The above map is my attempt to show how information travels in connections beginning with the wiring in the brain; moving to wiring in machines and the Internet; and returning to the brains of course participants.
The more I try to create a concept map around my current understanding of Connectivism, the more I am coming to realize:
1] Thinking in words graphically represented, forces you to see connections you would not otherwise see;
2] Three dimensional models of connectivism would be even richer... but working in 2 dimensions is challenging enough;
3] The more I try to show relationships among ideas, the more I know I don't know so much! This is a challenging task;
4] That concept maps can show relationships more succinctly than words, but the cost in time can be significantly greater on the part of the creator;
5] Ideas with images provide greater insight than do words and arrows among boxes and hexagons;
6] I need to re-prioritize the reading of Dan Roam's Back of the Napkin.
For fun, here is an earlier concept map that I created with Smart Ideas to arrange broad concepts, tools and activities we've been using to explore connectivism. The end result is not nearly as chaotic as I'd originally envisioned.
2 comments:
Hi Rodd - nicely done! I like the visualization of course elements (diagram #2). What appears as chaos is progressively made clearer once we begin to interact with it.
I have been using Personal Brain for a bit more effective demonstration of how concepts and ideas are related. As you note, however, we are just beginning to see these types of tools - we are still in 2D mode :)
Thanks for the supportive comments George.
I'm not sure what the perfect tool is for concept mapping, but no matter what you use, the strategy is effective for getting learners to consider relationships among ideas working in 'coopetition'.
Post a Comment