Group items tagged

Perhaps it is repressed in traditional formal learning situations or it just doesn't make good, strategic sense to most learners where they are situated.

I might also add that we invite as well. Permission may be necessary as a pump primer but invitation is the force that drives the water up and out. If you think of it in terms of artesian wells then you have to admit that for most of us you have to drill down for the water. The springs are fewer and may often only be a little weep of water that has to be dammed up a bit in order to drink from it.

And its specific corollary: we conflate learning with teaching.

I tried to talk about this when I referenced James Scott's binary of legible/illegible. Like the quants on Wall Street and in the Department of Education, clarification entails filtering out the fines of complexity. Sometimes this is good--penicillin, for example. But it can lead to unintended consequences--a wider resistance to all antibiotics. Seeing more clearly often has to come from sitting in the vortex and waiting. The water might clear of its own accord.

I like this phrasing and the idea here ... of shifting the learning, as long as you don't focus on the tool/technology but on the learnings elements. Sometimes, the tech drives the learning, not the other way around. We want our students to have agency of exploration in their learning.

This year we used the closed box of the institutional VLE to do some of this work but I want to push this further by using more open platforms and ask participants to find their own materials. The assessment will have to be tweaked to facilitate this.

This might up the engagement factor. I think a few folks from Connected Courses are tinkering with collective design of curriculum, right? Of allowing students to have a say in the learning. This is what Dave is doing with us. I think.

The 'time' allocated to 'teaching' sessions is driven by the Bologna process (Tuning in N.America) and 'European Credit and Accumulation Transfer System' which usually gets reduced to 'time on task' rather than learning.  We can play with this though

Always a struggle, no matter the age of student (says the sixth grade teacher).

Thanks for the deep thinking ...

I always like peer review

It was me actually :)

This is heavy pull here. The filter/value of keeping deadlines is self-referential. You make the filter because that cog is needed to fit into the larger machinery of the institution. You must have deadlines in order to have order within the term or semester. We wouldn't want to treat others unfairly, unequally (even more filters). Thus the system creates the circular logic that justifies the values of the system. The heavy pull is to dump the trash can that holds the whole mess together and say, "Well...it's a mess. Let's try something else." What you are asking for is the right to be messy. The system struggles against such illegibility. Mightily. So mightily that subversion (one of the tools of messification) is inevitable and iconoclasm becomes a way of life in that system. Or we become 'silent runners'. Does this analysis seem true to what you are saying? I ask in the spirit of interdependence.

"Certitude is not the test of certainty. We have been cocksure of many things that were not so." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Fro ego to eco--how else can it be with 7 billion people on the planet. This is not just a stance, it is an imperative.

Which is rhizomatic practice?  Are any left out in this dichotomy?  Content or no content.

Which is rhizomatic practice?  Are any left out in this dichotomy?  Dave or no Dave?

Which is rhizomatic practice?  Are any left out in this dichotomy?  Old wine or old wine in new bottles or?

Which is rhizomatic practice?  Are any left out in this dichotomy?  Count or no count or no account or ?

Answer these questions before you tell people to go on a rhizomatic snipe hunt?

I believe that a radically different stance from a very different perch is necessary.  

Social model of human knowings v. Cartesian knowing

We see ourselves through the constraining influences of other people, through the 'peopling' of others.  Others people us.  It is a limited recursion.  I think this has significance in #rhizo15. How? We are all seeing ourselves through the eyes of others.  How accurate is that subjective view?  Sometimes it is off by degrees of magnitude.  For example, I see some pretty effusive praise for stuff that by its nature is half-baked.  Yes, some is very good for a first draft, but most goes little past the initial draft and into further revision.  I expect further recursion, further refinement through reciprocal action, sometimes I get it, mostly I don't. Part of me take no offense while another part is deeply disturbed that the responses I get are so cursory.  And the cursory nature of most responses,  the desultory considerations of others we have come to respect become the default.  And, worse, they become internalized as the default mutual mental modeling.  Shallow of necessity, quick by force of circumstance, and a bare reciprocal exigency.  

How much of that is on other people? How much of it is on us? How inviting are we to gather up ideas, particularly those who challenge our thinking? That "infinite" word in there .. that's a lot of recursive thinking going back and forth, toppling on itself ...

Therefore, we have different subjective reflections from among different folk.  Each reflection is a unique self simulated by another's mind.  The same is true for social context.  We have a Rhizo15 self created by our Rhizo15 folk.  My question here is whether it is in any way an objective measure and does that matter?   Should any of us care about the simulations of others?  Should we rebel and subvert these simulacra because they are not 'us'?  It is hard to argue for this position simply because this acceptance of the peopling of others seems quite natural.  It is natural for us to consider this subjective and recursive view from others as the real deal.  Or is it just the default view?  Can we generate another way toward identity that is a balance between outer and inner subjectivity?

We are many selves.  No one reflection gets them all not even our own. Especially not our own.

This reminds me of how to think of our students -- of their lives outside of our classroom,our building ... what literacies are authentic for them?

Powerful assertion here.  And the proof is in asking what happens when we do not maintain that identity.

I wonder how much of our cognitive load is spent maintaining (breaking down and building up) identity, the metabolism of identity?

Three views of this social model of cognition: 1. Baumeister and Masicampo: conscious thought is the transport mechanism for moving between inner identity and outer identity. 2.Rochat: we become conscious because of others, 'constrained by folk' in order to be. 3. Simler: we infect each other with consciousness through the interaction of identity.

I have never seen the problem of identity so succinctly put.  And it explains why there is and can be no permanent solution to the conflict here except perhaps the meditative one of observing the breath and making that identity.

So how do we play this infinite game of mutually modelling each other's identities to each the other? Language and ritual Language for the easy stuff and ritual for the hard stuff. So what are the #rhizo15 rituals?

The sparseness of ritual environment in rhizo15 is very painful to me.  The sparseness of feedback from language is just as painful, but the lack of ritual makes it even more so.  Dreadfully more so.  In fact I am on the edge of withdrawing all the time.  I think it is the ritual that will save me.

So bring on the salve of ritual to rhizo15.

Ritual 1: greeting everyone, every day.