First, most MOOC research has not brought the connectivist experience to life for readers who have not experienced the rhizomatic swarm of open, online, connected learning.
Group items matching
in title, tags, annotations or url
1More
1More
Giving and Receiving Peer Advice in an Online Breast Cancer Support Group - 0 views
-
Elizabeth Sillence. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. June 2013, 16(6): 480-485. doi:10.1089/cyber.2013.1512. Published in Volume: 16 Issue 6: June 10, 2013 Published in Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking Advice has been defined as "opinions or counsel given by people who perceive themselves as knowledgeable, and/or who the advice seeker may think are credible, trustworthy and reliable," (pp. 519).11 This definition highlights the difficulties involved for both parties in managing the interaction. For the advice seeker, asking for advice is in a way undermining their identity as a competent person, playing down their own knowledge and abilities while the advice giver has to demonstrate they are worthy of offering advice. Advice givers also have to pay attention to the cues of the advice seeker. They have to be sensitive to their needs, even recognizing that advice is being sought. The way that the advice is presented is crucial as well if the giver is to succeed in passing on his or her way of thinking on the topic. The context may require that the advice giving is mitigated. Locher and Hoffman suggest that such mitigation occurs in the form of humor or through the use of lexical hedges such as "maybe" or "perhaps." While relatively little research has examined "peer" advice online, it does seem that the extent to which advice exchange is seen as an important or even defining aspect of a community varies between forums. In a study of an online support group for depression, Lamerichs found advice exchange was not seen as central to the community's functioning,5 while Kouper, in a recent study of an online motherhood forum, noted that offering and receiving advice was an important type of social interaction within that community.14 The structural and pragmatic features of the advice exchange process are one indicator of its value within the online community.
2More
Choreographies of Becoming | Personal Research Blog - 0 views
-
This paper centers what I consider to be an important question: As educators in the 21st century, what is our ethical responsibility in relation to human technological subjectification? As digital technologies proliferate, thinking through the ethics of becoming-digital is of paramount importance for college student educators. -
1More
Writing the Unreadable Untext - Hybrid Pedagogy - 0 views
35More
Wanna do a cMOOC? | doublemirror - 5 views
-
Matthias Melcher – he made it so easy to follow everyone’s blogs
-
That was a huge contribution Matthias made to help tie Rhizo14 together. Although later in the course, when it became impossible for me to keep up with all the blog posts, I opted for the narrower conversation on Facebook as my link - even that subset exceeded my capacity
-
-
power is not due to the technology or its design, but to the actual people involved
-
strongly agree - although the ds106 assignment bank is an outstanding design element
-
-
So, when I did DS106 as a course for the first time in 2013, life was already set up in such a way that I could give it my full attention.
-
This helps understand the author's perspective. Not everyone in an open online course shares that life-setup. Many are trying to squeeze learning into the varying cracks between other overlapping committments.
-
- ...15 more annotations...
-
So, what was Rhizo14 setting out to create? A one of what? Stephen uses his own courses as an example
-
I have a great deal of respect for Stephen, and enjoyed his talk at Vlaencia (referenced in this blog) immensely. It seemed to me though, that he was explaining a landscape rather than prescribing a recipe for a MOOC. Might it be better to examine Rhizo14 in light of what Dave Cormier says about it, rather than force it to be scrutinized through the lens of questions raised by Steven Downes' lecture? Dave Cormier at MIT "MOOCs as a selfish enterprise" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Smt8lsPU_Mo If any "making one" objective(s) existed in Rhizo14, it(they) would be very subjective. Dave says he threw a party to see if anyone would come. I certainly participated as part of my process of "becoming", but without conciously adding "...one of X". I just know by experience that by "hanging out" with groups like this, I am able to do interesting things in teaching that I had not deliberately set out to learn (and I borrow that articulation from Dave Cormier), so from time to time I keep engaging with communities and courses that interest me. Some others have expressed or evidenced more clearly defined objectives - academic research, webtool development, and building a PLN are some examples.
-
I agree with you that Dave is defferent from S.D. and rhizo should be described with Dave's terms
-
-
If my need for inclusion had been high, then I think I would have felt excluded from what some called Rhizo14FB.
-
This again gives us insight into the writer's perspective. It is a valid attitude, but important to recognize. Consciously looking through the same lens will keep a reader who experienced Rhizo14 differently from too easily dismissing parts of the critique that do not resonate with herm.
-
-
They did what humans do so well in new situations: gather in their tribes and by definition exclude those not in their tribe, or try to ‘convince’ those outside ‘it’ to join it;
-
batting the ideas back and forth in order to win the game.
-
The design of Rhizo14, I have to assume, is the current state of what Dave as an educational technologist believes works for massive open online courses.
-
After listening to Dave Cormier, I have to challenge this assumption. What I hear from him suggests that Dave is very much aware that he is still trying to find out what "works".
-
I thought that rhizo14 was Dave's first try to facilitate a MOOC his first own experiment
-
-
diversity was managed out through a group dynamic that excluded what the majority did not approve
-
I agree = saw this happen, all norms are not written, they can be strong without it
-
-
I did not see much by way of supporting the importance of diversity in action rather than theory.
-
-
people left and may have been silenced by a vocal minority
-
gossiping about other participants
-
and this still praised as a good strategy - a year after the end of the studies
-
-
but Rhizo14 as an experiment on the future of higher education as a whole is not what the originators intend
-
This critique of Rhizo14 accuses it of not producing what it was not intended to produce. Seems a bit like criticizing an alligator because, while it has great hide, it makes an unsatisfactory mount since it was never intended to be a horse. I understand the author's dissatisfaction with the course. Rhizo14 neither met expectations nor satisfied any personal objectives. A dissenting opinion eloquently expressed is very valuable. The underlying tone of the post, however, carries a distinctly subjective disapproval or dismissal of anyone who has received satisfaction in their own experience in Rhizo14. The author speaks repeatedly of observing attempts to silence or marginalize those who did not buy into the opinions of the majority. Yet the author engages in a similar tactic against possible critics.
-
I hope that after my comment on my blog this feeling has eased in you. I absolutely did not intend to disapprove or dismiss any individual. I disagree with some of the choices made in design and educator intervention precisely because I feel they closed down the possibility of having a space where multiple perspective could be held openly without the need for filtering through an agree/disagree frame. This led to people who we could all have learnt from leaving and I was sad about this. Also - just for clarity I was not at all dissatisfied with the course. It was set up as an experiment and I love experiments. I was dissatisfied with our human inability create more silence and space for listening and the compulsive drive to talk. Nick put it beautifully in his blog: "that kind of dialogue. It is a way of being that one has to learn, but seems to me to be integral to what we might call "deep" learnign. The word retreat is interesting, one of the first pre-requisites of that dialogue is to shut up and listen. Online you are largely characterised by the noise you make, the text you generate. Silence online transmutes to a lack of presence, and described as "lurking". Lurk has too many negative associations to be reframed. But we do have the right to remain silent! Another issue, as you observe, is that dialogue is not transactional, but online interaction does very often seem to devolve to that kind of behaviour…" http://avisodemiranda.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/marram-grass/ I chose to create the space I needed for learning and this may be meant I chose 'no intervention' when intervention may have benefitted us all. I need to take time to reflect on this. I will leave it here for now, let's see if this is a space for us to engage before I spend any more time here :) -
Mariana speaks so well but why it is so challenging to hear, I am wondering after reading these notes
-
-
what he created with CCK08
-
own work in self-managed learning
-
I recognise this clearly from my
-
I recognise this too and this reminds the storming phase of group process. You must be strong as a facilitator to receive all the complaints. It is a normal phase as long as education is in movement
-
-
You were definitely the right kind of ‘one’ if you believed in emergence, non-linearity, poetry and art rather than theory and explanation.
-
-
to connect with ‘old MOOC friends’ no mention of rhizomes of the metaphorical or garden variety.
-
‹ Previous
21 - 25 of 25