Were you convinced by rhizomatic learning as an approach?
Rhizomatic learning seems confusing as a learning approach, and I see it more of an explanation. To me it explains/highlights the fact the learning can be chaotic and random, and that learners can begin learning from any point in a perceived networked learning structure, with or without knowing they are learning or beginning to learn. I do agree with Cormier’s comments about measuring learning, I think this stems from an ideological paradigm which is entrenched within education as a whole, as grades seem to be the most important statistic, not how competent a learner is when its time for them to enter the real world.
Could you imagine implementing rhizomatic learning?
First of all, I think they only way you could implement it is in an imaginary scenario as I think the current educational paradigm would not support it. I don’t think you would get an institution to validate a course that has no material and a loose structure that puts the emphasis on learners creating the curriculum and being the curriculum. Also, the issue mentioned above to do with measuring would be a sticking point, as managerial level people in institutions place more stock in results figures than lecturer judgement.
How might rhizomatic learning differ from current approaches?
From my understanding, rhizomatic learning puts emphasis on learners finding solutions to problems via dialogue and discussion, and that there essentially is no correct answer to a problem. I like this approach as it encourages learners to build confidence in a subject, by removing the teacher-over-learner hierarchy, and lets learners feel like they can actively contribute to the creation of new knowledge.
What issues would arise in implementing rhizomatic learning?
I think the one key issue noted by Cormier is measurement. We measure students to obtain whether or not they know what we have taught them, but as Cormier mentions this learns to ‘cramming’ or temporarily memorising knowledge only to discard it when not required. The reason I see it as an ideological issue, is that Institutions judge themselves against others for the prestige of being the best, and this is done through test scores and graduation rates, they don’t seem to care if a learner knows anything just as long as they look good in a league table, and I think thats completely wrong. If there is no way to measure students knowledge, the statistics institutions use to promote themselves won’t get generated, making it hard for institutions to compete for student enrolment.
Week 11 H817 Activity 20 - Rhizomatic Learning
My thoughts....
Were you convinced by rhizomatic learning as an approach?
Rhizomatic learning seems confusing as a learning approach, and I see it more of an explanation. To me it explains/highlights the fact the learning can be chaotic and random, and that learners can begin learning from any point in a perceived networked learning structure, with or without knowing they are learning or beginning to learn. I do agree with Cormier’s comments about measuring learning, I think this stems from an ideological paradigm which is entrenched within education as a whole, as grades seem to be the most important statistic, not how competent a learner is when its time for them to enter the real world.
Could you imagine implementing rhizomatic learning?
First of all, I think they only way you could implement it is in an imaginary scenario as I think the current educational paradigm would not support it. I don’t think you would get an institution to validate a course that has no material and a loose structure that puts the emphasis on learners creating the curriculum and being the curriculum. Also, the issue mentioned above to do with measuring would be a sticking point, as managerial level people in institutions place more stock in results figures than lecturer judgement.
How might rhizomatic learning differ from current approaches?
From my understanding, rhizomatic learning puts emphasis on learners finding solutions to problems via dialogue and discussion, and that there essentially is no correct answer to a problem. I like this approach as it encourages learners to build confidence in a subject, by removing the teacher-over-learner hierarchy, and lets learners feel like they can actively contribute to the creation of new knowledge.
What issues would arise in implementing rhizomatic learning?
I think the one key issue noted by Cormier is measurement. We measure students to obtain whether or not they know what we have taught them, but as Cormier mentions this learns to ‘cramming’ or temporarily memorising knowledge only to discard it when not required. The reason I see it as an ideological issue, is that Institutions judge themselves against others for the prestige of being the best, and this is done through test scores and graduation rates, they don’t seem to care if a learner knows anything just as long as they look good in a league table, and I think thats completely wrong. If there is no way to measure students knowledge, the statistics institutions use to promote themselves won’t get generated, making it hard for institutions to compete for student enrolment.