Ken Anderson

link:

Posts referring to articles by Ken Anderson

Re: #change11 Lower layers of connectivism?
Ken Anderson, , Jan 18, 2012. Yes, I was thinking of a conduit metaphor. So maybe experiences, knowledge, etc. in the virtual world activity manifest themselves in the material world through a subconscious mechanism, in addition to the conscious mechanisms we are aware of. The question does remain about whose interests are served. Perhaps a shared augmented reality is a good description, but I wonder if in that perspective there is no virtual world and only an extension of the material world through digital technology augmentation?

I am not so concerned about destruction. It seems to me that a ying-yang of constructs/destructs provide a balance to experience whether one sees the quest of experience as growth or regression or stasis. However if one is caught in a (linear) growth paradigm, I can see how easy it must be to consider destructs as contrary acts to the pursuit of growth. I do value such concepts as justice, freedom, equalities of ....., human rights, life etc. (just to be clear that I draw a line on destructs).

Re: #change11 Lower layers of connectivism?
Ken Anderson, , Jan 18, 2012. Fenwick (2006) makes a comment that I think is related to your angst over the Marxist leanings of Engestrom:

"At issue is the extent to which socio-cultural learning theories, including notions of communities of practice, complex adaptive systems, or even CHAT (cultural-historical activity theory), suppress or enable core questions about whose interests are served by workplace learning".

I also wonder if the virtual world extends through human subconscious into the material world of the conscious?

Reference: Fenwick, T.J. (2006) Work, Learning and Adult Education in Canada, in Fenwick, Nesbitt and Spencer (Eds). Contexts of Adult Education; Canadian Perspectives. Toronto: Thompson Books.



Re: #change11 Lower layers of connectivism?
Ken Anderson, , Jan 16, 2012. Hi Howard. I guess there are a few of us who like to debates these issues! Always a pleasure...

Engestrom(2007) relies on Vygotsky et. al in developing activity theory and expansive learning. In this editorial: doi:10.1108/13665620710777084
he remarks as follows:

"The problem in the emphasis on networks is that it easily begins to overlook what is done and learned together. Connections and and collaboration themselves may be beneficial but they do not guarantee that the object of joint activity is transformed in a productive way" (p.337).







#change11 Lower layers of connectivism?
Ken Anderson, 25 - x28's new Blog » change11, Jan 11, 2012.
Does the statement:

"Knowledge is in the connections"

have any utility?

Does knowledge 'emerge' from connecting? i.e. is knowledge an emergent property of connecting?

Re: A Pedagogy of Abundance or a Pedagogy to Support Human Beings? Participant Support on Massive Open Online Courses
Ken Anderson, , Dec 09, 2011. haha.

I'm just a slow learner....

Re: A Pedagogy of Abundance or a Pedagogy to Support Human Beings? Participant Support on Massive Open Online Courses
Ken Anderson, , Dec 09, 2011. >It would be interesting to see Stephen, Dave and/or George weigh in on this lengthy thread...

I wonder that I might find their comments less interesting, perhaps because I tend to think that their views might be less critical in analysis and more deferential to their theory. I think we are doing fine, brainysmurfs et. al have sufficient expertise.

Going back to my initial question at the start of this thread -

>So I wonder why we need to examine and refine the pedagogy of MOOCs? Why not just leave it be, and not tinker with it?

In light of Lisa's distinction between different types of MOOCs and their different pedagogical informants, my question now seems rather simple. If there is more than one pedagogy to MOOCs, then it is clear that examining and refining is necessary in order to match the goals of the instructor to the pedagogy of delivery. What do you think?

Re: A Pedagogy of Abundance or a Pedagogy to Support Human Beings? Participant Support on Massive Open Online Courses
Ken Anderson, , Dec 09, 2011. (The lady doth protest too much, methinks...)

1. Moocs are the application or manifestation of connectivist theory (?)
2. this MOOC is an effort to apply connectivist theory

I am struggling to find the distinction between these claims. Are you saying that there exists a different flavour of MOOC, perhaps like the one you created, and/or others? If that is your thinking, then are there different pedagogies to the different flavours of MOOCs? Is there a defining essence to a MOOC? What is it?

Re: A Pedagogy of Abundance or a Pedagogy to Support Human Beings? Participant Support on Massive Open Online Courses
Ken Anderson, , Dec 08, 2011. >For this reason, I don't see a MOOC itself as the outcome of the theory. Do theories need an outcome? (LisaMLane)

But you also saying that theory informs the pedagogy, and this MOOC has a connectivist (theory) pedagogy.

Do you agree with the following statement then?

>Moocs are the application or manifestation of connectivist theory (?) (brainysmurf)

Re: A Pedagogy of Abundance or a Pedagogy to Support Human Beings? Participant Support on Massive Open Online Courses
Ken Anderson, , Dec 08, 2011. Content. You mentioned assignments, readings etc. Would the readings be considered 'content'? What are the readings about?

Re: A Pedagogy of Abundance or a Pedagogy to Support Human Beings? Participant Support on Massive Open Online Courses
Ken Anderson, , Dec 08, 2011. Is it content-based then? Is it instructor-determined then?

Re: A Pedagogy of Abundance or a Pedagogy to Support Human Beings? Participant Support on Massive Open Online Courses
Ken Anderson, , Dec 08, 2011. ok, methods of delivery it is then. And the delivery in this MOOC is ICT based. So the pedagogy is ICT. And more questions come to mind...

What is the relationship between pedagogy and learning theory?
What is the relationship between pedagogy and content?
Is an ICT-based pedagogy (like this MOOC-ped) the sole distinguishing outcome of connectivist learning theory?

Re: A Pedagogy of Abundance or a Pedagogy to Support Human Beings? Participant Support on Massive Open Online Courses
Ken Anderson, , Dec 08, 2011. >In this MOOC, the pedagogy is based on connectivist learning theory. I can't see a reason to deconstruct it more than that.

I think it would be very interesting to pick this pedagogy apart.

First, towards a definition of pedagogy, how about 'method of instruction'? So what is the method of instruction of 'this' MOOC?

1. weekly synchronous facilitator/moderators online sessions
2. central web-space where agenda, discussion, and resources can be located

Care to add anything?




Re: A Pedagogy of Abundance or a Pedagogy to Support Human Beings? Participant Support on Massive Open Online Courses
Ken Anderson, , Dec 08, 2011. well, historically a "moocer" or lurker who did not seek a certificate in a course has been considered to be 'auditing' that course. What then differentiates your course from a typical, historical course?

What then, is the pedagogy of a MOOC? ICT usage? Blogging?

I guess you have answered my question about connectivism and MOOCs - they are different beasts.

Re: A Pedagogy of Abundance or a Pedagogy to Support Human Beings? Participant Support on Massive Open Online Courses
Ken Anderson, , Dec 07, 2011. >higher degree of latitude

My interpretation of this statement (originally made by Lisa) is that the students have more freedom to learn what they want to, but still with some restrictions because of the instructor's pedagogy.

I'm beginning to think there might be a classification that is called connectivists, and a classification that might be labelled MOOCists, and that they aren't exactly the same thing. A MOOCist might be described as a high-latitude educator/theorist (are educators learners?), but a pedagogical-bound educator nonetheless.

A connectivist might be described as a pure version learner/teacher/theorist, free from the constraints (harsh or lenient) of an instructor's pedagogy.

Is it necessary for a MOOCist to be a connectivist?


Re: A Pedagogy of Abundance or a Pedagogy to Support Human Beings? Participant Support on Massive Open Online Courses
Ken Anderson, , Dec 07, 2011. Emphasis on the word 'course'. Which to me is in contradiction to connectivism (theory).

So a MOOC is just another course, with some ICT tools involved, and with a higher degree of latitude than other courses. And, maybe connectivism can be redefined as a form of study with a high degree of learner latitude. Does this present a problem to the theory?

Re: A Pedagogy of Abundance or a Pedagogy to Support Human Beings? Participant Support on Massive Open Online Courses
Ken Anderson, , Dec 07, 2011. >That may be a bit radical for educators who assume that their role is necessary at all times in order for learning to be 'successful' by their standards.

As Stephen has said, "A good teacher teaches by demonstration and modeling"

which suggests to me that designing pedagogy for pre-determined learning outcomes is likely not necessary. And, as Lisa has noted, a MOOC is not necessary either. Learning can occur without a pedagogy, or a MOOC etc. Only those trapped in an educator's paradigm feel otherwise.


Re: A Pedagogy of Abundance or a Pedagogy to Support Human Beings? Participant Support on Massive Open Online Courses
Ken Anderson, , Dec 07, 2011. That's all very well, but I tend to think of connectivism (theory) as supporting the view that pedagogy is irrelevant, as the learners will choose (self-select) their own learning. Support for this learning is not required, unless a learner asks for it. Anticipating learners' needs makes the exercise a contrived pedagogical matter, as in the old definition of pedagogy as "child instruction".

Connectivism, I think, favours permitting emergent learning outcomes without steerage. What has been discussed here by others is how to steer outcomes using the technology of MOOCs. Supporting participant learning is merely another form of steerage, isn't it?

Re: A Pedagogy of Abundance or a Pedagogy to Support Human Beings? Participant Support on Massive Open Online Courses
Ken Anderson, , Dec 07, 2011. When I think about this discussion, I start to wonder if there is a conflict between contrived pedagogy and the underlying philosophy of connectivism as manifested in MOOCs?

i.e. isn't pedagogy about strategies for achieving learning outcomes, and connectivism about emergent outcomes?

Re: A Pedagogy of Abundance or a Pedagogy to Support Human Beings? Participant Support on Massive Open Online Courses
Ken Anderson, , Dec 07, 2011. Fair enough. I wonder what other reasons might exist for examining the pedagogy of MOOCs.

Re: Letting the inmates run the asylum...or not?
Ken Anderson, , Dec 06, 2011. I think a MOOC, or at least this particular one, shares the attribute of 'presentation' with a conference. Certainly this MOOC is a series of weekly presentations by accepted 'experts' in specific topics. Much like a conference is an amalgam of 'experts' presenting on different topics, albeit in a much shorter time frame, and often at a very pleasant venue.

A MOOC doesn't really meet the definition of a 'course' does it?

But does it introduce a new idea, that one can take a 'conference' for credit?



Re: #Change11 George Siemens presenting his views on MOOC and Connectivism
Ken Anderson, , Dec 06, 2011. Hi Roy, yes, very interesting food for thought when we consider how 'others' relate to a world, including the digital world, and when we consider the element of access. For some people, Noe's theory of access might apply and may speak to their inability to 'access' objects, and hence to disable their ability to experience. Recently I am studying some of these issues:

http://www.inclusivemedia.ca/showcase/cfrazee/index.html

http://culturall1.idrc.ocad.ca/other/intersection_report/



Re: A Pedagogy of Abundance or a Pedagogy to Support Human Beings? Participant Support on Massive Open Online Courses
Ken Anderson, , Dec 06, 2011. >Starting with pedagogy, and getting people to articulate it, is an excellent path to developing course design and selecting tools.

>is designed to help instructors articulate their pedagogy before choosing tools

>But to many, many teachers, web technology is scary and makes them feel incompetent

This thinking seems to suggest that the purpose of examining pedagogy (in relation to MOOCs) is to assuage the fears of teachers towards technology (in addition to being a fun metacognitive exercise, of course!) Is this the primary reason?

Re: A Pedagogy of Abundance or a Pedagogy to Support Human Beings? Participant Support on Massive Open Online Courses
Ken Anderson, , Nov 30, 2011. I think Lisa Lane said that pedagogy didn't really matter much except when it was bad (I can't remember where I read this - a blog post somewhere in the last few days).

So I wonder why we need to examine and refine the pedagogy of MOOCs? Why not just leave it be, and not tinker with it?

Re: #Change11 George Siemens presenting his views on MOOC and Connectivism
Ken Anderson, , Nov 09, 2011. Hi Roy. Thanks for referring the article. It's a good read. Noe's general theory of access (outlined): "What enables objects and their properties to show up for us in experience is the fact that they exist and that we have access to them", reminded me of Trungpa's "...there is no fundamental separation or duality between you and your world", albeit on a more spiritual level.

Re: #Change11 George Siemens presenting his views on MOOC and Connectivism
Ken Anderson, , Nov 01, 2011. Maybe the mechanism works something like this:


Pattern recognition is the discovery of my thoughts in the world.

Pattern recognition helps me to construct an expression of my thoughts.


Re: #Change11 George Siemens presenting his views on MOOC and Connectivism
Ken Anderson, , Oct 28, 2011. @Vera

I agree, one can learn without ARRFF. And I also agree that constructivism, connectivism, etc. are useful concepts. (Some days I think connectivism is really just a rewording of elements of constructivism, eg. network instead of social culture. But that is a digression....)

Maybe the bridge is in 'agreeing to disagree', on what I think of as the fundamental difference in the two that I mentioned above - the two different answers to the question 'what is knowledge'. Maybe knowledge can be both a human construct and have empirical certainty. Maybe it's a continuum. Maybe it's just a matter of splitting hairs, and not really all that important in the end. Being uncertain about this is not such a bad thing. Life continues, regardless.

But I guess I prefer 'BOTH-AND' to "EITHER-OR' judgements in this area. I don't think it is necessary to have a 'one size fits all' learning theory or world view. I do however place a high value on diversity. And I suppose that choosing one theory over another could be based on aesthetic grounds rather than scientific ones, if one feels the need to choose.

Re: #Change11 George Siemens presenting his views on MOOC and Connectivism
Ken Anderson, , Oct 27, 2011. Hi Vera, yes, thank you too for this conversation! Dialogue, discussion, debate is one of my favourite ways to learn (John will verify this, I think!).

A-R-R-FF just means aggregate-remix-repurpose-feed forward

I think you are suggesting that even a lurker practices A-R-R-FF.

For me, the biggest difference between constructivism and connectivism is in their respective epistemologies. Constructivism considers knowledge to be constructed by humans and not discovered. Connectivism considers knowledge to be discoverable by humans through pattern recognition. Constructivism is a subject-centred paradigm, connectivism is an object-centred paradigm. What may really be desired is, as John says, an understanding that bridges this specific binary.



Re: #Change11 George Siemens presenting his views on MOOC and Connectivism
Ken Anderson, , Oct 27, 2011. I think: Semantics ;)

I think that each of us would describe our learning differently, whether in a connectivist, constructivist or other pedagogy. Which agrees with your point that a learning outcome is personal (although you would attribute this to connectivism solely, it appears). Where a difficulty arises in any learning is in assessment - how do we assess personal learning outcomes? But I digress...

If you are lurking, are you really engaging in connectivist learning? Maybe another form of learning (individual study), but where are the connections in that? Would you be engaging in A-R-R-FF in individual study?

I think that the issue of quality is key. But who is to judge that? Perhaps there are differences in the assessment of quality, among individuals?


Re: #Change11 George Siemens presenting his views on MOOC and Connectivism
Ken Anderson, , Oct 27, 2011. >Can we design a network such as the one that a MOOC generate?...

I think that is the point of this exercise - to replicate the networked learning form in a sponsored learning context. The MOOC shell is more than just a schedule - it includes a daily newletter, archives, discussion threads, collaborate sessions, blogs, wikis, twitter etc. The desired learning outcome is clear: aggregate-remix-repurpose-feed forward.

Constructivism also started as a theory about organic learning, and progressed to inducing learning outcomes through shelled activities. The various shells of constructivism can be quite loosely designed.

Re: #Change11 George Siemens presenting his views on MOOC and Connectivism
Ken Anderson, , Oct 26, 2011. ;) I might suggest that the patterns in one's mind are "influenced by his or her background, culture or embedded worldview".

"It is important to note that constructivism is not a particular pedagogy. In fact, constructivism is a theory describing how learning happens, regardless of whether learners are using their experiences to understand a lecture or following the instructions for building a model airplane."

Thanks for your comment Vera, I think that all questions are semantic in nature. I would agree that the expressing of the theory of constructivism has resulted in the practice of constructivism yielding pedagogic design. But I disagree with your conclusion that connectivism is not designed by anyone - MOOCs are a pedagogical design of connectivism in practice, aren't they?


The text in quotations is taken directly from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(learning_theory)

#Change11 George Siemens presenting his views on MOOC and Connectivism
Ken Anderson, 147 - Learner Weblog, Oct 25, 2011. Hello John. I am wondering about the differences between connectivism and constructivism, are they so vast? For example, in this quote on your blog:

"Chaos is the breakdown of predictability, evidenced in complicated arrangements that initially defy order. Unlike constructivism, which states that learners attempt to foster understanding by meaning making tasks, chaos states that the meaning exists – the learner's challenge is to recognize the patterns which appear to be hidden. Meaning-making and forming connections between specialized communities are important activities."

If we replace the word 'making' with the word 'expressing', or 'communicating', do these two concepts come closer together?