Christy Tucker's Library tagged networks →  View Popular, Search in Google

I struggle a bit with the neurological arguments, but it does seem to make sense that the brain is divided by the different functions and not by the symbols we've created to communicate. And certainly when you look at brain scans of people doing different tasks, the activity isn't just in one area: multiple areas of the brain are involved in any complex task.

But I'm also cautious about the brain evidence because, frankly, I don't really understand it that well. I'm also aware of research about how people find arguments more convincing when they're shown with pictures of brain scans, even if it's the same text. I don't want to fall prey to that fallacy.

These are better examples; this makes more sense to me. It does seems to support creating learning environments where content can be used multiple different ways, which fits with connectivism.

Back to the cognitivist idea of the teacher as mental copy machine handing a student a duplicate copy of knowledge--this is the opposite of that. It's more like if 20 artists sit down to draw the same scene; there will be similarities and overlaps, but nobody's picture will be the same. This is, perhaps, part of why connectivism makes more sense when applied to learning complex topics. You don't need connectivism to explain memorizing the state capitals or multiplication tables; the idea of the mental copy machine is probably a functional enough explanation. But if you're trying to learn a big, gnarly topic, a model that works for regurgitating facts isn't enough.

I'm finding myself resisting some of these ideas, and I'm not quite sure why. Is it because it's so different from what I've been taught and assumed? Is it because I'm just too used to the folk psychology ideas and I need to unlearn them? I still feel like even cognitivism is a "good enough" explanation for some basic kinds of knowledge that do seem to operate as content transfer. Cognitivism isn't a perfect model, but a simple knowledge transfer model might be good enough for some areas. But maybe education has focused too much on the simple knowledge transfer because it's easy and we have an easy model to explan how it works--and education should be about a lot more than the kinds of learning that cognitivism explains well. The learning theories we believe must affect what we choose to teach, and not just how we choose to teach it.

Earlier in this section, Stephen says that the constructivist idea of "making meaning" is meaningless. But here he says "Meaning is created from context and messages via salience." What's the difference between "making meaning" and "creating meaning"? I don't get it.

This is an example of complicated knowledge, I think, and not complex, but the idea of complicated knowledge being distributed makes sense.

Summary of e-learning 2.0, although so much of what is being developed is still about content consumption

I'm not sure if learning always has to be about the "production" of content by the learners; it could be about analyzing, summarizing, aggregating, tagging, etc. Am I really "producing content" with my comments on this article? I don't feel like I'm producing something new, but I definitely feel like this is e-learning 2.0. I'm building on Downes' work. But maybe my problem is with how I'm defining "content"; if "content" includes tagging and critiquing and commenting, then I am producing content now.

An interesting idea for instructional design. Usually a big part of what we do as instructional designer is think about the structure and order of learning objects. But if the learning objects are scattered in different places and nonsequential, then the support learners need isn't being told what order to follow: it's how the objects relate to each other.

The problem from everyone who has tried reusable learning objects is that it's so hard to get objects that are really independent and free of context. I think this is a very difficult thing to actually achieve.

This is already happening to some extent. Blogs, wikis, and Twitter weren't designed as learning tools, but lots of people use them as such. A look at Jane Hart's top tools collection shows lots of tools used by learning professionals that weren't originally intended for learning.

If learning is about acquiring patterns, then the "to learn is to practice and reflect" would be ways of following and reinforcing those patterns. I suspect for this to really make sense that "pattern" has to be my individual pattern as a learner; my pattern isn't the same as Stephen's, even as I'm learning from him. But my pattern might be similar to Stephen's or overlap with his, or connect with his.

One thing I've been wrestling with a bit lately is the idea of teachers demonstrating and modeling. It seems like demonstrating and modeling are mostly the same thing. What's the difference between the two? And I do feel like "teacher" implies something a little more active than being a model off in the distance. What if we say that good teachers model and nurture instead? Nurturing doesn't imply direct instruction or even most of what we think of as teaching, but it does imply interacting with students in ways that supports them and helps bring out the best in them.

This description is helpful, but I again don't see how demonstrating is different from modeling.

This reinforces what Stephen said earlier about tools not being specific to learning; learning tools should be the tools we live and work and play with, integrated in our daily lives.

This is in the postscript about the futility of traditional empirical research on learning. Maybe this is where I run into problems reconciling the cognitivist research I've read (which is all traditional "change one variable" research) with connectivism. This would also explain why some of the cognitivist research that works OK in a lab environment fails in real classrooms; a lab environment doesn't actually reflect the chaos of a classroom well enough. I've heard Stephen make this argument on a number of occasions, but I've always assumed that it meant any educational research would be worthless. That isn't what he's saying though; he's saying that educational research is a different type of research. Now it's finally making sense to me; of course educational research should be more like psychology, where we have trends and patterns but few absolutes.