We've created a way of thinking, imposed by the limited educational paradigms that processed us, into splitting up our thinking into 'subjects' and then even further into subdivisions which we could probably refer to as 'sub-subjects'.
This applies to networking as much as it does to any other aspect of our existence, but I think the subject of networking gains an assist in how we further split up aspects of our lives and create a number of persona's that we believe suit us better in regard to 'survival' reflexes.

To illustrate: We will go to work and in our interactions among our work colleagues we will adopt a certain persona that we feel enhances our prospects in that environment, with qualifying modes of behaviour that assist in our survival within that environment. e.g., 'I will be as pleasant as possible in order to effect getting my work done in as efficient a way as possible without stepping on anyone's toes and compromising their ability to perform their professional function, and by so doing, effect a reasonable level of social acceptance within the group'. Here we have a self-imposed mode of behaviour that suits us in regard to survival in one set of environmental circumstances. To look at it in another way, it is a mode of behaviour that promotes the continuance of what we perceive to be an advantageous network in our lives and our degree of acceptance within it, in order to continue our momentum within that environment.

At lunchtime, we might head out for lunch, with just a few of us - a more intimate network within the larger professional web, hook up with one or two of our significant others and all of a sudden here we are within a related, but completely different network. We also appear to be behaving differently. We are more relaxed. We still watch what we say to a certain degree, because it's well known that Julie has a tendency to carry, quite inadvertently, the odd tale back to the professional network and this may well compromise our position in that environment. But, it's quite obvious that behaviour style has changed. We're more relaxed. It's quite obvious that it's a different network as the degree of separation is stressed by the gossip, only very slightly malicious in nature, that creates that distance between 'them and us' and a reasonable degree of this is initiated by Julie. Obviously, Julie needs to experience a greater degree of acceptance within the immediate network environment, whichever one it may be at the time. Understanding of the insecurity factor engenders acceptance.

So then after lunch we head back to work and switch back into that associated behaviour pattern and persona again until 'Knock-off Time' or 'Beer O'Clock' or whatever vernacular fits the required persona and we go home.

At home, behind closed doors and away from peering eyes we can feel safe in transposing into yet another persona, the one we keep for our immediate family network. We are much more relaxed again, but still paradigms are drawn on our behaviour mode according to the roles alloted to us by the modes of father, mother, teenage rebel, or whatever fits the bill, but the point is, in yet another network, our behaviour style shifts yet again and will again and again in any number of networks that we involve ourselves in during our everyday lives.

This is just one day during the week and it's far from exhaustive. We might go out to a restaurant one night and a club on another, with friends along for the ride on one of those occasions and the behaviour mode changes with each network and sub-net we involve ourselves in. And then comes the weekend, with yet another range of potentials with children's sport and/or dance activities.

We are the sum result of our network experiences.

We are totally immersed in a sea of social learning and resultant conditioning. Learning continuously, spurred on by the goads of survival, social acceptance, career and personal advancement, social reward within all of them, along with chasing our bents for more personalised knowledge pursuits and many, many other motivations.

And the sum total of these experiences create a continually evolving individual.

We have one powerful ally in the deluge.
Choice.
What networks have you personally involved yourself in?
What decisions based on association have *you* made, in order to shape yourself into the kind of individual that *you* deem to be socially acceptable.

Here's a brief outline of a person who is currently evolving the management networking structure of a major English bank, on principles learnt from his Quaker Grandmother.

http://magazine.uchicago.edu/1008/investigations/meet-and-greet.shtml

#CCK12

The success of on-line learning, away from the traditional classroom, is indelibly tied to the level of personal autonomy over the learning process.
Some quite startling results are achieved with the more positive outlook that this engenders.

Institutionalised regimentation is not the means by which to achieve compliance with a collection of individuals, all of whom work to the dictates of their own, very personal, biological clocks. Why does the work have to be done between the hours of 8.30 am and 3.00 pm if the work gets done within the required calender term? If you find that your concentration level is better when everybody else is asleep and the world is quiet, what's wrong with doing the work then? What's wrong with providing ourselves with the potential opportunity to enjoy our work?

Times will occur when fellow classmates are on-line and you can consult with each other then, employing the power of crowd sourcing and, in this way, ensure that no child gets left behind. Multiple perceptions are brought to bear on the shared subject material and each member of the group benefits from the input of even the smallest contributor.

Blended learning, because of its proximity to the traditional classroom environment, seems to be providing the proof that personal autonomy over the learning process works. Institutions are implementing on-line learning in order to maximise their assets and coming up with some surprising results:

 http://www.edtechmagazine.com/higher/article/2011/09/right-mix

 Great things can be achieved with the sort of outlook that is created when not being locked up in an environment that involves personal sacrifice on a continual level. No matter what the initial outlook, the most positive mental attitude will be broken down into an ennui that 'puts up with' the situation for the potential long term result. The definition of success that has also been imposed.

 We envision the future happiness that we will gain when we finally achieve the goal of somebody else's definition of success. The one that industry forms to enable us to turn ourselves into the marketable products that they require.

 No wonder a little autonomy feels good.

 Here's a more personally productive way of looking at that dreary old subject, 'Positive Thinking':

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLJsdqxnZb0&feature=email



#CCK12

I don't think that we are going to be complete with any meaningful educational format solution until we can blur the borders of the imposed paradigms and envisage a (w)holistic concept.

I can see benefits within the traditional classroom/lecture hall format, but only as a common venue to adjourn to, for clarification on principles when other mediums don't seem to suffice. Also, to provide that experience of 'community' within a discipline, that on-line 'Hang-outs', try as they might, simply can't provide. The labs associated with Universities also provide the facilities of direct, personal, existential experience that endorses and underpins learned principle that the individual could never hope to afford on their own.

Constructivist and Social Constructivist have valuable contributions to make also within recognition of the requirements of the individual learner requirement, among other aspects, that the physical, traditional classroom format, blanket policies and imposed schedules simply don't cater to.


 Connectivism returns us to our natural state of communication, control and responsibility for the decision process over our own personal existence and our requirement for orientation within the herd context.

Just for some examples.


Please feel free to employ the comment section below to insult me.

 #CCK12

Expanding the Network

Hello,

 I hope I find you well!

 The only common factor that can be said about a crowd is that they are all individuals. Individual perception dictates this, so the conventional classroom educational model, along with all other blanket policy impositions are essentially broken formats before they are even implemented.

 I've attempted, within the bounds of my own broken, rambling model, to explain my perception of why this is here

 I learnt far more after school, in the university of life, because it was an environment within which I was allowed to communicate.
 Unless you can communicate, you can't create networks, because communication mediums are the interface aspect between the nodes.
So, therefore, if you can't communicate - and I may as well drop the old hack in here of 'Communication is 85% listening' - you are not open to the perceptions of others and you're literally not in a position to learn anything other than a preferred, dictated doctrine.

 And this is why, coming into the twilight years of my life, I can sit down on the backstairs and listen to a five year old and know, that if I listen for long enough, I'll learn something new.