I recently listened to a Ted talk which focused on boredom as an impetus for creativity and advocated for disengaging with technology, specifically social network apps, in hope of spurring deeper thought. The theory being that our online networks are a crutch that we use to entertain ourselves.
I was considering my post about groups and networks on the way to work today and it occurred to me that much of the conversation starts by drawing a link to Web 2.0.
Stephen Downes speaks of Web 2.0 and the emergence of an interactive participatory web (Downes, S., 2007). McLoughlin, C. and Lee, M. likewise begin by describing Web 2.0 as a powerful tool allowing users to interact online at a greater level than ever before (McLoughlin, C. and Lee, M., 2008). They both describe a environment where websites allowed interaction; user-generated content, tagging, organising, sharing and liking and the then go on to suggest that pedagogy needs to more reflective of this new world.
However, I see elements of both. For example, Downes’ suggests that a group needs a leader and coordination, I think the online LMS course and seperate blog provides our coordination and Chris guides us in the web meetings. Further to this he suggests “a network thrives on diversity” (Downes, S. 2007) – looking at our class knowledge map there is diversity in our interests, however there are commonalities in our professional knowledge.
However, as for the argument for a network it is asserted that a network is an “association of entities or members where this association is facilitated or created by a set of connections between those entities” (Downes, S. 2007). I think one of these connections is the desire to study networked a global learning. We are studying it using a schema of our own making, “…that is to say each individual in a network operates independently” (Downes, S. 2007). Within our class have our own learning area for assignment 1 that interests us which we are exploring individually and then sharing the knowledge in a decentralised manner.
Downes, S. (2007). Groups vs Networks: The Class Struggle Continues. Retrieved 16 August, 2017, from http://www.downes.ca/post/42521
In this post I will apply the CLEM framework to my current experience of learning about blockchain technology and the practice of creating an application that utilises it.
I am getting to the point in my seeking of information where I want to start to synthesis and reflect on what I’ve read/heard so far. I typically do that by asking questions on where I can get more information or clarification on a particular area.
I am reminded of some pop-sociology called “Cunningham’s law” which states that “the best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it’s to post the wrong answer.” Cunningham’s Law. (2011)
Cunningham’s Law. (2011). Retrieved August 06, 2017, from https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law.
For assignment one, in the learner portion, I’ve begun learning about blockchain technology. I have a personal interest in learning how to develop applications that use the blockchain; working on creating a continuing professional development (CPD) register/database/eportfolio.
Here is my Personal Knowledge Management (PKM) style it illustrates how I get information, process it, and what I do with it afterwards.
The process column refers to the manner in which I will perform the PKM stage, when I am seeking for example; I will read and observe.
The methods column refers to the type of filter that I am applying to that process. When I am sharing the process is participation, I do that via the method of making comment, whilst others may participate by publishing or creating.
The tools column refers to the tools I use to enact the process.