find intro, multiple accesses, and all 6 weeks here:
[link to p2pu image below for link for w2 unhangout.. thurs, jan 23, 530pm mst]
and link to doodle for alternate (because of time zones) un un hangout.. so simply a hangout?
4 min in.. sounds like compromise to partial freedom is no freedom (that i’m not sure we can afford)
can we make people dependent/free if you have an agenda.. ? ie: can we force independence within the system? (maybe defiance.. but not the kind of independence that breeds community/interdependence… ?)
i think anytime you make people (d0/be) things.. those things don’t last.
and.. if you are in the position where you feel you need to make people (do/be) things.. perhaps we need to ask if it’s really needed/necessary/humane…?
as posted in fb:
learning chaos (source included in link)
love this share..
The Power of Networks – Manuel Lima
also will share a shortened version of her rhizome overview ish:
- any point of a rhizome can be connected to any other, and must be
- only when the multiple is effectively treated as a substantive, “multiplicity” that it ceases to have any relation to the One
- a rhizome may be broken, but it will start up again on one of its old lines, or on new lines
- a rhizome is not amenable to any structural or generative model; it is a “map and not a tracing”
also love her take heed ness:
Falling into the tendency to think about rhizomatic learning within formal educational contexts.
links to pdf
in fb thread on rhizome vs connectivism.. via dave:
I will say that George tends to see the objective as tending toward objectivity and I tend to see that as a false path. This is where the theory becomes really helpful. D&G talk about lines of flight. Imagine a network model in your head. It has dots and lines and the dots and lines all connect to each other. It’s tidy. This is how I see connectivism. When I think about rhizomatic learning, I see lines unconnected to dots, and dots without lines. I see things that people believe that contradict themselves. It’s very messy.
As for ‘where rhizomatic learning fits in educational theory’ questions generally… I don’t think a purveyor of a given story (or theory, if you like) should be the person to decide where it fits. I had an argument in wikipedia 3 years ago with a guy about rhizomatic learning (for an entry i hadn’t entered) and realized that if there wasn’t a sufficient number of other people to argue with him (and his arguments were REALLY annoying to me) than I should leave it alone. If it becomes important to other people, they will place it, with less bias than I would. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rhizome_(philosophy)#what.3F
- Sarah Honeychurch Whether you meant it or not it is a good challenge. I also realise that I looked at that page and hated it, and my supervisor also said it was shite. Hadn’t looked at the comments page before though
- Keith has the nicest touch on that subject of anyone I’ve read. Super nice guy too. Might be a nice project to try and fix the description and make it human readable.
i’m all for clearing up and ongoing editing.. because i think that models how learning is rhizomatic.. that ongoing re-ness. we’ll never be done – ness…no? (bernard shaw) but i’m also for being ok with others not understanding… until they really want to. or have experienced it enough to put in their own words. or question it rather than debunk it – just because they don’t understand. all the dance. no? it’s like the stream that made Dave grumpy again.. is just modeling the disconnected dot.. and line.. ness.
on the 3 characteristics of social labs (social, experimental, systemic):
..perhaps more than anything else, together they represent integrity and honesty—they are not what we want solutions to look like, but what we have found they actually look like when effective. – Zaid Hassan
more from Zaid:
This banishment of messy and potentially embarrassing emotions is one hallmark of the expert-planning paradigm.
Madhura Pradhan on fb:I find it ironic that people talk about their qualifications and researches and their ability to read and understand critical theory when that is not the aim of this uncourse at all. As long as everyone “gets” the generic meaning of it, all is well and we progress as a community. How everyone reaches to the end is immaterial. If you get the theory without reading it, you have cheated brilliantly.
posted on fb
Just to change the flow of conversation a little, I came across this video in the G+ #rhixo14 community. Improvisation, an interesting word in the edu context. If we are too structured with lesson design & delivery is Rhizomatic Learning stifled? What if we relax a bit, go with the flow and foster independence in our classrooms? Is improvisation part of Rhizomatic learning?
a space to realize the ability you already have
post by Bonnie from 2011:
These rhizomatic learning lenses are not intended to make you see more clearly, per se, though you may or may not come to that conclusion about their effects. Rather they are intended to make you see differently.
It’s also profoundly self-replicating: we become subjects of the system in school, and then subject others to the operations of the system we’ve come to see as natural and right.
So long as our lenses on learning are actually focused on schooling, we replicate the same colonizing systems. Even where we try not to. Even online, where we don’t have to.
Which is where rhizomatic learning and the new pair of glasses come in.
The rhizome is not a way of tweaking the systems we have.
i keep hearing Krishnamurti talking about the ego ness we bring – even as parents – in love with our children…
and to realize their here\ness
find intro, multiple accesses, and all 6 weeks here: