Blog entry
I was re-reading some of George Siemens ideas on Learning as Network Creation and his theory of connectivism recently and was struck by the quotes below:
- “The beauty of networks is their inherent simplicity. A network requires at minimum two elements: nodes and connections. Nodes carry different names in other disciplines (vertices, elements, or entities). Regardless of name, a node is any element that can be connected to any other element. A connection is any type of link between nodes. ”
“Nodes are characterized by a general sense of autonomy. A node may exist within a network, even if it is not strongly connected. Each node has the capacity to function in its own manner. The network itself is the aggregation of nodes, but can only exert limited influence on the nature of each node in the network.”
“Networks can combine to form still larger networks (each node in a larger network can be a network of nodes itself). A community, for example is a rich learning network of individuals who in themselves are completed learning networks.”
These statements are entirely consistent with ideas that I??ve tried to incorporate into work I??ve been doing over the past few years, and the idea I??ve described as ??the Nodal Network?? which I promote as an alternative way of thinking about how our education system may be structured and operate in the future.
Interesting theory Derek, though not really introducing anything new.
Networks and they way they operate have been around since the 1930s. But it??s refreshing to see that educationalists are discovering them. When I first began my PhD and said I will look at learning through a relationalist approach people at educational contexts regarded my approach as totally off the wall.
Relational sociology gives us a new perception of the ways in which individuals interact with their environment. This notion has been tackled by so many Vygotsky and Bronfenbrenner to name but a few, however, these looked at the individuals and the systems surrounding them. Relational sociology and Sturctuartion theory ( Bourdieu) enabled looking at how individuals function , and assume roles and positions in their surrounding networks and how these change to accommodate new understandings emerging from the interactions. This way networks surrounding an individual are not only dynamic but may change altogether as the individual may choose to move in and out of networks to suit their current understanding.
Mary
Interesting theory Derek, though not really introducing anything new.
Networks and they way they operate have been around since the 1930s. But it??s refreshing to see that educationalists are discovering them. When I first began my PhD and said I will look at learning through a Relationalist approach people at educational contexts regarded my approach as totally off the wall.
Relational sociology gives us a new perception of the ways in which individuals interact with their environment. This notion has been tackled by so many Vygotsky and Bronfenbrenner to name but a few, however, these looked at the individuals and the systems surrounding them. Relational sociology and Sturctuartion theory ( Bourdieu) enabled looking at how individuals function , and assume roles and positions in their surrounding networks and how these change to accommodate new understandings emerging from the interactions. This way networks surrounding an individual are not only dynamic but may change altogether as the individual may choose to move in and out of networks to suit their current understanding.
Hi Mary
thanks for the additional comments – I’m certainly not claiming the idea as new or original, simply putting my interpretation of it out there, something I committed to print in an effort to explain to some policy colleagues the way in which the nodal network operates, and why it is important not to simply think as anything that is suggesting a change to the completely de-centralised system we have at the moment is a return to centralised control. While I agree this idea has been around for a while, the understanding of it and the acceptance of it, certainly within government and policy levels, is not.
I guess that’s the point of these sorts of ideas – they keep on coming around until they take root!
Hi Derek
Indeed as you say, these kind of ideas take time to root, particularly since they require us to move beyond the either /or dichotomies we seem to fall back onto every time we encounter a problem.
Networks enable a multi facet view of situations, and depict the dynamic ever moving nature of real live situations- they are indeed fascinating. Trying to comprehend notions of control and power in networks is a bit complex. Although the ideology of the Internet was democratic, inclusive, and equal, this is not really the case, and I am not referring to issues of access related to the notorious digital divide but rather to the nature of networks as social entities. Detecting locus or loci of power in a network can be mathematically measured in various ways, which I will not get into here. However, using these measures for establishing roles and the effectiveness of performance of roles within systems(networks) of for example collaborating schools ( sharing resources- technological and others) would enable evaluation of situations and the allocation of resources where they are most needed.
Would be interesting to implement such a notion on a cluster of schools, mmmmm, sounds like fun. Any ideas where we could launch such an experiment? One case study would be worth more than thousands of words and would save you a lot of breath trying to explain it to policy makers- would you agree?
Cheers
Mary