 | The importance of context |
|
From a theoretical point of view, I see clearly the operation of networks, the importance of the nodes within them and the usefulness of both for learning. From a practical viewpoint, I have more doubts about the degree of efficiency. There are elements that can influence positively or negatively: intercultural context, level of expertise of the nodes, the possibility (not certainty) to obtain the information when needed, ... Today I read a report that illustrates the subject indirectly. It's about trade relations between Germany and China. It is believed that by 50 per cent of cases do not succeed, and that 30 percent is due to the non-verbal communication. Although they spoke the same language, cultural context was different and the information was not collected correctly. To avoid this situation Global Emotion has designed a learning software for on-line so that the Europeans can do a better reading of the facial features of the Chinese. In this case, we have a network, some nodes but not obtenermos the desired result. The code that both parties should necessarily share has failed. But, even when using a single code and belongs to the same cultural context, it may be that when we need accurate information we can not get it because the source or node is not available. Can we say that the networks are always effective? |
 | Re: The importance of context |
|
Good question Dolores. I have seen that misunderstanding are easy to come by in online networks, a word or a phrase can be misinterpreted very easily. So I agree, context is very important. Without face or voice clues is it even harder. In the case of this post. What do you mean by effective?. Effective for what? What result are you looking for? Thanks for introducing me to Global emotion. Love: Maru |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi Maru. Effective, for me, means that is valid in order to achieve the objectives for which it was created or for which someone decides to become part of this network. Do you agree? |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi Dolores! Yes, I agree, thanks for the clarification. I see now that we have two standpoints to see if a network is effective. Effective for the creator of the network and effective for the member or user of the network. That itself is, from my point of view, the context. To decide if a network is effective we have to choose from which context or stand point we want to evaluate, the results may be completely different. See you around. Love: Maru |
 | Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi Dolores, thanks for making some interesting points and practically you may be right. Do you think that the issue is about multiplicity of networks - about choosing the right network for the job, improving networks where your information and knowledge are insufficient to achieve your aims. So with networked learning - i use ,my trading networks to find out where the deal is, what price to pay and what services to offer. now to secure this deal i need a good knowledge of chines culture. i know i am deficient in chinese culture, so i need to work on my network of cultural experts to either gain direct knowledge, secure them to help with the deal or get them to sugest another person (node) to help secure the deal. Whether this can all be achieved in a suitable time frame may depend on the strenght of your network(s). if trading long enough the ties will be stronger and the network(s) will be stronger. So networks are not always effective, they have to be worked at and nourished (weak ties and strong ties) cheers Steve |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
That's right, Steve. We agree. If you were working on the nodes, some of them go from weak to strong, but sometimes, a sale or acquisition of knowledge can not wait that long. Logically, the larger the network and more aware of the nodes, the chances of success are greater. But maintaining a network well, it costs a time that does not always have. I'm entudiasta of networks. I like to talk to people, share knowledge and experiences. They are an inexhaustible source of wisdom. In my work, I have a network of contacts for me very well. But if I think about it, in utility parameters, I come to the conclusion that the number of nodes I can not too high and they can not be overly specialized. However, they must have the ability to access many specialized nodes. And that leads me to believe that there are different types of networks and different types of nodes, some of which operate only sporadically and to nourish a network which are not part. |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
The ideas are subjective. It was formed from the data received and based on our previous knowledge of the subject. But we must be clear as we receive the data. If it is through social networks, we talk about communication processes led to multiple recipients. And it is necessary to understand its overall operation and also the role of the various elements of the process. In the case of the book, it is neither sender nor the recipient. It is the medium or channel through which the data are transmitted. That would be the parties: Issuer = Author Receiver = Readers Channel = book Code = shared language and graphic elements Context = Shared culture The reader or recipient of the book can use the content to interact with the author himself or with other nodes, but the book is just a physical medium that transmits content in a single direction.    |
 | Re: The importance of context |
|
When the author writes a book, she interacts with the characters, who according to some writers, have a life of their own. Once the work is published, the words written are static but the relationship among the characters and their environment remains encapsuled in the physical container that is the book. The readers then observe, react, get involved with the different characters' actions, feelings and the environment/plot set in that previous interaction between the author and her characters and interpret it according to their own context at a particular time and may in turn dialogue with other readers in conversations. These connections/involvement and understanding of the book and further interaction with other readers will vary in depth, intensity and scope depending on the different moods, maturity and the different contexts the readers find themselves. So I'd say that there are many layers of context and interaction among different characters at different times. |
 | Re: The importance of context |
|
> So networks are not always effective, they have to be worked at and nourished (weak ties and strong ties) This is a good point. The idea that there can be some sort of 'passive' learning, involving no work on the part of the learner, is ever appealing, but it is a pipe dream. It has the same status as 'passive exercise', the idea that one can become fit and trim with no work whatsoever. Many things influence the effectiveness of a network, not the least the effort of the individual interacting with the network in order to learn. |
 | Re: The importance of context |
|
What would you consider "interacting" though. For example with this course the networks are being built (personally I am seeing silo's being built), there is reading materials, sessions, forums, blogs etc. I would consider just reading the huge amounts of information being discussed here as interacting. Especially if you are coming to this with no background knowledge and are trying to get yourself up to speed and have to research every second word. |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi Roberta! Thanks for asking this question. We are placing great effort interacting with the reading materials, blogs, forums, messages, etc. But are we interacting with the content of the course (the material) or with the network? Are the readings and so forth considered "nodes" of the network? |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
You are right that the definition of interacting is a two way effect....so reading the content might not have an direct effect on the poster unless it is commented on. But what about indirectly? Does that count? If you post something in a blog and see that you had a certain number of readers that would effect you even if they didn't post a comment (and more directly if they did post). Maybe not commenting is a voicing of an opinion? I tend not to comment on these forums or the blogs because I don't feel I have the knowledge base, others might not because they don't agree with the poster or think the content relevant....the "new" tools may be creating an effect in an indirect way. Meaning that reading something online and NOT commenting might actually be more interactive than we traditionally think? Hahaha...but I might be stretching it even for myself. |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi Roberta! You are coming up with more interesting questions, at least they are for me. I wish I could answer. I was kind of expecting that Stephen or George or someone more versed on Connectivism would come to explain what is interacting. Of course I see us interacting somehow, with each other and with what we read. But are the reading materials considered as a node of the network? I also feel that I don't have the knowledge base to comment. If you we don't comment it doesn't mean that we are not reading or not learning. I see that reading affects the reader, if the poster reads comments on his blog those comments will affect him as reader and as owner of the blog. I agree, not commenting and not answering might be a voicing of an opinion. It will depend on the context. I don't have a visits counter on my blog. I am getting used to not getting answers and comments, maybe my questions and comments are so basic that they aren't worth to be taken into account, maybe there are more interesting places to visit, maybe people is busy, maybe my questions will be answered by myself at the end of the course. Let's see what happens. Love: Maru |
 | Re: The importance of context |
|
I read Roberta's comments, Maru. Yes, I agree that people can seem to reply with a "resounding silence" (i.e.: no comment, which can sometimes be more hurtful than a hurtful comment...), but one of the principles of Connectivism, as explained by George, is that the process of learning is changing the whole time, rather like a game of football with moving goalposts. Keeping up with the game is all part of the fun... However, another feature of Connectivism is that we all learn stuff by realizing that we are probably quite different, both in opinions and ideology, and this causes us to learn by our interactions. And, as you are discovering, another feature of Connectivism is learning by connecting the pieces of knowledge together. I have been reading your blog, Maru. Did you ever read mine? I don't put a counter on mine... I have hardly had time to write it, let alone put all the whistles and bells you have on your blog (which I think is very good and creative, BTW. You obviously put a lot of work into it, what with translation engines and other useful stuff.) I feel sure that all the other people reading this post will visit your blog, Maru, and find a great deal of value in it. Best wishes... |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi Steve! Thanks for you reply and your kind words. I am glad that you find value on my blog. Your football analogy helped me to relax and laugh, I saw myself trying to score to find out I do not know where the goalpost is. I hope to have fun at some point in this course, I miss it. Today during our gathering at SL in Connectivitas I understood better what is interaction and nodes, then we were sidetracked to eye surgery practices, time flu and I had a patient at the door. That site and the people in it is a node for me. A node where I can interact more easily, I feel more comfortable and find clarity to move on. As you say, I could put together some pieces of knowledge. I read your blog, Tales in the Key of Life, the layout is peaceful and formal, the content is somewhat abstract for me to reply and I have not been able to add the feed to my Google reader to read it more often. It is the first blog I find set for adult content. I started my blog when I was taking a hands on course on web 2.0 tools, while practicing with the tools I placed there my reflections about my learning along with all the add-ons that you see. It took me long hours to set it as it is, but I usually spend a lot of time to do things; I am known as Tortoise at the Borgward Owners Club for different reasons but the name fits. I leave you a picture of my car Lancelot, it is a Jewell. I hope to see you tonight at the live session. Love: Maru |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
I left a comment about interaction and Stephen''s piece on this on your blog, Maru. Also, I have to say that the adult content flag on my blog was really accidental. I am not sure how that got into the mix, and I don't know how to take it off now. (I think I just clicked something when I was setting up the blog because I thought that if i didn't, I would get into trouble for what I was writing. Now, I see that this doesn't really apply.) I wish I had more time for SL. Please let me know when you and the rest of the Hispanic team are going to be at that SLURL and I'll join you guys. (Digame cuando tu y el equipo hispano va a ser en ese SLURL y voy a unirme a ustedes pronto.) Now you can see that the time you spent setting up that blog site has paid off - it is a really great blog site! My Toyota is a real joy for me too, although you would probably describe me as the hare, (rather than a tortoise!) (Yo soy la liebre en lugar de la tortuga!) I am really enjoying this course, because of all the great people I am meeting online and the new technologies I am learning about. I was late for the meeting last night. I really hope that next week I will be on time... Sorry about that!  |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi Steve! Yes, I saw the comment and replied to it there. I feel that maybe that is a "No-NO". A better way would be to go to your site and leave a comment in return. Your comment and the example you gave were very helpful, could you please share the link to the wiki you mention? I am intrigued by it. O.K. point noted. We meet at Connectivitas SLURL every Wednesday at 20:00 GMT, 13:00 SL time and we speak about connectivism in Spanish. http://tinyurl.com/6ey25m. What's your SL name? Mine is Mmvcentro Jewell (odd, I know). I have another meeting, in English, every Friday at 18:00 GMT, 11:00 SL time. The subject it's not connectivisim, we practice SL tools to teach in-world at Webheads Headquarters. http://slurl.com/secondlife/EduNation%20III/79/37/21 Most of the participants are English teachers and Webheads. We also have a wiki, feel free to join us tomorrow at Dennis' villa http://slurl.com/secondlife/EduNation%20III/180/227/29. He offered his place this time. Lancelot is a 230 GL Gross Borgward 1962, 6 cilinders in line, a joy to drive despite the weight (1.5 tons). The windshield is curved, no poles to obstruct the view, the wheels turn at a 45 degrees which makes parking really easy and fun. I am Tortoise because I feel like a tortoise without shell when Lancelot is down. What model is your Toyota? |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Thanks for the info on SL. I am surprised that the pop-up appeared. I found the adult flag and turned it off. I have checked the site just now and everything works. So I am surprised that you are unable to get in. You ask me for a reference to the wiki. The trouble is, the wiki I am referring to is subject to a non-disclosure agreement which I signed. I can describe it, but only in a circumspect manner. Such is business! In case you are interested, I created another blog post today (on my blog) - I think you might find it interesting... Anyway, let me know... it's about an aspect of historical networks. I am going to try and make the date tomorrow. But 18:00 GMT is 10:00 am PDT right? Or am I missing an hour? Anyway, we'll see if it works... Let me know, OK? Best, Steve |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
From Wikipedia: Interaction is a kind of action that occurs as two or more objects have an effect upon one another. The idea of a two-way effect is essential in the concept of interaction, as opposed to a one-way causal effect. |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi Stephen! Thanks for your reply. Sorry for pulling you here, I know you are very busy. I followed your links to philosophical definitions. I am afraid I will write nonsense but here I go. Interacting implies a two-way effect so I cannot interact with a book or a site. The site and the book will remain the same. If I read them I do not have an effect on them. Love: Maru |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Interacting implies a two-way relationship, agreed. But network theories have traditionally distinguished between directed connections, where the connection is one-way, and non-directed connections, where there is a two-way interaction (I might not be using the correct term, but 'directed' will do for now to make my point). So we can say that there is a 'connection' between a book and a person, by virtue of the fact that the book can cause a change of state in the reader, even if the reader cannot cause a change of state in the book. With websites, it's less clear, because many websites - such as this one - can be changed by reader actions (such as the positing of comments). |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
So it looks to me as if you have long last conceded that knowledge can reside in a thing, that it is a thing, that it is static, and that it cannot change. Otherwise, you'd have to concede that the book changed with every reader. Of course, there is some overlaid mapping of comprehension or perception that is the meta-data around a book, let's say. But surely you'll concede the book as the author conceived it "stayed put". Surely you'd want your own books to stay that way, and not become like wikis pulled every which way. Indeed, aren't your articles exactly those static knowledge objects? |
 | Re: The importance of context |
|
Catherine, sure. Knowledge can reside in a thing, like value can reside in money/ stock options/ banks. (Dont laugh). |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
> Knowledge can reside in a thing, like value can reside in money/ stock options/ banks. If value resides in the things, then they wouldn't become worthless as a result of external events, such as stock market crashes or hyper-inflation. The value of money and stock options is like the knowledge in a thing: it is there precisely and solely because someone thinks it's there. |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hmmm...I'm not a philosopher nor a businesswoman but here is my "folk" perception of the state of things. Things are - the nature of things - they do not become unless they undergo some chemical alteration due to time, impact on their shape, variables to which they are exposed to and action upon them. We can make them become when we develop our knowledge about them by examining/observing/reflecting on what they are, connecting them to other "knowledges" so as to extend their "basic" nature by mixing it with other things that are or by giving them value and building upon them according to our context, needs or beliefs. Does this make any sense to anyone? Compassion, please, for those people who do not understand the mechanisms of the universe that gave them birth  |
| Re: The importance of context |
Makes sense to me (is that a good sign though?  )We can make them become when we develop our knowledge about them by examining/observing/reflecting on what they are, connecting them to other "knowledges" so as to extend their "basic" nature by mixing it with other things that are or by giving them value and building upon them according to our context, needs or beliefs. I take to include adding a symbolic value to something - like money, for instance. |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Good or bad is a value judgement - an opinion YOU have on something that IS there. I suppose it may become "better" if more people add the same value as you have, go against it so it can be refined , when others build on it, adding other "knowledges or, as you say, symbolic value. Now...what is symbolic value based upon and how does it come into being? |
 | Re: The importance of context |
| Surely it isn't the book that causes a change of state in the reader (unless it falls off the shelf and hits me, I guess), it's the ideas that are in the book. And the book was written by a person. And I can't change the content of the book, but I can adapt the ideas and move them on. So I'm afraid I'm not clear even on the books, much less websites. |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
> Surely it isn't the book that causes a change of state in the reader it's the ideas that are in the book. The ideas that are in the book are part of the book. If you wish, you can argue for the independent existence of ideas. But I personally don't think such a line of reasoning can be sustained. |
 | Re: The importance of context |
| You are suggesting that ideas are non-existent then? |
| Re: The importance of context |
| Either that, or that the idea in the book is separate to the idea in the writer's mind and the idea in the readers' minds, I think. |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Oh, thanks Pat. I think I understand this then. But ideas do seem to take on a life of their own, so to speak, no matter what the origin. |
| Re: The importance of context |
| Oh, I agree - I think there is a lot to be said for the idea of ideas having a 'life of their own' (I would mention memes, but somehow they have been 'perverted' so that people interpret the word as only being about bad ideas, which is a shame) |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi Pat: How about: The ideas in the book can take on a life of their own. The ideas can effect a change in the reader. The interaction with these ideas by the reader can result in new ideas. Which may result in a new book (like a 2nd edition) An analogy would be to a digital word document, except that the interaction and subsequent revision occurs in snail-mail-like time. So another property of interaction is temporality. |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi Ken, I would go with: Ideas form as emergent phenomena from complex (highly connected) systems Ideas can be conveyed through many and varied channels, in symbolic form Some channels create a snapshot of ideas, whilst others allow them to morph Ideas can become intermingled and mutated at nodes (crossing points of channels) Node structure can be modified as a result of interpreting ideas from symbolic form Nodes can re-configure the pattern of channels (i.e. their connections) Nodes can amplify, change or diminish the strength of ideas Books maintain the strength of the idea (especially if they include the context) As a slight aside, books are changed by being read, in general. Pages become dog-eared, and over time print can start to fade. People annotate books (though I was brought up not to) and the meaning they convey changes as the readers experience changes. Even the dog-eared change indicates which pages are most read (or chewed by 1 year old godsons...) which can subtly alter the next readers perception of the importance of parts of the book. |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Looks good Pat. It seems that you are ok with symbolic representation (as a transmission route for ideas?) Language must be one form of connection. I don't see what else it could be. Is it connectivist doctrine that knowledge is in the connections? If so, then knowledge must be in language as well. But connectivists seem to deny language. This seems contradictory, or maybe I am missing the point. Language (symbolic representation) has to be of value, has to contain meaning. The non-intentional view of connectivism makes no sense, by definition (haha). |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi Ken, Hmm.. I am not sure knowledge is 'in language' per se, in that I do not think that language stored in a book does not, to me, have an intrinsic meaning. When I read the language, my framework of experience and the context available at the time enable me to extrapolate knowledge from the symbols - but someone with a different set of experiences could easily be imagined to extract different meaning from the same symbols. If we are lucky, the author of the book and I, then I get the same (or broadly similar) meaning as was intended. I think that language should be seen, in connectivist terms, as a set of protocols for encoding information to be sent through transmission channels - essentially a 'mere tool' for utilising the connection. This fits, I believe, with the connectivist view that knowledge itself is not stored as, or reliant on language - the knowledge is a set of patterns, the organisational structure of connections, and language is a tool for representing, manipulating and transmitting that knowledge. But the representation part does not mean that knowledge has to be represented by language, rather that language is a facilitating technology which we adopt for ease of internal use rather than maintaining separate mechanisms for conscious awareness of external and internal knowledge manipulation. Hope that makes sense? (!?!) |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi Pat. I confess that I am having difficulty wrapping my head around this. What happens in a f2f conversation? What is the transmission channel? What is the connection? Do we encode knowledge into language, and store it in devices like books? Do the ideas, stored in language in books, have intrinsic meaning? If I understand connectivist connection theory, knowledge is the set of neural connections formed: knowledge resides in a specific pattern of these. How is the statement: Knowledge is the set of symbolic representations formed, any different? |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi Ken, I confess that I struggle with it too Some 'thinking out loud':OK, in a f2f I would say that the transmission channel is the air which acts as a carrier for the speech which is an encoded form of the ideas (encoded into language, and then into a modulated audio signal). The connection, though, exists only if this signal is perceived by someone else. It has no physical form, but is an abstract 'thing'. In order for there to be a fully fledged connection, there must be some form of feedback, otherwise it is a simple transmission. The feedback does not have to be via the same channel, however - a nod of the head to perform a 'handshake' (in computing terminology) can give that sense of the (abstract) connection having been made. I think we encode knowledge into language primarily for transmitting and thus building connections. When we encode ideas and put them in books, we are transmitting ideas (effectively into the future, as we have no way of knowing who will read them, but like crustaceans attempting to breed, we put the ideas out there for future readers to 'receive'). I do not think that the symbols have intrinsic meaning. Something about the way they are linked together gives them structure which can be interpreted as meaning by later viewers. But the same applies to the vocalisations in f2f - no intrinsic meaning, just the interpreted meaning in the mind of the beholder. If it is important to convey a concept accurately, this is negotiated in a f2f, by means of feedback ("Sorry, I didn't understand that", "So what you mean is..") - this does not happen in the same way with a book, of course. Here the reader is responsible for finding (or having) enough contextual awareness to be able to make sense of the patterns in the book. I think connectivism is more about the external connections than the neuronal ones. But I agree there is an issue when it comes to the pattern of neuronal connections and symbolic representation. I would say that the pattern of neuronal connections is a form of symbolic representation, but it is one which forms as an emergent property of the behaviour of the neurons. Symbolic representations (in the form of language and writing) are at a higher level of abstraction than this - the application of a set of neuronal patterns upon another (though I haven't thought about how many levels of that are necessary for language). Any better? |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
George, as long as we don't shake off the negative legacy of Descartes (which made a celebrity out of him, and schizophrenics out of us), we are going to be stuck with the mind/brain dichotomy, or the internal/external dichotomy, etc.. In a draft paper on 'The Ecological Turn: Affordances for Learning Research, I make extensive use of Costall, Reed, and Valenti and Good, to show how we can put Descartes behind us, and develop a non-dualistic theory of learning. See the following extracts: The problem is making a fetish of mediation [or cognitivism], so that sensible, non-disjunctive distinctions turn instead into troublesome dualisms. (Alan Costall) The point is that the dualism between cognitivism and pragmatism is unhelpful, if not misleading. Thinking about the world is part of the way we act in the world.(Roy W.) Cognition is something we do, (not something we have) … Real world cognition … [is] distributed – stretched over, not divided among – mind, body, activity, and culturally organised settings” (Valenti and Good). |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
George, What I come back to each time you wheel out this metaphorical jump from "the latest theory about how our brains work, with neural networks" to "an e-learning theory with networks that will help teach the modern person" -- I have to wonder the following: 1) Why are we at the end of history now, with our own era's metaphors suddenly "the real thing," and all past metaphors or understandings, i.e. "the four humours" just "something you bypass, not even refute"? 2) What is quantitatively or qualitatively different about the human being now, that this time, the metaphor is "correct" and highly accurate? 3) If the metaphor is true and accurate, why wasn't it always true and accurate? Why is knowledge hidden from man, that it would take centuries to arrive at "the truth"? 4) Why is it that two people named "the Churchlands" with a rather extremist and exotic theory could be "right"? etc. |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi George, In its response to Pat, you say: "... we do not have a firm basis on which to make broad sweeping statements about how we should teach ...". It is true. The different theories of learning: behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism and conectivism make a description of the ways we learn how to think. Theoreticians and researchers seeking to verify his theory by an inquiry in which, carefully, the topics are chosen, we identify the variables, are controlled conditions, and gather data for its conclusions apply to a situation of instructional design. However, it does not have been able to establish a model of instructional design valid for different educational situations. Maybe the mistake is that we strive to intuitively understand the mechanisms by which we learn. In fact, are know, since we already have been created intelligent devices that, at the primary level, mimic human behavior, and even give us answers. The conductism have a clear model of instructional design. And, in my view, some very positive aspects. One of them, knowledge is progressive, ensuring the student who is informed and accompanied them on their way. The instructional model of the conductism and cognitivism is closed pack. Constructivism and the Connectisvim is open. is a mix of students with different levels of prior knowledge, hoping that a collaborative work will help both sides to improve. The intention is good but the simple logic indicates that it can not operate. Anyone who does not know (or think you know little) does not dare to participate for fear of ridicule (mass silent). Anyone who knows a lot if you do not have opponents on their level gets bored and leaves (and usually does not say in the final polls because it does not even enter the platform). We must also have the emotions. Does anyone believe that, faced with the possibility of a promotion, will share his knowledge with potential opponent? My conclusion is that we can not focus on finding a single model but to create a range of possibilities to apply to every case. I agree with you, George, when he says "... Ties between research and practice in this field are still weak ...". As to which "... many neuroscientists have popularized the view that we can understand teaching based on the current research of brain ..." I think they simply describe the appearance neurophysiological and no doubt can help a lot, but I consider it necessary to also address issues such as the type of intelligence, learning styles, the degree of motivation, ... Make teaching flexible, to the point where the student is the only one who decides his formative itinario, is not effective. And even less if we try to teach people who move from a vertical model. It is not politically correct to take ideas from previous theories that have been discarded, but I think that life is evolving on the basis of evidence of trial and error. Perhaps it is time to collect the favorable aspects to build a new model.  Do you agree? |
| Re: The importance of context |
| Are you aligning language to, let's say, a piece of software when you say you see it as a mere tool for utilizing the connection? |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
It isn't my intention to relate language to being a type of software, no. However, I would say that the processes which enable us to use language are, effectively, software 'of the mind'. But then I would also argue that the shared nature of the languages we use means that they are also developed (and developing) as the result of interactions between people - negotiating meaning, changing the acceptable grammar of the language - and that there is also some form of software 'of the community' in action too. This would be the emergent property of a network of multiple agents (people, in general) communicating and having the capacity to modify their own 'software' governing use of language. This would mean that language is a tool for encoding concepts - perhaps 'adaptable protocol' would be a better description than tool? - rather than being the 'natural home' of concepts. |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Pat, interesting post. I just posted elsewhere an objection to the use of 'code' to discuss learning and knowledge. You have given 'encoding' new possibilities in your post, which are far closer to where I come from (applied linguistics, semiotics, critical discourse theory, mixed in with CAST), thanks. However, I would still say that we need to start from the proposition the 'knowledge is articulated in language' rather than 'encoded'. And even if you are looking at specific concepts that are used in objectively defined algorithms, like "mass" and "work" in physics - as opposed to their use in everyday language, I still think you need to approach it from the point of view of ecology and evolution rather than engineering. In other words, I see the articulation of 'mass' in a Newtonian algorithm as a "tool of a special kind" - much more specific and of a much finer resolution than 'hand-axe', but of the same type. To put it another way, I think we try to DO things with language, in order to connect and interact with the world in different ways, and if indeed we spend a lot of time refining the way in which we encode concepts (like mass) in algorithms, definitions, and engineering systems, we need to keep in mind that that is subordinate, in important ways, to what we are trying to DO in our interaction with the world - or, in the way we act within our (social and biological) ecologies. Encoding might take up a lot of our time (as academics particularly) and it might provide ever more powerfully refined tools at increasingly finer resolutions, but that takes place within a wider context, which is our role as tool creating primates within a particular planetary ecology. The more things change, the more they stay the came. |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi Roy, Thanks for the comment - I think I agree. The only difference between articulation and encoding in this case, to my mind, is I would see articulation as being specifically for communication, and encoding as a process which supports that. I am not considering 'encoding' to be related to computers in any way, but merely in the form of translating information from one form to another in order to satisfy a protocol (again, not a computer one). As I would regard the use of language internally in the same way as its use externally (used, I believe, at a conscious level to make sense of the neuronal patterns which 'house' the idea) I would have no problem in rolling encoding and articulation up together and calling them by one name for most purposes. |
 | Re: The importance of context |
|
I agree with Stephen and with that genius Arieliondotcom in the Quotable Quotes thread who wrote that books are frozen words caught like a dragonfly in ancient amber. Once you lay ink on an idea it is trapped like a creature trying to escape the tar pits. Any change is a different idea, thought, not of the book. I wish I could write like that. |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi Maru, If it is any consolation, i have been blogging for over two years about 50 posts. Not that many have read or commented, but my view is that i find great value in just writing the blog, this helps me to learn. Additional feedback wolud push the learning on further though. I think perhaps during this course, the moodle forum seems to be the place where you can get feedback on your opinions Steve |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi Steve! Agreed, when I post I understand things and of course that feedback pushes the learning further. Actually, before this course I posted mostly for myself the answers and solutions I found in my digital journey, I did not have readers in my mind. I guess I misinterpreted things, if a "course" requires you to open a blog it doesn't necessarily mean that feedback will be posted there. See you around. Love: Maru |
 | Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi Roberta, I get the feeling, that I am hopping from silo to silo as well. In this connectivism quest for knowledge, I often sense that I might be in the right building but that I'm looking on the wrong floor. |
 | Re: The importance of context |
| But is that not that what each of our networks are? Silo's of like minded opinions, that is why we need to ensure a variety of silo's to ensure diversity among our networks. If diversity exists, then it does not matter what building you are in, the information can be found. |
| Re: The importance of context |
| I think of silos as being contrary to Connectivism, Tom. It infers that the knowledge is static and a thing to be stuck on a shelf like canned peaches. To me Connectivism is still alive on the vine. Since the knowledge is in the network it is constantly growing, changing, according to what connections are being appropriated by any single peach atany moment of time. |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
It is true that if we do not get an answer to a direct question can be annoying. But to get an adequate response, this question must be relevant and be raised in an appropriate way to the knowledge of the people who should answer. In this regard, no response is not the same as the absence of nodes. Nor should we consider as a node all sites with which we interact ocasionalente. I use the network with useful criteria. If there are many irrelevant questions which only serve to pass the time, I prefer not to participate. Sorry to appear too harsh. But the day only has 24 hours and should be exploited. Fortunately is not the case in this forum. And I am glad. |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi Dolores! Exactly! That is what I was trying to tell you last week in SL. You get responses because you post them in the appropriate way, you are more versed in the subject and your questions prompts others to answer, your questions are worth the time and effort to answer them, your questions lead to deep thinking. Mine are basic; sometimes I post them in the wrong place or ask them to the wrong person, I am learning to negotiate understanding. O.K. I hope I am not asking an irrelevant question. If not all the sites can be considered as nodes, coming back to the importance of the context, which criteria could we apply to asses if a site is a node or not? At my level of understanding: A site which leads me to more confusion is not useful now, it may be useful later when I gain more knowledge. A site that explain subjects in an elaborate manner is not useful for me either, I waste precious time fighting with words. I know that the information that I need to build knowledge will come to me if I interact with others. Hence, a site that is straightforward, simple and understandable for me it may be boring for you while an unintelligible site for me may be very interesting for you. Both can become nodes depending on the context. Do you agree? Love: Maru Love: Maru |
| Re: The importance of context |
| I agree - though I often find it worth looking at nodes I initially think are 'too simple' because they help reinforce ideas and correct errors of understanding, and also often worth looking at complex ones because they raise questions for me to think about. |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi Maru, Regarding your question criteria for designating a site as a node. I look at any entity with which I interact as a node in the topology that is my life. With regard to sites, there are some that I interact with habitually, some on as-needed basis. Some I've been to once, and will likely never return--interact and ignore. Interaction may be brief, or infrequent, but still requires the establishment of a connection. Scott |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi Scott! Thanks for your reply. Good point. You go to the node on different basis, as you need to visit, the interaction with the node even if brief requires a connection. With some nodes you strengthen the ties and with others you let it die. Interesting, I had not seen it that way. See you around. Love: Maru |
| Re: The importance of context |
I agree with Stephen. Interaction involves feedback. However, I find that the interaction between nodes occurs in different ways. There are nodes, basically, specialized in:
Web 2.0 gives prominence to the user and human interaction. But, according to experts, think that Web 3.0 will enhance the interaction between sensors and mechanical devices to deliver data. I wonder if this will affect the social networks that we know now, and if so, how do we affect? |
 | Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi Dolores! Interaction... uhmmm... that is a difficult point. If we think in interaction like "active participation" by writting comments in Moodle or blogs than that means that we have to be able to do an interpretation of the words of the others participants and to arrive to some conclusion to give them some more or less reasonable feedback. But what happens when you have too much information and too less time for the interpretation? Maybe one more time the problem of the filters, I agree... but not only: Provide data, receive data, linking... but also interpret the content is neccesary for humans or not humans nodes... And other important point for me is that in the case that I am able, have the time, and want to give some feedback, why I do it finally in a MOOC, with so many people who know better than me about what we are speaking? My answer to this problem is into the sentence of yesterday in the daily: Sharing isn't just about helping others. It's also about helping ourselves... That is a very interesting point because for example I coudn´t participate "active by writting" in the last weeks and I feel how difficult is to be a "node" in the "peripherical zone". That means for me that interpret content (in a pasive form) can be less "effective" that create content (that means writting). (Efficiency in terms of energy) Use the social media of the web to learning is easier by a more active way of participation because of the continuous overload of information. But in a contradictory sense a more "active" participation increase the overload of information and reduce the time to interpretation. At least for the human nodes. Love regards Carlos |
| Re: The importance of context |
| Carlos, you are so right. Sometimes I even avoid posting so I won't have to follow that thread -- my participation increases the amount of information I have to deal with and adds to the overload. |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi Carlos! Nice to see you here, I kind of missed you I agree with Lisa. If you post you get answers and less time for interpretation. But you know? If the content is not considered important because knowledge in in the network, I rather spent my time getting to know people and their ideas. Besides, the content is over my head, in unintelligible words for me even if my English is not that bad; so I am getting a better understanding reading blogs and posts than reading the assigned papers. Well, we come back to the context. It depends. Nos vemos. Besos. |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Thank you Lisa and Maru for the welcome. ... I wrote something not so good really for a connectivist point of view of the knowledge I know. I said more or less that we need time to interpret the "content"... But you are right Maru, I think also that the content (of the nodes) is not the connectivist knowledge so like S. Downes speak about it in "Types of knowledge and connective knowledge" (But that was in the second week, I come a little bit late  )What I want to say now is that I think that for the connectivist way of thinking the interpretation, the personal interpretation of each node, is not the important thing. Ok, connectivist knowledge is in the network... But I need to interpret the things... I am human... but the network, what is the network? Stop. The unintelligible words are all around me now. eeeeeeeeeh. Hasta luego |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi Carlos! I enjoyed very much our Skype chat. I am glad. Thanks for pinting me back to that post, it is good for me to read things again, I find more coherence bit by bit but it is hard. Well, I cannot answer very well your question, lol. Here is what I see, you are part of my network, with this skype call we stengtened our ties, we belong to different groups wich are inside the network. Somehow all of us are connected. Your ideas will influence mine, I regard you as more versed than me. Our group as credit learners is closed, not because no one else is allowed in but because it is a group and groups are closed, groups have rules and regulations. A network is open... ups! No-break is beeping!! Closing to save. |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Pat, Ken. I think we have reached a crucial point in the discussion. If you believe that the Connectivism is a communicative process in many directions, language and context are essential to get the meaning. For example, if you me write in Chinese, the process has been established but does not end with success because I will not be able to decode the message significantly. If, on the contrary, we believe the Connectivism is it the Generic technological process, what is important is the channel and not the language. What we are studying is not whether the message you get is or is not significant. What we are studying is the effectiveness of the connection in many directions. Do you agree? |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi Dolores Yes, I agree with your synopsis. The latter belief is the connectivist theory that the pipe is more important than the content. The first one is the content argument. Clearly one cannot make much headway in advancing understanding/knowledge without the other. The message will not have any impact if not received. Empty pipes with no message will be of little value either. Would things be different without the 'Tower of Babel'? So our study is the effectiveness of the connection in many directions. Shoudl we be studying the tools more then? More on network behaviour? |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi Ken, There is no doubt that for optimal performance of the networks must combine the processes of communication and technology. And, as appropriate, we will give more importance to one or the other. Occasionally, I read texts in German. And I do not know German. But I go to them on the recommendation of friends or surfing the net. If the subject interests me, I use translators. By the same token, it is possible to maintain a brief conversation asynchronous in this language. For me, the language is not important. The translator will allow me to do both without knowing a language. It is true, I add an element to the process, but does not affect adversely the acquisition of knowledge. By contrast, if the text is in Spanish I will not use a translator, thus saving me that element of the process. In both cases, German or Spanish, you may also use a dictionary or an encyclopedia to clarify concepts. This improves the code-sharing and you have direct impact on the acquisition of knowledge. Do you agree? |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi Dolores. I agree. The language is not so important to me as the ideas/images/feelings etc. that can be conveyed by it. It can be translated. The internet and its tools have been most helpful in speeding up the translation, and enabling the quicker conveyance of ideas within the language. Is that what you were referring too? Language is a conveyance, and a means by which to connect, therefore I think it is a connection in itself. Do you agree? |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
No, Ken, I do not believe that the language is a means of transport. Transportation is the channel. Language is the code used to be able to interact with other people. We can use a correct grammar or slang, symbols, photographs. What matters is that the recipient has the same code and he is able to extract meaning. |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi Dolores. In a f2f conversations, is the 'channel' air, as Pat has suggested? What is the channel when reading a book? Is it the book? Your eyesight i.e. the senses? What do you mean by channel? By transportation? Thanks |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi Ken, Channel is the hardware through which information travels from the sender to the recipient: books, waves, satellite, web, ... I understand by f2f communications face to face. They can occur in many contexts and the channel is directly dependent on it. |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Thanks Dolores. What I was thinking was, that, at the end of the transportation path/channel, the human senses must be the conduit for the transmission/transference of knowledge (as regards humans as transmitters/receivers). How this relates to context is something I haven't figured out just yet. Maybe I am just confused! |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Human senses is equivalent to the sensors that emit, receive or manage the data that make up the information in accordance with the context in which it occurs. |
| Re: The importance of context |
| Seems like so much machine-talk, but, I guess, computers/networks were modelled on the human architecture and connections, so this should be no surprise. |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
That's right, Ken. Since the middle of last century, engineers working on the development of artificial intelligence try to emulate the human cognitive system. In fact, have reached an important development of the behavior (individual and group) of artificial agents. The agents are modeled to act in accordance with the imputs they receive from the context in which they move. |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
I need so much background to explain my position (since I don't share the expertise of most of you) that I posted my reply on my blog here: http://arieliondotcom.wordpress.com/ I hope you will visit and tell me what you think. I've also added the extra twist of CONSTRUED meaning, just to make things more complicated. |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Sorry, Pat. I can not agree with you on two issues of its response to Ken. 1.- "... In order for there to be a fully fledged connection, there must be some form of feedback, otherwise it is a simple transmission..." That has potential for interaction does not require that this should necessarily occur. We can be on the same network, but if I say something and you do not answer me, does not mean that the network does not work. It means you do not answer me. 2.- "... I do not think that the symbols have intrinsic meaning. Something about the way they are linked together gives them structure which can be interpreted as meaning by later viewers..." Roland Barthes demonstrated the importance of nonverbal communication. And I think it is increasingly important. In fact, in advertising (aimed at mass audiences)you can see daily the importance of symbols beyond the language of the ad. Nor do I agree with you on one of the claims of the post later: "... This would mean that language is a tool for encoding concepts - perhaps 'adaptable protocol' would be a better description than tool? - rather than being the 'natural home' of concepts..." I'm not sure that what you understand as a language (English, Spanish, German or HTML , ...). But I am sure that knowledge is encoded using symbols. I can not imagine the people bilingual or trilingual storing two or three times the same knowledge in their respective languages.  |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi Dolores, thanks for your responses. Taking the third one first - I would think that if the bilingual (etc) person did store their knowledge symbolically using language, then the repetition of information is exactly what would happen - this is one of the reasons I don't think knowledge is held symbolically (beyond the symbolism of it being 'stored' in a pattern of brain connections/activity). I certainly don't disagree that knowledge can be encoded in symbolic form, but I cannot see an argument that this symbolic form is used to store it internally. In the case of the one-way transmission, if I do not respond, you have no way of knowing whether the network is working. If I do not respond and check my understanding, I have little evidence for the network working - it could be that I have heard some 'noise' or imagined the event. So, for me, the feedback element is necessary for there to be a "true connection". The issues with nonverbal communication is presumably related to my view that the symbols do not have intrinsic meaning. A nod of the head to indicate recognition that a verbal communication has been received, for instance, is subject to the cultural norms. A raised eyebrow can indicate disbelief, inquisitiveness or sexual interest, again depending on the cultural norms, and the context. Folding my arms might indicate to you that I am defensive, or may simply be that I am cold, or I need to support my arms. I cannot think of any non-verbal signals which are not context and culturally dependent for their "meaning" - perhaps someone else can give examples. For myself, I would also have to observe that I find judging people's meaning harder in f2f situations, in general, than via written communication. I find a lot of mental energy is required to square what they are saying with how they are behaving, as the two are often in conflict. However, I do recognise that I am more of a language based creature than a physical-symbol based one. Most advertising leaves me wondering what on earth could have been in the minds of the advertiser (especially when the wording is ambiguous or self-contradictory, as is often the case) - they are fascinating though, for precisely that reason. |
| Re: The importance of context |
Hi Pat, I very much appreciate your clarification but I still have some differences with his point of view. I think that the storage necessarily has to be symbolic, as a matter of profitability and efficiency of the connection. In the case of transmission, if there is no response, it is true that it has no evidence of receiving or understanding of the message, but neither does the opposite. Nevertheless there were mechanisms to check visitors to a page, acceptance obliged to open an e-mail, to read a virtual magazine ... The symbols, like the language is a commonly accepted convention. I agree that the examples you give me directly depend on the general context and immediate context. But other symbols (peace, danger, Information ,...) out of context are recognized by a large majority. |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi Dolores, I would certainly agree that many symbols are recognised by a majority, and that they are adopted for reasons of efficiency. I guess I am currently more interested in finding a 'model' which can support the general case (i.e. for everyone) but for pragmatic everyday purposes I would be happy to go with your view. |
 | Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi all, I don't think you could find such a model. And I don't think that model exists (you are invited to my reflections on http://suifaijohnmak.wordpress.com). Here is my response to the question on effectiveness and efficiency of network: effectiveness: doing the right things efficiency: doing the things right An effective network may not achieve the goal if the network is inefficient. Example: sharing of incorrect information, groupthink http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink. And an efficient network may not achieve the goal if the network is ineffective. Example: incorrect choice of tools for private/group discussions: blogs vs podcast vs wiki vs forum etc. I think you need both an effective and efficient network for success or achievement of goal (knowledge sharing and learning on a continuous basis). How does it sound? Cheers. John |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi John, I was talking of a model of knowledge rather than learning, but also the iterative progression you hint at (once you have a passable model, you will find another which fits better) sounds like a good thing to me, and provides one reason for seeking the model in the first place. I would agree about effective and efficient networks, with the slight change that a network needs to be efficient to be able to help provide the answer in a timely fashion. Just because it is slow does not mean an inefficient network will not provide the answer. And sometimes, perhaps having a slower network helps promote deeper understanding. If CCK08 had 'just had all the answers' most people would not be exploring the issues here, building their understanding. |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi Pat, Thanks for your insights. I fully agree with you. I like your views on deeper understanding, that's important. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectiveness for further details. An ordinary way to distinguish among effectiveness and efficiency:
Cheers. |
| Re: The importance of being simple |
|
>But I am sure that knowledge is encoded using symbols. I dont understand why mechanistic engineering paradigms still dominate discussions about meaning and knowledge. I just dont. The small but crucial change from 'knowledge is encoded using symbols' to 'knowledge is reflected in language' (Stephen), and to 'knowledge is articulated in language - and in muscular memory, sewage systems [London would have dissolved in its own cesspool if it hadnt been for sewage systems] and many more forms' (Roy). This is not to deny codes, PSDN sampling, etc. Rather, it emphasises that in addition to coding, sampling, transmission, etc, there are communities of inquiry, use, repression, control, practice, learning, and its no longer (since about 1980 at the latest) useful to use the paradigms and frameworks of 'coding' to discuss learning and knowledge. |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi John, The effectiveness is a subjective concept. It depends on the objectives we have on something, in this case the network. It can happen that you and I participate on the same network and is effective for you and for me not, or vice versa. That is why I agree with Tom on the desirability of having access to various networks, and that, indeed, if the information exists, can be found. And I would add that if it does not exist can be created. |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Thanks Dolores for your comments, I think I agree with your views. Though, we could still define effectiveness objectively, if you like. Does it mean that we all learn differently? Is the concept of effectiveness the same as you and others see it before and after the discussion? We all see these concepts differently, do we? Cheers. |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi John, thanks for wanting to share points of view. In response to your first question, I believe that each of us learns in different ways. There were genetic, environmental, experiential, ..., that we have provided a special way to link inputs to learning and to obtain effectiveness of the tools. In regard to your other question, applied to conectivism, this is my way to understand these concepts: Effectiveness: Have all the necessary tools, always available and the full capacity to use them where necessary. Efficiency: Ability to manage resources to get answers quality in the shortest time possible. Do you agree? |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Thanks Dolores, I fully agree. And you insights stimulated me to ask 1. How do these tools affect our learning? 2. Is knowledge the same as learning with the application of these tools? |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi John, You ask me: How do these tools affect our learning? New technologies:
As to your second question: Is the same knowledge as learning with the application of these tools? The knowledge, the result of internal reflection, it's probably the same as would be obtained without these tools. However, mental agility, the ability to learn and develop skills they improved significantly thanks to constant innovation that makes the life of knowledge is becoming increasingly shorter, creating the need to stay up to date. |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Dolores, Thanks for sharing your great insights. I like your ideas so much that I would refer to yours in my draft response to connectivism. Here are some of the points I like most:
My other interpretation include: multiple
Cheers. |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Dolores and anyone else who would like to think about this: If you were introducing this course to students, how would you teach them to approach the massive amount of information being posted? What questions should they ask themselves when trying to find a methodical, efficient approach to learning in the network? What questions would help them decide whether tools and content will further their goals and objects or be distractions? |
| Re: The importance of context |
|
Hi Ruth, I do not believe in a single model of instructional design. I think that is basic customize to every educational situation. But, without doubt, the factors to consider are:
|