- x28 on Polarization and Push or Pull
- jennymackness on Polarization and Push or Pull
- Stephen Downes on Polarization and Push or Pull
- PhD by Publication – Selection of Papers – Jenny Connected on Connectivist Think Tool
- Toolblog mentions our zettelkasten export – Thought condensr on Magic of Zettelkasten
- About Links (6)
- CCK08 (30)
- CCK11 (5)
- CCK12 (1)
- change11 (15)
- Classification (7)
- Cognitive Styles (37)
- CritLit2010 (3)
- DALMOOC (3)
- E-resonance (2)
- eLearning (8)
- Hypertext (4)
- Knowledge (14)
- Knowledge management (17)
- Learning (14)
- Misc (7)
- Multimedia and Dictionaries (2)
- Multimedia and Encyclopaedias (3)
- Multimedia and Language (14)
- NRC01PL (2)
- Personal Productivity (25)
- PIM (25)
- PLENK2010 (12)
- rhizo14 (9)
- Social software (9)
- Uncategorized (3)
- Usability (2)
- Visualization (34)
- Web (2)
Category Archives: PLENK2010
For me, asynchronous participation is probably the single greatest affordance of networked learning, because it offers a unique combination of features that were previously never possible simultaneously: slow reflection like when reading a book, and quick reactivity, almost like in oral exchanges. In Plenk, there were different options available.
I don’t duck out of the inevitable D-I-K (-W) definition started in the forums. But more interesting than a single definition of knowledge, are the new distinctions of knowledge types that are afforded by connectivist notions, and the distinct usages of the terms. So, managing/ dealing with/ traversing pieces of information might well be called knowledge management because it generates or grows knowledge.
I think the biggest problem for connectivist PKM environments is the omnipresent incline towards premature pigeonholing of stuff into folders. The relational structure is still the step-brother of the hierarchical structure, because it still lacks the visual modality.
Why (not) want new tools? The forums discussion reveals a reluctance against ever more new tools. We are overwhelmed already. We cannot keep up with them, but we can pick our choice. And once we engage more thoroughly with our favorite tools, we will discover what functionality and usability they are missing.
Seemingly, for each conceivable purpose and preference, there is a tool that exists. This might be true for the communication and collaboration purposes on the social or person-to-person level of connectivism, but not for its conceptual level. Just consider such a simple thing as drawing a connection line between two items in your folders on your hard drive. This was discussed in a paper for PKM2010 and demonstrated with a prototype.
Filtering may be the most crucial Critical Literacy for modern learners. Will Richardson listed it right after “1. Pursue your passion” and “2. Read widely”. which I interprete as 1. depth and 2. breadth — the irreconcilable ideals. Picking and filtering can, in a way, reconcile them.
I like Stephens’s notion that tests are used as proxies. It is consistent with the notion that learning works indirectly, by induction rather than by transmission.
My “theory”: Many educators won’t admit to themselves that their own cognitive style is not the only best one that leads to the most effective learning. So naturally, there are problems to reconcile some students’ real learning processes with the predicted progress. And therefore, ever new theories are needed.
“Connects knowledge” sounds good (upper left quadrant of slide 12 of Wheeler’s presentation). But does this equate to connective knowledge as in Connectivism? I think it is just “snap-in” knowledge that needs to be “augmented” by connective knowledge
Apparently, the main difference between PLE and LMS is centrality of the LMS. But a typical LMS shows more than forums-like centrality. It is often a centralistic mindset that reigns here. the choice between PLE and centralistic LMS is a matter of preference and mindset, just as well as the choice between blogs and central forums. But while the forums choice depends on the styles of the students, the LMS usage is often influenced by an unaware preference of the teacher.