the End of Week Two [...]
Keith Lyons Sep 22nd 2008 at 08:32 am 18
Wow! I have been away from Moodle from the first week of the course. I realise I should have been there to grasp the diversity of points of view. (I thought I would explore blog posts in Week 2).
David Lodge wrote A Small World in the 1980s and these comments here on Stephen’s post reminded me of the challenges Persse McGarrigle faced in understanding a specific discourse and narrative.
To date CCK08 has introduced me to a lot of people passionate about learning. I do need to follow up on a number of other forums to appreciate the range of learners. CCK08 is inducting me into these possibilities.
Like Persse McGarrigle I am wondering ‘What if we are all correct in our views?’ Would we need an inclusive approach to on-line discussion that is non-judgemental and open to the fallability and messiness of understanding?
Tim Gillibrand Sep 22nd 2008 at 11:05 am 19
I only skim the forums and tend to use an RSS reader to follow the blogs and forum posts. I’m amazed how upset some people are about the forums. Just skip the posts/posters you don’t like and get on with it. This is an open online course and your going to get a whole range of opinions. I’d just like to say I agree with Pat and while I disagree with much of what Catherine has to say I find some of it quite interesting.
CCK08: Week 3 Networked « Clyde Street Sep 23rd 2008 at 11:30 am 20
[...] learned this week about griefers and trolls through following up on a post by Stephen. I have not used Moodle at all since Week 1. As part of my reading I looked at Second [...]