Hi everyone.
George, thanks for participating in our chaotic Elluminate session. Your ability to speak to such divergent questions was amazing. I probably should have reined the session in a bit and ensured you had a chance to present the fundamental concepts of knowing knowledge before getting in to the many deep questions that were asked but your book encourages embracing chaos, confusion, emotion and not knowing as part of the learning ecology so I let it go. And you did great – albeit speaking at warp speed!
I noticed in the Elluminate session, and its probably true here in this discussion forum too, that some are very familiar with your work and have read your book Knowing Knowledge, while others are less familiar with your work and may not yet have read your book.
I thought it might be useful as a foundation piece for discussion to reference what you describe as the five broad purposes of your Knowing Knowledge book which are:
- To conceptualize learning and knowing as connection based processes.
- To explore the nature of change in the context in which knowledge exists.
- To explore the change in the characteristics of knowledge itself.
- To present knowledge as a context game.
- To present a model for the spaces and structures which will serve the needs of our organizations (schools, universities, and corporations) for tomorrow.
It might be useful to explore each of these a bit so to get that started I have a few questions related to each purpose. It would be great to hear what you and others have to say about each of these as we all learn together about knowing knowledge.
- Knowing Knowledge argues that capacity for connection forming lies at the heart of knowledge exchange today and that design of methods, organizations, and systems benefit most by allowing greatest opportunity for connectivity. I love the way this shifts learning away from content consumption to interaction. It seems to me this corresponds to the old adage “Its not what you know its who you know.” If knowledge is based on connecting with people how should our schools and universities adjust their methods of teaching?
- The context for knowledge is related to our own personal context - our physical state, our spiritual beliefs, our social context, our cognitive abilities. We all have our own perspective. Your book suggests that learning is like opening a door to a new way of perceiving and knowing – adopting a different perspective. Should we transition formal education from localized activities happening within defined geographic boundaries to more global activities in order to benefit from diversity of world views?
- The preface to Knowing Knowledge states that knowledge has changed from categorization and hierarchies to networks and ecologies. I think I can see the relationship of networks to connectivism but ecologies is a bit tougher. How is knowledge an ecology? In biological terms I understand an ecology to be the abundance, distribution and interactions between organisms and their environment. I don’t quite see how knowledge is an ecology.
- See question 2.
- I’m very interested in the implications of knowing knowledge and connectivism on educational structures and spaces. Technology and online learning environments are changing the education habitat from being a physical classroom and school to that of a virtual environment involving interactions with others outside the physical habitat. This seems in keeping with connectivism but suggests virtual habitat needs as much attention as the physical one. What suggestions do people have for both the design of these virtual spaces as well as the redesign of existing physical spaces to be connectivist friendly?
Paul