Can a network of learners serve the same roles as a teacher or professors? Revisited

This is my response to Jenny’s post on: I don’t know what I don’t know http://jennymackness.wordpress.com/2008/11/23/i-dont-know-what-i-dont-know/

Hi Jenny,
Thanks for this in-depth analysis on that important question. As mentioned, it is pretty difficult in generalising nowadays, as even situated learning is contingent to the situations.
In network learning:
Is there a teacher needed in a network?
Who are the “teachers” in a network?
Why does one join the network?

Not all scientists like to work in a network, Newton is a typical example. His lecture was not filled with any “student”. He liked to work alone. There are few Newton nowadays.
Even Einstein preferred to conduct research (i.e. on relativity). Isn’t it interesting? Many great philosophers and scientists were lonely researchers and thinkers, and they may not like to be bound by the rules of communities, society, so as to allow their creativity to flourish. Besides, society places higher values to those great educators and research scientists (the Nobel Prize winners in particular). How would one be remembered in history? Individual or collective contribution?
Nowadays, people could only achieve their goals with the co-operation, collaboration and connection with others. One needs “learners” to become a “teacher”. So teachers and learners need to be connected. And it all comes back to the vision (pathfinding) of both learners and teachers.
George and Stephen are leading the way in this course, and they deserve the credits in opening up the avenues towards connectivism.
Is teaching still a noble profession? In a commercial world, is corporate training more important than higher education?

Power on fire!

This is my response to Lisa’s post Control by Personality http://lisahistory.wordpress.com/

I read the post with great interest.

“It seems to be the perception of power that is important”… “As with all effective aspects of learning, personality may be another overlooked element…”I echoed with your view and insights. 
As a teacher myself, I had never taken drastic actions without first consulting my learners (all adult learners).  I realised that a teacher’s integrity lies with “one’s walking the talk”.  So unfortunately, the spirit of networking has been greatly affected, and I don’t think that’s conducive to learning, especially for adult learners and teachers.  My comment is based on an incident, rather than based on a person.  And as I am not a learner looking for credits, I didn’t want my comments to affect others’ grading.  And I realise how upset people (co-learners and lurkers) are.
However, I think this is a revelation that a teacher’s “great knowledge and power” doesn’t come from inside of that person, but from outside.  And I learnt that respect can only be earned if a teacher is truly “compassionate, empathetic and knowledgeable to and engaging WITH the learners or teachers – peers”.  May be that’s the missing element in connectivism??  Is it?
No one likes to learn without emotions or feelings, otherwise we will become the computers, which could be switched on or off by others.  And I do not believe that computer can “learn” as much as human do, and as smart as human too. 
Do you think you and your students share such feelings or emotions towards power?  Is it the reason why connectivism is so “hard” to stay alive if people are just “connecting” without feelings?  Or are people really connected? I have seen such happenings often in organisations, and the result is…I would NOT be bent with power…., though anyone could play with it.  But it is like playing with fire.  It hurts.

Thanks for your inspiring post. 
Cheers.
You are welcome to comment on my blog https://suifaijohnmak.wordpress.com

Reflection on the role of learners in networks – Connectivism in practice

When I reflected on what has happened in our CCK08, http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=668&action=article, where interaction and contribution of readers and learners were encouraged,  what I realised was a cautionary approach in the interaction between co-learners.  Whenever someone is trying to adopt a teaching approach, there would be a “tension” developed mainly because the co-learner has not been prepared or able to accept the “teacher-learner” or “expert – learner” role.  The learners might be preferring to adopt a “peer to peer” or “learner to co-learner” approach in learning on some occasions.  This seems also is the case in blogs, when the readers or co-learners were responding or commenting on each others’ blogs.  I have already noted numerous feedback from the blogs.  See my discussion in the forum on the different roles one may have in a network:  http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=956  Also, see Frances Bell’s comments on group and network discussion in  http://eduspaces.net/francesbell/weblog/485692.html and the forum discussion on groups and networks posted by Ailsa Haxell on passion vs reason. http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=956, where there were interesting and heated debates on passion and reason amongst teachers, learners and co-learners.  And the follow up discussion and debate via the blog by Terry Anderson:  http://terrya.edublogs.org/2008/10/20/more-on-groups-versus-networks-and-collectives/

Is such role conflict an issue in your teaching or learning?

If there are such role conflicts in networking or web 2.0 applications, what do you think will be some better ways to resolve them?