However, two authors challenge this perspective. Paul Tillich, the Christian Theologian wrote the small but dense book, “Love, Power and Justice”. These three concepts are related (correlative). Power seen as the embodiment of love and justice. In our conversation we could say positive power is the actualization of ethics. Another author is the Bhuddist monk Thich Nhat Hanh in his book, The Art of Power, where he extolls the power of mindfulness and compassion.

I’ve noticed a ton of positive power in the Connectivism course as we develop networks through blogs, forums and on-line real time discussions. In the midst of all these people who spend their professional life developing ideas and opinions, I’ve been amazed at the amount of careful listening going on. Questions and responses are reflected upon and answered with carefilled sensitivity, trying to grasp the context of the question. Blogs are helpful to me because they give very rich insights into the person writing. Of course, the magic doesn’t always work but enough times it does and brings you back.

I suspect that in the networked world, the negative use of power will simply be ignored and dis-connected. Social capital to too important to waste time squandering on negative energy. Perhaps, just perhaps, the networked world through its autonomy, diversity, etc. might teach other social forms how to move forward.

My largest questions relate to the role, if any, do networks as a structural goal have in K-12 education? Terry seems to indicate that it is tough for him at his university and George continally refers to the insitutional expectations of schools on any class offered. For years I have been impressed by the structures of Alverno College. They have portfolio based education that is founded on solid standards that are not overly prescriptive. Why is this model not replicated anywhere that I know of? They have been working on this for decades and everybody who visits is impressed but institutions can’t make the switch. K-12 education is even more restrictive and controlling. Or will the technology of social learning simply blast through the walls of education and make the changes anyway?

My question for reflection relates to the use of network understanding with schools and web 2.0 tools. Schools are classically very hierarchical networks with weak links between teachers and even weak links between teachers and administrators. The structure is solid and simple but can be very isolating and often dysfunctional. Things really get confused if a few core links, like the loss of a key administrator, cause whole systems of communication to go missing.

What happens as web 2.0 enters schools is the development of some emergent networks of people with similar ideas or questions. They can develop around departments or clusters of teachers. Often however these links have no relation to the classic hierarchical structures. However this new collaboration is usually very life giving and exciting for teachers to participate in. I suspect that collaboration is an absolutely key process in the networking environment for the future.

How can we build on these ideas and allow new emergent networks to grow? This can easily be expanded to students. Without participating in the core of a network development, students will not discover their gift and passion. They will not find “The Brass Ring”.

My question is similar. It seems that former theories of knowledge were based on pre-20th century science. If all knowledge is found in the network then empricism, rationalism, logical positivism etc. could then be seen as subsets of Connectivist learning at a time when they were using the best wisdom available. Qualitative and quantitative knowledge could be seen as reflections of underlying connectivist knowledge.

Continuing this line of thought, it seems to be not so big a step to view Connectivist theory from an ontological perspective. The further we go with brain research and the advances in physical science we get easily overwhelmed with the wondrous mystery of where any idea is located both personally and socially, it seems we could start using terms like reality, or a description of life, or the foundations and ground of all being to refer to it all.

Is this all unhelpful speculation? For now I will simply work on Connectivism as, at once, a Theory of Learning and a Theory of Knowledge while looking for a deeper understanding.

There is a huge cognitive context of standards, benchmarks, tests, LMS systems, and published accountability tables. The State has labeled the school an “F” school based on the reading/math scores after the 2nd grade.

Her assignment is to get kids in the 2nd grade to pass the reading test. The teachers ask the students to read a book three times and then go to the computer to take the “test”. If they pass then they can go on to the next book. As a former computer science instructor myself, I appreciate the power of exams to motivate when some would rather play video games. Working hard is a good “behavior”. Yet this is not enough. These 2nd graders just don’t get it.

The small network of a single student working with my wife is a help. She is able to communicate the joy of reading and explains all the concepts the students have no idea about. Yesterday a boy thought a dentist was where you got ketchup (checkup). The students have to be given the possibility of “constructing” their own knowledge but something is missing.

How could Connectivism as a learning theory be of some assistence? I speculate that Connectivist theory would imply that simply expanding networks would help. Reading together in groups. Reading with parents. An on-line book available both at home and school. The Constructivists would then add writing a note(email, twitter) to Grandma. Talking about a book in class. Acting out a scene with several friends. And yes, an on-line quiz would be a chance to see some holes and celebrate. Not all Behavior implies failure.

Just a start. Any ideas?

Connectivism is more than simple relationships between people using technology but has three levels: 1. The neural network which is how the brain works 2. the conceptual level – how we make networks of ideas and 3. the external or social level – how we learn from each other whether face-to-face or across web laced universes.

This implies a relation between individual reflection and learning community. Several questions come to mind.

1. What would the ideal dynamic between these various levels of connectivity look like? When watching young kids learn (you can see why Piaget would get excited) there seems to be constant action which you know is influencing the reflection and learning which is harder to observe. Does that change as we age or does learning efficacy always imply a fast dynamic between neural and conceptual connections and external connections? (video games)

2. Where do concepts come from? Might this be the strength of “traditional” learning? It can get complex. There are a few books I have read again and again yet when discussed in a social or external environment I wake up to new meanings as if I had not even read the book once.

3. In the chaos of competing information spheres and tools, how do you (should you) select or prioritize? I just can’t seem to understand the sense of Twitter, am mystified by Second Life but really appreciate Aggregators. Why am I drawn this way? How can I (should I) relate to those who live with totally different understandings of networking environments?

This course has already forced me to reconstruct my igoogle and push me into new constructs. Great fun.

Several levels of questions:

1. How does this help people learn?
2. Is there an educational philosophy somewhere in there?
3. What is the relationship between Connectivism and other meta understandings in education like Understanding by Design (Wiggins/McTighe) or Dimensions (Marzanno)?
4. What might be institutional implications for such thinking particularly in education?
5.  How might this mesh with the one laptop per child scenario both in the developed as well as the developing world?

Looks to be exciting.

• Teachers know when a student has “got it”, is engaged and excited.
• Students who latch onto a powerful idea in one subject often carry that motivation into other areas
• Sports and the Fine Arts often offer great examples of students who “grab the Brass Ring”
• To grab the Brass Ring means showing authentic achievement as well as being self-reflective about what you are doing.
• Let’s postulate that everyone has a “Brass Ring”. It is about life more than just school. How can schools with the possible aid of technology help all students find their passion?

For me this is what education has to hold uppermost in mind. Recently I visited with one of the 30% of American students who did not graduate from high school. She said “school is just not for me.” This makes you sad and puzzled. I have taught in a private international school in Hong Kong for over 20 years. Virtually 100% of all students go to solid 4 year programs at top universities. Technology often guided them in a direction, even the few “gamers” who actually went on to write video games.

In this blog, I’ll be looking for examples and places where teachers and students working with technology reach for the real goal of education, the Brass Ring of purpose, passion and proficiency.