Reflecting on PLN Engagement #CCK11

28 02 2011

PLN Participation Update

Number of Tweets for fortnight 118

Number of Followers gained 3

Number of People I started following 4

Number of Blogs/Feeds added 1

I’ve started to notice changes in my PLN participation over the last month or so. These changes are mainly attributed to:-

  • increased familiarity with the people I converse with;
  • increased comfort levels with the tools I use regularly (eg. Twitter).

Everyday Conversations

I am engaged with conversation with members of my PLN, mostly on Twitter, every day. These exchanges don’t need to be about library/information science at all. Conversations can simply be about ‘everyday’ things, helping one another get through the day; often just ‘being there’ can be a comfort in itself to others, like having a group of mates around you all day cheering you on, keeping you company. Members of my PLN certainly do not replace the work mates I have physically at work, but sometimes I need to bounce ideas or thoughts with people who are more like-minded, professionally. I believe these everyday exchanges an only strengthen my professional relationships.

Personality

I’ve seen pieces of my personality creep into my tweets and blog posts. This isn’t a recent phenomenon. There have been tweets I’ve thought twice about, perhaps typing a tweet then deleting it halfway through, some tweets I’ve even regretted. Whenever I start a tweet that may not be related to LIS, studying or professional development, I tend to remind myself of the purpose of using Twitter, being my professional channel. Now in saying that, I don’t think there’s any reason why my Twitter stream needs to be void of personality. So sometimes I do allow a tweet every now and then to slide. There’s room for a bit of ‘Alisa’ - my interests, what I do on weekends, etc - in my stream. I just need to ensure that whatever I post reflects positively on me as a professional as well as an individual. I continue to develop a self-awareness about my professional identity - directing, shaping and developing.

Tweeting about my work

On the weekend, I had finally finished writing an article about my role at work. Throughout its development I began tweeting my day-to-day tasks, perhaps getting comfortable with the idea of sharing what I do in aviation. Until now I’ve shied away from telling people what I get up to in the hangar (well, the office upstairs, but ‘hangar’ still sounds cool!), mostly because it seems no one ‘gets’ the unique information environment and industry setting I work in. I’ve since realised there’s no need to shy away, but by sharing what I do is a contribution I can make to my PLN.

Blogs

I currently subscribe to fairly popular blogs, such as Librarian by Day and David Lee King, whose blogs I just don’t feel comfortable commenting on (yet). These are people I view as leaders and influencers in the LIS online community. I almost don’t feel ‘worthy’ to comment. At this early stage of my LIS career, I find commenting on blogs of my peers, mostly from Twitter, more enjoyable and satisfying. This may be because my peers on Twitter, who I liaise with often, feel more ‘local’ or closer than popular blogs. There’s more of a ‘sandpit’ comfort commenting on blogs by my peers. I’ve said this before (and I’ll say it again), I like to help people out where I can. So if I think I can make a worthwhile contribution to someone’s blog post, either provide a different perspective, share an experience or some partial knowledge, it’s when I’ll post a comment. I don’t like to comment for the sake of it, I’d like to show I’ve engaged with the person’s content they’ve put in an effort to create, returning the courtesy by posting something noteworthy.

Levels of participation in my PLN will vary over time. There will always be continual progress to be made in developing, maintaining and managing the relationships I make in my PLN. But I’ve definitely found reflection beneficial to this process. Have a look at how you participate, I recommend it.





Focusing on Network Theory #CCK11

8 02 2011

During the last couple of weeks in the CCK11 open course, I’ve looked at Network Theory and Connective Knowledge. The readings from Week 3 about Connective Knowledge made me think about what it is I want from participating in the course. Basically, by my taking this course I aim to develop an understanding of Connectivism in a relatively structured way to feed into my current research in Personal Learning Networks - experiences and approaches to developing one for the new information professional and the value of an PLN to continued professional development. Suffice to say, focusing on applying network theory and concepts to one’s development and maintenance of a PLN seemed more relevant to my learning objectives for CCK11.

In the readings about Network Theory, I came across a number of different frameworks, all to enable analysis, description and determining effectiveness of a network.

Firstly, there are basic elements of a network - entities, connections and signals (or message). “Entities” being people, I assume individuals at this point; “Connections” being the channel or tool used; and “Signals” being the message or a piece of information if you will. From here, the network can vary with the following properties:-

  • Density - “how many other entities each entity is connected to”;
  • Speed - “how quickly a message moves (or is received) by an entity”;
  • Flow - “how much information an entity processes - sent, received and transferred for other entities”;
  • Plasticity - ‘frequency of connections made’;
  • Degree of connectedness - “a function of density, flow and plasticity”.

Networks which are described as “effective” will exhibit the following elements or characteristics: -

  • Diversity - does the network encompass a wide variety of viewpoints?
  • Autonomy - are people contributing to the network on their own accord and not acting on an agenda of a group of organisation they work for?
  • Interactivity - is the knowledge produced by the network a product of interaction or just “a mere aggregation of perspectives”?
  • Openness - are different perspectives ‘allowed’ into the network, heard and interacted with others?

Relating these elements back to PLNs, a question would be how can we measure these elements to determine if we’re participating in an “effective network”? Can identifying an “effective network” be a strategy or approach to building and maintaining a PLN which will maximise learning opportunities? Network theory has prompted my thinking about the outcomes I’m looking for from participating in my PLN as a continual professional development activity.

Downes’ (2006) paper continues to outline “elements of network semantics”. While another relevant framework, I think there are only so many ways you can describe and interpret the climate of a network. I will need to create a visual to further understand how this other dimension can fit in a practical sense. Off to MindNode…

Now, just quickly on “connective knowledge” - Downes describes how connective knowledge occurs by stating that “a property of one entity must lead to or become a property of another entity….the knowledge that results is “connective knowledge”. For there to be connective knowledge an interaction must take place. Makes sense, but how does a simple statement require over 30 pages of text? After the readings, I still couldn’t grasp the concept of “connective knowledge”. The readings were too wordy, beyond the depth required to explain it and filled with unnecessary jargon, in my opinion. So I came out of Week 3’s content with no real clue as to what the learning objectives actually were.

In a few weeks CCK11 will cover Personal Learning Networks, to which I’m looking forward to. This post may need to be teased apart to examine network theory and connective knowledge more closely…..

References

Downes, Stephen. 2006. Learning Networks and Connective Knowledge.
Downes, Stephen. 2005. An Introduction to Connective Knowledge.
Downes, Stephen. 2005. Learning Networks: Theory and Practice (Presentation)





This is heavy, Doc! …..Understanding Connectivism

23 01 2011

The past week has marked my first in the CCK11: Connectivism & Connective Knowledge course. As the post title suggests, in the words of Marty McFly in the Back to the Future trilogy, the theory is “heavy”; that was my first impression as I worked my way through the readings and listened to the Elluminate sessions.

I will admit I am somewhat confused by the theory of Connectivism. When each element was discussed in a reading, it seemed to appear in a different context in order to explain another element or supporting concept. To combat my confusion and in an attempt to make sense of Connectivism, I used the excuse to try out “MindNode” on my new Mac. Surprisingly, it worked well in creating a visual to recognise the relationships between the supporting elements. (If anyone has any tips for embedding my mind map, its saved as a PDF, please let me know. I’d be happy to share it.)

Now at this stage I should probably delve into what I think are the supporting elements/concepts for Connectivism.

Knowledge - Connectivism holds that knowledge is distributed across a “network of connections”; knowledge is a “set of connections formed by actions and experience”.

Learning - the process of “connecting”; creating connections, useful information patterns and developing the ability to “traverse networks of connections” (where knowledge the distributed)

Technology - Connectivism recognises the impact of technology on our ability and ways in which we learn. Technology is an enabler of tools we use to interact with each other and “externalise our thinking”; the information environment we find ourselves in require tools and the ability to navigate (recognise connections and patterns) the complex and rapidly evolving landscape.

Networks - created by “nodes” (people, resources) connecting to one another. The elements of successful networks, as identified by Stephen Downes are: - connectivity, diversity, autonomy and openness. These elements can certainly be related to determining the success of one’s own PLN…but more on that relationship a bit later in the course.

The above mentioned elements (or concepts) of Connectivism set the parameters of my understanding of the theory. I’m not sure if what I’ve outlined is correct, this is only my interpretation of the theory and its supporting elements, so please feel free to correct me where I’m wrong. I’m simply trying to put all these elements, in order if you will, finding their “place” in the broader theory.

Amongst the readings and listening to the sessions, I couldn’t help but wonder…..can the theory of Connectivism be not only a response (and/or an updated learning theory) to the changing information landscape and the circumstances in which we learn, but also a strategy for surviving the information overload - learning “just in time”, rather than learning for “just in case”? Do we only make the connections we need to solve problems “now” or to fill an immediate knowledge gap?

There was a question raised in the Elluminate session - How do we know what knowledge is “official”? Well, my response would be that given knowledge (according to Connectivism) is a “set of connections”, there is no “official” knowledge, only information. We have to remember there’s a difference between information and knowledge. Information is just, well, its information. Knowledge on the other hand is the “connection/s” made between the information we have sought to create it. The only “official” knowledge is the connections we make in a networked way, and also the strengths of those connections (the strength being very important in maintaining the connection).

So there’s my reflection on my first week in CCK11. If there is anything from what I’ve discussed here you wish to see me explore further or clarify, please do not hesitate to let me know. I’ll only be too happy to write a follow up blog post.

There is one question which has arisen from my wonderings. Do librarians and information professionals have a role to play in supporting connectivism? Do we, as information professionals have a role in nurturing another’s development of their ability to make connections? I say, yes we do, perhaps in educating people in the use of tools and technology, at least.








Follow

Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2 other followers

Powered by WordPress.com