Bud,
I am with you on this. It makes me wonder about why we need to compartimentalise our discussions and ideas. It also excludes some people from the discussions which is one of the great strengths of the web, allowing people with different insights into discussions. The two groups you mention would be off limits for me, an older male teacher. So does that mean that I should start an OMTG – older male tech group? My take was that we wanted to break down barriers instead of building them. I may not agree with everything I read but it makes me consider new perspectives which is an important part of learning. Without access, learning can be limited. Isn’t that what we are struggling with in the school realm – building credibility without walls – so our students can access ideas outside theirs.
For what it’s worth –

Kelly

I understand your concern: there are already so many things to keep track of online. Also, most of us agree that connection/openness is the goal of the internet. Do groups complicate the poblem and confound these goals? I think they do. However, I think the problem is not with groups, but with the technology that cannot yet handle this proliferation.

Blogs are a good example. Before RSS became standard and could be capitalized on, the proliferation of so many blogs was a problem. Now, using blogrolls, tags, etc., the proliferation is an advantage and more manageable.

I think the technology to deal with this is around the corner (I hope)–some form of transferrable ID (like OpenID or something similar) that can allow users to “carry their networks with them” as they join various groups. This will allow for someone to join specialized groups, but not be disconnected from others, and even bring those specialties into larger networks (MySpace, Facebook, etc.)

At least, I hope something like that will be coming soon, because we need it. And at any rate, I don’t think people are going to stop joining groups. Also, this would prevent “group monopolies” from dictating to us the few groups/networks to which we can belong and how those groups/networks should function.

So … proliferation = good; technology to help us keep track of this proliferation = necessary.

A good question worthy of attention, discussion … action. Thanks!

Bud,

I have the greatest respect for your ideas and comments, but I think you’re wrong here. Networks and groups aren’t mutually exclusive – we need both. Networks, as with Stephen Downes’ excellent visual representation (http://www.flickr.com/photos/stephen_downes/252157734/), are an excellent way – and a very 21st century way – of learning and collaborating. But groups are needed too. We have groups all the time, they’re a fact of life – we compartmentalize people naturally to make sense of the world.

As Chris has said above, give us a chance to iterate our intentions before please before you write off what we’re doing!

Doug

As soon as you have an us you also construct a them. Even the construction “edu’sphere” suggests something else beyond it. If a group could help me do something important that I couldn’t do alone, I’d consider joining. Some folks may feel the need for support and certainty in their decision-making. Maybe they’ll find it. Teaching, however, is rife with uncertainty (for me). The alternative to a group is to find one or two people who you respect, and learn from them whatever they have to offer. Each approach has its parallel in the ‘real’ world, if there is such a thing.

This whole concept of groups/networks really fascinates me, but much depends on the definitions being used. Darren Kuropatwa and I exchanged views about this a little while back and I don’t want to rehash that all here. My view of a network in a blogging sense is something that grows organically in an unplanned way – I find a blog, find something that rings true, subscribe, comments on my blog lead me to new nodes for my network and so on. It is like a growing organism with the only barriers being of my own creation. A group is something different (in my view) to a network – something planned, with defined boundaries and purposes and yes, they can be by nature exclusionary, intended or otherwise. The only problem that arises is when some groups set themselves up to be “experts” and to gain access to that expertise might require membership. Declining becoming a member of a group can also cause offence especially when the members of the group have noble or well intentioned goals (i.e. why wouldn’t someone want to be part of our great idea) but constructing and being part of a network is solely at the discretion of the blogger. Not sure that I’ve added much of value here but I tended to nod my head a lot when I read your post.

fyi… the women of web 2.0 are talking about this right now… should be posted up soon.

cheers. dave.

Hello Bud and all the discussion members,
This is a happy problem. For so many years, teachers have been isolated in their profession either by virtue of being the only Art or French teacher in the building, or only 3rd grade teacher on their floor. Now by reaching out to the Internet each teacher can make a connection with someone who shares similar interests, quests, lessons, ideas, visions. I believe we are responsible for bringing along the next wave of educators. My hope is that we can provide as many inclusive options as possible. That is my goal. Thanks for offering me a chance to be part of this conversation.

Some great these and issues surfacing here about:

* openness
* accountability to ourselves, defined set of “others” and the larger world
* our ability to have relationships with X number of people (Dunbar number sorts of issues)
* identity
* affiliation
* boundaries (usefulness/problems with)
* expertise (usefulness of/abuse of)
* learning
* shared practice
* inclusiveness
* exclusiveness
* personal preference of “containers”

Every time I read (and tag) posts about the group/network dynamic I always have the “blind men and the elephant” image. There is this continuum in my mind between human interaction forms that can be used/abused in so many ways. Yet the distinction seems very important to us. I wonder why it is so important? I know I spend a lot of time thinking/writing about it and yet I’m not clear on why I find it so important.

I’d be curious to know why it is important to all of you who have commented. Thoughts?

Cliques have always been a problem at schools but this latest debaucle out of Virginia is sickening. The Chesterfield County School Board voted unanimously to an art teacher because of the art he produced . It’s too sad…

This is a very timely post as I have been thinking about this movement of bloggers in general who seem to migrate from group to group. I was unaware of the groups you mention in your post and I’m grateful for the knowledge. As I read your post I simply thought about groups or communities outside of education that I have begun to communicate with. I love being a part of the education community of bloggers. I learn many things, I am able to reflect on my own actions, and learn that many times I’m not alone in my thoughts and feelings. I have become involved in a few groups that aren’t education related to branch out, to bring others into the discussion regarding education. I also hope to teach others a little about history along the way.

I don’t necessarily think these changes are bad. In the nonblogging world we tend to move from different group to different group as the need arises. I see no difference in the Internet world. Things tend to move in cycles.