This week's MOOC #change11 has not held my interest.
Without doubt, Nancy White is a charismatic facilitator, using graphical tools to have participants express themselves and develop a particular view. I think this approach (using such graphical tools) is excellent for the participants.
I learned long ago that my wonderfully produced mathematical notes were excellent - for me. The iterrative process of producing these and improving them was valuable to me, the writer. My students needed to produce their own versions (yes, to construct their own knowledge), for this to be valuable for them.
So the outcome of the process did not mean much without being a participant.
Also, there seemed to be an inordinate amount of "feel-good" commentating. Why? Could there be a cultural difference?
Hence my Tweet: the Queen has got no clothes on. There, I said it.
4 comments:
Can't I even wear jammies? Feeling drafty, with no clothes on!
Seriously, I recognize that what we played with this week will not resonate for everyone and I suspect it resonates more for a) those who already knew me or b) are looking to complement the intellectual streams with things that might be less so. As I said yesterday, fuzzy bunny. Or fluffy bunny. I can't recall.
I am still percolating on my blog post and will tag it because I do think there is something relevant to the #change11 MOOC, but I have not been able to clearly articulate it. Unfortunately, I feel, I talk and THEN I make sense, which defies the logic of this MOOC set up which is "share a paper" with your definitive ideas and then lets talk. I'm back assward as well as naked it seems. ;-)
That said, I really appreciate the thoughts you've shared because I suspect others have thought them, but not said them. Without saying them, I lose out on the learning. So keep sharing and I'll keep learning.
Thanks
Sorry for the cheap jibe - it is a different way of working and no less productive for that. Will read where you get to with it with interest, and I will keep learning too.
Aw, it wasn't a cheap jibe. No worries. I'm still chewing on what I understand to be underneath - the lack of resonance for you (and others!) about social artistry in the context of change, learning and technology.
When we moved into "interview Nancy" mode during the Friday session and George started asking me questions which felt more academic to me, I started to get some insight into the fact that while I know "inside" what social artistry is because I believe I practice it, I still can't clearly articulate it in a way that fits in with learning theories and the deeper, intellectual grounding that many of you have. I'm a simple practitioner. So making that leap is .. well, hard.
As I listened to today's session w/ Dave and rhizomatic learning, I kept being troubled by his reference of the rhizomatic learner as a nomad. The metaphor of the nomad -- at least the romanticized notion of a nomad is a solitary being, forging off on her or his own.
This has a disconnect for the social aspect of learning for me. I'm not saying all learning must be in a social context, but a heck of a lot of it is. Those who pay attention to making that space where this learning happens play and important role. Thus the social artist.
We ran out of time and never got to the transversalist. That's another interesting kettle of fish!
Experts aren't always the best teachers, it is said, they have a tacit understanding and have reached a plateau of working that you can only reach by climbing up there yourself. (My metaphors are also getting out of hand!)
And as you say, making the connections to educational/academic theory is hard.
Agree that "nomad" does not conjure up the right image and have written about that just now.
Metaphors that don't work for me
Post a Comment