This blog post relates to my study of CCK11 and provides an initial draft of my evolving concept map of Connectivism and Connective Knowledge.
Sorry about the poor use of colour. I am using VUE on a Mac and for some reason I can’t access the format window.
As you can see, I have quite a few disconnected objects in my map. I haven’t yet figured out how they fit into the picture, and whether their importance in the big picture warrants their inclusion. I’ll leave them around until I find where they fit, and decide they aren’t significant.
I have identified distributed networks as an entity comprising of nodes/entities, knowledge, and connections. Perhaps properties and connective knowledge are part of this distributed network. That might be something I change. I also think there is a link missing between knowledge and properties. Is there really a link between Nodes/Entities and Properties? Any thoughts?
Context is something that I feel is absolutely integral to learning theories and learning in general. In fact, I have discussed in this in a previous blog post recently. I am beginning to formulate my ideas around our first assignment “Your position on connectivism” and one of the weaknesses I see in all learning theories, including connectivism is that of context. More on that later (I hope).
I am really struggling with the content in week 3. Stephen Downes Introduction to Connective Knowledge is so rich with ideas and abstract thought. I am finding I have to re-read sections over and over to try and grasp the concepts, but also to tie them together. I’m not sure I will be able to read the entire article – it’s just too much. I identify with the work of Kiersey around personality/temperament types. Specifically relating to this course, I identify as a concrete communicator, and find abstract communication difficult to follow. So studying a course on learning theory and philosophy is quite a stretch for me.