CCK08: Week 4, or since when have we used networks for learning

Published
by
David Vidal
on October 5, 2008
in CCK08 Week 3 and CCK08 Week 4
. 0 Comments

During this week I’ve enjoyed a lot the reading of Siemens’ Brief history of networked learning. Althought I couldn’t follow the hole discussion, my impression was that this week has been a quiet one, but was usefull to reflect about the concept itself in its evolution. At the end, I think, we all agree that networked learning was always there, althought we hadn’t the model to understand it.

In my view, thinking about networks is very usefull, but only when we think from a dynamic perspective. Last week (Week 3) we discussed with Valdis Krebs different models of networks (distributed, centralized, terrorist ;),…) but from a static perspective, and for me it wasn’t useful at all… Not everybody agreed with me, but everytime I think on it I imagine that it’s like taking a picture of a brain and try to find how does it work just with that picture. Useless at all for our purpose.

Networks are understable just if you think under a dynamic perspective. Information travels between (throught?) the nodes, and they are available, more receptives… or not depending of the circumstances. This way, the static network becames an unpredictable system (an unpredictable network), like this:

Yes, I know that this model becomes predictible in two minutes looking at it, but it was just an example: it’s a model of the Game of life, a cellular automator devised by Conway that works just with a few rules and that can show how patterns in networks are essentialy unpredictable in macroestructures (just a computer can predit what will be the position of the points in, for example, 1500 steps). If you want to experiment it by yourself just take a look at cellular automator (be careful… it’s addictive).

Now imagine the same but with people instead of those coloured points… Now the network is even more unpredictable, and even more alive that what it seems to be… And I think that that’s the model from where we can start understanding how does a network works, introducing in addition other phenomena like chaos, rizomatic structures, entropy, etc…

A little bit more in spanish here.

CCK08: Week 3, the wood against the trees

Published
by
David Vidal
on September 26, 2008
in CCK08 Week 3
. 5 Comments

I have to admit that the tittle was a little bit sensationalist, but this was my feeling when Stephen and George started to puntualize their postures about the role of the networks in Connectivism. Actually, these differences started, I think, at the beginning of the second week, when we were discussing about the essence of knowledge.

I have to say that I’m ver happy with this disagreement. When we started the course there were some misunderstandings about what were we managing with in the Connectivism, and I think that the reason is here. Yes, knowledge and learning, but… what to learn?, how?, and, the most important: WHO?

If I’m not wrong, I think that I heard Stephen saying, in one of our meetings in the course, that knowledge was a property of networks, not humans… The knowledge is something that emerges in the networks, defined in a rude way, as connections between those famous learning things. In this sense we can understand that the knowledge resides in the connection, not in the individuals, and that the knowledge is not related in any way with meaning, sense or other logical or semantic concepts. That’s the reason because of I think that whatever can be a learning thing (computers, for instance, and even humans ;)): the main instance is the network that links the learning thing, and not the learning thing… The question here is why Downes says that is important the knowledge to be recognised by the learner thing… this is something that it’s not clear for me yet…

George’s point of view is more sensible, I think… (I realized I intuitively agreed with him taking a look to my week 1 mindmap) He is not focused in networks, but in the individuals that become networks. Both Stephen and George (I will talk about George’s point of view later in another post) recognize and define the knowledge because of the networks (they are essential), but, as they said today at Ustream, while one is focused in the wood’s connections the othes pays attention to the trees and how they connect.

Of course, hundred of consecuences are derived from both models (in epistemology, ontology, ethics, politics,…). And most are not compatible… But, what do you think? Trees or wood? Individuals or networks? What was before, the egg or the kichen?

Second week is over

Published
by
David Vidal
on September 23, 2008
in CCK08 Week 2
. 1 Comment

The second week of the CCK08 is over and I have to post my resume… The problem is that I started my work and that this week I have to send my Portfolio for the Master I’m following at Universidad de Barcelona - IL3. Too much work to finish (in the way I want).

Anyway, last week I was in the first Elluminate meeting on Wednesday, and also in the Ustream conversation on Friday and, of course, I took note of everything in my notebook ;) so I think that all the material will be online soon. By now I’m working in finishing my mindmap about the notion of knowledge that we are using… It’s hard if I want to be precise. I’m also working in some definitions that I would like to write in just a few lines, in order to understand the epistemological face of Connectivism…

So, as you will understand, I cannot show how is the mindmap going ;), but I will leave here part of the schema, just as appetizer… Feel free to leave your comments.

By the way, I have to remind you the meeting we will have with George Siemens at Auditorio General de UniHispana (22.00, spanish hour). The reunion, organized by Conectivitas, will be in spanish, so if you are a spanish speaker it’s your time to meet with another people interested in Connectivism in spanish! Hope to see you there (my avatar is David Bazylinski).

CCK08 What’s connectivism? Mindmap version 2

Published
by
David Vidal
on September 17, 2008
in CCK08 Week 1 and mindmap
. 2 Comments

Thanks to Jeroen, I can use Cmaptools to externalize what’s on my brain ;)

Any suggestion?

CCK08 - What is connectivism? Mindmap week 1

Published
by
David Vidal
on September 15, 2008
in CCK08 Week 1 and mindmap
. 7 Comments

Finally I found a tool where to ellaborate my mindmap of the week. It was a shame, but I couldn’t install Cmap tools in my Mac (does anybody have an idea about why?). Anyway, I found out bubbl.us, that is not exactly what I needed, but works and it’s nice.

Before show you the work, some appreciations:

As you can see I just choosed some topics in the main subject of the week 1. My interest is focused in the Connectivism as Epistemology and as Theory of mind and learning (in my case, applied to the foreign languages). I would like also to think about how can we think in Connectivism as Paradigm, as a model from where we could think our environment (meaning our universe, or everything that’s not epiphenomena) through our scientific disciplines. Would it be possible?

Appart of that, I see (and I share also) the interest of the theory about the social and ethic aspects, althougt is not my speciality and I won’t say too much about… Let’s leave it for the coffee…

Of course, if you have any suggestion, or you want to work with me in the mindmap, please let me know. Unfortunately, I have to give permission to the people to do whatever with the mindmap, because it doesn’t works as a wiki.

After that, you’re ready to take a look ;) Enjoy

Ustream.tv: Conectivismo online

Published
by
David Vidal
on September 12, 2008
in CCK08 Week 1
. 0 Comments

Como si de un reality show se tratase, hoy Siemens y Downes nos abren sus webcams para que podamos hacer preguntas comprometidas sobre la teoría y -aquí viene el aliciente- ver la cara que ponen. Me recuerda mucho al famoso “confesionario” de Gran Hermano.

La cita es a las 19.00 18.00 (hora española), en Ustream.tv y yo estaré por allí con mi libreta para tomar nota de lo que ocurra.

Elluminate discussion 10/09/08

Published
by
David Vidal
on September 11, 2008
in CCK08 Week 1
. 0 Comments

Ayer tuvo lugar la primera sesión vía Elluminate del curso. Lo cierto es que de discussion hubo poco, supongo que porque la gente que está participando de forma más activa aún no se conoce, y porque de esa forma se enfocó por parte de Siemens y Downes, más interesados en cuál era nuestra impresión del curso y cómo nos iba…

Personalmente lo primero que me sorprendió fue la plataforma elegida para el encuentro. Ya me gustaría a mí que las herramientas que tengo a mi disposición gratuítamente (o no, estoy pensado en el AVE) fueran la mitad de usables, integradas y plásticas que Elluminate. Aunque el diseño no es de lo mejor, permite multitud de herramientas: video, audio, chat, pizarra, integra presentaciones, tiene un espacio para anotaciones personales, y todo de muy buena calidad y totalmente personalizable a gusto del consumidor (respetando las directrices que haya marcado el administrador de la sesión, claro). Así que por esa parte, chapó a la organización. He subido algunas capturas a Flickr.

Como ya he comentado, se habló poco de Conectivismo y más sobre cuál estaba siendo la impresión del curso por parte de los que participamos. Algunos preguntaron incluso que cuál era el propósito del curso. The aim of the course is your aim, fue la respuesta de Siemens. Lo cierto es que con tanto material, tantas plataformas y tanta gente implicada, es imposible abarcarlo todo, al menos hasta que tomemos conciencia de lo que es el conocimiento (des)fragmentado ;)

Sí que fue interesante el pequeño debate sobre identidad (on/off line), y la necesidad -o no- de tener en cuenta estas identidades cuando se aprende en comunidad. ¿Nos interesa saber quién ha escrito esa entrada de la que estamos sacando información? ¿Es importante atender a quiénes son nuestros estudiantes, a cuál es nuestro público? Desde luego este podría ser otro punto en el que el conectivismo se enfrentase al constructivismo… Algunas ideas que podrían dar lugar a más debate al respecto lanzaba el otro día Dreig aquí y aquí…

Stephen Downes acaba de colgar la grabación de la sesión aquí.

Hilando fino

Published
by
David Vidal
on September 10, 2008
in CCK08 Week 1
. 2 Comments

Ayer me quedaban algunas dudas que resolver acerca de en qué radicaba la verdadera naturaleza del Conectivismo como teoría, y qué la hacía distinta de otras como el Constructivismo. Si bien algunas cosas habían quedado intuídas, precisaban de un acercamiento más preciso. Así que navegando me he encontrado con unas notas de Downes en su blog Half an hour:

Where connectivism differs from those theories, I would argue, is that connectivism denies that knowledge is propositional. That is to say, these other theories are ‘cognitivist’, in the sense that they depict knowledge and learning as being grounded in language and logic.

Connectivism is, by contrast, ‘connectionist’. Knowledge is, on this theory, literally the set of connections formed by actions and experience. It may consist in part of linguistic structures, but it is not essentially based in linguistic structures, and the properties and constraints of linguistic structures are not the properties and constraints of connectivism.

In connectivism, a phrase like ‘constructing meaning’ makes no sense. Connections form naturally, through a process of association, and are not ‘constructed’ through some sort of intentional action. And ‘meaning’ is a property of language and logic, connoting referential and representational properties of physical symbol systems. Such systems are epiphenomena of (some) networks, and not descriptive of or essential to these networks.

Hence, in connectivism, there is no real concept of transferring knowledge, making knowledge, or building knowledge. Rather, the activities we undertake when we conduct practices in order to learn are more like growing or developing ourselves and our society in certain (connected) ways.

This implies a pedagogy that (a) seeks to describe ’successful’ networks (as identified by their properties, which I have characterized as diversity, autonomy, openness, and connectivity) and (b) seeks to describe the practices that lead to such networks, both in the individual and in society (which I have characterized as modeling and demonstration (on the part of a teacher) and practice and reflection (on the part of a learner)).

Ahora toca ver cómo sacar partido a todo esto de cara a la enseñanza/aprendizaje de lenguas. ¿Ideas?

¿Conectivismo? FAQ

Published
by
David Vidal
on September 9, 2008
in CCK08 Week 1
. 2 Comments

Stephen Downes publicó hace muy poco vía Ustream una pequeña introducción a esto del Conectivismo, que he resumido a partir de unas sencillas preguntas que dan buena cuenta de lo que se va a tratar a lo largo del CCK08. En plan repositorio, aquí van, con las notas personales que he tomado viendo el video (no son transcripciones, sino traducciones libres).

¿Qué es el Conectivismo?

Es una teoría del conocimiento. (A kind of knowledge theory)

¿Y a cuento de qué necesitamos nosotros otra teoría del conocimiento? Tenemos un montón, y muchas son muy buenas.

Simplemente porque el conectivismo no trata sólo del conocimiento. El conectivismo relaciona el aprendizaje con la tecnología, y trata de las nuevas formas de entender el aprendizaje.

¿Y cómo entiende entonces el conectivismo qué es el conocimiento?

Lo fundamental para entender el conectivismo es comprender que el conocimiento no es una cosa. Las teorías que han tratado el conocimiento hasta ahora están basadas en teorías psicológicas que no son suficientes para entender cómo comprendemos el conocimiento. Simplemente porque el conocimiento no es proposicional. El conocimiento no está compuesto por oraciones, sino por conexiones e interacciones. El conocimiento es, literalmente, la conexión entre entidades: aparece cuando dos entidades se conectan. La teoría conectivista pretende describir cómo se producen estas conexiones y cómo crecen y se desarrollan en la sociedad.

¿A qué se refiere el conectivismo cuando habla de “entidades”?

La teoría conectivista habla de learning things (¿alguna traducción adecuada? ¿aprendientes?): entidades entre las que se establecen conexiones. Se dice que dos entidades estan conectadas cuando una puede cambiar el estado de otra. En este sentido, se consideran learning things desde individuos a ordenadores, pasando por comunidades y sociedades.

Entonces, ¿qué es aprender? ¿cómo aprenden estas entidades?

El aprendizaje no se transmite. No es significado que traspase ni transfiera. Simplemente porque el conocimiento no tiene significado, no es algo que pueda transmitirse. El conocimiento, ya lo hemos dicho, no está compuesto de oraciones. En un sentido estricto, el conocimiento es la conexión entre dos entidades. Y si dos conexiones son idénticas entonces tienen el mismo conocimiento. Este aspecto de la teoría, claro, tendrá que ser matizado más adelante, cuando se introduzca la noción de perceptor, ya que se sostendrá que algo es conocido (percibido / known) sólo si es re-conocido (recognised) por una entidad.

¿Qué ocurre entonces cuando aprendemos?

En el proceso de aprendizaje puede entenderse como el proceso de crecimiento y desarrollo de redes entre entidades. Éste crecimiento y desarrollo se produce a través de asociaciones, definidas como el mecanismo que describe cómo las conexiones construyen conocimiento.

El conectivismo, así, como teoría del conocimiento, se ocupa fundamentalmente de describir cómo las redes crecen y se desarrollan, cómo evolucionan, tienen éxito, y cómo los individuos pueden confiar en ellas.

El video completo:

Video streaming by Ustream

Introduce me in CCK08

Published
by
David Vidal
on September 6, 2008
in CCK08 Week 1
. 1 Comment

This blog is about knowledge. About how we learn and how we teach. Most of the things you will read here will be related to the Connectivism and Connective Knowledge course, where Stephen Downes and George Siemens will co-facilitate.

The posts wil be in english and/or spanish depending of my free time ;). If you look to the right you will find links to the recourses of the course, the people I’m linked to, and some few-fashion plugins.

By the way, my name is David Vidal, and I teach spanish as foreing language in The Nederlands at Instituto Cervantes. I also work with Nodos_ele, researching about Web 2.0 and the classroom. If you want more, take a look in my PLE (by now only in spanish), or open my CV (pdf!).

As George said, looking for the opportunity of learning with you…