I enjoyed it because it provided a perspective of balance and the opportunity to view people as distinct 'others' not just as a 'collective'. The Keirsey/Bates' type identification does the same, categorises without judging which is the preferred type. Each of us is different, neither better nor worse because of our learning preferences. John identified metal, wood, earth, fire and water 'types' then suggested how these types may be blended with others to better facilitate collective learning. Now if we were forced into these hybrid groups by organisations or systems we may feel uncomfortable and rebellious, however if we can choose the sandpits in which we play the freedom to leave is always a liberating option. Perhaps there is a sense of this self regulation or counter balancing each time we navigate to another blog which arouses our curiosity. Or when we make a conscious choice to respond or otherwise to a Facebook posting.
The balancing act can be demanding and take us out of our comfort zone.
What attracts or deters us:
the fact that someone agrees or disagree with us ?
the quest to see life from another perspective ?
to learn about something which appears to be outside the realm of our current life experience ?
humour ? Will paper replace e-readers ?
lack of pretence or artifice ?
figurative language ?
blog design and navigation ?
For me the relative 'character' anonymity of participants in the CCK11 as compared with the PLENK2010 cohort is an obstacle I'm not convinced I have the motivation to surmount. The PLENK forum provided an easily navigated discussion interface. From the contributions on a wide variety of topics (some way off subject but nonetheless food for thought) I learnt a lot about the passions, the character, the beliefs of the participants. We were fellow learners, not just network nodes, and I would imagine a certain degree of trust was established between many of the participants. Facebook, the seeming preferred CCK11 gathering place, does not provide the same level of personal connection for me, so I am not currently feeling particularly nodish. This may be a positive thing, for to feel truly nodish according to Connectivism I guess one needs to accept that networked learning is the only option - "Network Or Remain Ignorant".
"........One of the more significant challenges we face in online learning is climbing the wall that blocks our view of learners responding to a course. In a classroom we can see who is making eye contact, nodding in agreement, or sighing with frustration..... "
Paying Attention to Attention
I'm convinced, based on both personal and life experience that 'one size does not fit all' in every facet of life, learning style preferences being one of them. If we are to be responsible for our own learning, we need to ensure that we expose ourselves to differing perspectives before weighing them on the scales of life experience. It needs to make sense to me, for me to accept it......I need to be in a state of cognitive, situational and mood 'readiness'.
then again, sometimes it's just a case of ....
My learning type is: 'Monkey', fire monkey, in Chinese astrology.
ReplyDeleteInteresting points you make here. I've been thinking and reading about Community of Practice theory, and trying to decide whether CCK11 is a CofP. I am thinking it is not, as one principle of CofP is that 'identities' emerge. In PLENK2010, several emerged and you identified some of them during that event. In CCK11, I am not so sure that identities are emerging, as you say, it has the feel of being more nodish and less character revealing.
p.s. I don't like syncophants either.