Week 3 of the CCK08 Connectivism MOOC is principally about network theory. I've written a bit about this, notably about network analysis (Rob Cross) and network mapping (Valdis Krebs, who was this week's 'virtual guest lecturer').
All
week I've been reminded of how, especially once we reach age 50, we
tend to rely more and more on our networks -- both human networks
(communities) and knowledge networks (the places we store what we've
learned). This is partly due to the fact that we have ever more
knowledge to handle, and partly because as we age our short-term memory
weakens. Someone once said, famously, when asked how he could command
such an enormous store of knowledge, "I keep my knowledge in my
networks".
I've started using IM, VoIP, and Google Desktop to
recall my know-who ("who should I talk to about X again?"), my
know-what ("where was that great tapas bar in Vancouver?") and my
know-how ("what was step 6 in my Innovation Process?")
With a lifetime's practice I've learned to keep in mind that I am only a complicity, a space through which stuff passes,
and that my purpose is to touch
the right stuff in just the right way as it passes through, in a way
that brings meaning and joy and value to myself and to others in my
social networks, my communities. To do this I use a particular process (sense, self-control, understand, question, imagine, offer, collaborate) to address each issue, project, decision, and challenge I face each day.
Much
of this process is social, and it is conducted with members of my
communities, my social networks. In fact deciding who to include in
which networks, which networks to participate in, and how, and which
people to invest time in and seek conversation with (and perhaps even
which to trust and love) is probably the most important type of
decision I make each day.
This week, for example, I decided to meet with Jon Husband
for breakfast in San Jose (instead of going back to bed after a 6am
media interview on my book). That important breakfast conversation
inspired yesterday's post. And shortly after that I met with Second
Life friend Michelle Paradis for lunch in Santa Cruz, as prearranged,
and discovered to my delight that she had invited five other
fascinating people to join us: strategic change guru (and another
Second Life friend) Gary Merrill, creativity and narrative consultants Kenton Hyatt and Cheryl DiCiantis, and Living Strategy advisors (and animal menagerie owners) Arian Ward and Beth Alexandre.
Between the seven of us we discovered a remarkable number of
connections and common friends (many of which also included some of my
Tuesday dinner companions) -- to the point we realized that we were all
essentially already 'hidden' parts of each other's networks, one or at
most two degrees of separation apart. (Thanks so much to the amazing
Michelle for arranging all this!)
So I began to think about how
we make the decision on whether and how to accommodate new
acquaintances in our already time-constrained and attention-constrained
networks. After all, a recent study by Tom Davenport concluded that the
most effective (i.e. productive) people in organizations tended to be
those who had the strongest networks and who somehow were able to
invest a substantial amount of time each day in nurturing those
networks.
My right sidebar lists what I've been calling my
'gravitational community' -- the people with whom I have gravitated
because of common interests and passions, mutual admiration, respect
and love. My lengthier blogroll
has been moved off my home page to make room of this more important (to
me) list of key networks. These are people I allow and even encourage
to interrupt me, anytime, for instant conversations -- if I had known
them before the days of the Internet, they would be the people who I'd
invite to drop over unannounced, anytime.
All of this raises some very important questions about networks:
How
do we best decide who to include in our networks (or to put it another
way who are the people we're meant to be in community with)?
How
can we learn to accommodate more people and build deeper relationships
with those in our networks, without sacrificing other important
activities in our lives?
How much time should we invest in networks, with which members, in what ways, and how do we make the most of that time?
How do we discover the people who should be in our networks, but currently aren't?
My
knowledge networks -- the places I store and access knowledge that is
important, useful or memorable to me, are somewhat easier to manage,
because I use my blog to capture what are to me the important parts of
what I read, see, hear, discover, experience and learn, so I can then
use Google Desktop or the search bar of my blog to recall what I've
learned later, and even 're-learn' it quickly.
So much for
networks. The mindmap above is an earlier list of the things I believe
are most important to learn, the modern 'survival skills and knowledge'
list. I'm an advocate of unschooling (self-directed learning) and I
believe that we are naturally able to learn these things ourselves, as
soon as we discover they are important to us. But I also sense that the
modern education system has stripped most of us of this natural
learning ability in order to make us obedient and subservient. The
Connectivism discussions make it clear that we're as puzzled and
divergent in our views about learning as we are about networks. This
brings us to four more Important Questions:
If
learning is, as the instructors of this course contend, nothing more or
less than 'making connections' (neural, conceptual, and social), how do
we learn to learn the things in the chart above and the other things we
need to learn to be self-sufficient, useful members of communities --
to be who we were intended to be?
How do we discover what it is we need to learn?
How
do we learn to critically assess what we see, hear, and think, and
overcome the prejudices, prejudgements and worldviews that block us
from being open to new ideas, insights, perspectives and knowledge?
We all have learning 'disabilities' of one kind or another. How do we recognize and overcome them?
I'm
hoping that the Connectivism course will help answer these questions
over the next nine weeks. If it does, it will be an extraordinary
accomplishment. If it succeeds, it will probably be due not to the
catalyzing questions and readings of the course 'instructors', but to
the collective conversations of the hundreds of people engaged in the
course, with each other, in community. I'm hanging in to find out.
People
who have inspired or informed me frequently over the past few months.
For my full blogroll/online reference library, see
here. [* indicates
people I connect with in real time, f2f, via IM, Skype or SL chat.]
- original research,surveys etc.
- original,well-crafted fiction
- great finds: resources,blogs,essays, artistic works
- news not found anywhere else
- category killers: aggregators that capture the best of many blogs/feeds, so they need not be read individually
- clever, concise political opinion consistent with their own views
- benchmarks,quantitative analysis
- personal stories,experiences,lessons learned
- first-hand accounts
- live reports from events
- insight:leading-edge thinking & novel perspectives
- short educational pieces
- relevant "aha" graphics
- great photos
- useful tools and checklists
- précis, summaries, reviews and other time-savers
- fun stuff: quizzes, self-evaluations, other interactive content
Blog writers
want to see more:
- constructive criticism, reaction, feedback
- 'thank you' comments, and why readers liked their post
- requests for future posts on specific subjects
- foundation articles: posts that writers can build on, on their own blogs
- reading lists/aggregations of material on specific, leading-edge subjects that writers can use as resource material
- wonderful examples of writing of a particular genre, that they can learn from
- comments that engender lively discussion
- guidance on how to write in the strange world of weblogs