Heli on Connectivism

Something happened in my mind when CCK studies began. I have to reflect myself in order to participate .. I can’t write to colleagues  if I don’t recognize my own perspectives. What am I doing here actually?

I work in teacher education for adults coming from work life. We don’t have fulltime students in classrooms, they are working and they live in different parts of Finland. So we use virtual learning platforms and social media. Our pedagogy has been up-to-date those two decades I have been here. We have been pondering all learning theories all the time and “invented” personal learning plans in the year 1988 and the great impact of networks soon after that. Students are organized (or they organize themselves) to learning circles with peer feedback etc.)

I have developed my online teaching since the year 2002 and I prefer it. I have a blog in Finnish as an online teacher and I take part in Finnish social media community. I participated in CCK08 in order to follow global discussions about connectivism. And I am here again, I cannot stop coming

This time I try to be more conscious about my perspective: I am asking questions about the “best online pedagogy in the world” and I suppose something like that can be found in CCK09. My orientation is practical, theories are not enough.  In my previous post is dealt with conceptions about knowledge and epistemic styles. In practice you must have skills to all epistemic styles and the ability to choose and combine them:

So I intend to use 1) theoretical data, knowing via thought, 2) empirical facts, knowing via senses and 3) metaphorical, experiental, phenomenological data = knowing via intuition and insight. The criteria fo acceptance as knowledge are in same order:

1. Ist it logical? Is it theoretically sound?
2. Can it be experimentally proven?
3. Does it fit to my experience? Does it feel right? Because I am an expert in online pedagogy I can trust my feelings about rightness. (But I had to read that first, I had forgotten it).

I am not studing only connectivism, I am studing all interesting up-to-date theories about learning and networking – and I am not the only one in the course who has this perspective. I added Frances in my blogroll and found Ning and Diigo groups with this broad perspective. So my next problem is to take time, decide where to participate.

Sun is shining just now, I have to go out, it is not allowed to sit all Sunday with my computer when beautiful autumn is outside.

This is my first step in second CCK09-travel. I always try to find my way, not George’s or Stephen’s or others’. I already know some students and I am convinced that I’ll get ideas from them .. so I must have my mind open. But I have to know what there is in my mind that influences me, I cannot be quite open. I have to ask myself about

• my knowledge building, my habits and ways in constructing my mind
• my values, do I have any so important that they direct my thinking and feeling
• what do I already know about human learning and knowledge? What is closed and what is open in my mind?

These are heavy questions, I feel tired at the beginning of the job. Last week I found some good sources that I have studied in 1990’s and I wonder why I have stopped thinking during last years, have I? I believe that basic questions in knowledge acquisition do not change, not all of them, not totally. I read again a Finnish dissertation about “Knowledge in Interactive Practice Disciplines” (A. Sarvimäki, University of Helsinki 1988). I am not interested in all knowledge, only knowledge used in  education or other interpersonal, interactive disciplines (theory-in-practice). Pragmatism is my choice: what is working in practice and why is it effective and so on. Argyris and Schön: Knowledge in Action is in my bookshelf. Knowing in practice is more demanding/difficult that knowing in theory.

Knowledge is divided in “knowing that” = propositional, declarative, language and concepts, models. Knowledge is “knowing how” = procedural, how to do, what are the phases and so on. How about “emergent knowledge”, where does it come, how is it possible? The contextual nature of practical problems … what does it mean? A dynamic aspect is needed:  Skill in reading situations and flexing in interactions…

I am pleased with three epistemic styles: rational, empirical and metaphorical.  When I am rational I conceptualize and think in logical-illogical ways. When I gather empiria, I perceive (and sometimes misperceive). Most interesting is the metaphorical style: that’s why  I have to use pictures, symbols, which are universal or  idiosyncratic. For instance my photo about destabilizing in my previous post, Jenny recognized it at once and Ailsa remembers my images in CCK08. There is silent knowledge (Polanyi) and intuition in expertice.

How in the world we can construct any new theory of human learning? What is a theory actually? If I forget or leave that open how can I define criteria for good practice in my CCK09 studies? Too difficult, I must go out and walk ..

I participated CCK08 a year ago (this blog is made for it) and I have followed research about happenings during the course. Most of them deal with external actions: how many connections, discussions, writings and so on. It is not an easy job, you have to develope new methods for it. We have much framework knowledge about our course. Thanks to Google Alert it has been easy to follow :

• moodle forum discussions in graphical network models are more effective than scanning forums
• presentations about all the vehicles and an example of products given by Mike Bogle slideshare

Mike presents Wendy’s video about networked student, I suppose we all liked it very much. But now I see that it deals only with external actions: student does this and this etc. An interesting attention to me was now the concept American Psychology, I did’nt notice it earlier. Do they really study American Psyche only?

I am waiting for results about the research (questionnaire and interview) made by Jenny M, John and Roy. They are comparing people who chose to use a blog or Moodle forums, what are the factors behind those choices. I liked to answer their questions myself and it was a good opportunity to learn to understand better. It is not simple to say what I was waiting for when I decided to participate in a global course like CCK was .. and what happened to my focus during the course period.

External factors are good to know but they are not enough – I am interested in what happens in human minds, what is  learning actually. I found an dissertation Passion at work: blogging practices of knowledge workers  and it helped me to understand my decisions: what are the needs that make my blog necessary. Blogging means  ‘everyday grounded theory’. The cultural schift is great:

• personal passions have a legitimate place at work ( I love this, I need this)
• transparency is here to stay
• everyday routines matter (it is stupid to say I have no time to write a blog)
• authority becomes fluid (I love this, too)
• visibility can turn into information overload (but this is nice  I suppose and helps to develope further)

This is the way I want to proceed in my research and my thinking. Lilia Efimova who wrote the dissertation, had one workplace and Knowledge Management bloggers community  in her research .. I am perhaps interested in case studies. The entity must be a human being if I want to understand what happens inside human mind.

I appreciate the possibility to global interaction again, CCK09 is beginning and I have to decide how to participate this time…