Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /usr/home/jeffreykeefer/public_html/silenceandvoice/wp-content/plugins/jetpack/_inc/lib/class.media-summary.php on line 77
Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /usr/home/jeffreykeefer/public_html/silenceandvoice/wp-content/plugins/jetpack/_inc/lib/class.media-summary.php on line 87
Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /usr/home/jeffreykeefer/public_html/silenceandvoice/wp-content/plugins/jetpack/modules/infinite-scroll/infinity.php on line 153
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /usr/home/jeffreykeefer/public_html/silenceandvoice/wp-content/plugins/jetpack/_inc/lib/class.media-summary.php:77) in /usr/home/jeffreykeefer/public_html/silenceandvoice/wp-content/plugins/indieauth/includes/class-indieauth-authenticate.php on line 24
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /usr/home/jeffreykeefer/public_html/silenceandvoice/wp-content/plugins/jetpack/_inc/lib/class.media-summary.php:77) in /usr/home/jeffreykeefer/public_html/silenceandvoice/wp-content/plugins/indieauth/includes/class-indieauth-authenticate.php on line 25
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /usr/home/jeffreykeefer/public_html/silenceandvoice/wp-content/plugins/jetpack/_inc/lib/class.media-summary.php:77) in /usr/home/jeffreykeefer/public_html/silenceandvoice/wp-content/plugins/micropub/micropub.php on line 1195
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /usr/home/jeffreykeefer/public_html/silenceandvoice/wp-content/plugins/jetpack/_inc/lib/class.media-summary.php:77) in /usr/home/jeffreykeefer/public_html/silenceandvoice/wp-content/plugins/webmention/includes/class-webmention-receiver.php on line 762
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /usr/home/jeffreykeefer/public_html/silenceandvoice/wp-content/plugins/jetpack/_inc/lib/class.media-summary.php:77) in /usr/home/jeffreykeefer/public_html/silenceandvoice/wp-content/plugins/webmention/includes/class-webmention-receiver.php on line 764 #change11 MOOC – Page 2 – Silence and Voice
As Dave Cormier is speaking about Rhizomatic learning this week in the #change11 MOOC, I thought about this recent interview Charlie Rose had with the philosopher and cultural critic, Slavoj Zizek.
While I know that Dave’s work on rhizomatic learning does not have the same critical lens that Zizek uses, his way of seamlessly moving from one topic to another, approaching human experience from different perspectives, speaks to me about what may be possible if we extend this discussion (as learning opportunities surround us) to other areas of learning and experiencing the world. In this way it recalls Dave’s thinking:
The rhizome metaphor, which represents a critical leap in coping with the loss of a canon against which to compare, judge, and value knowledge, may be particularly apt as a model for disciplines on the bleeding edge where the canon is fluid and knowledge is a moving target.
I wonder how rhizomatic learning fits with cultural studies, and if in this way it has a certain interdisciplinarity about it?
As some of the emphasis in the #nlc2012 overlaps that of the #change11 MOOC, I am looking forward to seeing how they complement one another and help me to move my research along. I hope to see some of my colleagues there!
I had a DM conversation via Twitter this morning with a colleague, and she asked a question that I really could not answer, (which is a bit of a surprise to me!). She asked, “What have you found especially applicable [in the #change11 MOOC] for your research?”
I had no idea what to say. I hit a wall.
Yes, I have been rather engaged over the 8 weeks thus far, though have not really been able to think about how to apply anything I have read to my doctoral research (which, to be frank, is very specific and needs to be finished sooner rather than later). I have engaged with and spoken to Nancy White, Tony Bates, Allison Littlejohn, and Martin Weller about their content weeks, engaged with all 3 of the facilitators several times, and even started regularly commenting on blogs about specifics related to this course, though nothing yet has influenced or aided my research. While I do read the threads and posts in the MOOC-Research group, even they have not given me a sense of how to transition these experiences to something research-based. While this is one of my MOOC Goals, I do find it interesting that I find this such a valuable and eye-opening experience, though I cannot yet seem to connect it to my personal goal #1.
We finished week 7 of the #change11 MOOC, this week with Nancy White who spoke about the concept of a Social Artist, someone who teaches and supports learners by using creative and sympathetic means to patiently encourage them to establish and follow their own goals while being connected with a larger and increasingly complex and chaotic world. Jenny Mackness and I talked a bit about to what extent technology is also a component of social artistry, and I don’t think Nancy’s wonderful discussion (the first is listed here, though I cannot find a link to the one at the end of the week) could have occurred without technology. Thinking about how John Mak expanded on some initial work Jenny presented, how could a social artistry develop without some connected or networked world (or am I perhaps mixing the active social artist with one that is developing and nourishing the role?)?
Let me change direction for a moment and consider this in 2 events of this past Friday.
Friday night I had the honor of being able to attend this season’s Metropolitan Opera premiere of Satyagraha, the Philip Glass opera about the life of Gandhi (or part of it at least, including elements in his earlier life in South Africa where he developed his worldview). With Glass’s style of repeating a few chords in ways that are soothing and hypnotic and energizing all at one, along with this dynamic production that used visuals and technology to tell the simple story in a way that brings it to life to a contemporary audience in a fresh way, I had a profound sense of how important Gandhi is as an historical figure and as an icon for standing up for one’s beliefs, supporting the freedom of action and self-government of an oppressed people. I saw this opera the last time it was at the MetOpera in 2008, and it affected me even stronger this time around. Perhaps I knew more about Glass’ intentions, his music, and the complicated production that tells a story without allowing us to refer to the libretto.
Could Glass’s style add to social artistry, by offering a renewed sense of how historical action is just as relevant to our lives today? I kept thinking about Occupy Wall Street (OWS), something I have not been able to get my mind around (who ever heard of a protest without clear and simple demands?). Even when I was finally in the financial district in New York earlier on Friday, I snapped a few photos as a reminder, not knowing where or how this will develop. I did not initially make the connection between their work and Gandhi, though after seeing the opera later that night (yes, the irony between high art and its associated costs is not lost on me), I have since been thinking about the OWS protests that have spread around the world.
None of this would have been possible without technology, and while the Met Opera’s production was planned long before OWS began, the connection between the two is uncanny. As a matter of fact, without hearing so much about OWS online for several weeks, I would not have even known it was happening. Leave it to corporate media outlets to not investigate its claims more fully, but that may be a sign of the protest itself and best left to more discussion at another time.
I wonder if that is also a role of a social artist, to bring an awareness of human experience and help others see connections that may easily be missed and then process them together to lead to action to improve elements of society? Could this be what Nancy White showed in the interactive slides and periods of silence she allowed and promoted in her 2 #change11 MOOC sessions this week?
I will confess to you, dear reader, that I am a Nancy White Groupie.
No, I don’t follow her to see her on stage (who can keep up with that schedule, even to those places I cannot at times find on a map), nor do I toss my unmentionables (I have nothing that is unmentionable, BTW) to her across time and space for her benefit, though I would gladly share chocolate with her when I am able (or drinks when she visits New York). As a matter of fact, I have not even seen Nancy F2F for some years now (how she remains young while I grow older is the magic of memory and avatars, I suppose), though thinking of her always brings a smile to my face.
Take her session this past Monday. She asked us to consider change, especially related to creating a space for change. I was entirely engaged during the discussion, including the interactive whiteboarding she championed (see a screenshot to the right) that I watched without writing on. I could not write on this board because I was struggling with processing what she asked us to consider. I watched others. I was actively engaged in writing in and reading the chat stream (little surprise?) Because I like to think more than I like to draw. Because I believe reflecting on is an interactive and engaging activity. Even at the end of the session, I was not clear exactly what happened, what we (I) learned, nor what to do with it. Even here near the end of our week with Nancy, I struggle with her notion (or a notion she shared) about #socialartist. Even through some DM messages yesterday, somehow Nancy brought a positive spin to it. She didn’t leave me where I was–she encouraged and guided and urged me on, all with what I can only imagine being a smile on her face of knowing that we have to experience change ourselves–she can not tell us what will happen, but rather guide us to the edge and then steward us across.
Through all of this, Nancy makes me smile. I feel reassured and encouraged as she engages in online discussion and interactivity with a group spread across the globe. I don’t think it may matter to her how we react and engage; I think she cares more that we do react and engage. Perhaps in that variety of ways of approaching this lumbering issue of #change11 Education, Learning, and Technology, the issue is not so much about doing this or that right (as if there is a right way to experience education, learning, and technology), but that we move past our comfort zone, as only there will change (of the status quo) live.
Perhaps that is the (or a) point; change comes whether we want it or not, but if we engage in learning that pushes our boundaries while engaging in some aspect of community, the change may benefit from our shared exploration and thus be more fully realized. Borrowing from our actor-network theory colleagues, our learning network constantly changes, with technologies coming and going along with the people around them. This change really is the only constant. What can we do with all this change, especially so our voices get heard and we become part of it while not getting rolled over by it?
Ahh, that is what I think Nancy may really be getting at . . .