Confessions of a linear learner

For professional development purposes I am working my way through a four week online workshop on designing authentic eLearning courses. Aside from the knowledge and expertise gained, I see great value in being a learner again, and being reminded of both the joys and the frustrations of it.

Although we are technically only half way through the course at this point, one of the most powerful learning "moments" has already occurred for me - I have learnt that I am a hopelessly linear learner. In a sense I knew that about myself, and saw it as just a learning preference, but wasn't truly aware of how restrictive and limiting it can be.

What do I mean by linear? I like to know the beginning and end of a process, and all of the steps laid out in between, before I start doing anything. I try to work out at the outset exactly what is required, how it is to be done, and when it is to be done by. I like to be clear on the style, format, length etc. to be sure I do it exactly right. And on top of all that, I like to know what the "rules" are in any given learning situation - and by rules I mean that unspoken understanding of how things are "commonly" done, what is "typically" expected, and so forth. I need to know the right way.

And so I reached a point early on in this course, where I was trying to work all of these things out in relation to a blogging task. Just when when I thought I had it straight in my mind that we were to blog about X, I saw something else in the course that said we were to blog about Y, and something else again said we were to blog about Z. My linear learning cells activated the anxiety alarm and I no longer knew what I was to do, or how I was to do it, and if I didn't know that, how could I possibly do well? My conative processes were withering and sliding into the background.

Immediately I remembered the same sense of (di)stress I had when I attempted a MOOC on Connectivism - that style of learning felt too chaotic for me - and I will be so brave as to confess that I thought "this will never take hold in universities because most learners need more direction, instruction, and clarity of purpose." A gross generalisation, I know, but that's what I thought. I didn't realise that the thought should more correctly have been, "this will never work for me because I need more direction, instruction, and clarity of purpose."

But even that thought is flawed - never say never! This time around I did not just throw in the towel, but rather I expressed my anxiety and confusion to the course convenor. Here comes another confession - because I am such a linear learner, and because I didn't yet fully understand the nature and form of authentic learning tasks, I assumed that the design of this course was a little flawed, because the instructions weren't clear. [I didn't tell the course convenor this bit, but she'll know as soon as she reads this!] But by the end of our conversation, I fully understood the why's of her course design, the essence of  authentic learning and its openness and flexibility, the intended nature of the task, and the challenge to my way of learning it was going to represent. The fact that there is no right way leaves it up to me to decide how I approach it, how I complete it, and what I learn from it. Now I know what I have to do, and how I am going to do it.

The big revelation for me is that even though the only "rule" in this situation is that there are no rules other than those I set myself, just knowing that seems to have satisfied my learning needs, and it seems I am not as linear as I thought! The next big confession will need to be that authentic learning is not what I thought it was - but that's for another post.

"The golden rule of networks is: Location, location, location".

So says Valdis Krebs in his introduction to Social Network Analysis. SNA is "the mapping and measuring of relationships and flows between people, groups, organizations, computers, URLs, and other connected information/knowledge entities" and is a concept we are contemplating as part of our journey through the fairy-floss haze of connectivism. Krebs gives a very clean description of the elements of a network that warrant analysis - namely the centrality measures of Degree Centrality, Betweenness Centrality, and Closeness Centrality - although as yet I am uninformed as to why they warrant analysis. Further reading in cck11 required...


Wikipedia tells us:
"Network analysis, and its close cousin traffic analysis, has significant use in intelligence. By monitoring the communication patterns between the network nodes, its structure can be established. This can be used for uncovering insurgent networks of both hierarchical and leaderless nature."


Intelligence? As in international espionage? Would I know a hierarchical insurgent network if I tripped over it? I am not sure why we need to know about network analysis in relation to connectivism... yet.


...


Ok, now I have listened to Stephen Downes' presentation on Learning Networks and as I listened to him talk about his first design principle of a network - Decentralize - the centrality measures of SNA popped into my head and I understood the importance of knowing the strength of a network, and how easily it can, or cannot, be broken. Stephen defined eight of these design principles: Decentralize, Distribute, Disintermediate, Disaggregate, Dis-integrate, Democratize, Dynamize (sic), and Desegregate. As I listened (and learned), I felt suddenly that the value of a learning network, in my profession in general, but also in my own learning journey, was remarkably clear. The big leap for me now is to see and accept that connectivism as a learning theory, and learning networks as a learning framework, are the way to go in terms of teaching and learning in higher education. I can't quite let go of my belief that I need clear organisation and structure to learn most efficiently, and that higher ed students generally need (or at least want) it too.In addition to our teaching institutions, do we have to convince the students that this is a better way to learn?

Understanding connectivism: some first thoughts

If I think about one of the driving factors behind my enrollment in the CCK11 mooc, which is the desire (and the professional expectation) to keep abreast of lines of thought and development in my field, I am making the obvious connection (no pun intended) that this is exactly what lies behind this theory of learning.To quote from George Siemens paper Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age: "Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities." Actually I feel quite oppressed by the pressure to keep up, and yet also compelled to do so by my own desire for intellectual stimulation. Why doesn't the latter cancel out the former? Mental laziness perhaps, but part of it is that I really don't know how people can do it! Not literally how, but motivationally how, I suppose. One conclusion I have come to is that I haven't developed the ability, and so another of George's points resonated with me: "Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill." And as an extension of that, in my mind, so too is the seeking out of those connections. Hopefully, as the theory suggests, connectivism will allow me to remain current in my field. :)

I have to say I am struggling with the idea that learning may reside in non-human appliances, or that it exists outside of the person. I can't quite grasp that a mental process could exist if the mind is removed from the equation. To me it seems only information resides in the non-human appliances. Although I suppose I can form a concept of a learning organism that exists out there in the ether, consisting of the information stored on devices, the physical network that connects the devices, the ideas, thoughts, opinions, explorations and observations pertinent to that information that are added to the devices and network, (and the connections that form between the human originators of those ideas, thoughts, etc), and the processes of change and movement that occur within these structures, and finally the impact they have on society and culture, ALL constituting an unnameable learning beast which we can commune with (and influence) on a personal level. Yes, clumsy, but I need to make sense of it.

After reading Stephen Downes' blog post "What connectivism is", I have found I experience a brain freeze when I try to start comprehending the arguments of those digging deep down into the language we use to describe learning or meaning-making . I understand the arguments, and the literal meaning of their words of course, but getting my mind around the concept of learning, creating understanding or meaning-making as a physical process, trying to conceptualise it in my own mind – stumps me. Even in my attempts to write this and choose words to describe the “act” of learning I fear I am tripping myself up by using all the wrong words. It is unnerving, but challenging, therefore to be trying to learn in an atmosphere of trepidation. Learning is a mystery I struggle to make a mental model of. (!!)