Professional Learning Communities versus Personal Learning Networks

Interesting post here on Professional Learning Communities versus Personal Learning Networks by Lorraine.

Choice and options are important in networked learning as shared in my post http://suifaijohnmak.wordpress.com/2012/02/14/change11-autonomy-in-networked-learning-and-connectivism/

There are differences between Professional Learning Communities and Personal Learning Networks. Professional Learning Communities are more aligned with the FORMAL COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE, and there may be mandates as to how it would be sponsored, organised, and coordinated, with definite role definitions for community managers (principal, head teachers, counselors etc.) and other community members.  Those are rules based COP with definite outcomes, and sometimes could be running under a committee structure.

The PLN are more aligned with the Social Network approach where learning is emergent and thus would allow for more personal autonomy.  Previous researches (from our CCK researches) have revealed those observations by Timothy and many other networkers, in their various manifestations of blog postings and forum discussions.

These tensions always relate back to the choice, power and decisions, often associated with communities and networks.  The group versus networks discussion throughout the CCKs http://wwwapps.cc.umanitoba.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=956 would be relevant here.

#CFHE12 #Oped12 Fractals, Community and Openness in Education

How would communities develop?  It looks like fractals development on an ongoing basis.

Keith says in his post:

an alert to Michael Rose’s explainer about fractals in The Conversation.

In the explainer, Michael quotes Benoit Mandelbrot “Bottomless wonders spring from simple rules which are repeated without end“. It seems to me that open education has this potential. Like fractals I do think open courses are scalable.

Is openness spreading like fractals?

I have shared the concept of fractal formation, development in my past posts here and here.

I am re-posting part of them here:

Let me put all these into a social context.

(a) Social interaction

When a person A interacts with a person B, within a social media (e.g. a blog, Twitter, Facebook, or Quora), which is denoted by c, then the emergent learning (or knowledge) that may result from such interaction is

z = z*2 + c

The development of this fractal into different fractal patterns would depend on (a) the z (ideas, information, knowledge) themselves

(b) the boundary conditions (and the ecology)

(c) how the interaction occurs

This concept could be applied to the interaction in case of communication between two persons, or interaction between an actor (a person) with a non human actor (could be an animal, a machine, a media, an artifact) or a network.

The product of such interaction would be emergent and its development is also based on the initial boundary condition.

So, the synergy emerging out of an interaction of actors (in networks) is greater than the sum of its parts mainly because z*2 +c = (a+bi)(a+bi) +c= a*2 + 2abi – b*2 +c is normally greater than a*2.  and so “network” collaboration or cooperation would likely generate more ideas than those coming from individuals.

However, using the above formula, there may also be noises involved in the interaction, which may be denoted by c being a negative value.  So if the noise – c value is big enough, then the resultant value of z*2 +c could be less than z*2 meaning that there could be a loss of synergy.  This also explains why conflicts (which may be denoted by c) could often hinder or even lessen the resultant synergy out of the interaction.  This explains why some ideas are amplified, resonated, and other ideas being dampened.

Further explanation about how these ideas are resonated, developed are explained here.

The above could also be used to explain the formation, development of networks, Networks, ecology under Connectivism, and that of Actor Network Theory and Community of Practice, all based on the Fractals.

Openness could be an important feature of network formation and development, and as illustrated above, would be exhibited like fractals, when examined under a community framework.

Openness in education is still at an early stage of fractal formation, as exemplified in the cMOOCs and xMOOCs, though it is still limited due to various constraints.  Openness is the catalyst that would foster fractal multiplication – in ideas, pedagogy, community and ideology.

 

#CFHE12 #Oped12 What would be the future of virtual or online communities?

Benjamin Stewart remarks on Google plus: As I see the tons of Google+ Communities emerge, many related to similar subjects, I wonder which ones will remain and which ones will fade away…

This scenario seems to be a repetition of what happened before: with Ning, Facebook, and Google Groups. A typical life-cycle of introduction, growth and development, maturity and obsolescence is a typical pattern with such emergent group-network mix.

Which communities would remain? Wouldn’t that be an interesting subject to explore?

For some people who have experience in MOOCs, they would likely be the “early innovators” creating their own MOOCs or SOOCs, or communities in their space.  As I shared in my posts, people are morphing along in their own trajectory of learning and exploration, and so those communities which are “most accommodating” to their changing needs and expectations would flourish.  Such communities would also need to attract novices in order to thrive.  Would the pattern of 1-9-90 (where 1% would become vibrant communities, and 9 % very active – active communities, with 90% having inactive communities) emerge?

Image: from Google

John