I have been really struggling with the work of #rhizo15 this week. Dave has challenged us to look at content and to try to make sense of how we view content in learning (at least, that’s what I understood about the challenge).
In a lot of ways, this week’s challenge has given me a headache AND crystallized nagging concerns I have been having about my experience with the rhizome since we started. I have always enjoyed the process of learning and have mostly considered that experience more valuable than any of the content around which learning experiences I have engaged in have been organized. That said, although I thoroughly embraced so many things I learned (human anatomy and neuroscience and Latin and film history), I was left with more than process. In the end (or at least the end so far), I was left knowing more stuff. Is it fair to say, I knew more content?
I worry that I had begun to create an algorithm, which, loosely translated reads: process good; content bad. And I have found this really troubling.
Then, tonight, I was “learning.” Reading some critical analysis of MOOC research written by Stephen Downes. Then, I read some work on multimodal tutorials by Ian O’Bryne. Then, I stumbled onto Laura Gibbs’ Myth-Folklore Un-Textbook.
As each link brought more and more amazing work and thoughts to me, I had an insight: the content of what I was learning was getting built through/with/in the wake of the process of learning I was engaged in.
For now, at least, the headache is gone.