About Power

Irmeli (on Facebook), Thanks for sharing your experience. You mentioned that “people who have continued in managerial roles for all this time, still have no intention to connect their duties with the reality”. What do you see may be the causes of problem?
As a Catholic, I hope to see the positives of power when interacting with people at work or in my … See Morepersonal life, but this is just my best wish, not necessarily the reality.
I reckon any power that one possesses in our private life and that at work are means to an end (for fame, for accomplishment of goals at work, or our goals, or to influence others etc.).
Do you need to do “powerful work” so everyone could see? Would it depend on what “powerful work” that you want to do? What sorts of accomplishment would you like to achieve?
Throughout my years at work, I could see people using power to exploit or manipulate others, in order to achieve their goals or vision. I could also see people using power to help others in raising their potential and fulfil the dreams, goals or vision. Is power good or bad? From a Christianity point of view, of course too much power is no good if it is done to achieve selfish goals only. Is the manipulation of others through power coming out of human nature? Even the toddlers know how to get what they want by “manipulating” their parents – by yelling or crying aloud, isn’t it? Are human born good or evil? Or are we born neutral (neither good or bad)?
Fortunately, in social networking, power could not be that easily exploited or exercised by the “powerful ones”, as there is little duty or responsibilities amongst networkers in reciprocity. I think this arises from the re-distribution of power in the networks, and so one could choose to connect as one wishes or could neglect those who are trying to impose power on us.
This way of learning in the network may not be a “perfect education” for our younger generation, as people don’t NECESSARILY see the need of taking responsibility or duty to each others (when interacting or learning) in the networks. So, a lack of responsibility sort of attitudes could easily be transferred to that at work, especially when one is working inside and outside with networks & alliances. What works inside an organisation (as groups) may be totally different from those outside an organisation (in social networks). But would a tyranny of imposing power on others good? I suppose not!You are not alone with the “naivety” and idealistic understanding that if you were able to do it many other managers could as well, when young.  The CCK08, & CCK09 provided opportunities in understanding more about other cultures and how others learn and manage their learning. However, I am not sure if many of our participants were working in industry, and so the educational ideals that we shared could be quite different from the actual requirements at work in business.
Power remains the key element in leadership, and if it is not “rightly used”, it could lead to disasters to human, the WWII and all the wars are the great evidence of abusive use of powers in the world. Religious wars had also been waged because of power struggles. So, power games are everywhere, and they are here to stay.

Photos from: Flickr
John

#CritLit2010 A short reflection on Connectivism

What an interesting discussion here with Heli and Ken!  Heli, Your English is fine, and I understand where you are coming from.  I came from a non-English speaking background, and so I share many of the feelings you have, when exposed to a global learning environment, here in blogosphere, in particular.
You both have interesting points here about Connectivism, especially about this paper on Connectivism by Rita and Adrian, and though we have reported our findings through our papers, there are many ideas about Connectivism for me to reflect upon, before I could further share my views.
It’s a bit difficult to “speculate” on what each of us are thinking, unless it is through anonymous interviews, survey or research (even narrative research), where our voices could be “heard” and recorded. However, we may be changing our views in the future, or we might have shifted our way of thinking as we share more perspectives with others in different spaces or media.  So, would we also need to take into account of the influence due to some rhetoric persuasion and debates, and the introduction of new and emerging technologies that might cause such shifting of “thinking”.
Furthermore, there are many factors which could be considered as “constraints” when learning with online learning, whether within an institutional education or social networking.  So openness and autonomy under an educational setting could be totally different from that in social networked learning, or in a non-institutional learning space or media.  Although there are still protocols, rules or norms expected in different informal or non-formal Communities (i.e. Community of Practices, Church Communities, Charity communities etc.), we are often not judged upon individually with performance criteria as such in an institutional setting, where qualifications are awarded based on those criteria. Would most people like to establish a positive personal identity on the Web or social media (the persona)?  Who would like to be viewed or perceived as a troll or irritant to others in the media (at least for educated and learnt people)? So would assessment criteria and personal identification in a course be critical in determining  whether openness and autonomy is important or not?  Would people who have their personal identify known behave appropriately when they are under the scrutiny of the public?  I don’t mean that we should have the big brothers watching over us, whether it is in a formal course or just an informal media. However, would most of us like to have “freedom of speech” sort of autonomy, “freedom to choose between transparent or opaque” and free to follow the rules or not when networking in the open space or media (irrespective of whether this is allowed in case of institutional education or not)?  How about those who would like to learn more independently in the social space or in a formal course (like the distance learners who have been around for decades)?  Would openness be important for them?  Would autonomy be critical for their self-dependency?

Relating to the research, we have also noted the biasing of “research” as we can never use an experiment on education with human based on a control and experimented group at the same time.  Even research from the neuroscience could be “colored”, once the researcher investigates on the “one to be studied”, as there could be “changes in behavior” in response to being examined in an experiment.  I think we all learnt from the Hawthorn experiment on the impact of observation on people, and the causal relationship between what is observed and what is in reality could still be “different”.  This is especially difficult in any open learning complex environment.
1. Referring to this Educational significance of Social Media What are the merits and demerits of using informal learning/social media in education?
2. What are the issues, challenges and opportunities relating to the use of Complexity Theory (which is pretty close to Connectivism) in Education?
3. Are lots of educators implementing Connectivism in their teaching within their institutions?  What have they found? This paper on Networked Learning by Wendy provided valuable insights into the application of Connectivism in higher grades of K-12 students
4. Is MOOC or OOC another alternative way of educating our students?  To what extent is it better than the traditional methods of education (especially in Higher and Further Education)?
5. So, is connectivism a learning theory?  Is it a new learning theory? And what are the implications if it becomes a new learning theory?
I will surely explore these in the coming posts and papers.
This blog on Research on Connectivism could provide some information on research for our community
John

#CritLit2010 Taxonomy and Connectivism

Mastery Learning is based on the most rigorous and systematic rejection of conventional beliefs concerning the reasons for variations in student performance – the work of Benjamin Bloom of the University of Chicago.  Like all major ideas, Bloom’s work builds on the efforts of others before him, and extends these into a new conceptual framework.

Here is my response to George’s posting on Connectivism Taxonomy

George, great to learn about this taxonomy.
Your taxonomy prompted me to reflect upon Bloom’s Hypothesis:
1. A normal person can learn anything that teachers can teach
2. Under favourable learning conditions the effects of individual differences will approach vanishing point, while under unfavourable learning conditions the effects of individual differences will be greatly exaggerated
3. Individual learning needs vary greatly
4. Uncorrected learning errors are responsible for most learning difficulties
Under Bloom’s model, instead of trying to bend the learner to suit the method of teaching, Bloom’s approach sees the task of educators being to tailor the teaching process to suit the learning needs of the individual.
Since I learnt the above model in 1985, I witnessed great changes in the learning approaches, and that most of the hypothesis set out by Bloom needed modification if we are to consider a similar behavioural approach in teaching in this digital age.
For instance, hypothesis 1 doesn’t fit the on-line learner, as any normal person can learn anything even without the teachers. In hypothesis 2, Bloom contends that the most important factors influencing learning in the individual child are the interactions that occur between the child and its parents on the one hand and between the child and the teaching process on the other. Again, such hypothesis is no longer true in an on-line environment where the emphasis is no longer just on the teaching process, and that the learner is not merely relying on the teaching process, rather the learner will consider his/her learning style in his learning(David Kobb’s learning style seems to be more useful in an on-line or connectivism approach).
Also an experiential approach is often preferred amongst adults in an on-line environment.
In your connectivism taxonomy – you have proposed a staged view of how learners encounter and explore learning in a networked/ecological manner (the taxonomy begins with the basic and moves to the more complex).
My comments are: As connectivism is operating in an open system model, would such a simple taxonomy approach be good enough? I am doubtful if learning could be viewed in a linear manner in a connective environment, and am unsure if one could describe a staged view of how learners and explore learning in a networked/ecological manner that reflects the reality?
Once we define such staged views of learners, we may have assumed that a learner is learning in distinct stages, and that we can measure competency in a discrete manner – i.e. there are units of competency, elements and performance criteria clearly articulated.
But if I reflect on the chaos and fuzzy dynamic environment any learner is facing nowadays, the reality is that competency of an on-line learner can no longer be based on those defined units of competency. It must include a fuzzy set of continuum variables which are attributes transcending beyond the semantics, or linguistics – this includes emotional elements (i.e. EQ – emotional control, self awareness, self confidence, motivation, social skills and interpersonal skills, social elements (social awareness, ethics, intellectual property awareness etc.) which are very difficult to define in terms of competency. Even if we can define all these emotional, social elements, there would be difficulties in drawing a map between all these dynamic factors or competencies, which could all change due to other factors such as culture, equity and learner’s access to technology.
In this respect, it would be imperative to develop hypothesis that are robust enough to take all those factors into consideration.
1. So what are the hypothesis behind this connectivism taxonomy?
2. Will such hypothesis be fluid or static? I would be interested to know if a further change in some of the technologies or learning environment would change the hypothesis.
3. Is a taxonomy good enough reflection of the staged views of learner.
4. Is such a taxonomy able to generalise under different learning circumstances?
In conclusion,
I am uncertain if a rigid taxonomy would be appropriate in building up a model on connectivism.
My suggestion:
I think a dynamic n-dimensional (or mxn matrix) model of taxonomy would be more appropriate and reflective of the reality. An adaptation of a Quality Function Deployment approach may be useful (ie. the voice of the learners on the left column and the enablers and process of learning on the row of a matrix): i.e. With a matrix of What versus How in the learning hierarchy/taxonomy. The “what” aspects would include What the learner’s needs are in a hierarchical form and the How’s aspects would include the teaching/learning process, the enablers such as the technologies (Web 2.0 etc.)the networks,and other important enablers of learning such as support, mentoring, etc.
3. This might also take the form of a network, though such network may be in the form of a mind map superimposed by the what and how aspects of learning.
I would be interested in conducting research in this area to further explore about the theory of connectivism. Please contact me if you think such an approach might be useful to you.

Looking forward to learn your views

I have since then done some searches through the web and blogs:

Here on Bloom’s Taxonomy with some suggested teaching/learning activities

Here is a post and another post on Bloom’s revised Taxonomy with diagrams

Matthias has made some very nice mind maps that help in structuring the Taxonomy of Connectivism.

Here are the figures from Matthias posting, hope he doesn’t mind me re-posting here:

From: Taxonomy of Connectivism

I have also prepared my mindmap about my learning with CCK08 knowledge of how people learn and my simple model of Critical Thinking

Steve has prepared a Taxonomy of Critical Literacies in his post here

I will see if I could come up with a mindmap on Critical Literacies & Connectivism combined Taxonomy.  But this would take me some time to conduct further research, based on summary of the findings of Critical Literacies and what Stephen has recommended.

I must admit that I still have a lot of “unknown” in this area of Critical Literacies and Connectivism.  It has taken me years (since 2008) to have just a glimpse of Connectivism, and I am still reflecting on the theory and its application.  I hope we could use some forms of collaboration in developing such mind maps on Connectivism Taxonomy.  This might be in a pbworks (wiki), Google document, or an actual mindmap site.

Though Steve has already started off with his consolidated one, I reckon it would be great to have a few models, like Matthias’ one, to consider.  Still thinking…..What do you suggest? How about an aggregation of all the works on this Connectivism and Critical Literacies Taxonomy Model?

We have also prepared a mind/concept map on Connectivism based on the research, but have never posted it as yet, as the papers won’t have space for the posting.  We may consider using that mindmap for further development of a Taxonomy or Model on Connectivism.

Postscript: In this Social OS and Collective Construction of Knowledge by Stephen March 08, 2010

Technology looks like language, but behaves more like architecture, a duality that may lead us to expect more its intervention than is warranted.

Does technology exhibit properties of language? With the introduction of  Web 2.0 technology – such as blogs, various gadgets could be added (RSS, text, calendar, links to Wordle, Maps etc.) to improve the design of the blog.   “Codes” would then allow  for the “language – syntax” be displayed.  Also statistical data could be used and analysed with the various tools available with the Blogs (in WordPress).  The blogger could then be able to interpret the language of statistics with the graphical tools provided.  This would help the blogger to manage the blog to suit his/her needs.  The blogger could also use the tool to control spams, decide who to respond to, and when and how he or she would like to respond to any postings or comments. Would technology be a mediator of the language in these case examples?

Technological literacy has much in common with its logical and linguistic counterpart, critical literacy.

Stephen has clearly differentiated technological literacy (Web 2.0 technical literacy – such as blogs, wikis, FB, Twitter, Flickr, Slideshare and Youtube creation, postings, and downloading, gadgets and manipulation of the tools, which are relates to some technical knowledge, application and skills in aggregation, use of RSS, Google Readers, Delicious, tagging and social bookmarking – concepts of folksonomy, netvibes or pageflakes, Google Documents, Amplify, Diigo,  ) from the Critical literacy here in CritLit2010 (where critical literacies include Cognition, Change, Pragmatics, Syntax, Context, and Semantics)

CCK08 & CCK09:

The intent is to help people not simply to learn about the tools, but to develop a capacity to work with the tools, to build a creative capacity, and hence not just technical knowledge but rather technological literacy.


#CritLit2010 #CCK08 Presentation on Ideals and Reality of Participating in a MOOC

Here is the link to the recording of Ideals and Reality of Participating in a MOOC Presentation session held on July 2, 2010. Hope that you will enjoy it.

Please see George Siemens posting here for further details.

Thanks again to George, Jenny and Roy, and to Stephen for promoting the session via Daily in his CritLit2010 course.

Please feel free to join our discussion here on Facebook or here on ConnectivismEducationLearning on Ning.

Please note that the Ning Network requires fee for service after July 20, 2010, and so any postings may need to be made on Facebook or your blog, but not on Ning by that time.

You are also invited to share your views on your blogs and link them to the Facebook or ConnectivismEducationLearning on Ning

John