Module 4: My Networks for Learning

Here is my mind map of my learning networks.  I have organized this mind map based on the major component of my life:  Personal, Social, Information, Professional, Life-long learning and Career.  However there is significant overlap and a number of networks impact more than one area.  When I finished this mind map and previewed the image, it is interesting that the connectors around the major components create an outline, similar in shape to the human brain – complete with two analogous but not identical hemispheres.

•  How has your network changed the way you learn?

I have always been an independent learner.  Even before the age of computers, the internet and google.com, if I was reading a textbook and had a question, I would look it up or read parallel sources, before I asked the teacher/professor.  Thus I think the only significant change in the way I learn are that the time boundaries have been removed.  In other words, in the past I had to wait for the library to open or for a book to be returned, whereas with the availability of network resources, I can learn any time of the day (or night).  I have even been known to wake-up in the middle of the night with an idea and I get on the computer to look it up or write it down, so I don’t forget it.

•  Which digital tools best facilitate learning for you?

Online courses are an excellent learning opportunity for me.  I appreciate the flexibility and independence of asynchronous learning.  I have participated in online course for both formal university degrees and for continuing education requirement for my professional licensure and certification requirements.

• How do you learn new knowledge when you have questions?

I look it up.  With the power of the internet and the availability of professional and scholarly literature at my fingertips, I often find myself with 7-10 open windows as I begin searching and then follow the links within the document I retrieve.  Needless to say, I can start this process at 8pm and before I know it, the clock shows 11 pm and I and still clicking around the web.  That is not to say, I have wasted time (OK…maybe sometimesJ), but usually I have not only answered my original questions by have found additional information, both related and on new topics, that has enhanced what I know.

Module 3 Posting

I would agree that humans have a basic instinct to interact, from the first moments of life the human baby is dependent on others for survival, but the behaviors of that dependent infant draw other to attend to him/her are also an essential component.  Here are a couple of examples:  Kangaroo Care saves infant http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ746gONAjQ  and there were preterm twin, one doing well, but the other struggling to survive.  After trying all the modern technologies, a nurses suggested putting the twins together (strictly against policy because of concerns about cross-contamination of germs) – but immediately the stronger baby put his arm around the sibling and both began to thrive and grow.  So are humans interdependent – absolutely yes.

But I think the institutions of an advancing society have created a hierarchy that attempts to negate that basic instinct.  Rheingold (nd) describes a number of examples of the positive outcomes of cooperation among persons.  However, if is important to note that most of these examples yield an average result.  This is evidence of the statistical phenomenon of regression to the mean or regression artifact (Trochim, 2006).  This phenomenon occurs because in a non-random sample there are high, low and middle levels of performance leading to an overall performance of “average”, supporting another statistical concept, the bell shaped curve.  However, we live in a competitive society where many do not want to be “just average” and just like the example cited by Rheingold (nd) in which a group of individuals all overachieve in populating the grazing fields, the result is failure because of depletion of resources.  Thus in a society that values advancement and achievement, it might be in the individual’s best interest to hoard resources and have the ability to achieve the highest level of success (as opposed to sharing and being average).   I think we see the same phenomenon in attempting to have students work collaborative in the learning environment – the high achievers are concerned that their work will be pulled towards the mean. 

Wikipedia is used as an example of collaborative work in this week’s blog prompt.  While it is true that Wikipedia is the product of collaborative input, the outcome is not accepted as a valid or reliable source of information by many.  For example, most university-level courses do not accept Wikipedia as a reference for a research paper, and as a faculty member if I contribute to Wikipedia it would not count towards my “productivity” (where as a letter to the editor of the local paper, of an update in a professional journal would count).  Therefore I think we are sending out mixed messages.

All of our technologic gadgets are facilitating connection on a more global and instantaneous level, but I continue to wonder (actually I have started thinking about this more since beginning this program of study), that we are losing the humanistic aspect of being humans as we envision technology controlling all aspects of our lives.  As I read posting by other (in a variety of classes) the introduction of holographic TV that bring sporting event into my living room, the self navigating car, and other wonders of technology – I begin to wonder what is the purpose of the human brain?

References:

 Rheingold, H. (2006). Way-New Collaboration.  Retrieved 1/5/11 at http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html

Trochim, M.K. (2006).  Research Methods Knowledge base.  Retrieved January 6, 2011 from: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/regrmean.php