Here is my response to the post of attack of the killer rhizomes by Martin Weller.
Very interesting post. Relating to expertise in chess, I think it really requires lots and lots of practice to become experts, not just having a good memory, or recognising the patterns. I played Chinese chess instead, and I challenged university students even when I was in high school. I don’t claim to be expert, but I do think chess is a mind game where you plan ahead, and recognize the good and bad moves through repeated games, and learn to win once you picked up the “right moves”. I found this concept equally applicable to the learning and up-skilling in other sports, or even driving. However, when it comes to blogging, I think it involves another sets of intellectual capacity. I don’t know if the rules relating to blogging really helps or not, but I do find that I am more creative and productive by not following those rigid rules or guidelines in blogging. Once I had attended formal course on blogging and Web 2.0. However, it was until I actually found a need in engagement with others that I fully appreciated the use of blogs as a tool in learning and communication. This prompted me to further research in the blogs and forums in learning and communication in MOOC. Back to the rhizomatic learning, I am not sure if it is based on the social constructivism, but I do think it has its roots based on social interaction. So, when Dave mentioned that:” A rhizomatic plant has no center and no defined boundary; rather, it is made up of a number of semi-independent nodes, each of which is capable of growing and spreading on its own, bounded only by the limits of its habitat (Cormier 2008).” May be that is where learning on the networks would show up as described. Whether this would lead to fruitful outcomes would really be dependent on how one would value the sporadic growth. To me, I think the learning takes its roots when I understand the patterns that arise with the interaction and engagement, rather than the prescriptive or normative rules. Does it help in creating artificial game rules? I think we have already created rules about these “blogging”: There are no set rules, and learning goes beyond those rigid rules. What do you think?