I can’t make up my mind whether I’m a visitor or resident. As Dave White says in his presentation its not a dichotomy – but rather a duality (which is very much Wenger’s approach to communities of practice). In his presentation Dave makes some comments that I have been thinking about:

Visitors leave no trace – my feeling is that this is not possible. Maybe they hope to leave no trace. I can see that they could leave an absolutely minimal trace, but not no trace. It’s a bit like when someone briefly enters a meeting and leaves quickly – their leaving and absence still affects the meeting. In relation to this, I believe that ‘lurkers’ can affect what is going on through their absence.

Visitors worry about identity theft – I would say that visitors might worry about identity full stop, particularly if the visitors are novices. In fact isn’t it possible that visitors may be visitors not by choice but because they are novices in the online environment.

Residents try to keep visible by continually feeding the machine – have residents subjected themselves to the ‘tyranny of participation?’

Remaining visible is important for residents – Why? What is in it for them, particularly if a lot of what they post is banal? Isn’t being perceived of as banal counterproductive?

The word ‘nebulous’ can be used to describe residents – Dave didn’t talk about this and I’m not sure what this means.

A resident is less likely to have their own blog – this seems to contradict the research that John, Roy and I did where we equated residency (we called this a ‘home’) to a blog. This brings up the complexity of the way in which we use language and metaphors to describe the way in which people learn and interact online.

The visitor is no more or less technically adept than the resident – this depends on whether the visitor is a visitor by choice

Visitors take an individual approach to working online – I don’t see an individual approach or autonomy as the preserve of visitors. The question of autonomy is complex and not easy to understand or unpick.

Lots to think about. I’m looking forward to the session tonight – Elluminate Conference

I am posting this invitation on behalf of Roy Williams, Dave White, Sui Fai John Mak and Gus Goncalves.

Please join us

You are invited to join us in the Elluminate conference on Wednesday 4th November at 20:00 GMT to discuss the title question with Dave White from Oxford University.

The Link for the conference is: Elluminate Conference

You can also find it in the Connectivism and Connective Knowledge (CCK09) course.

We will be holding a conversation about Dave White’s vandr (visitors and residents) model. We are all trying to understand the new networked learning media, as users, but also as academics, teachers, trainers, and researchers. So we need frameworks to describe what’s going on, and that’s what this conference is all about: none of us has the final answers, and I guess most of us find networked learning is so interesting precisely because there are no final answers.

We have asked Dave to take us through an overview of some of the key points of his model. Then we will get some feedback on how you see yourself, in terms of his model. After that we will ask Dave to take us into more of the detail. Interruptions are welcome.

Networking

We have set up a twitter site (vandrcck09) where you can add additional comments, outside the chat channel in Elluminate. We are trying to make space for more substantial responses to the conversation in Elluminate, and it looks like the only way to do so is to write a longer comment in a forum post, or blog, and then post a tweet in ‘vandrcc09′, which includes a link to your blog or the forum. We’ll see if it works.

Models and Resources

Please feel free to use the vandr twitter site, from now on, to post ideas and links to aspects of the vandr model, or any other models and research, that you find useful to describe what goes on in networked learning.

I keep coming across great questions which really make me stop and think.

George Siemens  asked four really thought provoking questions in the Networked Learning Conference 2010 Hot Seat

1. What skills/attributes do learners need in order to learn effectively with networked technologies?
2. What role will educators need to fulfill in networked learning environments?
3. Can learning networks (partly) replace the teacher?
4. Given the prominence of networked technologies and the growth of networked learning, what types of research questions does our field need to pursue?

In fact I think George must be in question posing mode as in this week’s CCK09 course he has asked another great question

• This week is an opportunity for you to reflect on what openness means to you, what benefits you get from being open, and concerns with transparent learning (as well as how you expect to overcome those concerns).

And in this post George has alerted us to D’Arcy Norman’s question:

• How do you connect to people online?

These are all questions that I have been thinking about for some time but haven’t been able to articulate so clearly. They are all relevant to my life and work. So where to start in answering them?

Last year I wrote about my mother’s connectedness – http://jennymackness.wordpress.com/2008/10/12/177/

When you are 83, connectedness takes on a new meaning year by year. This year my mother’s connectedness is ’shrinking’. Those who she can readily connect to (albeit never online) are dying. And she is becoming forgetful. Her neural connections do not work as well as they once did,  although she still has a formidable memory for times past.

For me this brings a new dimension to the concept of connectedness. It not only means different things to different people, but it is experienced differently at different stages of the connectedness life-cycle. This is similar to Etienne Wenger’s ideas that a community goes through a life-cycle and ultimately dies.

I can see my mother’s connections waning at social, neural and conceptual levels. She has never used a computer, but that is not the point. My mother was once a highly connected person in her own way, but I can now see a closing down of these connections which is not in her control.

Do online connections make a difference? This week I learned that a past colleague of mine has died – very sad since she was considerably younger than me. But what I find interesting is that her Facebook account is still ‘alive’. People are posting messages to her as if she was still alive.

So what does this mean for connectivity? Can it die – or is it that once it has been initiated, it will always be there, ready for further connection?

Well, I have signed up again and have noted that quite a few people that engaged with CCK08 have done the same, or are still interested.

Viplav Baxi http://learnoscck08.wordpress.com/ has just made an interesting post about collaboration and the notion of ‘courageous silence’ – something to think about in relation to connectivism.

Mike Bogle is getting all geared up and has posted a presentation he has done on CCK08 to keep us all up to speed.  http://techticker.net/2009/08/06/recording-from-cck08-presentation-for-unfed/

Gina Minks has created a CCK09 Friendfeed which is attracting interest. http://friendfeed.com/cck09 

There is probably a lot more going on that I am not aware of. There was last time, so no doubt there will be this time. Despite the fact that this blog is called Jenny Connected, I really am not that connected!

But because of the research I have been working on with Sui Fai John Mak and Roy Williams (CCK08 participants) I think that probably not a day has gone by since CCK08 that I haven’t thought about connectivism in one way or another. We have finished our data gathering and analysis and are now in the process of writing. We have at least 3 papers in mind and the first one has been drafted – the other two are still being discussed. The research has been a difficult and time-consuming process but immensely rewarding. I am hoping that as a result of this I will be in a better position to understand what is going on in CCK09, but maybe not!

If you are reading this and are not sure what CCK09 is then here’s the information http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/connectivism/

I have just watched a TV programme which has moved me to make this post after quite a long absence from blogging. The programme (on BBC 2 – UK – with the title Classic Goldie) was the story of  a DJ who cannot read music, who composes an orchestral piece for the BBC proms, accompanied by the 70 str0ng London Philharmonic Choir. This one hour programme has prompted me to blog again after quite a long gap. Why?

The programme moved me in a number of ways. I could relate to it, perhaps because my second son is a music technologist – full of dreams like Goldie – but yet to realise his potential. I didn’t record the programme and now wonder whether I will be able to find it again to show my son who is about to start on a music technology degree.

I could relate to Goldie’s emotion when he saw his work, efforts and dreams being translated into practice.

There was resonance in the immense feelings of self-doubt, concerns about self-worth and levels of expertise, expressed by Goldie.

There was also resonance in the power of music. I could understand that the power of music lies in melody, but I also remembered the book I read in my ‘youth’ about Stockhausen and the effect that that had on me in relation to my understanding of creativity.

All this makes me wonder again what it is that causes a connection. It is not technology. In this instance it was my past experience, my prior knowledge of the subject ( albeit limited, although I do sing in a choir which explains my interest), a close family connection – my son who I love -, my empathy with Goldie as a novice working with experts and the emotion he experienced, and finally my conversations with my colleague and online friend Matthias, who first raised for me the question of how and why we recognise resonance in online connections.

From this I might now think that online connections/renonance are related to past experience, current emotions, levels of interest and expertise, empathy, mutual interests and mutual respect.

Lots to think about!

PS  Twitter would just not do what I need for this post!

This idea – raised in our research team – has grabbed my attention. Why is it that when communicating online we are immediately drawn to certain people’s posts/blogs and not to others? We resonate with certain people and ideas and not with others,  just as I was immediately attracted to the idea of resonance in online communication. I have spent a little time checking on my understanding of resonance and these are some of the explanations that for me relate to blogging as a means of online communication.

• Resonance is the amplifaction of sound through sympathetic vibrations.
• To resonate means to correspond closely or harmoniously.
• Resonance occurs when the vibrations of one object come into alignment with another.
• Resonance evokes a feeling of shared emotion or belief.

These explanations make sense to me in relation to blogging. I can recognise them in my own blogging behaviour. I am drawn to blogs where these ideas come into play. The content of a blog post on its own is not enough to draw me in. I might be attracted by the idea/s but I will soon lose interest if there are no feelings of resonance. But I have no idea why one blog will set off this resonance and another won’t and I don’t think I explicitly recognise this resonance when it is happening – it is more intuitive – a ‘gut’ feeling.  Still thinking…..

How do we know which connections are important?  My recent trip to India has made me think about this in a number of ways.

All the connections I made on this trip have enriched my life, but I find myself thinking about the homestay we stayed in, in Olavipe, Kerala towards the end of our trip. This was a unique experience, where the family home which has been occupied by family members for 120 years and lived in by six generations, now makes four of its eight bedrooms available for guests. On one wall of the family home has been drawn an extensive family tree. Although the family is now dispersed and there is some concern about whether there is anyone in the next generation who will be willing  to maintain the family home, the family keep in touch with each other, wherever they might be all across the world by email – and yet whilst there was a computer in the family office, the computer was nowhere near as much in evidence in the Parayil home ‘Thekkanatt’ as it is in our home.

Staying at ‘Thekkanatt’ is really like staying with a family. The homestay is managed by two brothers and one of their wives. This was not like a hotel. The family entertained their visitors. We had meals together, long chats on the veranda, trips to the village and round the estate.  I asked the oldest brother how they coped with having guests in their house all the time. He said that it worked well because his brother and his brother’s wife were people’s people. I knew exactly what he meant and it seemed to me that they were experts at connectivity. They were able to engage in conversation with all their guests, whether the conversation was about Indian politics, religion, clothes, arranged marriages, music, or the equivalents of these in other countries. They took photos of all their guests and these photos were posted up on boards in one area of their home. They took a real interest in their guests and were masters at drawing them out, asking unintrusive questions and following through on these questions. For the 5 nights we stayed with them never once did conversation falter and they had a wealth of experience and knowledge to share.

In addition to connecting with their guests from around the world, the family were actively concerned to remain connected to their village roots. The oldest brother explained that in the past village members had been loyal to the family in times of financial difficulty and now the family was trying to repay this by employing village members from 25 families to work on their estate and running monthly gatherings for the village old people and children at their home, arranging outings and so on.

On the connectivism course a number of people were interested in connectivity beyond technology – what it really means to be connected – what are the characteristics of a well connected person and so on. I wonder if being a people’s person sums it up.

Reflecting on this whole experience, the first thing that occurs to me is that I did manage to get connected even if only temporarily. So I have taken the question mark out of the title of my blog. Connecting took quite a bit of persistence and I had to ‘go for it’. Public blogging is a new experience and I never really expected anyone to comment on my blog. But some people have - a sincere thank you to them for taking the time.

In addition I managed to stay the course for the full 12 weeks. Sometimes I did wonder why I was putting myself through this. The amount of time I was able to put in did drop towards the end. I think I can already say it was worth it, but it will be a while before I can say what I have learned.

Frustrations

That blogging doesn’t allow you to keep a record of where you have commented on others’ blogs. I know I have failed to follow through on some comments. Apologies to people who I have failed to respond to.

Having to miss some of the live sessions due to technical problems or other commitments. Listening to the recording is not the same. Twice I had Elluminate cut out on me to the point where I wasn’t able to follow the session. I don’t think we should ever forget that acccess will not be the same for all participants.

Not having the multi-tasking skills to be able to chat and listen in the live sessions. I can’t cope with parallel conversations going on at the same time. In the last session there was a conversation about George hitting a deer with his car at the same time as Stephen explaining something about the course. The deer conversation was so distracting that I can’t now remember what Stephen was talking about. Reminds me of cocktail parties, which I hate for this very reason – you always get pulled off to meet some new people just as you are getting into an interesting conversation with someone! Fortunately I don’t go to many cocktail parties these days!

Not feeling able to participate in the Moodle forums. I didn’t feel that I had anything to contribute.

Things to try out in the future

• Mike style video chats.
• Digital storytelling – Lisa style presentation, although I currently don’t have the technical skills
• Youtube video a la Wendy
• Matthias style Flash presentation – this would be a huge technical jump for me. Not sure if I would ever get there.
• Keith style blogging

…. and more – too much to mention

Surprises

Trolls. A new word for me. The first comment I received on my blog was from Catherine Fitzpatrick.  I was delighted and naively didn’t know what I was getting into. Within the blink of an eye I was being accused of ‘grooming’ which I always associate with paedophiles so that came as a bit of a shock!

The amount of emotion in the network. Despite protestations that connectivism and networks are about reason rather than emotion, many people seemed very emotional- even Stephen himself. Interesting that in this blog the posts that attracted the most attention were the ones about the affective side of learning in networks, e.g. the post about my mother’s connections.

The amount of posturing, hot air and pontification there has sometimes been in the Moodle forums. I appreciate that this is a very personal perspective and may simply be that a lot of it went over my head, but given that I don’t think that connectivism is fundamentally a difficult idea, why did so many people seem to want to make it incompresensible?

The reactions to Stephen’s demonstration of power. It really upset some people.

Stephen’s slapdown of Lisa in one live session, where he practically told her that if she couldn’t ‘hack it’ she should get another job. An amazing thing to say to someone who was arguably the ‘best’ student, or at  least the one that the ‘tutors’ seemed most intent on listening to.

A tendency towards evangelism in some parts and from some on the course.

Things I want to explore further

• The implications of learner autonomy
• To what extent students can negotiate their own curriculum
• What open assessment means
• Criteria for finding and working out who is worth listening to in a network
• The relationship between identity and learning
• Meaning making in a network
• Whether a course could ever really be true to the principles of connectivism as I understand them
• Aggregation. It was rather assumed that we would all know how to do this. I didn’t and I’m sure I missed a lot as a result.

Things that intrigue me

How many people were there on the periphery. Were they learning? How did they learn?

What implication does this have for the teacher, i.e. teaching ‘invisible’ people?

I think the evidence from this course is that for a lot of people being connected to the concepts alone is not enough. For many people learning is about being connected to people that they feel they know and can recognise, along with the reciprocity and responsiblity that that entails.

Things I have appreciated

George’s ability to explain things so clearly and his masterly presentations

Stephen and George’s huge generosity of spirit in making their materials freely available and opening up their course to the world

Dave’s moderating skills

Some excellent presentations – Valdis Krebs, Terry Anderson, Howard Rheingold, Nancy White

The generosity and kindness of many who have visited my blog and encouraged me with their comments. I have also received emails of encouragement. I don’t need to name people. I think you know who you are.

A big thank you to Stephen and George for the opportunity.  This post and these sentiments seem inadequate.  I’m sure there is a lot I have missed and I know there is a lot more I could say.

I am thinking about this because I attended a workshop this week on digitial literacies – a face-to-face workshop – run by ELESIG (e-learner experiences special interest group) and funded by JISC LLiDA project

Wikipedia defines digital literacy as:

the ability to locate, organize, understand, evaluate, and create information using digital technology. It involves a working knowledge of current high-technology, and an understanding of how it can be used. Digitally literate people can communicate and work more efficiently, especially with those who possess the same knowledge and skills.

It’s interesting that this definition seems to assume that if you have the ability to locate, organise, understand, evaluate and create information using digital technology, then you can communicate it. I think this connectivism course has shown that that there might be more to digital literacy than this.

What are the literacy skills of connectivity and are these simply digital literacy skills or do we need to make a distinction? This seems to be worth thinking about.