Knowledge in interactive practice disciplines

In the weekend I read the discussion about rhizomatic learning between Jenny Mackness and Keith Hamon in rhizo14 and I had to return to an academic dissertation from the year 1988. It helped me work  in the teacher education for adults coming from different vocations with quite different views and perspectives. Cognitive modelling is only one of the ways to interpret life and experiences. My own education (psychology) had opened my eyes to broad understanding of  human beings, but theory is grey and understanding becomes deeper in practice.

The researcher was Anneli Sarvimäki and the dissertation was accepted in the University of Helsinki, 1988. Epistemic styles can be described using three different ways of knowing: rational, empirical or metaphorical. Types of data and criteria accepting data as knowledge in the same order:

  1.  theoretical data, knowing via thought
  2. empirical facts, knowing via senses
  3. experiential, phenomenological data, knowing via intuition and insight.

Criteria for acceptance as knowledge are

  1. Is it logical? Is it theoretically sound?
  2. Can it be experimentally proven?
  3. Does it fit with my experience? Does it feel right?

The subheading of the research is An analysis of knowledge in education and health care.  In my work as a teacher educator we had used Argyris’ and Schön’s ideas about reflective practice and we had often used metaphors. Our students were free to express themselves using whatever artefacts and so they did. There was music, movement (videos), art, self-constructed boxes of wood, images, metaphors. I suppose that this development is known in all interactive practice disciplines and the jobs grounded on them. Mariana Funes has dealt with the difference between espoused theory and theory in use. I enjoyed reading her storify “the interpersonal contract in cMOOCs”.

When I am blogging I put a part of me in writing, it is not only a cognitive process. Rhizomatic learning seems to be a philosophy which every human being constructs during his/her life. It tells me obvious and self-evident truths which have been found in every science and written in numerous books. Intuition is an important concept in psychology. If you want to test your blog, go the the address I have given in this post. Most bloggers had a result beginning with I. How about you?

I’ll tell an example of my experience with books. This came to my mind while reading Ann’s blog about phenomenology and tactile memory. I participated in a course Fantasy and Science Fiction and we read very old books and wrote essays (to Eric Rabkin, Michigan University) . The texts were scanned so that we could read them from the screen. I printed some of them because they were long. BUT there was a book that could not be changed to these formats and so I went to a library. It was a deep experience to find that book in the shelf of my home town library, smell it and turn the yellow pages. That book was a part of history, human civilisation in a deeper way than  text-on-screen.

Now I feel that there is a difference between community and network in the epistemic styles of research … what/who is self in social self organisation of crowds? I have to continue my former pondering

My learning in PLENK?

This is the last day of PLENK2010 (actually nothing ends and often the best discussions happen after the course) – but anyway, I have a need to integrate or evaluate something. I found this in our program, what to do in just now:

Artifact of your Learning

Details: Your final presentation can be handled in a variety of formats: podcast, slidecast, Articulate presentation, video recording, Second Life presentation, or, if your feeling creative, an approach of your choosing. The presentation could answer any of the following: “What role can PLE/N’s play in my teaching? Or my personal learning? How has this course influenced your view of the role of networked technologies and learning networks? What types of questions are still outstanding?”

I am not creative, I am the same boring blogger as always. And I am waiting for a call from my husband, he perhaps can return home today after a month in a hospital 🙂 So I cannot completely focus on PLENK. But I have some ideas.

I am not a typical course student and I do not wait anything from the facilitators. It is enough that they offer the structure and the platform (Moodle). I am ready to study “alone” and find my way. All depends on the time I can and want to use for finding new friends, trying new tools, checking materials etc. I see no difference between students and facilitators, we have many 55+ students who have much to give to others ( I say this aloud after filling Sui Fai John’s questionnaire – he is so correct and polite. Asian culture versus Finnish independence, you know).

Why to blog and how to blog are my questions today – and the answer is connected to differences in expertise. From my point of few, I am tired to read writings about psychological phenomena without knowing basics. I am tired of listening advices to teachers given by people who never have taught anything. I don’t want to hear that all institutions are stupid and bad and only free individuals know how to live. And I understand that when I speak about technology, it sounds ridiculous in the ears of engineers – I always hesitate which concepts are suitable (tools devices technologies?)

So how to make sense in discussions? Jenny and Matthias pondered this question just when PLENK began: what is the eResonance and how it arouses in the very beginning. How can I find the people with whom I could collaborate and create? Have I learned anything about this? I have to smile (to myself) when I find an interesting blog after three years participation (Howard Johnson for instance, found but not read his blog, not yet). I will continue this project, I have many names and blogs to explore during next weeks. I want to follow Rita Kop, for instance, in the future.

I have enjoyed these open courses, about which I have blogged here, but I think I know the connectivism movement well enough. It has given a certain frame of the change happening in web world but – in my mind – it grasps only one side of these changes. So I am not enthusiastic anymore – I should change to heading of this blog or stop blogging.

This has been an interesting journey and it will continue everywhere I move. I promise to write comments to your blogs next week, leave them open please.

My phone is silent still, I am waiting for the call from hospital. I have time to publish this…

Learning theories and technology

Is there any New Learning of this digital age? -this  has become an interesting question. Perhaps it is still open and waits for answers. The attitude towards technology has been bipolar since the 1960’s: a struggle between technophiles and technophobes. Some wait for better, more effective new learning and some are afraid of these changes. Both have grown during last decades and we have got more technological tools.

My history of working as an online facilitator began from the insight that I needed constructive, humanistic and critical didactics in adult education. It was important to understand that technology did not give any theory, I could use all my knowledge about learning theories. I appreciated a book (Matikainen & Manninen) Online education for Adults, 2001 (in Finnish only). They had five orientations to describe the possibilities between learning and online didactics: technological, cognitive, constructive, humanistic and critical. The last one was needed in transformative learning by expanding.I did not read the book first and then go and teach – I began to use our new learning platform and then noticed what I did and why. I became conscious about my pedagogical principles by answering the questions of my colleagues.

This week Finnish teachers had a conference about online teaching, and I could follow it at home by following a typepad notebook some participants wrote there. I refer here two expert’s lectures: Roger Säljö and Kai Hakkarainen.

All technology has been “sold” to the educational sector with unrealistic promises. Social media is not different in that regard. None of these new technologies have actually revolutionized education, said Säljö. But simultaneously:  “Technology does not improve learning – it changes learning.” For instance by building up of a social memory and new representations and documentary practises: in the stone age iconic representations were not sufficient for a versatile culture to develop – but nowadays iconic methods are taking a more central position again.  All representational tools rely on interpretive practices & interpretive communities.  Learning is in the performative recontextualization of knowledge. – I think I should read more about Säljö, has been in my mind some years. I thought he is Finnish but now I know he is Swedish 🙂

Kai Hakkarainen is a researcher and has written about three generations of technology-enhanced learning. The first generation focused on examining computer-supported collaborative learning from the cognitive perspective. The main focus was to examine to what extent knowledge-seeking inquiry elicited conceptual change. Problems of transferring inquiry learning culture from one country to another pushed us to examine social practices and other participatory aspects of learning that had been invisible to cognitive researchers.

The second-generation research focused on analyzing patterns of participation in computer-supported collaborative learning.  The emerging third generation research aims at overcoming the dichotomy between the cognitive (knowledge acquisition) perspective and socio-cultural (participation) perspective by means of long-standing and deliberate efforts of knowledge-creation, involving what is called objects of activity.

He recommended the dissertation of Minna Lakkala, see my earlier post. We have many new artifacts that help collaboration, for instance the etherpad was necessary to me to follow. Social media is a normal part of working if you are open-minded and have courage to prove new tools. We are living in an iterative process where individual skills become social property of the whole community and so on.

I have lived in that process about ten years – and in the same process with smaller amount of technologies many decades, but what is the quality of learning: we have called it transformative, emansipatory, empowerment .. The dear child has many names, we say in Finnish. Shared knowledge building and networked learning are enough to me just now.

Learning theories: recent discussions

It seems I’ll have to take a long journey – this time I am going to refer to some discussions in the blogosphere I remember, probably meaning they have made an influence on me.

First I take Teemu Leinonen, who has lived globally much longer than me and knows about wikipedia and -media and many international projects. His blog is named Flosse Posse and he wrote about the learning theories recently. He needed  behaviorism, constructivism and social constructivism. (edited 11.10, read Teemu’s comment) I like the way he tells about these theories, he convinces me about his expertise. Then he tells about Sugata Mitra’s experiments Hole in the Wall, which we have been discussing about in PLENK2010: Learning by doing, socially, in small groups. To give affordances for poor children is the way forward.

Another source was in Pontydysqu web pages and it took a time to find. They have much knowledge there and I was not familiar with those pages, but I succeeded and here it is: Connectivism vs. constructivism by Jenny Hughes. She tells about some projects (Mitra + ..) and lists the learning theories needed for interpretation. I feel empathy when she becomes confused with theories. One new concept can be found: social connectivism (it was lacking, really 🙂 ). We have to know the theories of Dewey, Vygotsky, Piaget, Papert, Bruner, Engeström – perhaps it is best to speak about their work and their development instead of putting them to one category of learning theories. I liked the style in comments to Jenny Hughes’ blog post, but I feel I am tired of listing theories. It does not help.

My last link goes to Jenny Mackness, her blog post after our Elluminate session yesterday. Jenny writes about the relevance of learning theories to teaching practice and reflects her own experiences as an educator. Theories matter, but not directly, they are tools which must be assessed and developed to different purposes. Jenny proceeds to George’s presentation about connectivism as networked learning.

What have I learned while summarizing my personal history, my work in the teacher education and these three discussions? Actually, I am not any more interested in this level of listing and shortly referring to main sources. What does it help? My question is: where is thinking, pondering and real discussion. I see Jenny M. gives an example of combining theories to one’s practice and professional development. But we don’t have time and interest to do it throughout in PLENK, I suppose.  I cannot grasp this theme even I know everything. How can I find my way forward? What is the level of our working, discussion, collaboration? How should I participate in order to make sense in this chaos in my mind? 🙁  🙂

Learning theories: my personal history

I was admiring Barbara Fillip’s choices in her blog: we live in a global world and we try to catch it with our brain, our genes and all the connections we have formed during our life. This time I try to present the history of my learning theories: what I have learnt and why. Let’s try, is this possible at all. I name the decades in order to get some order 🙂 to my thinking.

1964- I began to study psychology and had my first courses about learning. We had a book written by Skinner, we could get the answer page by page, the book was reinforcing us. So I learned basic concepts about learning: conditioned and unconditioned reflexes, reinforcement, punishment, transfer. We made experiments about accidental learning, transfer, memory. This was a time of the positivistic paradigma of science: I learned to be accurate (or I should to ..) I learned the basics of working brain (Luria) and the concepts (neurons synopsis dendrites..) I understood the flexibility and complexity of the brains and the cortex.

1970- was the time of wonderful student movement in the world: I learned to participate and change the world better together and globally. I was empowerment in practice. In our university we criticized teaching and studied marxism, we wanted equal opportunities to everyone. It was the first time when children from working classes came to universities. Materialistic dialectics has been a part of my thinking since then: all is moving and changes happen through contradictions: thesis – antithesis – synthesis (Hegel). The richness of societal interactions was the key of development.

1980 Developmental psychology became my expertise and I understood human interaction as a source of all development. I also saw my two children to grow, what a excellent program in every individual .. I enjoyed. Constructivism arouse in learning psychology and criticism toward Finnish school life was large. We knew the results and lectured about them but did not see the possibility to change anything.

1988 was a revolution in my mind when I saw that theory and practice can meet each other. I worked in teacher education for adults coming from work, all kinds of vocations. The educators had courage to renew teacher education in an excellent way: newest scientific knowledge and best practice. Networked learning became true.

1990 I worked as a researcher and tried to catch the richness of reality but it was not easy. Concept maps came to the institution were I worked, Novak visited there some months.1994 back to teacher education and I was obliged to be the head of teacher education. Administrative work, I learned how slow is development in institutions and hard is to be a leader.

2000 I was happy to work as a teacher educator again. Perhaps I was more realistic than earlier, did not wait for miracles but was not cynical either. Online teaching interested me, we got a learning platform in 2002 and I began to use it. I could use our great pedagogical principles in online facilitating. In 2005 I participated in OnLine Educa Berlin. In 2006 was my first international course Inquiry oriented teaching online, I got feedback from facilitators about my own teaching, and began to use English language.

2007 I began blogging in Finnish as an online teacher. A community for social media was grounded in Finland and I participated in it. In 2008 I heard about the first CCK course – and here I am 🙂 I was wondering what connectivism is. I have found the importance of connections so many times but I had not been a part of global blogosphere. Am I now? Have to write another post about my learning in CCK  studies,  some day.

Learning theories in teacher education

Learning theories have been a part of my life always, many decades. This week I have a good opportunity to find my thoughts and questions about learning. I decided to write step by step: first I checked my last work place’s presentation about learning theories. This  picture has been collaborated in the University of Applied Sciences, Teacher Education, in Jyväskylä, Finland.

learningThe purpose of teacher education is to help student to build up -or find – their own teachership. They have to know all learning theories in order to choose those which work best for their purposes.  The picture illustrates the pedagogy in teacher education: it does not give ready-made answers but gathers frames for decision making.

The image was copied from the page “approaches to learning”. You can find other assigments and materials in the web pages, they are open learning objects. This is the way I am used to think: every theory gives something to teaching practice. I cannot say that behaviouristic theories are old because they seem to work very well. Feedback and reinforcement are essential factors in everyday life, even in internet. Perhaps serendipity is an example of random reinforcement: you try again if you succeed only sometimes. I read tweets which I follow and hope some day to get insights 🙂

Piaget was a remarkable researcher many decades. His research is older than constructivism, I think, so Piaget is called a cognitivist. Engeström belonged to this line at the beginning, he wrote a book in Finnish Perustietoa opetuksesta which had large influences in practice. It was a scientific book that could be read and was interesting. Piaget was very conscious about the near mutual dependence between emotion and cognition, he was a real scientist.

Constructivism and experiental paradigms were the most important in teacher education. Kolb tried to gather all about learning and I loved his book Experiental Learning but it was only in English and not easy to read. Experience as the source of all learning  and the orientations: reflection, conceptualization, experimentation as a spiral. It was something, it helped to understand and interpret learning happenings.

You can find same theories in this link given for week 4: learning theories and models in web.

Reflective practice was one of our main concepts, Schön and Argyris helped to explore it. Practice was the criteria for theory, theory-in-use must become recognized. Teach as you preach. Then became research about expertise in 1990’ies we had good connections with researchers. Oh, those were the days.. I cannot tell everything shortly.

I am not sure if this belong to PLENK2010 but I give that tag anyway. Next I will write my own history since studying psychology and working in the department of psychology. One post I have to gather the newest discussions about learning. And what else?

I am the platform

As I earlier said, my Personal Learning Environment is everywhere I go and participate. I am not interested in defining concepts or discussing about nuances. But I have to clarify my ways of working during PLENK2010. I have waited some wise ideas how to work, but found again my old ones. I must have a place, where I gather my connections: I need one blog post as a store or my nest. It is this one and I am my platform. PLENK helps me to learn during next weeks and I find everything via that link. No need to repeat its content.

My working habits

I do not read Daily, it is so long and only a list. I prefer larger entities, I go to Moodle and open the forums, want to see the threads. I have unsubscribed from forums because I don’t want to read separate messages. I do not read listed tweets, I can open Twitter search with our hashtag (is it a good joke we have two?). I scan or skim the Daily – wonderful new concepts: not learning but perception. Our thinking is becoming very thin, we are pancake people said somebody in our Moodle third week forum. I also scan the materials recommended by our facilitators and sometimes I save something to Diigo.

At this moment I recognize two sources helping my learning: Twitter is my Daily, could I say, it works better than the long list of everything. My meaningful source are the blogs of co-learners. Some names are permanently in my blogroll Following (Jenny Mackness, Eduardo Peirano, Sui Fai John Mak, Viplav Baxi etc) and some give RRS to my Google Reader (it has become too long and hard to follow).

Some favorites I list here so it is easier to check them during the course:

Alan Cooper blog a careful and honest thinker

Barbara Fillip blog I recognize something of myself here or did I imagine?

Chris Jobling blog – Fresh and crispy! I love the heading

Chris Saeger blog with a beautiful Plenk heading

Maria Fernanda Arenas blog – she participated CritLit

Lindsay Jordan blog – University of the Arts London

Sean Fitzgerald  blog -MOOC is like dining at a banquet (post 18.9.)

Martin Weller blog

Steve MacKenzie blog -CritLit

Steve Wheeler blog

Niklas Karlsson blog from Sweden

Linn Gustavsson blog from Sweden

John King blog – Just retired and still a student

Roland Legrand blog

Zaid Ali Alsagoff blog – animations, images, whatever

Jarmo Talvivaara blog

Mc Morgan blog

Mohsen Saadatmand blog – a researcher in Helsinki

Lisa Kidder – For the Love of Teaching blog

Susan O’Grady – blog

Vahid Masrour – from Ecuador, blog

Howard Johnson – I should have noticed this man in 2008, blog

Carmen Tschofen – I noticed this woman in 2008 and now I follow her blog

Jim Stauffer from Canada – blog (160 km west of Yellowknife, Northwest Territories.  Latitude 63 degrees north)

Steve LeBlanc blog

Eva Birger blog Tel Aviv, blogging in English und auf deutsch


My heading I am the platform tells about my attitude, not my technological skills. Persona, personality, identity, human being with personal history – this is my perspective to participating, learning and developing. How knowledge creation happens in me, it is the question. I see people as knowledge creators and I want to trust them, have a hunch of their quality. I can search information in Google and Wikipedia but I cannot trust all sources.

Expertise and guidance

I still have a need to understand expertise, mine and others’. This time I will use a Finnish Dr dissertation of Minna Lakkala: How to design educational settings to promote collaborative inquiry: Pedagogical infrastructures for technologyenhanced progressive inquiry. It is published in  the University of Helsinki.

The study begins: Educational practices should pay special attention to improving the skills necessary for collaboration and knowledge work, in order to address current societal changes. Strategies of scientific, question-driven inquiry are stated to be important cultural practices that should be educated and promoted. – Easy to agree with these thoughts.

The study did not clearly follow any learning-theoretical paradigm, but it can be characterized as falling between socio-cognitive and socio-cultural approaches to learning: Bereiter and Scardamalia in Toronto, Canada. The model of Progressive Inquiry is developed by Kai Hakkarainen and his colleagues, Lakkala is one of them.

Lakkala’s study focused on investigating multiple efforts to implement a research-based pedagogical model of Progressive Inquiry and related Web-based tools, to develop guidelines for educators in promoting students’ collaborative inquiry practices with technology. The Progressive Inquiry model explicates epistemic activities that are generally important in academic and scientific inquiry; i.e., in collaborative activity that aims at improved solving of ill-structured problems, utilization of knowledge sources, and explication and elaboration of ideas, explanations and theories.

The results indicated that appropriate teacher support for students’ collaborative inquiry efforts appears to include interplay between spontaneity and structure. Consideration should be given to content mastery, critical working strategies or essential knowledge practices that the inquiry approach is intended to promote. In particular, those elements in students’ activities should be structured and directed, which are central to the aim of Progressive Inquiry, but which the students do not recognize or demonstrate spontaneously without explicit modeling or promotion, and which are usually not taken into account in existing pedagogical methods or educational conventions. Such elements are, among others:

  • productive co-construction activities;
  • sustained engagement in improving produced ideas and explanations;
  • critical reflection of the adopted inquiry practices, and
  • sophisticated use of modern technology for knowledge work.

The developed Pedagogical Infrastructure Framework enabled recognizing and examining some central features and their interplay in the designs of examined inquiry units. The framework helped to recognize and critically evaluate the invisible learning-cultural conventions in various educational settings and could mediate discussions about how to overcome or change them.

The concept engagement was used to delineate the quality of students’ inquiry activity in order to evaluate the success of the pedagogical intervention: a central aim was that students demonstrate sustained engagement in an active and deepening process of improving ideas and explanations as well as in critical reflection of inquiry practices.

Most of the explicit process guidance in the tutors’ postings concentrated on rather practical issues, such as using information sources or organizing the threads in the discourse forums. The guidance did not draw the students’ attention to higher-order metacognitive inquiry strategies, the promotion of which is one principal idea in the Progressive Inquiry model and should be a central focus in the tutors’ scaffolding efforts.

The analysis of social aspects of the inquiry designs revealed that the threaded discourse areas in the web-based system were experienced as a valuable new possibility to promote collective working practices, and teachers reported how eagerly the students participated in the technology-mediated interaction by reading and commenting on each other’s ideas. The most difficult objective appears to have been to induce the students to enter into “serious” efforts for advancing collective understanding and elaborating common knowledge objects, instead of just discussing or sharing ideas.

Educational settings should include elements that explicitly advance students’ metalevel awareness and understanding of inquiry strategies, which may support their self-regulative action. The analyzed features of the course designs, categorized according to the components of the Pedagogical Infrastructure Framework, were the following:

  • Technical component: Access to technology and technical guidance, and Diversity of tools provided;
  • Social component: Structuring of collaboration, Sharing of the inquiry process, Individual or collective nature of the inquiry outcomes, and Integration of multiple social spaces;
  • Epistemological component: The emphasis on question-driven inquiry, Main source of acquired information, and Concrete knowledge object as an outcome
  • Cognitive component: Modeling of inquiry strategies, Human guidance provided, Scaffolding embedded in tools, and Promotion of meta-reflection.

The aim is to support epistemologically high-level and deepening inquiry activity in which students direct their efforts in elaborating questions, explanations and knowledge products, that the tasks and their achievement criteria are accordingly defined. A requirement for a concrete product (a report, a model or a presentation) as a goal and outcome of the inquiry process appeared to increase and focus students’ inquiry efforts. If there was an explicit assignment to produce a research report, the students were very engaged and productive in writing their contributions. It is important to set explicit high-level epistemological criteria for the quality of the outcome (systematic summing up of inquiry results with theory-based arguments), otherwise the external form of the end product easily starts to dominate as the object of the work, not the improvement of ideas or solving of knowledge problems.

Most students do not spontaneously take responsibility of the advancement of other students’ or the whole community’s inquiry. This is quite understandable because conventional learning culture in schools and universities is strongly shaped by individual accountability and grading. So they hardly ever contributed to the work of others or other teams, if it was not explicitly demanded or built into the task criteria. Thus in progressive inquiry, the common goals of the process across individual students and groups should be explicitly defined, and the practical ways of contributing to the common outcomes should be modeled and explicated; for instance, by directing students to together produce a common summary.

It still is an apparent difficulty to have students openly share the entire process-progression (including original ideas, drafts and intermediate knowledge products) for commenting and co-construction through a Web-based learning environment.

The Progressive Inquiry model aims at simulating expert-like and authentic cultural practices of collaborative inquiry and knowledge creation. One problem is, that students do not necessarily benefit from the guidance style where the teacher demonstrates too advanced expert behavior. In progressive inquiry, it apparently is not enough that the tutor models the high-level, expert-like inquiry practices by demonstrating them in his or her own on-line performance; there should be other ways to scaffold students themselves to recognize and perform intended high-level inquiry practices and cognitively demanding strategies. Teachers and tutors should not do the critical cognitive tasks on behalf of the student.

One finding of the studies is that a typical feature of progressive inquiry practices appears to be that the engagement in open-ended inquiry is experienced as challenging, particularly, at the beginning. Students complained that the level of guidance was insufficient. Teachers were surprised about the feedback because they thought that they had provided clear models and guidelines for the process. These results may relate to the parallel increase in the cognitive challenge of the inquiry task together with the increased authenticity that to give special attention to encouraging students to struggle at the beginning of the process; by helping them realize that the phases of confusion and chaos are elementary characteristics of open-ended inquiry; assuring that it is acceptable and, indeed, probable that inquiry efforts do not always succeed.

Teachers should pay more attention to designing the educational units so that the tasks and other arrangements, especially, stimulate students’ engagement in epistemologically highlevel, deepening inquiry and true collaboration around shared knowledge objects and products. Students’ own metalevel awareness of or intentional efforts for effective collaboration and appropriate inquiry strategies may be more deliberately and explicitly promoted through modeling and self-reflection activities. These conclusions led to define the cognitive or metacognitive support for students’ inquiry engagement as a separate pedagogical design component that requires special attention from the teacher, in addition to technical, social and epistemological components.

Lakkala’s study ended, Heli Nurmi begins to analyse her experiences. I can’t help thinking about our CritLit2010 course which had same ideology than progressive inquiry, and voluntary adult students, but same difficulties as well. Much talking and less serious problematizing, was it so? I remember some comments from Alan and Maria that helped me. I remember deep misunderstandings with Stephen and I am still wondering why. We are experts both but cannot follow each other’s thoughts. Sometimes it goes that way: inquiry efforts do not succeed.

Many discourses about open courses deal with same themas. Educause and many analyses about CCK08 learnings have been interesting to read.  A new course PLENK2010 with these principles will begin next week – we already know mistakes that will happen during next weeks 🙂 .

CCK09 – a metaphor of growing

Walking in a beautiful autumn landscape inspired me to think metahorically. I need this epistemic style for describing human growing, scientific and whatever knowledge (I’m not exact today- it is Sunday 🙂 ) . I took a photo about three pines and a climbing plant and the wall (I live in that house, just writing here). I have many ways to use this photo as a metaphor.

networking of connecting

networking or connecting

First I tell about our facilitators: Perhaps Stephen is the red climbing plant who has his philosophy wall as his main support but he is flexible and climbs with pines as well ( that is perhaps easier and opens new landscapes). George could be the pines. He has roots in land and uses many sources: educational and societal sciences and people’s experiences about real life. Stephen is more ‘in the air’ and explores  new possibilies, for instance he jumps from neurosciencies to all other levels in human life, for him it is OK. (Just listened last week’s Ellumination, so I have this in my mind).

I have to continue: it is not Stephen and George alone who construct connectivism, we all do. What are my pines and climbings and walls and should I say something about breathing (I don’t remember the right concept for plants).

I have studied mostly psychology, especially developmental psychology and education and societal sciences and I have worked a researcher and a teacher for decades. I know that I cannot follow all sciences that for instance networks are built in. I have to recognize my borders though I am developing all the time , I took that photo with my new mobile and put it here. You have some old ladies here in CCK ( hi Sia!) so please don’t say old people cannot learn computer things 🙂

I must be open to diversities anyway. It’s good have partners with different backgrounds and try to follow their odd thinking paths .. it is an adventure. Our ellumination about Network (2nd week) put all concepts in a bowl and then shook it. And what happens in our minds? connectivistic learning? Time will tell.