Communities around rhizo14

I continue my rhizo research topic by pondering on internet communities. The subtitle of the rhizo14 course was ‘community as curriculum’. It includes an assumption that a community develops around the course and creates new connections and content . I studied in this blog many concepts around this theme: virtual communities, networks, crowds, tribes and clusters and found new ones: congregation, fan club, Dave as our Elvis. Network is most popular in describing life in internet, but  communities and tribes can be used as well.

Now I am thinking about rhizo14 and notice that I see it as a part of continual process happening in the internet. Most of the people who participated in the autoethnography at the end of the course already belonged to the community. Perhaps it could be named a community of connectivist life long learners or networkers. I don’t like the term connectivist, but I used it because it is known and may help to understand what I am saying. There is no beginning and no end, said Vanessa Vaile. I had a similar orientation in my autoethnography: I just passed by the rhizo14 and studied something. Later in this text I want to say story, I am tired writing the long term autoethnography.

When I read the collected 30 stories, I can recognise 11 names which have lived in the interned many years. They are experienced moocers and self-directed learners and their participation skills are up-to-date. So they come to a course and take what they want and contribute here and there so that others can learn from their comments. Dave Cormier’s transparent live in the internet is very well-known to these people and they like him. They believe that something will happen when Dave is the facilitator. Some of these people were interested in rhizomatic learning and their connection to Dave included this shared interest. A few were very old friends of Dave and co-worked many years with him. Some of the experienced networkers have more general interests about learning and living in online communities. I could name them outer circle ripples of the Dave community 🙂

I found 30 different stories and only three were written by novices in the sense of first time moocers. I appreciate that they have written their stories. So I have about 16 stories left. It is a heterogeneous group of people following actively and participating selectively in the open internet. Some of them were interested in rhizomatic thinking and wondered why it was not studied properly.

I belong to this group. I remember that I had discussions about the allowed interests. I felt guilty of not being interested  in rhizomatic philosophy and someone (Tanya) promised that it is allowed to be interested in human learning generally. I was not alone with my orientation. Cath Ellis had a researcher’s orientation and she helped to find writings about Deleuze & Guattari. Some followed her but most participants wanted to be free learners. When the course proceeded further, the artistic ways of describing learning took more space. It is metaphorical and near the ideas of the course, so this trend is easy to understand. Some very touching stories were presented in the blogs and warm support was in the air. Simultaneously I could recognise a norm arousing that writing is boring and linear, do not use it.

Some of the participants had been publishing about learning online in some journals, I remember Apostolos and Maha. Now Sarah and some others were interested in following this line. So we have this rich material of 30 stories in Google Drive. The idea of collaborative autoethnography is excellent and suits the purpose. It is

A form of self-reflection and writing that explores the researcher’s personal experiences and connects this autobiographical story to a wider cultural-political-and social meanings and understandings. source

We have  different stories which could be used in various ways. My first feeling was that no one wants to read the stories as such, separated from the context or the community. I have tried to contextualize the stories partly to wider cultural settings in this post. I could use the stories by analysing them focusing in certain questions. For instance I’ll leave the inner circle of experienced networkers around Dave and continue by analysing more normal people 🙂 I have no intention to deepen into rhizomatic thinking and I leave it to them who are interested in it.

I had an idea to draw a map of different motivations but I changed my opinion. One question is how to use the writers’ names. If I connect names into motivation I could get feedback (and many angry comments). So? If I give new names for people it will be ridiculous. Every research effort is valuable in my mind but it takes time. An idea of collaborating is very challenging to implement.

It is a nice summer day today, not too hot, but next week is predicted to be very hot again. Perhaps I’ll rest.

Real or imagined community?

Still one question about the difference between community and network. I followed  a course about ‘internet and social networking’ in my nearest university in Jyväskylä, in order to check how they handle these issues. I had learned my ways to study and participate on the internet by doing and experiencing. The following tweet has a message, which tells about my feelings:

socmediaSocial media doesn’t cause ignorance but it is very effective at documenting it. I knew this and went to the university to check the borders of my self-made ignorance. Teaching in all Finnish universities is free and open, I can walk to the lecture hall and sit down to listen and discuss with young students. All the material was open in Google Drive and it still is. Use it or lose it I could say about Finnish universities. The choice is mine. Not every teacher shares his material openly but Erkka Peitso did so.

I want to show a diagram which the lecturer presented to us. I have translated it into English. What is the difference between community and network?


In the community people have shared something, for example interest , but the membership may be imagined, it is not shared always. The network is defined by the connections between people (or whatever nodes). These connections can be identified and so they are known and visible.

This is the point where my eyes opened and I began to wonder why only communities can be imagination. How about networks? The rhizo14 participants are registered on the P2P University sites, 186 of them on the Facebook group and many follow #rhizo14 hashtag on Twitter. Dave Cormier has told that the course has about 500 students. Most of them are hidden somewhere.

In my previous post I was sure that we are a community but today I am not sure any more. The science of networks (Barabasi) deals with clusters, which are said to be the natural form of organisation of human beings. We do not know the 500 students in our course, we know some of them. We have real clusters or circles in our imagined community. When you participate actively, your circles grow larger. Let’s play with these concepts or without them. Here is an interesting experiment from Kevin H. in Twitter a hour ago. Try it!


The community as the curriculum

I’ll continue my journey describing my observations during rhizo14 in the light of the heading: the community is the curriculum. It is the other heading of the course but usually the first Rhizomatic learning has been dealt with. I am interested in the latter part because I’ve been working on that theme many decades, I had to write a curriculum using personal learning orientation in the 1990’s (had to write tells about my attitudes against administration, I had to work as a head of teacher education programme for six years). My solution was that I began the curriculum by describing the students’ co-learning, how it must be organised.  Much has happened after those years and now I am interested in open online communities.

What can be said about open courses, what is the normal process. I use the image, which Doug Cloud has developed.

dougclowThere was discussion about the power law of diminishing participation but Doug wanted to turn the discussion to a different direction. The diminishing does not follow the power law, we have to explore what happens in the process. What factors lead to ending  or proceeding during the studies.

In my previous post I dealt with rhizo14 a little. We, the participants have different levels of awareness and motivation at the beginning of rhizo. Many of us have participated in CCK or edcmooc or PLE or whatever courses and many are involved in other courses all the time. There seems to be some competition between courses, which to choose and use time with it. The basic motivation to take part is broader than only rhizomatic learning or Dave Cormier. I am grateful to Tanya who commented on me and so I found her blog. She offers the option to be interested in facilitation or learning more generally than in rhizomatic learning specifically. This helps me give up my guilt about my lack of interest in Rhizomatic learning per se. I drew an image about this situation: crossing and moving motivations and expectations etc but it is so messy that I left it out. You have that image in your head, your personal image.

I am not interested in the numbers of participants in rhizo14. Dave shared the results of his survey some weeks ago: 65 answers were given and they can be found in Dave’s blog.  About engagement I chose 2, because I wasn’t engaged in that moment. About connections I chose a bigger number. The assessments are sensitive to many factors and change from moment to another. But something they do tell. The number of active participants have been 30-40 in every mooc which I have followed.

What is interesting in rhizo14? It is an experiment about a totally personal curriculum without a teacher. Dave speaks about “new kind of self-evolving under the pressure of information overload and the technology instantly available”.  Mariana in her tweet called it a power shift. When I have been thinking and observing the rhizo14 community, I have become conscious about the quality of the participants (students, learners > read a thread began by Apostopolos in the FB group). We have many years’ experience about moocs and, what is perhaps more important, about work life and education generally. We should be able to analyse our community and our curriculum.

We know (psychology knows) a lot about cognitive and social processes and dynamics. We have experts in this course. How do we combine the older knowledge with the analyses of this time. The sociologist Barry Wellman showed this slide in LAK13.


We function more as networked individuals. Our social networks are large. Networks are sparsely-knit and loosely-bounded. Rhizo14 is an interest-based community but there is a great variety of interests inside it.

The core concept in developing a curriculum (or a course?) must be interaction. It is easy to build connections with like-minded people. It strengthens and sharpens, Lou tweeted today. We live in the middle of self-made abundance. We know that innovations happen near the borders. There must be people who break them and connect with different people. For instance Wenger has built excellent models about this many years ago. You remember the circles crossing each other, do you? I should like to draw some circles about rhizo14, but I am afraid of naming them. It is a taboo to classify people, isn’t it? I cannot do it, it is hard enough to describe myself for my front-page.

How about our interaction in our numerous discussions? We explore the edges of what is possible in open online learning, said Tanya in her blog. She spoke about thoughtless sharing and creation as well. Jaap spoke about a market and walking around, choosing what we need and going home. Mariana mentioned the ripples following every action or saying. So am I in a trap: do not deal with difficult issues? The borders of openness and freedom, where are they, how near or far?

I take an example. When somebody says in a discussion:

Your negative response to the course has been a strong pattern. While I have found your critiques of the course helpful, I wonder if there isn’t some other underlying critique that has kept you from trying on the ideas in the course. I would very much appreciate it if you would address this underlying critique.

How do we interpret this? Many were astonished, because they had no idea that the response was negative. But every interpretation is true, so the writer was also right. Norms are created in this way, what is allowed and what is not.  If the speaker has power, he gets followers and it happened. The story continues when the same person says:

My request for more information is not a rhetorical flourish.  I’ve followed XXs work for years and would like to better understand what it is that concerns her if there is a deeper issue involved.

Now we have the interpretation problem again? Does he mean that he expects better, stronger and deeper critique from XX because he knows her work or is it a bitter comment: be quiet if you haven’t better thought to express. I don’t know and I don’t want to solve that question. I have told my opinion already. But I want to illustrate how we, adult and well educated people in our networking, we behave as people always have done. Defensive behavior arises when we feel threat or criticism, real or not. We may project our own problem to another participant and blame him/her. I use these old findings of psychology in order to understand this kind of happenings. We are human beings. The new nomad is like the old one and he behaves using ancient mechanisms in a stressful situation.

Something positive in the end. Here comes a presentation which Matt Holland, a participant of Elearning and Digital Cultures published as his digital artefact. There was discussion in the forums during the process. Matt shows the way, which is not complex at all. Or is it? What should be added to these five rules for being human in a MOOC:


EDIT 8.2. I have received excellent feedback which helps me to understand that there is great diversity inside rhizo14 and I use “we” too much. I speak to a tribe which has been hanging out here for years and knows the basics of networking. I try to build that community forwards when I say “we”.

Sense of virtual community in rhizo14

I am interested in the question what makes online communities work. My previous course was edcmooc and I observed the same question: the Five Fantastic Facilitators worked as a team and the active participants began the course a long time before the course was opened. I enjoyed seeing that a new internet generation had been born and was working well. Then I followed my old friends to rhizo14 and I am asking similar questions.

Miia Kosonen is a researcher in Finland and I want to use one of her slide presentations in order to use proper concepts. Miia became Dr with dissertation research about Knowledge sharing in communities some years ago and she has followed the research. I’ve my experiences as a reflection tool and I want to compare my experiences with the research findings. Here is the slideshare

Rhizo14 can be described as e-Tribe, virtual network community or online crowd (my opinion of course). We can define it (slide 3) by telling about the participants. Some of us began in CCK08 and we know each other from many connections. Another branch in my eyes comes from edcmooc, many people were active there. There must be other paths too, but I know these ways. Shared interest is not easy or clear to define. Rhizomatic learning may be the core interest to many participants, I follow more the other title “Community as curriculum”. I am exploring it. What is the community level social capital for us? We have trust but not shared language all the time. We do not like norms, but we must have many hidden norms and rules ‘how to behave  on the course’. We have conversations because many participants are good at it and Dave Gormier is excellent  (have you watched the discussions with Jeff Lebow and the group). Dave is open-minded and easy to become acquainted to. He is authentic in front of camera, he speaks to us. When he says that he trusts us, I want to believe 🙂

Slide 4 gives a nice structure to handling with living in a virtual community. Needs and expectations differ, action varies from active to lurking and roles (blogging, commenting, discussing or nothing visible). Feelings of membership lead to identification with the group and feelings of learning and support, insights and immersion. Building relationships becomes true, I’ve got some new names to follow. I remembered an old post of this blog about designing commitment . It defines two kind of relationships: bond-based or identity-based. Bonds are social, connections to people (for instance my interest to joining). Identity is connected to values and interests, things. I cannot define what values we have in common in rhizo14 but there must be some humanistic or making the world better -interests or is this only my imagination? I liked that old post (PLENK2010) and the level of the discussion.

Slide 5 gives many perspectives to virtual communities. My orientation is psychological, cognitive and social combined with the analysis of virtual life generally. I can describe my experiences during rhizo14 (and guess at the others’ feelings but it is better that everybody tells him/herself).

I have enjoyed watching recordings of the hangouts, also the Teachers teach teachers (TTT) meeting. It was nice to see Terry Elliot, Vanessa and Sarah. Feelings of nearness are stronger when I watch the videos. Some blog posts have interested me and I have written a few comments. FB group discussions are so abundant that I often skip them. I remember Lucy’s story about a deeply touching experience, it touched me too. Perhaps it was one of the longest threads, over 80 comments but I read everyone. Mostly I have a sense of looking in from the outside or far away what are they doing – I seldom have a feeling of belonging to this community. It was not a joke when I asked Dave in a FB discussion thread (it was for the newcomers) that why sign up? Is it needed? I am interested in the topic ‘community as curriculum’ but not in rhizomes.  The themes which Dave offers every week have been so obvious to me that they do not inspire any more or I have no need to answer or comment. But I’ll deepen my analysis about online communities and how a curriculum can be based on people.

I liked this description of virtual participation, written by Apostolos in FB group
“There is a “core” group of people I “follow,” and this depends on a combination of factors including interactions, interest in content, and so on. Then there is a group of people that are a little further out for me (the quotient of that combination of factors is lower than the core group, but it still on my radar), and then there are people that I just don’t interact with. So, I would say that for me it’s all shades of gray, and the further out you go and the gray fades to white, the less involved I am with those participants.”

Work smarter in your network

I have to write something positive after determining crowds to be stupid 🙂 I really had a nice experience when listening to On Line Educa Berlin again, the session Work Smarter in Networks. I knew the names of five speakers and now I could see how excellent their team working really is. Thanks to Paulo Simoes for tweeting the link.

They also write together a blog. You can see Harold Jarche and  Learn Trends Ning in the blogroll.

I learned that they have independent professions (as entrepreneurship) but their aim is to help organizations to become better, work smarter. They work in practice and write about the experiences. They are different people with same interests and they greatly appreciate each other. Five heads are better than one, easy to believe that. They trusted each other and enjoyed about working jointly. They were open, natural and not at all defensive. My time ran quickly when listening  the 1½ hour session.

I enjoyed the discussion, it was a great opportunity to reflect my experiences in web world. It takes time to sink in. Both books and web are important.The focus of development must be in working smarter than earlier. Dialog is the key, social sharing is necessary for developing.

Something I want to say differently: performance not learning is a wrong opposite, learning by doing is the answer. Experiential learning has same focus but gives the whole circle: reflect, conceptualize, action …

Pondering about virtual vs. personal is a well known topic but now many participants understood the benefits of virtual side. Introverts have advantage in virtual life, and there is more time for thinking. I enjoyed really.

What is the difference between crowds and teams/ networks? Why some networks work well or excellently? These five people did it, it is a combination of diversity, same direction of interests and appreciating each other. Sometimes it arouses in a second, sometimes never, part of it remains secret. But it is worth living, I know it through my experience.

Technology has no meaning

I found the heading to this post while listening to Larry Johnson. He spoke in Online Educa Berlin 2010. I enjoyed “Fri 03 Dec Academic Plenary” where Larry Johnson was the first speaker. Technology changes but human passion matters – could be a summary about his presentation.

Often I have a feeling here (internet, web, online, in open studies) that I should run faster in order to understand the last tools, devices or what ever they are called. Larry Johnson showed me that I can relax and enjoy – it is important to know my passion (which is not technology). The network is us + The network is everywhere – these were his other focuses. OK I should learn to use my mobile better.. it is a necessary tool of networking.

Also two other speeches were interesting. Aaron Wassermann showed how to study via mobile. That makes sense, I can agree easily. Josie Fraser from Leicester contributed with a theme Digital literacy and learning communities supporting 21st century learners. First she presented facts about the situation and development in different age groups.  Then she described three modes of literacy:

  • functional: cognitive and practical skills
  • sociocultural : we are here together
  • transformational: new thinking and new social and …

We need tools, thinking and social engagement. She gave a vision to action: developing skills, competences, confidences and so on. It is something I did in my former post. Listening to Josie Fraser added my confidence that my way is right – and so did Alan Cooper by commenting my post.

I recommend the presentations of Online Educa Berlin, the link is in the first chapter.

Diversity in open online courses

I can’t stop thinking about online communities or courses, I need to analyze happenings in order to understand what my opinions are. I have many threads to this post. Yesterday Chris tweeted this picture . I noticed it is in Flickr and we have a group there, I had joined it earlier and forgot it. Now I can link the picture here. Ian Woods has done it and explains it more in his blog.

I have been pondering the hierarchies in online participation. I have tried to understand diversity of expertise. Ian speaks about the expertise to participate in PLENK and describes the situation of newbies. I have pondered possible influences of background expertise, what do we bring to the course, what we have especially to give. I have a simple picture about it:

expertonlineMember profiles in PLENK tell that most participants have high skills in ICT and some are professional experts in it. Most participants have educational professions or -how I call it – human science expertise. My third case “no expertise” is hypothetical, everybody in PLENK has some expertise background. I just wanted to illustrate that you could participate without any expertise and learn new digital skills. I know some guys who follow internet .. web .. blogoshere and they are respected because they can drop others the newest hints. They sometimes call themselves as parasites – I have named this “copy-paste” expertise. Is this behavior the purpose (excellent) or false (do not know one’s borders).

The most common story in PLENK seems to be that teachers, educators or lecturers learn new technologies to use. We  train communication skills, writing, thinking, using web tools and creative thinking. Simultaneously we have technological nerds who give us hints and help to prove new tricks. This is normal networking, concrete questions can be answered. I learn something new tools in every course.

Ian Wood describes well the situation from newbies’ point of view. It is tough to manage one’s time and follow the flow of many discussions and themes. You have to learn to use PLE, it cannot be clear from the beginning.  Organizing mentoring sounds good, or is it better to continue spontaneous mentoring, I am not sure.

Now I should combine my pondering with the scientific knowledge Kraut gave. I participate in open online courses because my self-concept tells me I am that particular type of person. I want to be part of something bigger, I want to live in global world. I am interested in human learning and development – what happens in web world? I have to experience it myself, it cannot be read from books. I emphasize community, what it stands for. If the direction is right in my eyes, I can commit to it instantaneously. I am inspired through my identity, I have identity-based commitment to open courses. I have found like-minded people in CCK courses.

How about you?

Designing for commitment in online communities

Robert Kraut has tried to find the factors influencing participants’ commitment to online communities. You can see the links to Kraut in Nicola Avery’s comment in my former post. Thanks to Nicola. Now I try to use some concepts and assess the results Kraut presented in his articles.

Is it possible to design for commitment in online communities? – a fascinating question. Hooking the newcomers – how can it be implemented? How to manage participation, do we know the rules of thumb for good practitioners? Some results seem to be clear: the quality of relationship is critical to the willingness to stay. Newbies must not be left alone, somebody has to respond and personalize the interaction. It is better to speak about us, not to you. This interaction must happen quickly. The types of early interaction which influence on how much newcomers contribute: best was a task request, second positive feedback, then assistance, critics or comments and less influencing was social chat.  Institutionalized vs personalized welcomes: it is easy to guess the results.

Identity-based commitment and bond-based commitment – these concepts I want to ponder more. Identity -based commitment = care about ideas, content, not people (for instance wikipedia workers). Bond-based commitment means social relations between people (Facebook). These two commitments can be antagonized, compete with each other – or follow each other, move from bond to identity based. I remember when CCK09 began: I had decided not to participate the course, but when I saw the names of Finnish participants and read their comments in Moodle, I wanted to come in.

Kraut says that to increase identity-based commitment you have to emphasize subgroups for interests and member profiles must be found. Bond-based commitment happens between individuals, private relationships. He also used concepts identity-inspired and bond-inspired. This is near our first researches about CCK08 (Jenny, Roy and John) – they asked if we were focused in concepts and theories or people. I still remember that question. Kraut says that identity-based orientation is stronger and interpersonal new bonds take longer time to develop.

Agent Based Models to conduct virtual design experiments: not an easy job to do, is it possible at all? The logic of social life is at odds with the logic of design. Theories of social psychology are too narrow to understand multidimensional phenomena.  Anyway, experiments can give some information about them. Moderating discussion: none, community level or personalized, which is best? Personalized moderation works best, but when the number of topics increases, results are not clear any more.

What did I learn? Newcomers need feedback and it should be personalized. When a participant has self-selected commitment from the very beginning, he probably continues and finds the way. I knew this all, I have a long history as online teacher – and I was pleased to see my beliefs supported by research results. It was a good mirror.

All depends.. In PLENK we have broad contents varying every week. Participants’ interests are different.. I have to write another post about it. Kraut did not speak about networks or crowds but human behavior has psychological laws  – therefore scientific basic knowledge is valuable. – After writing this I read Ian Wood’s blog post about PLENK (Chris Jobling tweeted it) and .. Ian seems to know everything about online communities, it is learning by doing and participating 🙂

Nicola writes about “we and you” in one of her blogs. The web and people are not that simple, I agree. Nicola concludes: a person who tries to tell me what to do without knowing me is capable of causing harm even with good intentions – so I am better off avoiding the exposure. Heli continues: Advices seldom work properly, they tell more about givers than receivers.

Research about online communities

PLENK2010 – the course program has ended and many people are pondering about their participation and learning. What happened and why? and why not? I liked the presentation Vahid Masrour gave in our Moodle General Forum: the Participation Spiral. There are stairways to confidence and trust, many excellent questions in this presentation.

Vahid also spoke about about categorizing online participation; consumer, interactor and producer are the main categories – more in this link. The Social Technographics’ Ladder are suitable in many contexts I suppose. Producers can be creators or elite – so we have hierarchies in open web world 🙂  I like Vahid’s spiral more than this hierarchy.

Then I remembered this presentation in Networked Learning congress in Denmark last May: Who is taming who? Tensions between people and technologies in cyberspace communities, written by Terrie Lynn Thompson, Alberta University, Canada. I refer only one part of the presentation:

The participants in the study include: postings; avatars; tool bars; emoticons; archives; community member profiles; the search term in Google that takes you to the cyber location; viruses; hyperlinks; the delete button; passwords; the technology that delivers postings such as e-mail, discussion forum, or RSS feed.

Human actants included: “newbies”, “wannabes”, colleagues, “big names”, celebrities, competitors, posers, lurkers, employment recruiters, clients, friends, strangers, and the online paparazzi.

We have mentioned newbies, lurkers and  friends. Colleagues mean co-learners or participants in open courses like PLENK. We have member profiles in Moodle and some of us have avatars in the Second Life. Some people have mentioned spam or viruses. What else? Are we blind to some factors?

I just listened to the last Friday Session about Critical perspectives or Modeling Learner Autonomy. Sebastian Fiedler’s model about Adult Learner, Rita Kop’s Model of learning in PLE and Stephen Downes’s Roles of educator in PLE world. Fiedler resembles action theory Engeström developed in Finland in 1980’s (international roots in the Soviet Union, Leontjew), Rita Kop knows experiental learning and combines it to new technologies, I like that model. I did not catch the excellence of Stephen’s presentation. Of course learners can produce the concepts, so we did in teacher education all the time. But the raw material is only a beginning, it is not interesting as such. So what, I let it be.

Learner autonomy and online participation spiral and who is taming who – please give me a summary about these.

About assessment – my point of view

Still waiting for wisdom and seeking for answers by writing here. I was close to finding something in July 7th, when the former course CritLit was ending. I wrote about ethics in open networking (hacker ethic was the original concept, but if it has turned too negative I don’t use it). People work with passion and commitment, collaborate and have wonderful results and findings. It is a long story and I have experienced it without being a nerd.

We want to evaluate in PLENK2010 participants’ learning but we do not know what learning is.

Open source movement had programming as their expertise and they knew it. They did not say that they connect what ever in the world. How about us? I have a hunch that connectivism can be a meaningful theory of learning for amateurs who use computers and have no human science or expertise behind. When an old and experienced person like me begins to study connectivism it means re-inventing everything I already know. This is my feeling.

I have worked so many decades with evaluation and assessment, in theory and practice, that I do not need links to simple www-pages, which define these concepts. This only shows me the nature of – how could I say – web science? The quality of knowledge is … disappearing and what-ever-activity in web is spreading. When you have your speech in TED talk your idea is worth spreading? Now I have gone too far from my topic, so back to basics.

What could be for me the good, appropriate participation in this situation? Some days ago I said: Commenting has become a normal habit to me and networking, I have global awareness (Fisher rubric) and I write professional blogs. I can define these external factors. But: Is this only sport with new tools, instrumental learning? Or is this really new quality of learning? (Roger Säljö)

What can be assessed and what matters? A nice coincidence is that Sternberg, who was given us an example about the borders of intelligence tests – the same man has defined love. I had a short video about his three qualities of love in my courses of development psychology (available only in Finnish). There are possibilities to describe the important changes in consciousness: I wrote many posts about it last summer. There are levels, models, research about expertise.

We can recognize elements that are necessary in collaborative network: Every human being needs to belong to some group within which can feel oneself approved. And we also want to be recognized for what we do. To put it another way, the human being needs the experience of being part of  We with some others the experience of being respected He or She within community and the experience of being a special I with someone else. By doing a good job a person may gain recognition. We are motivated by the force of peer recognition, are we?

I can recognize this support principle implementing in our Moodle Forum 2.week:  Sarah O’Grady Scaffolds and hints for the course. It is possible to help with concrete tools and apps etc and this makes sense. The ability to receive depends on personal history, it is obvious, but the purpose is fine.

What I want to say here that same principle is not impossible in other areas. Many of us have lived in that country, it is not an unknown continent anymore 🙂 I hope I can say this all more clearly during next week.