The idea that a user might create or provide “content” with “no conscious intervention” is a very interesting idea. Not sure if I am getting the true import of this concept but I need to reiterate a few concepts that Stephen Downes was expanding (expounding) upon that I have mentioned in the previous post. So lets reiterate:
1. Rather than relying on a bounded exclusivity to enrolees and strictly narrow curriculum focus PLEs are better for learning if there is access to diversity of inputs (or weak connections to a diverse community) and an openness to cross curricula relevance to real tasks or activities.
2. for the more diverse network and “community” to work well the focus needs to be on learning that is developed through content “creation” and not just “consumption”
3. there is a place for content direction however from teachers instructors, mentors or “learning objects” if that ‘content” direction generates a requirement for “contextualised” learning or “learning opportunities’ where content is sought out by users or PLEs because of a “need” that is generated or “constructed” by mentor, teacher or learning object accessed.
4. now here is the interesting bit – it springs from item three – about personal content creation above rather than from item 4 – which is more about arriving at generating a need or motivation for learning in a context, and that is the not that an integral or integrated element of PLEs is content that may appear in PLEs or blogs via RSS feeds that specifically require “no conscious intervention.”
The idea of content in PLEs that has no conscious interventionmight be a little difficult to accept as a concept here at least in so far as it can be disputed whether there is not some conscious intervention in setting up the RSS feed by the PLE owner and then there is the intervention on the part of the content generator who the PLE owner has chosen who is writing posts that are automatically “read” or “fed” and appear as “content” in the PLE.