I would like to reflect on this video on Conversation by Stephen Downes
Stephen shares his views on conversation and critical capacity, in particular:
How to live meaningfully?
– What is your purpose of life? What are your core values?
How to value yourself?
– as important
– as worthy of developing
– to learn to live meaningfully
On Critical Capacity
– How to express?
– How to understand and comprehend?
– How to reason?
– Understanding learning, creativity, science etc. and How to form the structure of a language?
– Conversation with the world, with others, with instructors
– These involve many new syntax, grammar, semantics, pragmatics
Having these skills to pursuit, comprehend and adapt to environment, and these forming the survival skills.
What do these mean to me in our conversation?
Here is a conversation that I have with Matthias on Contiguity and outboard brain :
You have got it spot on. I noted Stephen mentioned over here on slide 14 of Pedagogical Foundations for Personal Learning:
* Social knowledge is not personal knowledge
* Personal Knowledge Management = Learning
* Social Knowledge Management = Research
I also think Stephen is relating to knowledge as pattern recognition, but that he is now referring to such knowledge as a separate “entity” with knowledge at personal level being learning, while at a social level being research.
My question is: “how to distinguish between learning from research?” Can learning and research be integrated in my mind? When I develop PLE and reflect upon the conversation we have with others, then such “social learning” would form part of my personal learning, especially when I form a “mind map” linking the concepts shared and discussed with others through the conversation, and thus make sense of meaning emerged through the discourse over social media/space.
“Discussions about connectivism seem to diverge and break into two parts: One focussing on the complexity of the internal/ neural level, and the other one focussing on the personal/ external level (which is often misunderstood and simplified down to the idea that you don’t need to know anything once you know the “pipes” connecting to persons or resources who know” I am not that sure that is the case. I think we need to know something even if we know the pipes connecting to persons or resources, only that the emphasis is now on the pipes (connections)as the content (the information or “knowledge” ) that resides on the node could change, in respond to changing environment. This requires critical capacity to re-evaluate the content, the pipe (connection), to act and decide accordingly by making adjustments to decisions, in order to adapt and respond to changes.
I think the personal learning would be looking at the outside world with a personal view (i.e. focussing on the complexity of the internal/neural level). However, if I were to better understand the world views from a macroscopic view, then I would need to rely on crowdsourcing (Google, Yahoo, or Delicious search, social learning, “networked learning through communities of practice”. These would provide me with a better representation of the external level of learning (i.e the research as cited by Stephen). Connectivism could provide such connections, links and conversations, if we perceive these differences at different levels.
Are these the “world views” from a “community of practice points of views”?
“In general, they are taking simple views of how different parts of the brain work and are saying it is important to turn a particular part of the brain on when advertising, and therefore you should do more of this or that,” Lieberman said. “For instance, they will say you want to activate the amygdala because that is the brain’s emotion center. Typically they are not looking at the relationship between what happens in the brain when someone is exposed to an advertisement and what actually are the outcomes that you care about. For example, do people change their behavior? Does someone spread the message to others? Instead, they are giving generic analysis, and my guess is that the vast majority of the advice they are giving is not accurate.
“To really understand the relationship between the brain’s responses to brands and persuasive materials and desirable outcomes, you actually have to measure the outcomes that are desirable and not just say what should work,” he said. “There are many folks claiming to be neuroscientists who have read a little introductory neuroscience, and that is not enough expertise. It’s almost infinitely more complicated than that.”
How would people change their behavior in social conversation? Should we focus on neuroscience in order to better understand about “personal learning”?
We could more easily control our own personal learning (with PLE), as any such learning is referred to our “brain”, though we are trying to explain such learning based on connections of neurons, and thus networks when thinking and reflecting.
Finally, would the key to the above be Conversation: with others and myself (through thinking and reflection)?
Postscript: Refer to this representative student on sharing of simple and complex connectivism by Stephen Downes