Review of Ingraham and Jones - Networks and Learning
Tuesday, 21 Jul 2015, 14:07
Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Tom Cheek, Tuesday, 21 Jul 2015, 14:13
Ingraham highlights a concern that the
imagery created by nodes and connections creates a 2 dimensional model, lacking
the essential 3rd dimension (Ingraham's
comment) present in complex
networks.
Ingraham interpreted the nodes and paths
different to me.I visualise the nodes
as the communities (be it small or large including individuals) and that the
connections between the nodes are provided by the technology.I still see them as being 'cast out' by the
nodes so it is not the technology independently making them.It still requires a stimulus from the
node.Therefore the link-maker is still
the learner or teacher (in a learning context), but the difference being that
they sit in the node.
In contrast Ingraham sees the connection or
'link maker' as the 'learners' or 'teachers' themselves.I am not concluding whether either
interpretation is right but I can understand why Ingraham would have those
concerns if that is how he has interpreted the metaphor.What this does do though is highlight his
concerns made above about the 2 dimensional model being too simplistic.
Jones reaction creates further comment
about the dimension of the networks.Ingraham comments about Rhizomatic networking which then creates further
debate.Jones responds in commenting
that Rhizoid has a foundation in roots and that this is largely one way and
partially interactive.Again this is
quite different to my interpretation of Rhizoid.My thoughts include an even freer network
that could offer strong communication and certainly not a one way model.A link to my blog on this is available here.
The key thing I have taken from this
activity is the need to be very careful in the use of metaphors.Words and certain icons can mean very
different things and is open to an individuals or cultures interpretation.For example, the thoughts of networking
between Jones and Ingraham I don't think are very different, which much
consensus, but it is within the presentation or models of though, that the debates
really resides.
Review of Ingraham and Jones - Networks and Learning
Ingraham highlights a concern that the imagery created by nodes and connections creates a 2 dimensional model, lacking the essential 3rd dimension (Ingraham's
comment) present in complex networks.
Ingraham interpreted the nodes and paths different to me.I visualise the nodes as the communities (be it small or large including individuals) and that the connections between the nodes are provided by the technology.I still see them as being 'cast out' by the nodes so it is not the technology independently making them.It still requires a stimulus from the node.Therefore the link-maker is still the learner or teacher (in a learning context), but the difference being that they sit in the node.
In contrast Ingraham sees the connection or 'link maker' as the 'learners' or 'teachers' themselves.I am not concluding whether either interpretation is right but I can understand why Ingraham would have those concerns if that is how he has interpreted the metaphor.What this does do though is highlight his concerns made above about the 2 dimensional model being too simplistic.
Jones reaction creates further comment about the dimension of the networks.Ingraham comments about Rhizomatic networking which then creates further debate.Jones responds in commenting that Rhizoid has a foundation in roots and that this is largely one way and partially interactive.Again this is quite different to my interpretation of Rhizoid.My thoughts include an even freer network that could offer strong communication and certainly not a one way model.A link to my blog on this is available here.
The key thing I have taken from this activity is the need to be very careful in the use of metaphors.Words and certain icons can mean very different things and is open to an individuals or cultures interpretation.For example, the thoughts of networking between Jones and Ingraham I don't think are very different, which much consensus, but it is within the presentation or models of though, that the debates really resides.
References:
Bruce Ingraham. (2004). Networks and Learning: Communities, practices and the metaphor of networks - a commentary. Available: http://learn1.open.ac.uk/mod/oublog/viewpost.php?post=144537. Last accessed 21st July 2015.
Chris Jones. (2004). Networks and Learning: Communities, practices and the metaphor of networks - a response. Available: http://www.researchinlearningtechnology.net/index.php/rlt/article/view/11252/12945. Last accessed 21st July 2015.