The topic of Binding in collective learning seems a bit up in the air. Littlejohn’s description of the Charting process focuses on how learners bind together, rather than what binds them. Running through her commentary of the process of charting is a theme of knowledge that is valued. Language like reinterpret, relevant and making sense all hint at this running theme. This is what binds individuals to any given collective.
The value placed on knowledge (or, information) is similar to her distinction of Learning Goals, with a major difference. The learning goal is specific to an outcome or result, a value placed on knowledge is not. Two people can value any given information but have completely different learning goals. Learning goals that bind might also promote collaboration over cooperation. Collections of knowledge that are valued similarly to clusters of individuals will invite collections of learners that can benefit from working together through cooperative processes like Charting, as she describes. Thus, the connection to the collective knowledge is independent of the individual outcome…maintaining the collective-individual dichotomy.
This week’s topic is interesting for me, but I don’t have that much time to initiate discussion. I did want to mention one statement in the reading that I disagree with: When individual learners learn through connecting with the collective knowledge, it generates a new paradigm for learning in which the individual and ‘the collective’ are indivisible.
I’m not sure that this is true, the “new paradigm” part of it. This collective and individual connection has always been present, hasn’t it? People have always learned through connecting with society, a collective knowledge, and its various parts. In today’s learning world, collectives are easier to define through our communication technology. I may be missing some distinct point she is making with the reference to what is new. Am I?