Conectivismo vs teorías de dinámica de grupos (teoría Identidad Social) vs percepción

En la conferencia online sobre Conectivismo, he podido leer un interesante comentario de Virginia Yonkers , que plantea la visión del conectivismo de G.Siemens desde otra perspectiva  ‘Dinámica de grupos-identidad social’  vs ‘percepción’ (individual, intra-grupo, e intergrupos) y vs  desarrollo de modelos mentales compartidos  (Inteligencia colectiva, conocimiento -K- conectivo?).

También hace referencia a los dos tipos de K propuestos por Kolb: 1.- K como proceso intuitivo que sucede como resultado de nuestra experiencia vital, y que es muy dificil de expresar (K aprehensivo). El segundo tipo de K es le que nosotros mismos creamos mediante la comprensión de ideas abstractas o símbolos, para poder explicitar por una parte nuestro K aprehensivo y para comunicar, compartir dicho K con el ‘exterior’ (conversión de nuestro K comprehensivo en símbolos a los que otros pueden acceder).

Añade la definición de Kolb sobre la ‘aprehensión de la experiencia’ como… ‘proceso subjetivo personal que no puede ser conocido por los demas excepto mediante la comunicación por nuestra parte de las comprehensiones personales explicitadas de forma que nos permita describir/compartir nuestra experiencia vital. A su vez se contempla ‘Comprehensión’ como un proceso social objetivo, herramienta de cultura’.

Se trataría de compararlos con los dos tipos de K (personal y social, via networking)  que propone G Siemens (Red Interna Personal o Cognitiva de K, y Red Externa Social de K), es decir vs K comprehensivo social y personal.
‘My background (M. in International Management and MAT in ESOL/French) gives me a very different perspective on connectivism due to my work in international communication. One area that would strengthen the understanding of connectivism is group dynamics theories, especially Social Identity Theory. There has been some good work in Applied Psychology that looks at how a person accesses different “identities” based on group dynamics and perception (individual, intra-group, and intergroup). In decision making literature, for example, development of shared mental models; exchange, censoring, or withholding of information; and the quality of decisions often are dependent on group dynamics and individual perceptions and accommodations within the group setting. I think your pre-conference presentation demonstrated that there is always that tension between the “group” and the individual. The connections and nodes may be strengthened with outside pressures, but can also be strained with too many connections or dominate connections that don’t allow for new paths.

I also kept thinking of Kolb’s book (1984) on experiential learning. My teacher training was based on this model. I have recently revisited his theories and feel they are relevant to your discussion. His discussion on the two types of knowledge is especially relevant. One type of knowledge is the intuitive process that happens as we experience the world and is difficult to express (apprehensive knowledge). The other is the abstract ideas and understanding we create to communicate our “knowledge” or what we know, converting our apprehensive knowledge into symbols that others can access. “Apprehension of experience is a personal subjective process that cannot be known by others except by the communication to them of the comprehensions that we use to describe our immediate experience. Comprehension, on the other hand, is an objective social process, a tool of culture (p.105).” This appears to me to be the “connectivism”, the creation of comprehensive knowledge.

Finally, I am surprised you didn’t have more on Dewey, since many of your ideas fit into his writings. What struck me with your presentation was that all of the newer theorists seemed to build on the theories of Dewey. It makes me wonder if 1) there can be just one theory of learning which changes over time as society, technology, the environment, and epistemologies change over time; 2) should there be only one theory of learning or do we need multiple learning theories to accommodate cultures, values, abilities, and individual situations; and 3) how do we really test these theories if so much is internal?

References:
Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential learning: Experience as a source of learning and development. Englewood-Cliffs, NY: Prentice Hall.

Special issue of Personality and Social Psychology Review Vol. 7 No. 4. A number of articles that apply social identity theory to group actions’.

Be Sociable, Share!

Deja un comentario

Tu dirección de correo electrónico no será publicada. Los campos obligatorios están marcados con *

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Anti-spam image