I have just finished watching a video by Dave Cormier on Rhizomatic Learning which I have put in below for reference.

In the video Dave describes what is meant by rhizomatic learning, which builds on the rhizome idea of connections growing in all directions being only constrained by their local surroundings. There was something that instantly appealed to me about this because it reminded me dendrites. Dendrites are the small protrusions that normally extend from the cell body of neurons. They are said to form branch like structures such as that the term given to them collectively is a dendritic tree. Here is what one looks like (taken in around 1901):

But the comparison does not end there - dendrites (and the rest of the cell) are constrained only by the careful balance of chemicals in their surroundings and they are dynamic - connections can be strengthened and weakened or formed and lost altogether over time.  When I consider learning to reflect the very process that our brains appear to use to learn (dendritic changes are known to be critical in learning), the idea has a certain beauty to it.  Just to reflect a little more on this and see how far I can stretch the brain analogy, let's think about how dendrites do against the principle's laid out:
1. The best teaching prepares people for dealing with uncertainty - the brain loves uncertainty and change. We have clearly evolved to detect change an many ways. This is most clearly illustrated with our sensory systems which adapt to constant stimuli but respond vigorous to changing stimuli. We have found evidence in the brain of calculations involving weightings for bottom-up and top-down information where we cannot be certain.
2. The community can be the curriculum, learning where there is no answer - ok so at brain level we can probably have a debate about what the community would constitute but to me the logical community would be the 86 million neurons and the even larger number of glial cells. And again, of course, most learning takes place when there is no clear answer - as a infant we engage in a number of actions and yet do not necessarily comprehend them - connections in brain develop at a huge rate, only later to be pruned back to what we really need.
3. The rhizome is a a model for learning for uncertainty - dendrites can respond to uncertainty in the most remarkable ways - they are dynamic and responsive.  Indeed as infants, when the most connections between dendrites and neighbouring neurons are formed, everything we encounter is filled with uncertainty.
4. Rhizomatic learning works for the complex domain so this is a situation where there is uncertainty and there is a need to experiment and see what happens. As explained above dendrites can form connections of different strengths - these can be up or down regulated or removed altogether - they work well for modelling complex domains.
5. We need to make students responsible for their own learning - ok so this is perhaps where my analogy falls down a little but given the we know teaching about the the plasticity of the brain (the ability to shape and re-shape connections) increases effort beliefs, maybe it does not fall down that much.

Neuroscience analogies aside though, I find this approach quite convincing as an educator in theory but I would find it most unnerving as a student and hard to apply in practice as an educator.

With my educator hat on:

• I spend literally hours developing and revising learning outcomes, if I do not know the exact outcome of learning , this would all change.
• I would have to relinquish control of the curriculum and that scares me but I think it would also scare the accreditation organisation for our programme.
• I think students are increasingly taking a consumer approach to their learning (I do not agree with this) and they almost look for content to look for value for money. A rhizomatic approach could screw up our satisfaction metrics, and whilst on the note of metrics, if we stop measuring learning can we also stop using pointless proxy measures to measure teaching.
• I would worry that the lack of curriculum would create more work in the end - there is a better the devil you know sense here.
• If the community create the curriculum, I would need to be quite certain of a suitably diverse community of learners and in the context of my formal teaching that is not really the case.

With my student hat on:

• I like flexible approaches to learning now but as an undergrad or even during my MSc I definitely did not like them. I want to know exactly what I am aiming for and what I need to do to achieve this.
• I also think that inexperienced or nervous learners would not be confident enough to contribute and those lacking skills around communication (digital or otherwise) could also be marginalised.

Based on these first thoughts and concerns, I cannot imagine implementing this on a standard programme for undergraduates but I can imagine the approach working for professional development where learners may be spread out, with different experiences and that the learning will flow from those individuals networked together. I could also imagine it working on optional courses designed to support more skills based learning. At the moment I am playing around with ideas on teaching digital citizenship across the university to obtain a formal qualification, assessed by portfolio where students would work together. One of the ideas I was playing with today was looking at the topic of online security and seeing how that could take a variety of different approaches depending on the students involved in the discussions.

So in summary, the idea of rhizomatic learning has a certain natural beauty to it and it definitely appeals to the neuroscientist in mean but I would be reluctant to introduce it to learners at the start of their HEI journey, instead seeing this as something extra-curricular or more suited to vocational/professional development contexts.

One of the things I am reflecting on this week is connectivism. In particular I have been thinking about whether it is possible to re-version one of my existing modules with a connectivist approach. The module I decided to consider is the 'Academic Teaching Apprenticeship'. I chose this module because it is probably the module I designed with the clearest model of learning in my mind. It draws heavily on ideas of apprenticeship and situation cognition. The module is currently offered as a third year optional module for students on the BSc Psychology Programme at King's College London. It is quite unconventional in terms of how much contact time there is and how it used

• 3 x 1 hour lectures
• 3 x 1.5 hour seminars
• 3 x 1.5 hour workshops

The main themes of the module are:

1. The learning context and definitions and metaphors of learning
2. Factors affecting learning: focusing on the learner
3. What is takes to teach and the use of learning design

It is also quite unique in the assessment (in the context of the BSc programme):

• 5 x reflective blogs based on three seminars and two workshops (total 25%)
• 1 x teaching resources for 10 hours of learning aimed at first year psychology undergraduates - Group work (50%)
• 1 x peer review of other groups teaching resource (10%)
• 1 x reflective essay redesigning the module (15%)

At the moment the module runs for 10 weeks with face to face teaching for around 25 students supported by a VLE containing details of sessions, forums for discussions and assessment information.  I think there are some bits of this module that lend themselves well to a connectivism approach but other parts that do not :

Principles that work well in the current module:

• Learning is a process of connecting specialised nodes or information sources. In this module, the learners bring together information about pedagogy and the area of psychology they choose to teach and can combine this with additional understanding of technologies . They also bring a unique learning history which can be a source of information. So presently they are already learning specialist information and skills from a range of areas and individuals they may not previously have considered together.

• Ability to see connections between fields, ideas and concepts is a core skill. I think this is intrinsic to this module - they must see links between their own understanding of teaching and learning (before and after they step into the role of teacher from learner) and that of the existing literature around education as well as the core content they need to teach and graduate attributes in general.
• Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions. The seminars are deliberately designed to explore this, students work in small groups to discuss specific ideas around learning and which ones appeals to them as individuals and then consider what this means on a group level for education and the decisions that must be made during learning design. This realisation that learning arises from a diversity of opinions is often evidence in their reflect blog posts as they grapple with the disagreements in their group and making sense of them.
• Decision making is itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the decision. The students have to choose exactly what will be taught and how the learners will experience it. This includes decisions around learning outcomes, educational technologies, mode of delivery and assessment. Each decision is made as a group and peer reviewed as well as justified in a final document submitted with the teaching resources. The process of putting together the teaching resource is an opportunity to experience the decisions made by lecturers when they plan modules.

At the moment these experiences are delivered during a set period (which is quite short) and face to face, although students are encouraged to collaborate through a means of technologies and study when and where they choose both individually and collaboratively. It would be possible to make the module more flexible in terms of these two features.

Principles that are partially met or could work:

• Learning may reside in non-human appliances. Learners on this module can opt to produce a VLE and are encouraged to consider necessary digital literacy training. The idea that there is learning within non-human appliances is not expressly included but could be inferred and made more explicit. It could be incorporated into the seminars as a discussion about how intelligent VLEs/LMS might be and the importance of knowing how to tap into information rather than knowing the information (the google it approach if you like).

• Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities. The module is not so much about up to date knowledge as it is about up to date practice and students are encouraged to look at what is currently used and think about what they could do. However, they are constrained by the university systems so I don't think they would see their use of technology, for example, as current but rather fit for purpose. They may be seeking up to date sources of information and examples, if they decide to teach these. One way to incorporate this is to introduce something around innovative design where student review current practice and look for opportunities for innovation.

Principles I cannot see how to fully integrate:

• Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known. I am not sure this is easily integrated into the course. There is an emphasis on who our learners are and knowing the current state of play in higher education. That said, there is an emphasis on how what they have learnt about learning will allow them to learn more effectively in future so arguably they are increasing their capacity to know!

• Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning. We do talk about lifelong learning in the module and the benefits of building connections with other people but also through interactions with content. Arguably students could be taught skills of keeping up to date with certain things e.g. database citation alerts but also networking skills. This would be hard to fit in the context of what they do at present though.

In summary, connectivism has potential on a module like this. Some of the more concrete principles could be easily integrated but the more abstract seem, unsurprisingly, hard to pin down. Additionally, I think some require a more long term approach. My module lasts for 10 week and to show a real distinction between current and future or the value of longevity of connections would seem to need something more.

The colour wheel of learning:
Part of me thinks that the issue here is not connectivism or apprenticeship learning. Indeed a good number of the principles of connectivism could be applied to this apprenticeship module. I think almost any model of learning can have value when employed carefully in an appropriate context but I question the value of mixed models of learning. This reminds me of the colour wheel - some colours complement each others and some oppose each other. I don't image that the apprenticeship model opposes the connectivism but it is perhaps a few steps along the circle.

Ok, so I am being a little creative with my title here because they did not walk into a bar; they walked into the Chamber in the House of Lords today for a debate entitled, "What progress is being made in developing a sustainable lifelong learning culture in England?". This is the second debate about Lifelong Learning in the last six months within the House of Lords, evidence that this important issue is playing on the minds of those sitting in the House. I had the fortune to be present for this evening's debate in the appealing surroundings of Westminster.

The debate put forward by Baroness Garden of Frognal  attracted some fascinating comments from a number of peers (a full list can be found here under today's date 16.04.18). Baroness Garden introduced the debate mentioning two leading institutions in Lifelong Learning - Birkbeck University and The Open University. She noted that these two institutions were unique and described the Open University as transformational, noting the huge importance of supporting learners studying part time, many of whom may have missed out on the opportunity earlier on in life. She noted the damaging impact of ELQ rules which prevent those with an equivalent or lower qualification accessing financial support and how both universities suffered a massive decline in student numbers since the raising of tuition fees. 

As the debate continued The Open University's recent media coverage was mentioned by nearly all  contributing. It was described as 'Great but struggling' (Lord Knight), 'One of Europe's outstanding institutions...[that we must] find a way of saving' (Baroness Bakewell) and there was a clear statement from the minister in his closing speech that the Government wanted to make sure the situation with the OU would move forward in the right direction. The affection in the room for this institution was palpable but, as readers of this blog with know, I could tell you again and again how life-changing and awe-inspiring the OU is, but that is not what this blog is about - it is about the bishop, the neuroscientist and the trade unionist. Or more importantly it is about three different takes on Lifelong Learning, which all recognise the importance of this type of education. So I begin with the Neuroscientist.

Baroness Greenfield spoke of a range of research supporting the value of Lifelong Learning noting its particular impact in those with mental health conditions and the elderly, where it can contribute to obtaining and maintaining employment and supporting longer social engagement, respectively. She went on to review the current Education Strategies of the Russell Group universities commenting that only one, Leeds University, makes explicit reference to Lifelong Learning for anyone and only a further four (out of 24) make reference to it for their own alumni. She suggested that there needed to be a clear steer from government that the elite universities should be focusing on this provision. She noted four key barriers to Lifelong Learning:
- Technological - finding systems and platforms to support the learners studying in a different mode to previous students
- Financial - from the perspective of the university e.g. the cost of re-developing curriculum 
- Pedagogic - recognition that teaching must be viewed more broadly than ever before - it is not just about a teacher in front of a group of learners.
- Learner - here she focused largely on the financial barriers for individual learners. She noted that financial support required studying at around 10 hours per week which may be too much for some part time learners to combine with other commitments and commented on the range of financial support options for carers or dependants, which are very poorly promoted.

Baroness Greenfield suggested the following:
1. The government should send a clear message to all universities that Lifelong Learning should be part of their strategies and flexible curriculum is important. This could even include a fee cap for universities not showing commitment to this issue.
2. Flexible financing should be available, including for professional development cousres, which could even include financing on a module level rather than qualification level.
3. She also suggested completely scrapping the ELQ rules.

The Bishop of Coventry directly followed Baroness Greenfield and he emphasised again the importance of Lifelong Learning, noting that is it a shared value in many traditions and that learning is fundamental to human identity. He commented that learning should never just be for economic benefit but it is a far deeper experience. Life, he said, was endlessly interesting and gave many opportunities for us to learn. Most pertinent for me was his remark that learning is for life - it allows us to live life to the full.  He says that learning gives us hope to imagine a different future, for both individual and the world.

The final contribution I want to describe is from Lord Sawyer who began by acknowledging his trade union background and recalled how he had seen people realise their potential through Lifelong Learning and that an area once pioneering and adventurous and lots its drive. He said that whilst we need a type of Lifelong Learning fit for the modern setting it must still fulfil the needs of the people. He blamed the decline of part time students by more than 50%, a cross bared more heavily by the OU and Birkbeck than others, as caused by increased fees and restrictive loan criteria.

These remarks, and those of the other peers I have not had space to include, show that whilst there is a huge need to earn while we learn, Lifelong Learning is not just about meeting the changing demands of the economy - it s about  being human and it is about life. Lifelong Learning is about social mobility and social justice but is also about being an individual and being as part of a community. If this turbulent period in the OU's remarkable history has taught us anything, it is that Lifelong Learning is worth fighting for because without it, we lose the hope to imagine a better future.  The final comment that I think sums up feelings towards Lifelong Learning beautifully came from Lord Bird who stated that "Whatever happens we have to educate ourselves...[and that] to destroy us is to make us ignorant".