Sept 25 - Auckland
Leigh Blackall
Quite an interesting day in Auckland yesterday. We kicked off at 2pm in Auckland University of Technology.We first had to get through some very restrictive network security, but as that was being worked out Alex grabbed a projector and set up a little photo slide show in the corner. The mingling crowd began to converge on the corner as seats where broken out of their rows and arranged around the projection. (we should have set up more projections).
About then I jumped in and introduced the FLNW group. We then asked the locals if there was anyone with similar interests or if they had issues they wanted to discuss. But there was a slight stand off still - we hadn't yet succeeded in opening up the space. Attempts at facilitating a whole group conversation were made using show of hands, and while some important issues and discussion was had, it was very much dominated by a few people.
We stopped for a coffee break, which is normally the time when smaller groups form to talk about the issues raised in the bigger group. This is about when the space starts to open in my opinion. Stephen tries to point out that breaking into smaller groups is when the space closes... I'm not sure myself... I think Stephen makes a very thought provoking observation. I recorded him explaining a white board diagram he made while the smaller groups discussed.
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-4126240905912531540&hl=en ">
At the end of the day (6pm) we summed up what each group said by Steven Parker running around with a video camera and grabbing footage of each group 'presenting' their discussions. Given that Steven jumped on a plane out of here today, I think it may take him a while to update his videos... watch that space in other words...
We finished around 7pm, still energised and inspired, and those left went to dinner together. I think the last person hit the pillow around 2am. Just another day of FLNW really :)
Now we are in Wellington, in the very impressive Museum Hotel.
eFest tomorrow - where I for one plan to try and bring all this together for a book - or more accurately, an album.
--
Posted by Leigh Blackall to THE FUTURE OF LEARNING IN A NETWORKED WORLD at 9/26/2006 03:02:00 PM
--
--
Leigh Blackall
+6421736539
skype - leigh_blackall
http://leighblackall.wikispaces.org/
Marg
I'm hanging out to see you all in Wellington!
I'll be at the front of ITPNZ on The Terrace at 11am to meet up with
those of you arriving there. Happy to go with (any collective) plans
for the day...
See you soon,
Marg
Leigh Blackall wrote:
> <http://static.flickr.com/108/252626496_a93fe965ae.jpg>Quite an interesting
> day in Auckland yesterday. We kicked off at 2pm in Auckland University of
> Technology.
>
> We first had to get through some very restrictive network security, but as
> that was being worked out Alex grabbed a projector and set up a little photo
> slide show <http://flickr.com/photos/tags/flnw/> in the corner. The mingling
> crowd began to converge on the corner as seats where broken out of their
> rows and arranged around the projection. (we should have set up more
> projections).
>
> About then I jumped in and introduced the FLNW group. We then asked the
> locals if there was anyone with similar interests or if they had issues they
> wanted to discuss. But there was a slight stand off still - we hadn't yet
> succeeded in opening up the space. Attempts at facilitating a whole group
> conversation were made using show of hands, and while some important issues
> and discussion was had, it was very much dominated by a few people.
>
> We stopped for a coffee break, which is normally the time when smaller
> groups form to talk about the issues raised in the bigger group. This is
> about when the space starts to open in my opinion. Stephen tries to point
> out that breaking into smaller groups is when the space closes... I'm not
> sure myself... I think Stephen makes a very thought provoking observation. I
> recorded him explaining a white board diagram he made while the smaller
> groups discussed.
>
> http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-4126240905912531540&hl=en">
>
> At the end of the day (6pm) we summed up what each group said by Steven
> Parker <http://sparker.blip.tv/> running around with a video camera and
> grabbing footage of each group 'presenting' their discussions. Given that
> Steven jumped on a plane out of here today, I think it may take him a while
> to update his videos... watch that space in other words...
>
> We finished around 7pm, still energised and inspired, and those left went to
> dinner together. I think the last person hit the pillow around 2am. Just
> another day of FLNW really :)
>
> Now we are in Wellington, in the very impressive Museum
> Hotel<http://www.museumhotel.co.nz/>
> .
>
> eFest <http://www.efest.org.nz/> tomorrow - where I for one plan to try and
> bring all this together for a book - or more accurately, an album.
>
> --
> Posted by Leigh Blackall to THE FUTURE OF LEARNING IN A NETWORKED
> WORLD<http://learningnetworkedworld.blogspot.com/2006/09/sept-25-auckland.html>at
> 9/26/2006 03:02:00 PM
>
>
> --
>
> --
> Leigh Blackall
> +6421736539
> skype - leigh_blackall
> http://leighblackall.wikispaces.org/
>
> ------=_Part_333_28805232.1159252718551
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
> X-Google-AttachSize: 3668
>
> <span class="gmail_quote"><br><br></span>
> <div text="black" bgcolor="white"><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://static.flickr.com/108/252626496_a93fe965ae.jpg" target="_blank"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 320px" alt="" src="http://static.flickr.com/108/252626496_a93fe965ae.jpg" border="0">
> </a>Quite an interesting day in Auckland yesterday. We kicked off at 2pm in Auckland University of Technology.<br><br>We first had to get through some very restrictive network security, but as that was being worked out Alex grabbed a projector and set up a little
> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://flickr.com/photos/tags/flnw/" target="_blank">photo slide show</a> in the corner. The mingling crowd began to converge on the corner as seats where broken out of their rows and arranged around the projection. (we should have set up more projections).
> <br><br>About then I jumped in and introduced the FLNW group. We then asked the locals if there was anyone with similar interests or if they had issues they wanted to discuss. But there was a slight stand off still - we hadn't yet succeeded in opening up the space. Attempts at facilitating a whole group conversation were made using show of hands, and while some important issues and discussion was had, it was very much dominated by a few people.
> <br><br>We stopped for a coffee break, which is normally the time when smaller groups form to talk about the issues raised in the bigger group. This is about when the space starts to open in my opinion. Stephen tries to point out that breaking into smaller groups is when the space closes... I'm not sure myself... I think Stephen makes a very thought provoking observation. I recorded him explaining a white board diagram he made while the smaller groups discussed.
> <br><br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-4126240905912531540&hl=en" target="_blank">http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-4126240905912531540&hl=en
> </a>"> <br><br>At the end of the day (6pm) we summed up what each group said by <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://sparker.blip.tv/" target="_blank">Steven Parker</a> running around with a video camera and grabbing footage of each group 'presenting' their discussions. Given that Steven jumped on a plane out of here today, I think it may take him a while to update his videos... watch that space in other words...
> <br><br>We finished around 7pm, still energised and inspired, and those left went to dinner together. I think the last person hit the pillow around 2am. Just another day of FLNW really :)<br><br>Now we are in Wellington, in the very impressive
> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.museumhotel.co.nz/" target="_blank">Museum Hotel</a>.<br><br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.efest.org.nz/" target="_blank">
> eFest</a> tomorrow - where I for one plan to try and bring all this together for a book - or more accurately, an album. <br><br>--<br><font color="gray" size="2">Posted by Leigh Blackall to <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://learningnetworkedworld.blogspot.com/2006/09/sept-25-auckland.html" target="_blank">
> THE FUTURE OF LEARNING IN A NETWORKED WORLD</a> at 9/26/2006 03:02:00 PM</font></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><br>--<br>Leigh Blackall<br>+6421736539<br>skype - leigh_blackall<br><a href="http://leighblackall.wikispaces.org/">
> http://leighblackall.wikispaces.org/</a>
>
> ------=_Part_333_28805232.1159252718551--
Leigh Blackall
Teemu Leinonen
I just read Stephen's post and checked the video from the Auckland
session. Interesting points. It in my mind I decided to wrote some
words to the list.
I am now in Manila and not sure if I miss more my "group" in Finland
or the one in one Pacific island. These groups are very different but
obviously connected in some level.
I feel very privileged to be able to be member of so many different
kind of "groups", some that stay alive longer (like being Finnish)
and some that are meant to be more add-hock and fragile. About some
groups I can't even say yet what their meaning for me (and the other
groups I am member of) will finally be. For instance I am not sure
what the FLNW group will finally mean for me.
What I know is that today my groups are more networked than ever
before. The "groups" are connected to each other and the individuals
are member of many different groups same time. It's a
multidimensional network of individuals and their groups.
The group here in Manila is very different from the one in Finland or
from the one I shared some open space last week. I am working hard to
adapt to the group in here.
I am not Buddhist, neither great supported of "the New Labour", but
could there be "middle way" or "third way"? Something that would be
between the "closed groups" and "individuals in open networks"?
Why we need the "middle way"? If we all are just individuals in a
network we will soon all be the same. Actually we would become one
huge group!
Finally I want to thank those who took such a good care of me in your
beautiful country with so diverse flora and hmm.. fauna. Take care.
You are all always welcome to my sauna (and wear a towel if you do
not feel "enough Finn" to be naked with others).
- Teemu
-----------------------------------------------
Teemu Leinonen
http://www.uiah.fi/~tleinone/
+358 50 351 6796
Media Lab
http://mlab.uiah.fi
University of Art and Design Helsinki
-----------------------------------------------
Stephen Downes
opinion would come from Finland.
"If we all are just individuals in a network we will soon all be the
same." This is transparently false.
It took exactly 24 hours for someone to propose a "middle way" (this is
what passes for innovation these days). "Could there be "middle way" or
"third way"? Something that would be between the 'closed groups' and
'individuals in open networks'?"
It will soon be noticed that a person can be both an individual (and
hence a member of a network) *and* a member of a group. That they can
belong to many networks and many groups. That any number of 'middle
ways' can be derived from variations on this theme.
More interesting would be to see some alternative 'middle way' in the
form of some sort of an organizational principle that allows things to
be both open and closed at the same time, that promotes both unity and
diversity at the same time, that promotes both cohesion autonomy at the
same time. Read up on your Hegel; you'll find it in Phenomenology of
Right. Is that where were you headed, Teemu? We all know our history, right?
More interestingly: web 1.0 is about groups, web 2.0 is about networks.
e-learning 1.0 is about groups, e-learning 2.0 is about networks.
Someone will write an article about that in a few weeks, probably,
carefully washing all sources.
The core of the issue is whether learning in general should be based on
groups or networks. Everybody says, 'learning is social', and thus (no?)
must be conducted in groups. But networks, too, are social. Learning can
be social and not conducted in groups. Where to now, social construction?
Is learning about subsuming your identity, or growing and asserting your
identity? Can we define ourselves by why we know and what we do, or must
we define ourselves by what we are and what we belong to? Yes, of course
you can do both at different times (I am 'Canadian' and 'I write') but
when the two conflict, as they inevitably do in education, which prevails?
There's always two ways to read my proposals: the simply way, which sets
them up as some sort of polarization (and therefore always open to a
'middle way'), and the accurate way, which enters the topic knowing that
I am writing, using limited vocabulary (since language is inherently not
sub-symbolic), about complex matters, and that the subtlety inherent in
complexity shoudl be understood as always forming a substrate.
Grapes and bananas. Yes, one can always have both, but in sequence.
Which first? It does not preclude the other, but it implies a choice.
Lurking in the background is always the blender, and you can make a
smoothie, even putting the two fruits in at the same time. But when you
just want a bite to eat - which first? It depends, of course, on what
you want to do, why you want to eat, and whether the economy of Ecuador
matters to you.
-- Stephen
Teemu Leinonen wrote:
--
Stephen Downes ~ Research Officer ~ National Research Council Canada
http://www.downes.ca ~ ste...@downes.ca __\|/__ Free Learning
--
Leigh Blackall
Stanley Frielick
In this case though, the dissenting opinion comes from Wellington NZ where the sky is grey (today).
I sometimes eat grapes and bananas (Ecuadorian mainly) at the same time – take a bite of banana and then pop a grape.
Nice mixture.
My 2c-more on this :
One can only participate in a 'network' if one has formed an identity in a 'group' .
(What is the difference between groups and networks ? – a network is simply an aggregation of groups – a metagroup, if you like.)
Re Hegel – like William Irwin Thompson, I think he should be inverted so he can talk to Marx (or is it the other way round ? :)
Point is – you can advocate the ideal of absolute freedom in a network, but education and authentic learning, like freedom, is wrapped up with the notion of responsibility and accountability.
The core of the issue is not whether education should be based on groups or networks (a false dichotomy imho). It's about both.
Not a 'middle way' - rather, a synthesis of the dialectic.
We learn to talk and walk in a group – the family. Later the group gets bigger – school. Groups of groups.
And then society – nations of groups of groups. It's all nested. Then the internet comes and networks the groups together. So what. It's still 'social'.
Learning is a journey to identity in communities of practice (Wenger).
We need to learn in groups ('safe' learning environments as Teemu suggests) because that's where we form our identities – not in some vast chaotic network where there is no responsibility, no authenticity.
See Herbert Dreyfus 'On the Internet' for the Kierkegaardian dimensions of this, and the limitations of the 'network' for learning…
I'm all for the sublety of complexity – but I have responsibilities to the political economy of learning in NZ .
So I ask – who is the audience of this Google group – is it just this group, or the network?
-Stanley
Stephen Downes
> I sometimes eat grapes and bananas (Ecuadorian mainly) at the same
> time – take a bite of banana and then pop a grape.
> Nice mixture.
I see. So you choose 'banana'.
> My 2c-more on this :
> One can only participate in a 'network' if one has formed an identity
> in a 'group' .
> (What is the difference between groups and networks ? – a network is
> simply an aggregation of groups – a metagroup, if you like.)
Hm. "What is the difference between groups and networks ?" You could try
addressing the entire graphic I just posted on that.
> Re Hegel – like William Irwin Thompson, I think he should be inverted
> so he can talk to Marx (or is it the other way round ? :)
Hegel predates Marx. Both saw individual freedom as subordinating
oneself to the group.
> Point is – you can advocate the ideal of absolute freedom in a
> network, but education and authentic learning, like freedom, is
> wrapped up with the notion of responsibility and accountability.
This is just a cliche. Where is the argument here? If you unwrap this,
what you are saying is that freedom is fine, but you have to submit to
authority. But this misrepresents both what is meant by freedom and what
is meant by responsibility.
You aren't thinking about this - you are just responding.
> The core of the issue is not whether education should be based on
> groups or networks (a false dichotomy imho). It's about both.
On what basis do you call this a false dichotomy? On what basis do you
call this a dichotomy, especially since in the video I explicitly reject
the depiction of the drawing as setting up some sort of absolute in this
way?
> Not a 'middle way' - rather, a synthesis of the dialectic.
OK, let's suppose you are right in this. Synthesis works by finding the
thesis and antithesis, and then through a process of analysis,
identifying the common underlying reality expressed in the two. So what
is the common underlying reality here?
What I get from you is just: more group. That's not synthesis. That's
picking one side, and saying it's the middle ground.
> We learn to talk and walk in a group – the family. Later the group
> gets bigger – school. Groups of groups.
> And then society – nations of groups of groups. It's all nested.
> Then the internet comes and networks the groups together. So what.
> It's still 'social'.
See? More group.
> Learning is a journey to identity in communities of practice (Wenger).
... and the self is shaped by the group.
http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=21457&format=full
According to Wenger.
But suppose that's not right? Suppose people like Turkle and Boyd are right?
Listen to my audio today when I post it later, I address this explicitly.
> We need to learn in groups ('safe' learning environments as Teemu
> suggests) because that's where we form our identities – not in some
> vast chaotic network where there is no responsibility, no authenticity.
> See Herbert Dreyfus 'On the Internet' for the Kierkegaardian
> dimensions of this, and the limitations of the 'network' for learning…
Dreyfus's contentions are based on a misrepresentation of the 'reality'
of network interactions. See
http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=92
> I'm all for the sublety of complexity – but I have responsibilities to
> the political economy of learning in NZ .
> So I ask – who is the audience of this Google group – is it just this
> group, or the network?
The network. Links go out.
If it was just a group I wouldn't bother. Who wants to scan the horizon
from within the confines of four walls?
-- Stephen
sparker
Steven
Stephen Downes wrote:
> Stanley Frielick wrote:
>
> > I sometimes eat grapes and bananas (Ecuadorian mainly) at the same
> > time - take a bite of banana and then pop a grape.
> > Nice mixture.
>
> I see. So you choose 'banana'.
>
> > My 2c-more on this :
> > One can only participate in a 'network' if one has formed an identity
> > in a 'group' .
> > (What is the difference between groups and networks ? - a network is
> > simply an aggregation of groups - a metagroup, if you like.)
>
> Hm. "What is the difference between groups and networks ?" You could try
> addressing the entire graphic I just posted on that.
>
> > Re Hegel - like William Irwin Thompson, I think he should be inverted
> > so he can talk to Marx (or is it the other way round ? :)
>
> Hegel predates Marx. Both saw individual freedom as subordinating
> oneself to the group.
>
> > Point is - you can advocate the ideal of absolute freedom in a
> > network, but education and authentic learning, like freedom, is
> > wrapped up with the notion of responsibility and accountability.
>
> This is just a cliche. Where is the argument here? If you unwrap this,
> what you are saying is that freedom is fine, but you have to submit to
> authority. But this misrepresents both what is meant by freedom and what
> is meant by responsibility.
>
> You aren't thinking about this - you are just responding.
>
> > The core of the issue is not whether education should be based on
> > groups or networks (a false dichotomy imho). It's about both.
>
> On what basis do you call this a false dichotomy? On what basis do you
> call this a dichotomy, especially since in the video I explicitly reject
> the depiction of the drawing as setting up some sort of absolute in this
> way?
>
> > Not a 'middle way' - rather, a synthesis of the dialectic.
>
> OK, let's suppose you are right in this. Synthesis works by finding the
> thesis and antithesis, and then through a process of analysis,
> identifying the common underlying reality expressed in the two. So what
> is the common underlying reality here?
>
> What I get from you is just: more group. That's not synthesis. That's
> picking one side, and saying it's the middle ground.
>
> > We learn to talk and walk in a group - the family. Later the group
> > gets bigger - school. Groups of groups.
> > And then society - nations of groups of groups. It's all nested.
> > Then the internet comes and networks the groups together. So what.
> > It's still 'social'.
>
> See? More group.
>
> > Learning is a journey to identity in communities of practice (Wenger).
>
> ... and the self is shaped by the group.
> http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=21457&format=full
>
> According to Wenger.
>
> But suppose that's not right? Suppose people like Turkle and Boyd are right?
>
> Listen to my audio today when I post it later, I address this explicitly.
>
> > We need to learn in groups ('safe' learning environments as Teemu
> > suggests) because that's where we form our identities - not in some
> > vast chaotic network where there is no responsibility, no authenticity.
> > See Herbert Dreyfus 'On the Internet' for the Kierkegaardian
> > dimensions of this, and the limitations of the 'network' for learning...
>
> Dreyfus's contentions are based on a misrepresentation of the 'reality'
> of network interactions. See
> http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=92
>
> > I'm all for the sublety of complexity - but I have responsibilities to
> > the political economy of learning in NZ .
> > So I ask - who is the audience of this Google group - is it just this
Leigh Blackall
Picture this:
20 x 5 year olds in their first kindy class.
Teacher splits them into groups of 4.
Teacher hands out standard art paper and standard crayons
Teacher asks kids to draw their house.
Sally sits, slightly confused, more than a bit frighten, peering at the stark white.
Sally looks at Tommy - long time accustomed to learning in groups through his 3 years of day care.
She see Tommy well on his way with blue sky, green grass, box house with 2 windows and a tilted chimny, stick figure dad, mum, brother and dog.
Sally grabs the blue crayon and begins to colour in a blue sky as best she can with cobalt crayon.
Learning in groups.
Is this what you mean Stephen?
Leigh Blackall
Parker, Steven
Yes will do so I have a feeling the mic quality on the MacBook is poor. Can you send me Teemus links to scenario based learning have to rush off. Won’t be on net. Can you also aemaIL teemu about dark room, he mnentioend in another interview. Have to go now ciao
**********************************************************************
This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain
privileged information or confidential information or both. If you
are not the intended recipient please delete it and notify the sender.
**********************************************************************
Brent
----------------------------------
http://auckland.wiki.org.nz
You live it, You write it.
----------------------------------
alexanderhayes
resistance is useless ) in their individual physical form and in an
attempt to converse, often assume the same poses / formations / power
posing / wall building that they seek to avoid in an online networked
learning world.
>From my observations this has been another theme we need to add to the
list via the FLNW del.icio.us album.
The difference between a banana and a grape is that in meeting they
have the choice of acknowledging they are part of the same fruit salad.
Placing one's nose close to the edge of the dish informs you more of
the state of health of the mix.
Groups require individuals to seek air more often than not.
Teemu Leinonen
> Hegel predates Marx. Both saw individual freedom as subordinating
> oneself to the group.
Then there is the latest contribution to the "Hegelian tradition".
Francis Fukuyama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Fukuyama) and
his book "The End of History and the Last Man". Fukuyama claims that
we will all be the same: calculating, capitalistic, individualistic,
liberal and hmm... free - the way defined by him.
<= And please do not make any fast conclusions: I do not see or claim
any person on this list to be like this. It is just my interpretation
of the Fukuyama's view of the future human in a world without borders
or boundaries.
How wrong he was. I like border and boundaries. I like getting over
them, not destroying them.
- Teemu
Teemu Leinonen
> Point is – you can advocate the ideal of absolute freedom in a
> network, but education and authentic learning, like freedom, is
> wrapped up with the notion of responsibility and accountability.
> We need to learn in groups ('safe' learning environments as Teemu
> suggests) because that's where we form our identities – not in some
> vast chaotic network where there is no responsibility, no
> authenticity.
Just want to point out these paragraphs from Stanley's post. Well
said - thank you.
Responsibility, accountability and authenticity are contextual and
situational - with a word bound to history, cultures and sub-
cultures. They are different in different "groups". There are no
universal norm, just like someone pointed out in some discussion last
week.
Who's interpretation of these is then right? The one who get most
hits in the network?
- Teemu
Nichols, Mark
I've been a ROP (Read Only Participant) but thought to offer a thought on Stephen's distinction between groups and networks. People are usually 'placed' into groups, but they 'form' networks. This, I reckon, is a nice distinction between e-learning 1.0 and 2.0.
The consistent challenge for me with Web 2.0 is how to achieve it within existing institutions. I realise that many of you would happily perform an extreme HE makeover, but the reality is that we still need to apply our efforts within highly structured environments.
By all means stir up for revolution, but until (read 'if') that happens e-learning 2.0 will need to somehow mainstream within the existing places that we know and love so well (and, for many of us, rely on for income).
Cheers - hope to meet some of you at eFest!
Mark.
Stanley Frielick
acknowledge that you want to avoid an absolutist interpretation and I
do have a better understanding of the subtleties and complexities. But
from an educational (rather philosophical) perspective the distinction
you draw between 'groups' and 'networks' sounds like the difference
between 'closed' and 'open' learning environments. So I guess for me
it's not than 'elearning 1.0 = groups (=bad?)' and 'elearning 2.0 =
networks (=good?)', but rather that (good) education has always been a
synthesis of both 'closed' and 'open' learning. The advent of the
internet doesn't necessarily change that. It does disrupt obsolete
practices, open up new spaces and approaches, flatten the hierarchies
- but it's not the panacea for all our educational ills.
As novices we learn mainly by imitation - copying moves, styles,
gestures, ways of seeing and thinking - in 'closed' environments
(groups, classes, courses, multiple-choice questions, the 5-yr old
kindy class) and gradually acquire competence and mastery through a
dialectical movement into 'open' learning. The word 'education'
itself has its Latin roots in a dialectic of educere/educare - to
instill and to lead out. Like evolution, it's both a conserving and
subversive activity. Being free doesn't mean submitting to authority,
but rather having the authority and ability to respond - to know when,
why and how to act appropriately, to respect other cultures.... I
think Dreyfus is saying that this kind of intellectual, emotional and
spiritual maturity cannot be acquired *solely* on the internet.
Yes you can learn to swim by being thrown into the deep end, but the
chances are that you might drown as well. Or as Bateson suggests,
it's the necessary tension between rigour (closed, groups) and
imagination (open, networks). Too much rigour leads to paralysis, too
much imagination and you go insane.... for me, it's about the
balance, synthesis, integration - healthy fruit salad ?.
On 9/27/06, Stephen Downes <ste...@downes.ca> wrote:
>
Leigh Blackall
Bronwyn Hegarty
bron
On 9/27/06, Leigh Blackall <leighb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I was walking through the mall today and 'bing' it went (I think).
>
> Picture this:
> 20 x 5 year olds in their first kindy class.
> Teacher splits them into groups of 4.
> Teacher hands out standard art paper and standard crayons
> Teacher asks kids to draw their house.
> Sally sits, slightly confused, more than a bit frighten, peering at the
> stark white.
> Sally looks at Tommy - long time accustomed to learning in groups through
> his 3 years of day care.
> She see Tommy well on his way with blue sky, green grass, box house with 2
> windows and a tilted chimny, stick figure dad, mum, brother and dog.
> Sally grabs the blue crayon and begins to colour in a blue sky as best she
> can with cobalt crayon.
> Learning in groups.
>
> Is this what you mean Stephen?
>
--
----------------------------------
http://auckland.wiki.org.nz
You live it, You write it.
----------------------------------
Bronwyn Hegarty
Staff Developer: Flexible Learning
Educational Development Centre
F204
Otago Polytechnic
Private bag 1910
Dunedin.
email:bron...@tekotago.ac.nz
Ph: 03 479 3600 or 0800 762786 ext 8360
cell: 021 735438
fax: 64 3 471 6872