Questions about Rhizomatic Learning from a Connected Learning Convert: Reflections on #ETMOOC Week 3.

Week 3 of ETMOOC is complete, and once again, I am thrilled to find myself with some answers -- but equally as many questions.

I finally stole an hour to watch the archive of Dave Cormier's session on Rhizomatic Learning.  In the Q and A following the session, Dave talked about how responses to this theory tend to cluster in two camps:  those who aren't thrilled by it, and those who recognize their own beliefs and practice in it.  I definitely fall into the latter camp.   I recognize in this theory not only an approach to learning, but also a broader philosophy about how people can (and maybe should?) interact.  When Dave said he does not want to create a dependency between himself as teacher and his students as learners, it was a moment of recognition for me.  Having said that, however, I still have many questions, most of which probably stem from the fact that my academic background is not in Education. I am going to focus on two here for now.

Who Are the Ideal Learners in Rhizomatic Learning?
One of my current interests as an online facilitator, instructor, and perpetual learner is Adult Education, and especially, online learning and the adult learner.  I am working toward completing my CACE (Certificate in Continuing and Adult Education).  Because I see in my online classes increasing numbers of mature students, as well as undergraduates who I would characterize as non-traditional (i.e. young adults whose education competes with increasingly "adult" roles such as parenthood, employment, and/or caring for elderly or sick parents -- roles that necessarily influence emotional and intellectual development, in my opinion), I am interested in tailoring my teaching methods to address their different learning needs.  What kinds of strategies can I utilize that will allow me to balance the needs of the different types of learners in my classroom? Thus, the different characteristics of adult versus youth learners is a topic to which I keep returning. 

For other non-teacher educators, and for reference sake, here is a useful table that explains, in a very general way, the differences between  "adult" learners versus "youth" learners. In particular, after watching the archived version of Dave Cormier's session on Rhizomatic Learning, I have been thinking about the paradigm's ideal learners.  Is this paradigm better suited to some learners rather than others?  Although I am unsettled by the firm distinction between "adult" and "youth" learners, I still see some ways in which adult learners might be better suited to learn through this approach, and other ways in which youth learners might prove more successful rhizomatic learners.

For instance,  the literature suggests that adult learners are more successfully self-directed learners, which seems like a prerequisite for success in this approach.  However,  adult learners also prefer to be able to see the relevance of what they are learning to their own lives -- which may not be compatible with the focus in rhizomatic learning on learning "which has no answer" in Dave Cormier's words.  Conversely, while youth learners seem more dependent on their teachers, and are hesitant (perhaps developmentally unable?) to assume responsibility for their own learning, the entire premise of their learning is based on uncertainty -- they learn despite not necessarily knowing for what purpose their knowledge will serve.  

So, in keeping with the conversations that were occurring in the session I watched, I am left with the question: are some learners, at different developmental stages, better suited to this type of learning?  Which students are more likely to avoid the "mile wide inch deep" pitfall -- the solution to which, to me at least, seems to hinge on adequate learner motivation.   Or can the approach be modified appropriately to suit learners at different levels?

Can practices inspired by this learning theory coexist, within one course, with more traditional instructional practices?
My second question is a practical, though at this point, hypothetical one.  I'm imagining a hypothetical course in which there would be two organizational components:  1) a structured component in which I assume a more traditional instructional position, and provide a foundational space for students; and 2) a more open learning space, modelled on a cMOOC, informed by rhizomatic learning/connectivism.  In this open space, students will explore issues that are immediately relevant to them and their communities. Ideally, they will then return to the more structured space and share what they have learned from their own contexts.  As a class, ideally, we will begin to examine the individual experiences within disciplinary methodologies.  Is it possible, I wonder, for traditional teaching methods and poststructural teaching methods to co-exist in the same space? Are there potential pitfalls to this hypothetical design?

Reflections on ETMOOC, Week 2

Week 2 of ETMOOC has drawn to a close, and Week 3 is waiting in the wings. So far I have not been blogging regularly, but I have been reflecting quite a lot on the range of fascinating topics that my emergent learning community has explored.

On Sharing Learning
My thinking, in response to the prompt, "How do you share/show your learning" has been circling around a concept map I created in 2009.  The purpose of this CMAP was to show my understanding of what constitutes a PLE, and to help me understand what my PLE looked like at that time:

After watching the archived version of Alec's session on connected learning, I have been thinking about how differently my visualization might look now. The graphic illustrates my emphasis on adding tools to expand my learning environment -- tools to help me aggregrate information and turn that information into knowledge.

There isn't much emphasis on people in this diagram. They're present, of course, but the emphasis is on my own individual process of accessing information, curating it, and essentially, storing it away.  There isn't much emphasis on the PLN -- the network of people.  The people are crucial because, according to George Siemens, "the connections that enable us to learn more are more important than our current state of knowing."

So how can I broaden my rudimentary PLE to be a more inclusive, more connected PLN? In last week's Twitter chat, I discussed with some other ETMOOC participants some of the practicalities of sharing:  blogging more, sharing/promoting my blog posts (read: not being terrified of showing my learning process!), and commenting on others' posts more regularly.  I did not catch Sue Water's session on blogging, but I gather that she covered some of these tips.  I hope to catch up with that session soon.  Doing more than retweeting others' material -- including at least MT-ing -- is another strategy I will be trying. So far I have found the ETMOOC community very supportive, and as a result, I have gathered many more followers on both Twitter and G+.  Now,  according to connected learning paradigms, it is my responsibility, even as a "new" node in the network, to share what I know.

The importance of sharing is clearer to me now.  However, I am still troubled by issues of privacy and intellectual property, which I hope we will discuss in more detail at some point, and which I hope to work through more fully in another post.

On Connected Learning and Teaching Practice

One way that George Siemens characterizes connected learning is through the example of social networks.  He writes that "within social networks, hubs are well-connected people who are ale to foster and maintain knowledge flow.  Their interdependence results in effective knowledge flow, enabling the personal understanding of the state of activities organizationally."

The teacher/learner as a knowledge hub is a metaphor that appeals to me enormously. It shifts thinking and practice away from the teacher/student hierarchy which has traditionally dominated the classroom.  Will thinking about teaching and learning through the lens of connected learning enable me to really move beyond the teacher/student hierarchy of the traditional classroom?  I hope so.

However, I still have some questions. For example, as Angela Vierling-Claassen asks: "What kind of educational practices are possible when we confront the true unknowability and incompleteness of our pedagogies, when even as we come together we lack the knowledge necessary to answer basic questions of survival and justice? As Ellsworth asks, “What kind of educational project could redefine ‘knowing’ so that it no longer describes the activities of those in power ‘who started to speak, to speak alone and for everyone else, on behalf of everyone else.’” (Ellsworth, 1989, p. 321) To me, a question then becomes can a constructivist MOOC, moocified course, or personal learning network do exactly what Ellsworth is calling us to do? How can we be sure that these projects will really bring out the new voices instead of just brining us the voices that have already spoken?"

In addition, it seems to me, that there are still lingering practical issues to be overcome. How can I,  in the words of bell hooks, teach to transgress, if my students (especially those who would benefit most)  have limited or constrained access to online technologies?  Or if they don't, contrary to widespread belief, have smart phones? Tablets? Or even a reliable computer? It seems unlikely, but every term, a small but significant proportion of students encounter basic access issues. I wonder, then, in the spirit of curiosity more than critique, to what extent  this paradigm of learning, even as it promises the potential for social justice, takes into consideration issues of privilege?

Works Cited

Siemans, George.  "Connectivism:  A Learning Theory for the Digital Age." elearnspace. 12 December 2004.  25 January 2013.

Vierling-Claassen, Angela. "MOOCs as a Liberatory Project." Liberation Math.  22 January 2013. 25 January 2013.