 | Norming of the Nodes |
|
I see some of this happening here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forming-storming-norming-performing I think we are norming. |
 | Re: Norming of the Nodes |
|
I would agree that parts of the Moodle forum is now within the norming stage. Here is why: As a very diverse group we have formed and met various interesting challenges during the first 3 weeks of this group and the formation of the moodle community. Then we entered the storming stage, and boy was there ever a storm. Still see many of the after affects now... moving on I have seen a moderate climate to the posts and behaviours to each other in the last couple of days within moodle. So certain aspects of this environment have most likely started adjusting themselves. However I am seeing some evidence of performing, there was a thread I saw about a collaborative project. Regardless of where we are within the network stages I begin to question if this will not somehow affect how networks operate on some fundamental level.... |
| Re: Norming of the Nodes |
|
Hi Tom, nicely put. I wonder if those of use that saw the discussions a couple weeks ago as bad, or vitriolic or whatever would have a different view if they took an overview of the dynamics of group interaction such as these type of theories suggest. Then the 'vitriolic past' could be viewed as a necessary storming phase, and a welcome addition instead of a 'bad thing'. |
 | Re: Norming of the Nodes |
|
Ken: I don't see this community as a whole as you do. But in my opinion, there are groups which members could be considered, as per the article, forming, a lot storming, some norming and quite few performing. By the way. Why did you stop using the question strategy in your posts, which I liked so much? |
| Re: Norming of the Nodes |
|
Hi Maria. Nice to hear from you! I really had to think about your question, as I was not aware I had drifted from my normal style. But I think your observation has some accuracy, and upon reflection I trace it back to feeling the desire and obligation to try to provide answers in addition to questions. I think with me this started with John Mak's numerous questions in his posts, and I tried to provide answers. And now you have asked me a question too! I think I can explain myself by reverting to theory. The ABC's of my nascent Nodality Theory (NoT™) posit at least three attributes of a node: RST = receiver - storage device - transmitter. My questioning strategy falls under the R, in that I receive information by asking questions of the node that I have identified as being an S. In attempting to answer another node's questions, I become a T. The R state could be considered the learner phase, the T state that of the professor. Seems I have been morphing into the T state, a state I have no business being in! Why do you like the questioning strategy so much? (touché) |
 | Re: Norming of the Nodes |
|
Ken Is there any processing that goes on (or potentially could go on) between R and T, or is S simply a neutral function that does not alter whatever has been received? If nodes are human brains (interfacing through whatever means), then I am not certain a neutral S is possible, there will always be some inflection of the material - P (processing) or I (inflection). Translations and retranslations. If that is in the mix, then all nodes have the possibility of being in the T state as well as the R state most of the time. Cheers, Ed |
| Re: Norming of the Nodes |
|
Hi Ed. I suspect that the time in the S state might be very short, like you say, unless the node is sleeping, perhaps. I am using the R-S-T as a description primarily in the context of communication with other nodes. In this concept, R and T states would only be achieved when in communication with other nodes. S would signify the out-of-communication state, or suspended state. However, your view of the node in isolation is an interesting one. Maybe there is a 4th process, an internal one that lurks behind the S state, wherein the isolated brain is in reflective mode (which I think you mean by processing/inflection). And this process could also describe the interaction of R and T in the communicative mode. What do you think? |
| Re: Norming of the Nodes |
| I think output T can never be identical to input R, because there is a change of state, a translation. If we write data to a storage medium, and when we read it it is not identical, we speak of it as 'corrupted,' if it is changed to the point of unusability/unintelligibility. But translation processes are never in fact frictionless. When we record sound to a digital medium like a CD or a flash drive, it must be compressed, meaning not all the data is present for reproduction. Even the highest standards of CDs like SACD involve compression. Analogue recording media produce in some ways more humanly satisfying results, but there is much lost data there, too. Likewise, if the node is a human brain, the data recalled for transmission cannot be identical to the data stored. The '4th process' may be in the mysterious depths of the functioning of human memory, or in the more conscious realms of reflection or interpretation, but that data is in some way processed. This is, of course, one of the potential strengths of networks - multiple sites of processing (parallel, serial, or both) - but this 4th process must be something of which we remain very aware. T != R |
| Re: Norming of the Nodes |
|
Hi Ed. I think I agree with T != R, but only when S has processed and modified the data received (via R). If the data is static and stored, I thnk it is identically transmitted. I like to think that writing CD's is limited by the technology, and that the brain functions at a higher level (but I may be idealistic in this regard, and your version may prove more accurate). I have a name for the fourth process: Q(quality) as in the qualitative choice process in regards to both R and T. Q functions as a background mechanism impacting S. Q is the ultimate nodal process, and is in charge. And it fits into the ABC's of this theory: Q-R-S-T. Needs a little work though. |
 | Re: Norming of the Nodes |
|
Hi Ken Re: If the data is static and stored, I think it is identically transmitted. Don't know that the human brain can input data as static and stored. Going by all the literature and various theories about memory, somewhere along the line the data has to be added to the current known for it to be remembered (Sweller, 1994). Even if the data was stored externally, the brain would still have to link it to something to remember where it was stored. And if the data is linked to something, it is unlikely that it would be identically transmitted. |
| Re: Norming of the Nodes |
| Hi Ruth. I was thinking about the outbound traffic, post storage (already altered possibly on the way in, as you suggest). From the brain storage, transmitted outward. Would it still be altered if transmitted out from storage, as I have suggested? |
| Re: Norming of the Nodes |
| I think any change of state must affect the content. There are no frictionless transfers of data or meaning. The passage from R to S to T must change what is moving through this process. Minimally, it changes vector - its onward transmission comes from a different location. But what little I know of cognition and memory suggests, as Ruth points out, that our internal storage and retrieval processes must change the quality of the data. |
| Re: Norming of the Nodes |
|
Very clever your NoT Theory, and it has been trademarked which is wise nowadays. Chapeau! I like very much your questions because they are T questions no R questions, you pose questions that generate thinking; they have implicit other questions like "have you notice this aspect or have thought about this?". It's the Socrates technique. So I am sorry to say that you have always been in the T State, just from the begining of the forum. And you are very good at it. I am in a S State and your smart questions worths much more than 30 m presentations. |
 | Re: Norming of the Nodes |
| I am glad you mention Ken being in the T state Maria, because I was thinking the same thing. The questions which Ken transmits are marvelous fuel for thought. Of course, by 'listening' to the responses he can also be in the R state at the same time. |
| Re: Norming of the Nodes |
| Thanks Maria. I think I have been found out! Socrates is my all-time favourite! I regret that he chose the hemlock in the end, though. |
 | Re: Norming of the Nodes |
|
Thanks Tom, Ken, Maria, Ed, Pat and..., Your interesting discussion attracts me... aha! 1. Are we all T & R at the same stage of development or not? What happens if one participant perceives himself/herself to be in a forming stage and the other perceives himself/herself to be in a performing stage? Can you give me a clue which stage you want/expect me/others to be in? Performing? Or Clarifying in a forming or.... stage? 2. Are the number of questions asked a hint to the stage of group formation and development? 3. Is the context of questions and answers reflective of the stage of group development? First I am referring to this forum... then is it also reflective in blogs, wikis, podcast etc.? 4. How about the blogs..wikis, podcast...., etc, what stage are they in? 4. Can I propose that emotions play an important part in these dialogues or conversation (forum, blogs, wikis etc.)? Will people be happy
|
And Ken, I like your wonderful blog and model
. 
because of others' responses? Will you be expecting a 
response or a | Re: Norming of the Nodes |
| On your last point, I think consideration of the affective dimensions of networks are as important as consideration of other aspects of their cognitive dimensions. This is particularly the case where learning is concerned. I have seen the word 'fun' scattered around the place, but hope to see more fun being discussed and performed. |
| Re: Norming of the Nodes |
|
Aha, learning should be fun, as you noted. And I like it. That's why games are excellent "tools" in the facilitation of learning, as reported in Second Life case studies, and also in adult learning etc. In blogs, I have seen a lot of interesting games, and there is a lot of fun out of that. Does it also mean that it would be important to create fun (or games) into blogs? In open forum, how could people build fun (or games) into the network? |
| Re: Norming of the Nodes |
| Fun emerges in fora/forums (choose your plural) and in networks the same way it does in any kind of social gathering. People tell jokes, play games (in these instances, mostly word games or visual games), enjoy one another. As in those other instances, it takes one or more people with a good sense of humour to provide some impetus, loosen people up, set the tone. It is its own kind of leadership or social entrepreneurship. Forum communities tend to allow people to specialize somewhat in certain roles, without (mostly) entirely restricting them to those roles - the serious questioner, the provocateur/-euse, the clown, the conciliator, and so on. Some forums might see most people getting their fun out of posting lolcats, others through witty banter, others through more structured forum games (and these vary widely, from the spammers' classic "last one to post here wins" to trivia quizzes, haiku competitions, and others.) The games can be a distraction, but are often highly functional in promoting cohesion, providing a safety valve for pressures generated in debates and discussion, and simply engendering a more positive atmosphere. Whether these kinds of activities perform similar functions in less concentrated networks, I am less certain. |
| Re: Norming of the Nodes |
|
So how could we define the characteristics of connectivism? It always starts with the F word. May I try? (1) Forum (2) Fill (with networks - blogs, podcast, wikis.....and ...) (3) Fun (4) Full (of ideas, people, varieties) (5) F.... (your turn to try please) (6) F..... (7) F....... from Fai (part of my name), but I am sorry, that's not in the dictionary of connectivism, so you won't be able to check the meaning... Is George and Stephen going to give me a "F..." in grade? I mean "Fine..." |
| Re: Norming of the Nodes |
|
Flexible Fertile Fibrous |
| Re: Norming of the Nodes |
|
Fantastic! Thanks Ed. Any more from our fellow friends... |