Learning in the wings

I am sorry this photo has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of this blog post...until I find a 'chute'.

That's the risk of lazy Googling.

WTF I love ballet.

I was curious to read a fairly recent article about #rhizo14 and I went off to download the aforementioned article.

It was in pdf format.

I wanted to annotate it, as I read, to spark ideas from the margins or just overcome boredom.

I turned to the hypothes.is application which I have started to use more thanks to the learning company of Terry Elliott, Kevin Hodgson, Joe Dillon, Sarah Honeychurch, and Tania Sheko.

A video about hypothes.is can be viewed below:

I wanted to annotate the article in pdf format with others so I asked Sarah Honeychurch to join in.

Then started a tortuous learning path into the functioning of the application with pdfs.

If you have a webpage url - its dead easy.

With the extension activated you simply annotate and you can share your page with annotations.

Here is an example of annotation of one of my blog posts with images from master annotater Terry Elliott: https://via.hypothes.is/http://tachesdesens.blogspot.com/2016/02/target-practice.html 

You can share the link as above and if the annotations are public you can then join in and annotate with the aforesaid Chrome browser extension.

In the case of pdfs, you first need to download a pdf.

Then you need to check the extension settings to make sure you can annotate files locally.

Next you drag the file to your Chrome brower.

You then annotate as usual.

What is strange is that when you first open a pdf file (your copy on your hard disk) that someone has annotated you think that the annotations will be linked to a specific url.

Your pdfs will be completely different downloaded copies.

However if you and your friend have your local copy and both have hypothes.is activated you can annotate collaboratively.

When you first open the pdf you will see NOTHING has been annotated. (this stumped me for hours)

However if you do one annotation and refresh the page you will magically see all the previous annotations of the pdf appear.

In other words you may have 30 people with 30 different copies of the pdf and there will be one set of annotations for the same pdf. (At least this is my hypothesis for today - I have only tested this with Sarah).

Of course this might have disadvantages...

I suppose it would be possible simply to define a group rather than publish publicly to get round any problems here...

So here is a pdf link to download which we have already worked on:
http://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/view/2486/1342

If you are interested in #rhizo14 or rhizomatic learning research come and join in.

If not don't waste your time.

So I didn't waste my time reading and annotating the article.

One might even say that a solidly arboreal article has been connected to Deleuzian and Guattarian concepts with a few flaky lines of flight.

I have been learning in the wings....

I regret I shall never be a ballerina.

PS

Here are some notes (very tree-like) on the syncronisation of local and web pdf files.
https://hypothes.is/blog/synchronizing-annotations-between-local-and-remote-pdfs/


Footnote

[for definitions of the French term 'chute' here is some more French:  https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chute]

Faustian pact.

Saint Wolfgang and the Devil, by Michael Pacher.

"Faustian bargain [( fow -stee-uhn)] Faust, in the legend, traded his soul to the devil in exchange for knowledge. To “strike a Faustian bargain” is to be willing to sacrifice anything to satisfy a limitless desire for knowledge or power."

I see that participants in the Rhizomatic Learning Facebook Group have been playing around with its title...again.

The lastest version, unless it has been changed while I write this is:

Rhizomatic Learning - Uncut.

I find this comes with a certain amount of irony.

Let me explain.

I spent a couple of hours yesterday looking through and annotating an e-book created by Dave Cormier entitled: "Making the community the curriculum." 

In the introduction there is a presentation of "rhizomatic learning" which I have framed in a Vialogues for future possible annotation.

In the video Dave Cormier introduces his appropriation/extraction/cutting of the rhizome from the work of Deleuze and Guattari to talk of 

•  the complex, unpredictable, nature of learning

•  .the idea that important/interesting learning is complex and does not follow a predefined path

•  "rhizomatic learning" as an approach which is concerned with important, complex learning 

• "rhizomatic learning" as an approach which has no predetermined outcomes

• "rhizomatic learning" as approach which enables learners to confront/understand/deal with the complex nature of knowledge and learning 

To illustrate complexity he connects "rhizomatic learning" to Dave Snowden's Cynefin Framework

To what extent does the "rhizomatic learning" approach have emergent learning as its objective, I wonder? 

Are there levels of "rhizomaticness"?

To what extent is building of (pseudo/model) community essential in "rhizomatic learning." 

As far as I can make out - the formation of some sort of community is at the heart of the "rhizomatic learning approach".

We must surely differentiate between "rhizomatic learning" "rhizome as story of learning" and "rhizomatic learning approach." 

One aspect of my personal experience of the "rhizomatic learning approach" which has been particularly interesting is how different learners have been drawn to different attractors present of which these are a number:

"rhizome as story of learning"

"rhizomatic learning approach"

"rhizomatic learning"

"rhizome, knowlege and power"

Deleuze and Guattari's "rhizome" and in particular the source for Dave Cormier's its appropriation - "A thousand Plateaux."

 This is what I find ironic in the title "Rhizomatic Learning - Uncut."

Some of the conflict within "Rhizomatic Learning" "communities" has come from an unholy alliance of these various strands. 

This has made for good sport (seen from the perspective of some) or a frustrating/confusing experience (seen from the perspective of others.)

In order to make sense of what people have been trying to do/learn under the umbrella term "rhizomatic learning" we are obliged to cut it up into different strands/tendencies.

This morning I spent some time rereading Dave Harris's very helpful review of #rhizo15  entitled helpfully:

"Rhizo15 - some thoughts on an online course." 

For anyone interested in trying to unravel some of these aforementioned strands I recommending reading the above.

Dave Cormier's comment on Dave Harris' review illustrates how he has extracted Deleuze and Guattari's rhizome and also how the original rhizome pursues him...

Dave Cormier Dave Harris... I guess I call it Rhizomatic Learning because that's how I came to the ideas. I've certainly never called it 'an exact representation of the ideas of Deleuze and Guattari' or made claims to a 'close reading'. I keep returning to Deleuze especially... but to ATP in general for inspiration. I am not, nor do I ever hope to be seen as a 'real' academic. I'm trying to translate concepts that i think are very important to make them useful to people... and i don't really care if those people 'get them right'. Dewey looms large in any good conversation about learning and you're right, you could pretty much take anything from the 'constructive wing' of the learning house and call it Dewey. I've always been frustrated by the lack of play that these concepts get... even though i've met hundreds of people who seem to need these concepts to combat RANDian type concepts.

The reason I don't call it connectivism is that I find connectivism too tidy. Too tied to authority. Much like your close reading of ATP, I wonder what the purpose is of trying to get things right in that way. You no doubt have a deeper knowledge of the work than I do, and the work you put into your review of #rhizo15 is amazing. And you could be right (and certainly are in some instances) we were not always rhizomatic or rhizomatic enough. We were not 'right' in our rhizo-ness.

My life experience has been that we aren't really served by getting things 'right' in the complex domain. Sure i want the angle on the wings of the airplane I'm flying in to be right... and I"m happy someone negotiates those complicated things. What I'm grasping for is to find a way to encourage the multiple, to support complexity. There are LOTS of ways that didn't happen. But I was trying to find a way to have it happen without forcing it. The negotiations, the lines of flight this might engender, the literacies that it builds... those seem more important to me somehow. 

 Ultimately Deleuze and Guattari's rhizome is resistant, it pops up all over the place, is difficult to control, if you cut a part of it, it replants itself...

One might say that Deleuze and Guattari's rhizome is a damn sight more resistant than Dave Cormier's version...

If one makes a pact with the Devil (Deleuze and Guattari) it appears he (they) wants all your soul.

There is another Faustian pact being made here, one might suggest:

"The rhizomatic learning approach" has been tied to the internet with its unholy alliance of geek hippy liberation and triumphant, globalising, neoliberal capitalism. 

If the "Community is the curriculum" what the hidden curriculum?

If the community is disconnected from local territory, from local culture, what is the value of the community?

Who profits from a disembodied community? 

If one makes a educational pact with the internet, as a progressive educator, or as a critical educator, are our souls at risk of damnation?

 

 

 

  

 

  

 

 

Party management

I have to note this down immediately.

It is an important leap for me.

I am fascinated by story.

I was toying with complexity thanks to an improbable connection made as the result of remarking a Facebook conversation.

I wrote a post asking about the compatibility of story to complexity.

I had never heard of the term: 'Homo Narrans'.

I concluded my post a few hours ago with 'we are story.'

Homo Narrans...indeed.

I reflected on the patterns which emerged from my post.

I went and Googled complexity and narrative.

I fell upon a couple of videos by Dave Snowden (a person unknown to me).

I watched a first one. I watched it a second time. I shared it with friends of my network.

Terry Elliott immediately set up a Vialogue with the first video.


I will return once again to annotate.

There was a metaphor which immediately resonated.

Dave Snowden talks of different approaches to party management - for party management think classroom management, think education.

A complex systems approach to education therefore entails determining boundaries to what is acceptable and making sure that these boundaries are flexible and open to negotiation with the learners.

'Catalytic probes' are introduced, in the kids' party example -  'a video', 'a barbecue', 'a computer game', in the hope that a pattern of play (learning) will form.

If the kids group around the 'video game' it is what might be called 'an attractor' and if this 'attractor' is beneficial to the 'party' (think education,think language learning) we amplify it and if it is a 'negative attractor we dampen it.'

'We manage the emergence of beneficial coherence within attractors, within boundaries.

As an educator we manage what can be managed (not learning), we manage 'for emergence' (of learning).

This all suddenly rang bells with discussions around rhizomatic learning.

This all suddenly rang bells with discussions that I had been having with my colleague this week.

Over a number of years, we have been defining potential attractors, people, communities, activities inside or outside of the classroom, online or offline, negotiating boundaries with learners and colleagues, amplifying the beneficial activities, dampening the 'negative ones'.

We are constantly working in the present to adapt what we are doing.

'Managing the evolutionary present'.
Dave Snowden

We are in constant beta.

I never had this technical language before.

Along the way, we have been benefiting from the stories emerging from the participants.

We are constantly trying to rewrite our own narratives faced with complexity.

Dave Snowden's next points about research methodology - distributed ethnography will require weeks of study.

I then watched a second video of his entitled 'How not to manage complexity.'

Such an important conference!

I have much reading and listening to do.

I made a link with conversations that I had had with Bruno Winck about knowledge managment.

On reading around, I fell upon the Cynefin Framework, a diagram that I had seen before, noted, but never searched the source.

It was a framework that Viplav Baxi had talked about in a conversation that I had noted partially a few hours before...

I have a fair amount of learning to do...

Toying with complexity

"What difference do you think you can make - one single man in all this madness?" 

Terence Malick. 
The Thin Red Line.


The forces laid out on the floor were aligned in battle order.

The infantrymen were placed in front of the artillery with the cavalry waiting in the wings.

With one glorious charge the cavalry shattered the enemy lines, men fell like ninepins.

Victory was sweet.

I had it all planned out in my mind.

"I will join the marines. I want to be a commando."

The storyline changed over the years.

I was watching a conference of Dave Cormier.

At first I thought nothing of it.
I watched it again.
I thought nothing of it.

Then I read a comment stream.

I don't know why.

Boredom perhaps.

There was a conversation going on between Viplav Baxi and Dave Cormier.

Viplav Baxi Awesome Dave Cormier! I loved your talk and you made a really clear and cogent argument for change. Kudos! Will probably follow up with some thoughts on the Cynefin framework - I really don't believe that anything is really that "simple".

Like · Reply · 8 hrs

Hide 15 Replies

Dave Cormier will be buy that sometimes refying to simple is a useful expedient?

Like · Reply · 7 hrs

Viplav Baxi Just worried that simplifying what is not simple may reify current practices

Like · Reply · 7 hrs

Viplav Baxi So by saying 'what is the capital of France' is 'simple' to google and answer maybe reifying the mindlessness of rote

Like · Reply · 7 hrs

Viplav Baxi And justifying traditional practices of assessment for those 'kinds' of questions or knowledge

Like · Reply · 7 hrs

Dave Cormier Think about all the things we reify in learning to drive a car. If you tried to understand each of the steps you'd be overwhelmed.

Like · Reply · 7 hrs

Dave Cormier So we say 'pressing the gas pedal makes the car go faster'

Like · Reply · 7 hrs

Viplav Baxi You are right of you are focused on the outcome. But is that education?

Like · Reply · 7 hrs

Dave Cormier Viplav i'm never in favour of justfiying assessment smile emoticon

Like · Reply · 7 hrs

Dave Cormier Viplav sometimes. Education is just social shaping. We can shape it a bunch of different ways

Like · Reply · 7 hrs

Dave Cormier I'm in favour of shaping the main instrument of education towards complexity

Like · Reply · 7 hrs

Dave Cormier But sometimes i just want to 'learn' how to use my coffee roaster. Tell me what to do. I"ll do it.

Like · Reply · 7 hrs

Viplav Baxi Reading Dewey right now. So introspecting. He writes that etymologically education means just a process of leading or bringing up. When we have the outcome in mind-that is when we talk in terms of shaping into the standard form of social activity

Like · Reply · 7 hrs

Viplav Baxi If we stick to the former definition then we lead to instead of design to

Like · Reply · 7 hrs

Dave Cormier all we can do, i think, is try to broaden the definition of education in inclusive ways. i think 'changing the definition' is probably more tgan we'll be able to accomplish

Like · Reply · 6 hrs

Viplav Baxi Broaden the definition?

Like · Reply · 1 hr

There was one comment of Dave Cormier which sparked my thinking:

"I'm in favour of shaping the main instrument of education towards complexity."

"How can education not be an illustration of complexity?" I thought to myself.

Then I read:

"But sometimes I just want to 'learn' how to use my coffee roaster. Tell me what to do. I'll do it."

I thought of ritual, of habitual, of process, of story.

I remembered a comment of my grandmother, aged 80.

"When I look at myself in the mirror, I just don't recognise myself."

I remembered a comment of my mother, aged 75.

"When I look at myself in the mirror, I just don't recognise myself."

They were unhappy with a plot-line which had escaped them.

I remembered a slogan on a t-shirt.

This is not the life we ordered...

I thought of climate change.

I thought of the people gathered together in some hangar, just North of Paris, hugging each other at their part played in some historic agreement.

Heroic.



"What difference do you think you can make - one single man in all this madness?" 

Terence Malick. The Thin Red Line.

I was watching a trailer for a documentary entitled 'The Ecstasy of Wilko Johnson.'

In the documentary, a man faces up to his imminent demise:

"The idea that death is imminent makes you realise what a wonderful thing it is to be alive."
Wilko Johnson.

He becomes hyperaware of the joy of his existence.

"Everything lifted off of me. The present, future, past, it was all concentrated down into the moment...I'm alive."
Wilko Johnson.

"How does one 'shape education' towards complexity?" I thought to myself.

What is life if not complex?

What is education if not story?

Is complexity compatible with story?

"Everything lifted off of me. The present, future, past, it was all concentrated down into the moment...I'm alive."
Wilko Johnson.

What are these stories?

I thought of Terence Malick.





I don't know why.

"What difference do you think you can make - one single man in all this madness?" 

Terence Malick. The Thin Red Line.