teaching.mrbelshaw.co.uk

2 Responses to “Stephen Downes on Networks vs. Groups (video)”

1. 1 Andrew Field Sep 27th, 2006 at 1:01 pm

   Doug - sorry to nit pick (yet again). But you’ve said:

   Networks, he says, are predicated upon principles of unity, coordination, being closed and distributive, whereas groups are diverse, autonomous, open and connective. Well worth a look!

   Yet the shaggy haired man says the complete opposite!

2. 2 Doug Belshaw Sep 27th, 2006 at 5:04 pm

   Whoops! Amended…

   Andrew’s contacted me to say that he couldn’t post the following:

   What is interesting though is how he defines the terms. After all, we talk about a television network and a radio network. Yet what is being said here is that a network is the *ideal* and that this empowers learners.

   I think if I was asked which enables the most effective learning - a ‘network’ or a ‘group’ - I would have probably said a group as this would, for me, suggest a collection of people working together. Whereas a network suggests a structure and a hierachy. I would think that a network suggests control. Yet then again, a group suggests you have to be invited and be one of the gang.

   I guess this is all terminology and semantics though. The end product is the key aspect - the best way to empower effective learning.

   In response to this, I would say that it depends on the purpose. If we’re talking about contributing to human knowledge, then networks are the way forward. This can be done through Web 2.0-type stuff.

   As Andrew says, however, groups can be useful for working towards a particular purpose. The distinction depends on your point of view. Stephen Downes’ line of work sees him going around ’selling yeast’ (as it were) to make a difference. Andrew works in a school as part of a team to make a difference.

   I’d recommending reading George Siemens’ Knowing Knowledge when it’s freely available in PDF format…