 | students in a classroom: a group, a network, both of it? |
|
There are 24 students of 17years sitting in a classroom. Some of them planning their afternoon activities, some of them sending small letters, some of them listening to the teacher (one of the hub-nodes in this ...). I am wondering if it is important to find out wether this is a group or a network. Digging in my old books on sociology I might have found the general idea: they are a system with smaller systems inside this system. Systems do have boundaries depending on expectations. One the other hand a system can be part of a bigger system. In the end the overall system is society, the boundary of which are reachability by communication and comprehensibility. I have to admit, there is not much about learning in there. But somehow I got lost why group or network is important for learning. May be someone in this network can guide me out of this dead end. |
 | Re: students in a classroom: a group, a network, both of it? |
|
>But somehow I got lost why group or network is important for learning Important and an absolute requirement for this course as the connectivists would have you believe that all learning is networked (easy if you call everything and not-a-things nodes) and that network principles are learning principles. A deductive theory using forced induction from neural network observational data. When does a group become a node? |
 | Re: students in a classroom: a group, a network, both of it? |
|
Old Socs, Ulöp O'Taat voiced a similar challenge about my statement that it's all about the connections (though the concept of a tautology was used in that instance). Are you uncomfortable with the notion that, at it's core, all learning is about nodes/connections? I'll push the boundaries slightly by stridently stating: connections are to learning as atoms are to the physical world. We can only understand the "rest of it" if we begin by focusing on the most basic elements (though atoms keep being reduced to smaller and smaller substances, but I think Feynman's declaration of atoms as the base of all things is still accurate) |
| Re: students in a classroom: a group, a network, both of it? |
|
Hi George >Are you uncomfortable with the notion that, at it's core, all learning is about nodes/connections? Yes, I am uncomfortable with this notion. I am struggling with learning being reduced to that. I can't put a finger on it yet, but this notion just doesn't sit well with me. I probe with questions, try to see this from different perspectives, but I am not getting it. Sorry. I also have some difficulties with the term definitions. Is there any thing that is not a node? However: The notion that 'Neurons that fire together, wire together' is interesting, in reference to the idea that we are, at base, a collection of neural pathways, learned neural pathways, if you will. I wonder that there is more to my consciousness than that, and marvel that one would be content with being as being reduced to a network of neurons. I have a sense that I am more than that. Call it folk psychology, if one wishes, but that sense is strong in me. >connections are to learning as atoms are to the physical world I am not sure how you mean this. This statement may be self-evident to you but it is not self-evident to me what you mean. If all you mean is that connections are the building blocks of learning in the same way that atoms are the building blocks of the physical world, then I have been trying too hard to understand a simple statement and have been reading something into this statement (and similar ones) that isn't there. On the other hand, atoms connect in order to form the physical world. In your proposition, are connections being treated as objects or actions, subject or verb? What connections are you talking about? Neural? Social Network? And I would still ask you for empirical proof of this statement. What proof do you offer? Would nodes are to learning as atoms are to the physical world be more accurate? How about neurons are to learning as atoms are to the physical world? |
 | Re: students in a classroom: a group, a network, both of it? |
|
I'm in danger of going a bit cosmic to counter the reductionism. Being fundamentally a humanist at heart, I cannot accept that at base I am but neural pathways, learned or not. To paraphrase Ken Wilber, studying schizophrenia by looking at the synapses and the chemistry involved is akin to studying Tolstoy's epic, War and peace, by analysing the compounds of paper and ink. There are times to look through a wider lens. Some wisdom from Kenneth Gergen: To communicate is thus to be granted, by others, meaning...If others do not treat one's utterances as communication, if they fail to coordinate themselves around the offering, one's utterances are reduced to nonsense.... If i stay stuck at a level of discerning letters of the alphabet ...or even words in isolation...or focus on neuronal functioning subject to synaptic firings...and blood chemistry altering with each utterance...I lose the whole. The metaphor of interconnecting neurons is enough. Overplaying it scares me. I suspect I am more comfortable with a metaphor of connections similar to rhizomes which depicts notions of interaction that are layered and connected without supposing that I am vegetable. Reference Gergen, K. (n.d.). When relationships generate realities: Therapeutic communication reconsidered. Swarthmore Colege. http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/kgergen1/web/page.phtml?id=manu6&st=manuscripts&hf=1 |
 | Re: students in a classroom: a group, a network, both of it? |
|
Hi Socs and all Let me try a different take on this. I am sharing the discomfort here. If ...Learning is establishing a capacity for effective action and if ... this capacity (or 'affordance' in ecological psychology) is the product of interaction/s between the learner and the environment Then ... the learning is captured, embedded, traced, tracked (etc) within a network of nodes, many of which are neurons, many others of which are muscles, bones, organs, etc ('actors' in the ANT sense). However, the definition of an affordance is that it is: the product of the interaction between an organism and its environment, which potentially changes the identity of the organism as well as the (micro-) environment. So ... we have identity to contend with, as a central part of learning, not a peripheral add-on. And in H. Sapiens identity it is embedded not only internally, in all those 'actors' in the body, but also externally, in language (and other) practices as well as in a range of semiotic artefacts, which as McCluhan says, are extensions of the body (body-as-network). And ... learning too, for H. Sap., is embedded in a range of semiotic artefacts and derivative artefacts, which are powerful elements of the 'civilized' ecology (including Ozone holes, Greenhouse effects, etc). That of course affects and effects our identity. From God's own chosen animal, we have slipped up a bit, and are now in danger of becomeing the first animal to commit species suicide. That's our identity. In short (!) learning is the product of interactions between 'actors' (bodies and artefacts) and it is embedded in (traced out, in) bodies and artefacts. Sure, our neurons are impressive, but they are not the whole picture. See here for a first attempt at mapping this all out, which I did in response to a similar debate in CCK08/ |
 | Re: students in a classroom: a group, a network, both of it? |
|
Old Socs You are clearly looking for that Eureka moment! There are many metaphors in Connectivism but I suppose it does help describe the theory if not explain it or prove it. I wonder if thinking of learning as a fishing net might help. The whole net is 'learning'. It is made of string, of course, but a specially connected string that has areas of tight connections (the knots) and loose connections (between the knots). It takes a lot of weaving (connection making) to make up the net. The way the net behaves as a whole (nets can be made for different purposes) displays its particular properties. It is the connections that make up the net. Without them it would just be a piece of string. You as a deep thinking philosopher could be the one that creates this learning (by weaving and making the connections) but similarly the net could have been made by several of your friends as well. Ooh perhaps there'll be parables as well as metaphors in Connectivism next. |
 | Re: students in a classroom: a group, a network, both of it? |
|
Hi Socs. How about a periodic table of the connections, then? Fig. 1. Ulop's Taxonomy of Connections (TOC)
|
 | Re: students in a classroom: a group, a network, both of it? |
|
Hi George, > Connections are to learning as atoms are to the physical world. That is true if STIMULUS = CONNECTION. We can be connected but with no exchange. Therefore, if there is no stimulation, the connexion is irrelevant to learning. However, we get physical stimuli from context (Offline) that are useful for an internal process of learning. Do you agree? |
 | Re: students in a classroom: a group, a network, both of it? |
Students in a classroom are nodes of a bigger network which is the group in terms of connectivism. Learning is the electrial stimulous that join the dots.  |
| Re: students in a classroom: a group, a network, both of it? |
| And if two students do not interact with the group also receive the stimulation and learning? |
| Re: students in a classroom: a group, a network, both of it? |
| Generally speaking they are address of a connection. Depending on the characteristics of the nodes they are ready for the connection, or deny access of information. |
| Re: wired soup anyone? |
|
Let me try another track ... OK, so we have connections and network traffic This ranges over a number fields: 1. Internally: Neurons, which spill over, literally, into synapses and then into cells, at which point the miro-electical (neuron) network bridges to chemical micro-ecologies (of synapses and of cells and of various body fluids, right down to the cell nucleus and mitochondria). To cope with this we need a 'wired' metaphor ("networks") but we also need an intertwined chemical metaphor ("soup", or 'micro-ecology perhaps ?). "Wired" is kind of limited, and "soup" is not very 'academic', but my micro-biology is a bit rusty, so maybe someone else can help out here - the point is that some of these fluid micro-ecologies are confined (in cells) and for some the flow is strucutred (in the two vascular systems) but some of it is 'intersticial' which might be more 'messy'. So we end up a long way from the comfort zone of the 'wired' metaphor. 2. Externally: Interactive, communicative and networking media (ICN media, as opposed to ICT technolgies). These are the networks of social software, with nodes (my hard drive, my memory stick, my files in external wikis and blogs, etc). And ...? And the traffic in both the internal network/soups, and the external digital social networks, leave residues - chemical, electrical state, connective, physical state changes, and in H. Sapiens part of the wood, as well as the internal 'residues' (what you have learnt, and stored in your internal network/soups) we have, uniquely, built up a wealth of external capital of semiotic traces - texts - the stuff that used to be kept in libraries. So, the connections fit in there somewhere, the question is not whether they are important, but how they relate to all these other internal and external residues. Connections, networks, network/soup traffic, residues, capital, capacity - that's a very basic 'ontology' (in computing terms) for what we are trying to talk about, no? |
 | Re: wired soup anyone? |
|
Hi Roy, apologies for the delay in responding on this, have been trying to grapple with both wired and soup and couldn't get back to networks. Instead today was thinking about if I was creating these images and that lead into thinking about form and formlessness within art and as metaphor. So did a little online exploration into and found the below, not sure if these will help but found each of these articles and posts interesting: "Art is about form. (Visual shape is a metaphor for conceptual form.) But in the course of the twentieth century, this very notion (form) has become suspect. This situation creates an interesting challenge for the visual arts." "Form inevitably creates narrative, disclosing the intent and the hand of the author. Whether linear or non-linear, any narrative contains a particular point of view. On the other hand, formlessness allows for unencumbered individual interpretation. I think of formlessness in its purest state as randomness. The only true opposition to structure, it gives equal importance to each structural entity. It is the only truly democratic (objective) view of information." "I define imagination as the path between the experience of an event in our life, and our response and action in the world. It is that inward path of creativity that moves from the 'formless' and manifests as form outwardly in the world. We are all creative and imaginative beings and our actions and re-actions in the world are shaped by our unique experiences. Listening to the language we use, attending to the metaphors spoken, and talking about inner images that arise during the course of anything we do, can become a practice or discipline that offers deeper insights about the nature of whatever we are involved in. Questions, metaphoric language and imagery that are articulated may be an indication that a group is moving into resonance - a quality of the energy associated with arising collective wisdom. Inquiring into images requires a different way of thinking than we generally do. It requires listening to what the image has to say about the topic. This is what Carl Jung called 'symbolic thinking.' It offers a different perspective than we might normally have and can give us great insights about more subtle qualities and a wealth of understanding. For the purpose of this initiative, I have categorized the following images in a way that is meaningful to me. Because of our differing life experience, the reader may see qualities that I don't see and may put them into different categories. It is critical to remember that the literal image is not what really matters - the energy the image carries is what is important. Some images might fit into several categories -- these carry energies that seem more universal to the various aspects of the work. What energy the image carries depends on our connection to it. How we respond to these images depends on the experiences we have had in our life. " This then took me further into exploring "soupness" and liquids: "Presence and absence, particle and void, become synonymous with form and formlessness, with action and rest, with sound and silence. Although the ratios might not be as staggering as in atomic structure or galactic organization, the world around us balances and blurs these dichotomies and often refuses to identify clear boundaries. When one extreme begins to dominate, forces work to pull in the opposite direction. Liquids provide especially unique expressions of absences, as certain molecular bonds become flexible to allow the substance to take the shape of the surrounding container. A shifting of internal spaces determines the external shape while the overall molecular structure remains consistent. In this way, a liquid reveals complex layers of form and formlessness – the void of subatomic structure gives way to a free-flowing molecular structure that supports a formless yet recognizable external form. Neither order nor chaos rules the system, and instead an amorphous flux of structure and formlessness controls the movement of liquids." "The Liquid Reflections series and thus T01828 developed gradually from my previous work over five or six years and is as I see it a cosmic model not only in the metaphorical sense of being reflections within reflections, circles within circles and spheres within spheres but also through a demonstration of forces. When the solution is first poured into the disc the condensation patterns which form are vague and formless resembling interstellar clouds of gas, but within a certain time limit they tend naturally to crystallize into precise spherical droplets which in turn seem to attract more of the same forming into clusters. These form, remain for a while and then dissolve, only to reform in slightly differing patterns. Their behaviour mirrors the natural behaviour of the macrocosmic world. The movement of the balls on the surface of the disc follows laws of momentum and its exchange as well as being governed by centrifugal force and the pull of gravity induced by the concavity of the disc. Finally I think that the particles which I saw as light in previous works have in the balls become three dimensional and their motion subject to real forces." |
 | Re: wired soup anyone? |
|
Nicola, wonderful image - liquid reflections: http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?cgroupid=999999961&workid=8796&searchid=17203&tabview=image sorry, I cant seem to get the 'insert picture' to work here, but people really need to take a look before reading on ... Its a great metaphor for thought and resonance, and much better than wired soup - that was just my attemp to describe John's posting of a picture of neural networks, half of which are the (wired) neurons, and half of which are the chemical soup in the synapses. OK, so 'connectivism' sparks off debates and thought (and imagination, as you point out). But 'connections' are quite inadequate as descriptors of wired soups in the brain, or my response to this image, which is about resonance, between the energies of the thoughts/ memories/ scenes in my brain and the energies in the picture. I can 'connect' to this image, but so what? The important thing is, is whether it has any resonance for me (or not). I am just reading Hilary Spurling's fascinating 2 volume biography of Matisse, which traces the path he took through colour, form, and much else besides, and the extraordinary battles he had with finding resonance in the world of the Art public, to his pictures that they thought were completely dissonant with everything they believed in and valued. Part of this requires experience: my own reaction to Henry Moore was luke warm until I saw an exhibition of his which included his tiny maquettes as well as the final products: the 30 foot sculptures. Its the weight (of the form) that really resonated with me. And ... as a semiotician, there is lots of resonance with the remarks on absences, above. This is one aspect of absences that recently struck me: absences #1 from here ... |
| Re: wired soup anyone? |
|
Thanks Roy for expressing this so clearly, it is very helpful. Will respond in more depth soon - just saw that Jonah Lehrer has posted about arts education Did have a mad idea at beginning of cck09 because in current job, often work couple of days a week nr Tate Modern (5 min walk) - and was wondering about possibility of finding someone from there in their education dept - if teachers out there were interested...how about a connectivism exhibition..they are the Tate Modern...creative use of technologies...? I don't know a lot about form but I find it helpful when artists explain themselves, also Bridget Riley recently, Pedro teaches art and may have a wonderful perspective on this, unfortunately my Spanish is tiny so we have not been able to chat about so far |
| Re: wired soup anyone? |
|
Thanks Roy for expressing this so clearly, it is very helpful. Will respond in more depth soon - just saw that Jonah Lehrer has posted about arts education. Did have a mad idea at beginning of cck09 because in current job, often work couple of days a week nr Tate Modern (5 min walk) - and was wondering about possibility of finding someone from there in their education dept - if teachers out there were interested...how about a connectivism exhibition..they are the Tate Modern...creative use of technologies...? I don't know a lot about form but I find it helpful when artists explain themselves, also Bridget Riley /a> recently. Pedro teaches art and may have a wonderful perspective on this, unfortunately my Spanish is tiny so we have not been able to chat about so far |
| Re: wired soup anyone? |
|
Thanks Roy for expressing this so clearly, it is very helpful. Will respond in more depth soon - just saw that Jonah Lehrer has posted about arts education. Did have a mad idea at beginning of cck09 because in current job, often work couple of days a week nr Tate Modern (5 min walk) - and was wondering about possibility of finding someone from there in their education dept - if teachers out there were interested...how about a connectivism exhibition..they are the Tate Modern...creative use of technologies...? I don't know a lot about form but I find it helpful when artists explain themselves, also Bridget Riley recently. Pedro teaches art and may have a wonderful perspective on this, unfortunately my Spanish is tiny so we have not been able to chat about so far |
| Re: wired soup anyone? |
|
Nicola, love the quote in Lehrer on the Auden aphorism, which he adapted from Nietzsche: "Maturity - to recover the seriousness one had as a child at play." You could do a lot with that as a design brief for learning. Much of my learning about education comes from observing (lurking?) in a Montessori classroom, where children write before they read (starting with letters, then their own name, then it sometimes dissipates though). Question: could we teach maths by writing, not reading? What I mean is, could we expose learners to events, puzzles, etc, which they then capture on paper (or in programmes) using maths? Seymour Papert did this to some extent in LOGO, which is a drawing/writing programme that incorporates maths as writing. Your quote from Bridget Riley is wonderful too: "For me, drawing is an inquiry, a way of finding out – the first thing that I discover is that I do not know. This is alarming even to the point of momentary panic. Only experience reassures me that this encounter with my own ignorance – with the unknown – is my chosen and particular task, and provided I can make the required effort the rewards may reach the unimaginable. It is as though there is an eye at the end of my pencil, which tries, independently of my personal general-purpose eye, to penetrate a kind of obscuring veil or thickness. To break down this thickness, this deadening opacity, to elicit some particle of clarity or insight, is what I want to do". Art as writing/wrevealing/un-reeling/un-real-ing/re-real-ing (edit and vary to taste, add de capo). One of the things that strikes me is: Has anyone noticed that forums and blogs are learning-by-writing? Twitter? mmmm, I dont know - dont use it much, its at the edge/centre of connectivism, and of complex adapative systems. Question: if we mashup Lehrer, Nietzsche, Auden, Montessori, Papert, and Riley, do we get a hint of a new learning practice/theory of writing/wrevealism? - which could be applied across humanities, sciences and arts? You might rework that, and try it on Riley &/or the Tate: "wrevealing connections". It would be fun to be part of that. Count me in - on the thought experiment and or the reality. To paraphrase: "I'm just here for the writing". Any thoughts you might like to try writing? |
 | Re: wired soup anyone? |
|
"Learning by writing" reminds me of "learning by speaking", which was our approach to students as Spanish teachers at the University of Kansas. I was my students´ first source of Spanish language and it showed even years later in their accents, so they were obviously exposed to the language, hearing it was essential within the classroom... But I´d say the learning process began when they spoke (and wrote, of course, although I see differences). A few sounds and words at first, sentences which got more complex, better connected as they gradually corrected themselves and each other. The ones who tried and spoke more were the ones who evolved and improved more obviously, and the more they spoke the more confident they felt about speaking (same here in the forums, I guess). In Spain, although we study English since we´re very little we are somehow lead into being extremely self-conscious about speaking so there´s hardly any speaking in the classroom and most adults (unless they´ve lived abroad) are too shy to speak a foreign language even when they have words and sentences interiorized. |
| Re: wired soup anyone? |
|
Leila, that's probably why children are so good at languages. They are actually good at making mistakes, unselfconsciously. That's the difference, no? I did some research work a while back on 'superlearning' - its sounds like 'snake oil' but its quite sound. Basically, you get students into an alpha brain wave state (either by biofeedback, or meditation, or largo movements from baroque music). Once in the alpha state, you listend to language clips, and the remarkable thing is, we remembered the words, sentences etc in the exact accent - i.e. it was a very rich listening experience, quite different to what you normally experience as an adult. |
| Re: wired soup anyone? |
|
Hi Roy, saw this and instantly got reminded of liquid movements, especially the last few days & weeks in the UK... http://vimeo.com/7681282 (via http://ff.im/ce1gC) |
| Re: wired soup anyone? |
|
Nicola, stunning. The roof top garden system similarly. We are in the process of redesigning an interactive interface for story telling and sense making, and are looking for abstract graphics to add to the sense making. This stuff is really food for thought. (There is a link to a presentation on the sense making here). |
| Re: wired soup anyone? |
|
Hi Roy, Your interface work sounds very exciting. I love this, I have been complaining about dots and motion graphics / patterns on my blog on and off this year, but this is very clever and the ambient sound totally worked too for me. I have bookmarked your presentation and will take a look, it sounds really interesting, |
 | Re: students in a classroom: a group, a network, both of it? |
|
The mere aggregation of 17 year old students in a classroom imho is not enough to define a group or network. I think the test is whether those students or the institution tries to isolate the class from the world. Connectivism says teachers do not need to isolate students for them to learn what we want them to learn. I believe most students do not want to be isolated in a class if they find it more boring than networking with their friends, family etc. They rebel, they want to be connected. So they do stuff, in my class' case send/read SMS. Whatever they are doing in class I believe they are still learning something, not necessarily what teachers want them to learn. It could be backwash, it could be the art of how to look busy doing other things and avoid the attention of the teacher (some students know their geology and biology well enough to sit at the blind spots of the teacher). I think what connectivism is teaching us now is that we can manage (e.g. through curatorial teaching) a learning environment that is connected to the outside world. And if we want to have our own ideas resonate in that network then we should connect and engage in the network ourselves as teachers. If the teacher wants to be a hub, then he/she should act like a hub rather than being peripheral. The students can be considered nodes in a social network, but their minds/brains are networks in a larger network. It depends on how you look at it. Like looking at a Google map. If you zoom in, you can see houses, if you zoom out nations, if even further---planets. Knowledge is like that, every concept is an enmeshed sub-network within a network and so on. And we should never forget that we are talking about a very very very dense network that results in complex emergent behavior. The emergent behavior may include everything we hold dear, like values, virtues, knowledge etc. |
 | Re: students in a classroom: a group, a network, both of it? |
| What a delightful way to look at teachers and learners. For 34 years now I am doing everything I do with students together and it works. Of course there are students or situations which were going wrong, but so what. Nothing goes right all the time. Let them be what they are, let them learn what is necessary on that moment, but let them see also the consequences for graduating or future or whatever is important, so they can choose with your help as a teacher en coach. I think my world consisted from networks before I had ever thought about groups or networks. On the moment I think I mostly agree with Stephen that acting in networks is more enriching then living in groups. I listened to the last Elluminate, was for sure no member of the group at that moment, but certainly a member of the network within this session was hold. And I love the possibility to act like I did en do. My weblog; http://siavogel.edublogs.org/ |
| Re: students in a classroom: a group, a network, both of it? |
| <The mere aggregation of 17 year old students in a classroom imho is not enough to define a group or network. I think the test is whether those students or the institution tries to isolate the class from the world>. I´m finding this statement very helpful, Roel. |