A question for those of us that ‘have’: Do you want more?
In one of my first blog posts I publicly dis-endeared (it’s a term now) myself towards group learning, stating I was sceptical of situations in which learners were ‘pressured’ into working as one, particularly due to the potential of groupthink.
I still am.
Nonetheless, having read a few things this week, and genuinely appreciating David’s comment to that blog post, I’m becoming less cautious about having to operate as part of a cluster in this unit. Although we kind of are a group (we share a common goal) it doesn’t seem as if we’re expected to operate as one for the sake of netgl.
Instead, drawing from Anderson and Dron’s (2007) discussion it seems like we are more representative of a network:
“A distributed assortment of individuals with a marginal sense of commitment to each other…..….who are being taught to restrict and filter messages”
I like that expectation of marginality. It means I can be close, yet distant. It means I can share when I feel it’s beneficial and draw from others when I’m in need, without having to feel excessive pressure. Although, what happens if I take the wrong information, or misrepresent the information I’m taking? What happens if I explore only minimal sources of information because they’re easier to follow? What if they all seem correct and beneficial and are also embraced by the majority, but are rubbish?
“Well then son, (Dron and Anderson would say) you’d have fallen for the Matthew effect.”
In one of my first blog posts I publicly dis-endeared (it’s a term now) myself towards group learning, stating I was sceptical of situations in which learners were ‘pressured’ into working as one, particularly due to the potential of groupthink.
I still am.
Nonetheless, having read a few things this week, and genuinely appreciating David’s comment to that blog post, I’m becoming less cautious about having to operate as part of a cluster in this unit. Although we kind of are a group (we share a common goal) it doesn’t seem as if we’re expected to operate as one for the sake of netgl.
Instead, drawing from Anderson and Dron’s (2007) discussion it seems like we are more representative of a network:
“A distributed assortment of individuals with a marginal sense of commitment to each other…..….who are being taught to restrict and filter messages”
I like that expectation of marginality. It means I can be close, yet distant. It means I can share when I feel it’s beneficial and draw from others when I’m in need, without having to feel excessive pressure. Although, what happens if I take the wrong information, or misrepresent the information I’m taking? What happens if I explore only minimal sources of information because they’re easier to follow? What if they all seem correct and beneficial and are also embraced by the majority, but are rubbish?
“Well then son, (Dron and Anderson would say) you’d have fallen for the Matthew effect.”
Not that Matthew....
I mean, becoming primarily focused on the cumulative advantage of the information at hand without exploring alternatives. See it explained here. This is often the result of a collective. In collectives, as D&A (2007) explain, the wisdom of the crowd can quickly transform into the stupidity of mobs, primarily when people become aware of the decisions that others are making. And when the word ‘stupidity’ is used to describe a thing, it’s usually good to do the opposite… So, is this a collective with the potential to be negatively oriented? Would that result in the groupthink I so dearly fear?
I suppose it’s possible.
But wait, a moderator exists; one who is a self-professed introvert. To me, this represents safety in that we will be given trains of thought and coaxed to think constructively without the overzealous enthusiasm of a sales and marketing executive. Purpose and development are required but not so much that independent thought and self-discipline disappear. Therefore, after the week of exploring netgl further I’ve come to see we are a network.
Now, the challenge exists to generate a cumulative advantage within this network that enhances global intelligence instead of excreting uninformed individuals incapable of branching out. A Matthew effect of advantageous affect.
So, for those who are with me, we ‘have’ but we must ensure we receive more.
-Al
I suppose it’s possible.
But wait, a moderator exists; one who is a self-professed introvert. To me, this represents safety in that we will be given trains of thought and coaxed to think constructively without the overzealous enthusiasm of a sales and marketing executive. Purpose and development are required but not so much that independent thought and self-discipline disappear. Therefore, after the week of exploring netgl further I’ve come to see we are a network.
Now, the challenge exists to generate a cumulative advantage within this network that enhances global intelligence instead of excreting uninformed individuals incapable of branching out. A Matthew effect of advantageous affect.
So, for those who are with me, we ‘have’ but we must ensure we receive more.
-Al