CCK08 course has proposed us, in this second week, an article on Rhizomatic Education, by Dave Cormier.
While reading the article (on my Mac), I used Google to search "rhizoma" and "rhizomatic", then I followed some links that seemed to be interesting.
Thus, starting from an article on a Learning theory, I learned:
- some botanical notions (types of stems and roots),
- some philosophical notions, for example that Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari used the term "rhizome" to describe theory and research that allows for multiple, non-hierarchical entry and exit points in data representation and interpretation (Wikipedia),
- some notions on the Guattari's theories on "schizo-analysis".
And I have developed an interest to learn more on such fields.
It's a confirmation that often the learning process is not linear (as the arborescent - single trunk - stem of a plant) but more similar to a rhizome stem (like Iris and Ginger):
article (in Italian) that - starting from the incorrect idea that rhizome is a kind of root (it's a kind of stem) - proposes an interesting comparison between superficial development (like the one of rhizome) and in-depth development (like the one of taproots). The author quotes Michael Tournier’s "Friday":
“It is a strange prejudice which sets a higher value on depth than on breadth, and which accepts ’superficial’ as meaning not ‘of wide extent’ but ‘of little depth,’ whereas ‘deep,’ on the other hand, signifies ‘of great depth,’ and not ‘of small surface.’.”
A part from the botanical mistake: interesting concept concerning learning (and teaching). I'll return on it.