Comparing Connectivism
George Siemens on Sep 8th 2008
I’ve posted a comparison between different theories of learning. It’s not a final word summary, but hopefully it can provide a bit of a starting point for discussing the attributes of different concepts. While exploring distinctions between theories can be a mind-numbing task on par with watching grass grow, it does create an important starting point for ongoing discussion. If our discussions occur along the lines of Wittgenstein’s beetles – where we each speak of a subject from our own, rather than shared understandings – we quickly end up talking in circles without even a prospect of consensus or even the main points of debate.
Filed in Uncategorized | 36 responses so far
Doug Holton Sep 8th 2008 at 07:36 am 1
For constructivism, under “how transfer occurs”, you put “socialization”. If you mean transfer from an instructor to a learner (and not the more popular notion of transfer thats been used in educational research the past 20 years – applying one’s own knowledge in a new context), then constructivism doesn’t even believe that knowledge can be transferred. And under ‘types of learning explained’, I don’t know what “vague” learning means. When learning about complex physical or social systems and learning with understanding (vs. rote learning), constructivist techniques can be effective.
Also you cited 3 people who critiqued connectivism, but didn’t list any references.
Renee Aitken Sep 8th 2008 at 09:35 am 2
I think of the definition of Hermenuetics I was given in grad school in the late 70s – (Hermenuetics is more associated with religious thoughts these days) where we all have individual contexts for what we know and we cannot separate those concepts from our knowledge. For example, a chair had a basic form and is called many different names, but most humans recognize it as something to sit upon. The transfer of the knowledge that a chair in any form is something to sit upon is gained through observation. But the chair evokes many different emotions based on the user. In a classroom with ADHD students, a chair may represent punishment. To a worker who has labored in the field all day, the chair may represent rest. To a team player in a sporting event, the chair could be either – rest or punishment, depending on the game.
It may be that there is no “truth” to the definition of knowledge but rather an agreed upon definition that fits into each of our individual context of everything.
What a mess this creates for traditional education. The traditional education systems holds that there are truths that cannot be changed, but one only has to look at any field of study and the truths of yesterday are being debunked every day. If we do not have the contextual element in knowledge, then we would still be in the dark ages.
And finally, I think the reason this is coming to the fore now is because technology is a vehicle by which we can expand our understanding of how others see things (i.e. their knowledge) at a much faster rate than ever before.
George Guba Sep 8th 2008 at 10:21 am 3
<>
In what way is there a difference here? In my view, students in a constructivist approach continually bring together ideas from other fields and perspectives which include neuroscience, cognitive science, etc.
Susmita Pani Sep 8th 2008 at 11:04 am 4
I am not clear about the difference . I mean constructivism may be ‘personal’ but it still comes from social interactions. The social nature of constructivism cannot be undermined. I see technology as an additional thing not mentioned there but then does the addition of technology in connectivism make it a different thery of learning?
gsiemens Sep 8th 2008 at 11:12 am 5
Hi Doug – Plon Verhagen offered a nice critique – but I haven’t been able to find it online lately. You may have more luck searching. He offered the critique in response to a presentation I was to do at SURF in Utrecht a few years ago.
Bill Kerr – his critique is listed on the course reading list for week 1: http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/wiki/Connectivism#Week_1:_What_is_Connectivism.3F_.28September_8-14.29
Vague may have not been the best term – ill-defined learning objects is better. Problem based learning, for example, fits into this category.
gsiemens Sep 8th 2008 at 11:19 am 6
Hi Renee – nice explanation of the recognition of use of an object. Gibson’s notion of affordances (action potential) of objects is useful here. Or activity theory suggesting the interplay of agent, artifact and environment.
I tackled the importance of context in Knowing Knowledge under the heading of Context Games (p. 61): http://www.elearnspace.org/KnowingKnowledge_LowRes.pdf …and in a related post: http://connectivism.ca/blog/2008/03/pedagogy_first_whatever.html .
Any discussion of learning design and delivery must begin with context…
Alice MacGillivray Sep 8th 2008 at 11:21 am 7
Any thoughts about how connectivism resembles and differs from Wenger’s work on social and situated learning?
gsiemens Sep 8th 2008 at 11:29 am 8
Hi George – my point was that each era’s theories adopt and integrate concepts from fields of prominence at the time. Dewey (on the legacy of Spencer) conceived of education in a manner that far exceeded the understanding of most educators at the time. As individuals like Vygotsky and Piaget rose in prominence in their theories and research, constructivism (I believe Piaget is the first to use the term) absorbed their theories and drew to itself related works of Dewey, etc.
The work of Kuhn and others continued to erode the views of many logical positivists. Suddenly, we have a nexus point of ideas that did not arise by plan, but because of resonance in nature, formed the field of constructivism as we know it today (many others obviously contributed – Leotniev, Engestrom, Lave & Wenger, Pea, Hutchins, Brown, Papert (with constructionism) etc.). But as a group, they did not necessarily labour under the flag of constructivism. They explored learning as they understood it in their context. Constructivism was the most obvious source to which allegiance could be attached and from which leverage could be gained. The transition isn’t that different from the shift from behaviourism to cognitivism and cognitivism to constructivism. Ideas build and borrow from others. There is huge overlap in the theories (and, different texts have a way of calling Piaget and Vygotsky cogntivisist or constructivists). With connectivism, we’re drawing from current sources that provide insight into networked learning. Do some sources overlap with constructivism and cognitivism? Yes, absolutely. But, as mentioned in my presentation, my consideration with connectivism is the primacy of the network and the impact of understanding learning networks on the design of education systems.
Does that clarify my intent with the statement?
gsiemens Sep 8th 2008 at 11:35 am 9
Hi Susmita,
yes, constructivism is social (obviously). Constructivism comes in many varieties (Phillips, 1995) – social, radical, etc. Even cognitivism doesn’t do away completely with the social element (even though it certainly doesn’t place heavy emphasis on it).
Two learning theories sharing some similar attributes is an indication of evolution, not a source of rejection of one in favor of another.
As expressed in my week 1 presentation, connectivism is more than about technology. We’ve always been networked learners. Today’s context, however, highlights what used to be implicit: the need for networks to cope with abundance information, ease of forming global communication connections, and the extension/enlargement of our reality through simulation.
gsiemens Sep 8th 2008 at 11:50 am 10
Hi Alice,
Lave and Wengers work on social and situated learning is important. Much of their insight strongly supports both constructivism and connectivism. Vygotsky is best known for his advocacy of social (and cultural) aspect of learning. Wittgenstein explored understanding/comprehension as shared social (negotiated) concepts. Bruner and Bandura both advocated for social aspects of learning (Bandura specifically in his theory of social cognition, but his work is also attached to constructivism especially for his emphasis on self-efficacy)
I find the work of individuals like Hutchins, Solomon, and Pea on distributed cognition to be of significant value as well. Our knowledge or our ability to act and function is the result of a distributed network. We do not think alone. We think as communities and networks. We often do not act alone either – especially in complex worlds – i.e. no one builds and flies their own 747. Recognizing knowledge and expertise as distributed entities is a vital start to seeing the inherently networked nature of knowledge (to be discussed in more detail next week).
gminks Sep 8th 2008 at 08:21 pm 11
I am really struggling with seeing a difference in constructivsm and connectivism. If the difference is technology, then I have an important access question. Doesn’t this make connectivism rather elitist? What happens to the folks who don’t have access to electronic connectedness?
Gerry White Sep 8th 2008 at 09:15 pm 12
The comparison is brilliant and the points made about connectivism stand up to debate, in my view. However, one of the points that could be made about connectivism as a learning theory, which is powerful for me, is that connectivism is comprehensive and does fit all situations, whereas I have not found that to be the case for behaviourism and cognitivism as one major line of thought and constructivism as another. Connectivism breaks into a new way of thinking about learning which is consistent with the social and technological context in which people learn today and builds on previous theories.
I keep thinking of four concentric circles, each one for a theory, with behaviourism at the centre, then cognitivism, then constructivism and connectivism all encompassing on the outer. Operant conditioning is almost mechanical, that is simple, through to connectivism which is quite complex. Perhaps that’s a bit simple but it works for me.
Alice MacGillivray Sep 8th 2008 at 09:55 pm 13
Thank you. The links with Lave and Wenger (and even more so in Wenger’s Learning, Meaning & Identity work) make sense to me as do links with Vygotsky, Wittgenstein and others you mention (though I don’t know the distributed cognition works).
If I have time, I am very much looking forward to following the thinking when you dig into complexity later, which is an interest of mine.
This may be a question from left field, but do you go so far as to see connectivism operating at levels not normally cited in the Academy, such as the work of Rupert Sheldrake (morphic resonance)?
Thanks again!
Shalini Gogia Sep 9th 2008 at 08:38 am 14
Does connectivism add something not covered by existing theories of learning?
Yes! A bit…
The goal of learning through the years has not changed. People learn to grow. If we did not want to grow, we would not learn. But how we choose to learn evolves, based on the resources available to us.
Learning through socialization—whether driven by a network, or whether provided within a pagan community that sits around a banyan tree chatting—is still the most effective learning resource.
The progression or differences I see in all the 4 main learning theories—Behaviorism > Cognitivism > Constructivism > Connectivism, is one of transparency. I don’t think any theory is that new from the other, but rather builds on the previous theory, or provides are more transparent view of learning–something that the older theory danced around but could not quite pin down.
While I don’t think it tells us anything new as a standalone theory, it does tell us something new by comparison. That now socializing, sharing information and learning have moved from control to chaos. And this to me is very important from the view point of reaching the millenial learner in an environment on chaos.
CCK08
Shalini Gogia
Silvana Pirruccello Sep 9th 2008 at 10:39 am 15
One of the most tangible criticisms of Social Constructivism is the type of learning it supports. While it may be true that social negotiation is a useful approach to achieving consensual understanding of ill-structured subject matter, even in the ’softest’ subjects there is often a body of undisputed knowledge. Constructivist strategies are often not efficient, resulting in “a trial-and-error approach to the performance in the real world” (Merrill, 1997).
My question is: can’t the same criticism be applied to connectivism?
Lisa M Lane Sep 9th 2008 at 03:06 pm 16
I am not a specialist in educational theory of any kind, merely a practitioner, so I tend to think in terms of classroom application. When I think of constructivism, I see students in groups, constructing or building something, some kind of model, usually one that reflects at least the parameters of something held in the mind of the instructor. With connectivism, the students could be in the same arrangement, but the point of what they’re doing is the connection itself, the “growing” of the ideas as they interact, which may well not be in any form in the mind of the instructor. Or am I way off?
George Siemens Sep 9th 2008 at 03:19 pm 17
Hi Silvana – I don’t think the same criticism can be leveled at connectivism. Networks can be seen on a gradient. While our discussion in the course so far has emphasized learner control and agency, learning networks can be more structured or guided. I’ve tried to emphasize that connectivism is increasingly revealed by technology, but does not depend only on technology. A critical distinction I’ve tried to emphasize – and it’s one that Gerry presents well in his post – is that networked learning exists on various levels – neural, conceptual, external/social. In a very real sense, and regardless of structured or unstructured learning, learning is neurally represented as connections. That is tough to dispute. Any theory of learning has to acknowledge this. Connectivism obviously does – and Stephen Downes presentation on ustream addresses this dimension clearly. Additionally, connectivism suggests learning exists as conceptual elements and connections. Again, it’s fairly intuitive. The external or social sense is where we can see greater degrees of unstructured learning. If we don’t provide a structure in the form of courses or guided activities by faculty, learners are more or less able to explore as they would like. I think this is just fine. Some educators may not share that view
.
Nellie Deutsch Sep 9th 2008 at 06:04 pm 18
I expect individual processing of information to be stable across populations. However, I expect acquisition to vary according to individual learning styles, multiple intelligences and the following approaches to learning (Dunn, 2002):
# Sensory stimulation theory
# Reinforcement theory
# Cognitive-Gestalt approaches
# Holistic learning theory
# Facilitation theory
# Experiential learning
# Action learning
# Adult learning (Andragogy)(pp.1-3)
I would add Connectivism and Humanism to the list under acquisition of learning (Siemens, 2004). Connectivism seems to complement a constructivist approach to learning where learning takes place in a social environment. The social environment may change, but the learning approach does not. Social networks and web 2.0 tools (facebook, myspace, ning, wikis, twitter, delicious, learnhub, wiziq, wikieducator etc) are framing the current learning environments.
Dunn, L. (2002, June 27). Theories of learning. Retrieved September 9, 2008, from http://www.brookes.ac.uk/services/ocsd/2_learntch/briefing_papers/learning_theories.pdf
Siemens, G. (2004, December 12). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved September 9, 2008, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
Nellie Deutsch Sep 9th 2008 at 10:42 pm 19
I would like to give it a try and perhaps elaborate on a bit more on my blog after receiving feedback. So here goes…
A learning theory relates to the way individuals acquire and process information. The prevalent learning theories are: (a) Behaviorist, (b) Cognitive, and (c) Constructivist.
I expect individual processing of information to be stable across populations. However, I expect acquisition to vary according to individual learning styles, multiple intelligences and the following approaches to learning (Dunn, 2002):
# Sensory stimulation theory
# Reinforcement theory
# Cognitive-Gestalt approaches
# Holistic learning theory
# Facilitation theory
# Experiential learning
# Action learning
# Adult learning (Andragogy)(pp.1-3)
I would add Connectivism and Humanism to the list under acquisition of learning (Siemens, 2004). Connectivism seems to complement a constructivist approach to learning where learning takes place in a social environment. The social environment may change, but the learning approach does not. Social networks and web 2.0 tools (facebook, myspace, ning, wikis, twitter, delicious, learnhub, wiziq, wikieducator etc) are framing the current learning environments.
Dunn, L. (2002, June 27). Theories of learning. Retrieved September 9, 2008, from http://www.brookes.ac.uk/services/ocsd/2_learntch/briefing_papers/learning_theories.pdf
Siemens, G. (2004, December 12). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved September 9, 2008, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
Prokofy Neva Sep 9th 2008 at 11:51 pm 20
George,
But of course it can be disputed. You are taking the literalism of a scientific fact — that the brain consists of neurons and the synapses or connections between them — which itself, of course, is a mental model overlaid on the biological reality that we may not fully understand yet — and then extrapolating from that model that “this is the way we learn” — or worse “this is the way we MUST learn”.
It seems to me you overlook a very simple fact of the brain’s neural networks, that memories are indeed stored. They aren’t recreated daily in new connections. They are stored — and the storage is a chemical fact. Some memories are retrievable from particularly strong storage; others aren’t, but may become so if induced in some fashion. In the same way, an individual acquires knowledge from a source, for better or worse, depending on what methods he has mastered to acquire it, and how effectively it is conveyed.
Again, as I’ve noted, you’re not content to allow the “Connectivism” doctrine to apply merely where it may be useful to apply it — say, on the way in which opensource software is created. Instead, you want to invade every aspect of human learning and society with it, as if it applies globally. There is nothing to demonstrate this.
Let’s take this curious pride you are showing in a map showing an enormous numbers of nodes and lines betwen them — individual introductions, Twitters, blogs, this link, that link, this PDF file, that Ustream. It’s a cacophny of subjectivities with no curation. You revel in its constant and uneven distribution and call this “facilitating learning”. It does nothing of the sort; it facilitates disintegration and atomization. Only if people accept your doctrine and revel in adventures among a million shards of a broken mirror are they to be blessed with a diploma as having “learned”.
I’m beginning to suspect this is fraud.
George Siemens Sep 10th 2008 at 12:21 am 21
Hi Pokofy,
Hmm…you’re last sentence “I’m beginning to suspect this is fraud” is peculiar. In my view, fraud denotes a conscious misrepresentation. How could fraud apply to a learning theory? I’ve people buy it, we’ll get rich? I’ll treat that sentence as bait…
I’m not sure if you’ve listened to the presentations posted earlier. Based on your response here, I’m left with the impression that your focus is on expressing your world view, not necessarily interacting with the ideas put forward. I’ve mentioned our uncertain understanding of learning at a neural level. My discussion of the neural model of learning was in response to the question “in what way is learning a network function”. Other than misappropriating my answer to suggest that I’m seeking global domination, you haven’t provided a refutation of the connection forming nature of learning at various levels. I don’t understand your statement of “this applies globally”. Could you please clarify?
I’m not sure of “curious pride” (I will say, your post here contains a series of mild comments (”fraud”, “curious pride” “revel” “doctrine”) intended to, I assume, illicit an emotional response drawing away from the issues being discussed. I’m not used to dialoguing in this manner. I feel the need to defend myself rather than interact with the ideas)). Is it interesting that a fairly large group of participants from around the world have signed up for this discussion? For me, yes. Will all participate? No. In fact, if it’s like a typical online course, dropoff will be rather steep after the first week or so. Will learning have occurred? Well, I guess we won’t know. I’ve put out clear ideas on how I view learning. If you follow the forums, you’ll note that people are questioning. They are not adopting a “doctrine”. There is critical questioning. We are not having a digital love-fest. We are, at least, I am, learning through discourse.
You conclude with mentioning we’re only creating atomization/disintegration, not learning. As I’m sure you appreciate it if I support bold proclamations, i’ll ask you to do the same. How are we disintegrating the conversation? Distributing, yes. Learners able to explore and express themselves in their own space, yes. Choice, yes. Information is fragmentary – even in a traditional university class lead by experts. Information is drawn from multiple sources. The goal of the learner is to aggregate and make sense of it.
Finally, you’re statement of “cacophny of subjectivities with no curation” is important (btw, you do very well at creating memorable phrases). We’ve provided a series of readings, articles, and try and direct participants to key discussion points. There is curation here. It’s not as heavy handed as in a traditional class, but it exists. I’ve suggested in other forums that in a complex world, the role of educators is one of curation – guiding and directing learners to important resources and discussions. If we don’t have some sense of this, participants who are new to distributed learning environments very quickly get overwhelmed…
George
Sia Vogel Sep 10th 2008 at 05:46 am 22
Indeed there is a lot to discover, read, learn and so on. I did not do all my homework for this week yet. I need to use a dictonairy now and then. But in the mean time I learned very much by seeking, reading, signing up, make a blog, since a signed up for this course. So I am a happy participant so far.
Sebastián Thüer Sep 10th 2008 at 02:03 pm 23
I am thinking in what way connectivism could affect the definition of learning modalities. In a traditional way we use to distinct between presencial, semi-presencial (also called ‘blended’) and distance education. Does it still having sense? Nowadays where are switching continuously in different types of networks and we make connections between them.
x28’s new Blog » Blog Archive » [CCK08] Is it a theory or not Sep 10th 2008 at 07:34 pm 24
[...] The problem with the status of a theory is that its descriptive power is often immediately intertwined with prescriptive claims: “”this is the way we learn” — or worse “this is the way we MUST learn”” (comment #18 of this post) [...]
ET Sep 10th 2008 at 09:20 pm 25
What has been most interesting so far are not the concepts presented but the strong emotional undercurrents in discussions here as well as in other forums of this course. Perhaps some of it is posturing or baiting or defensiveness. . . but still smacks of genuine bristling and pique. Disturbances within! And the course is so young.
My notion of connectivism is changing shape by the hour as the idea of connective networks come to life in the many forms this course makes possible. I am beginning to understanding what this mean in practical terms, particualry as distributed learning invites diversity and flattened heirarchies.
Prokofy Neva Sep 11th 2008 at 02:11 am 26
Yes, fraud would imply putting over something on people. Getting rich? Well, there are different kinds of payment, not only in money. My use of the term “fraud” here has to do with false premises which are ignored, and the entire superstructures in search of a base begin to be build.
I’ve read the blogs and some of the papers. I haven’t had a chance to listen to the presentations. But wait! In Connectivism, don’t I get to amble around and learn at my one pace? Aren’t I suppose to “connect where I connect” and context be damned? Aren’t I supposed to ignore “directives” and overthrow “authorities” who tell me I’m ignorant if I haven’t watched today’s YouTube or Ustream or whatever gadget it is? Come now, George, do you believe in your beliefs or don’t you!
I don’t see a thing wrong without putting out my own beliefs, rather than kneeling in adoration and merely listening to your beliefs. They’re just your beliefs. They are strung together forcefully. But they aren’t compelling. You seem to have a problem with people expressing their world views, as if this isn’t sufficiently scholarly, or isn’t sufficiently intellectual, but merely
But…what about the Connectivism? Don’t I get to do that? You get to do it. Why can’t I?
Oh, indeed I did provide a refutation of your notion that all learning is networks. (And I’m aware that you logical positivists always insist on the falsifiability of every claim, and working backwards, yet never subject yourselves to that trick.) I said if we use your actual literalism about the brain, we would have to note that the brain isn’t merely neural networks. It’s chemical storage. It’s stored memories that are accessed, or not accessed, by all sorts of ways, some mundane, some curious. You simply batted that obvious fact that didn’t fit with your schematic out of the way. If the system stores and has people accessing storage, how is that a network? It isn’t. It’s a storage facility.
Again, you’ve picked up on the way people *appear* to learn in online software writing opensource groups, or tech talk groups, and extrapolated from that an entire system. I don’t feel it applies. I feel it has welded into it many preconceptions about people’s relationships and levels of preparation and even understanding of the technology that aren’t being properly considered.
I don’t think that 1,900 of anything is interesting in and of itself. It’s like Shirky gushing about thousands of pictures of mermaids on Flickr — except when there are 17,000…then 28,000…then 300,000 — well, when does it cease to be a marvel and become mundane or even spam? The usual laws apply. 2 percent of the group provide all the content. 10 percent of the group interact with the content that the 2 percent supplied. A few outliers on the tail surprise you. Turn the page, and watch it play out again in another setting…
The problem with the “questioning” forums is what I just said in the other blog: all the grooming and cautioning and demands for “witholding judgement” or “taking in facts” (what facts?! whose?!) or “not criticizing…shutting up until you have heard the tape. It’s the usual *tremendously* conforming and rigid framework that always seems to spontaneously form online even with 1,900 people where you think a freer sample would emerge — because of the cultural memes that you’ve already disseminated in the last 10 years that elicit that conformist behaviour.
Actually, it is a digital love-fest. That’s exactly what it is. I don’t see anybody reading the papers or talking about them. At least I started reading them and I’m not even a scholar. But then, why papers? Why authority? They are merely nodes or connections in the fast connecty thing that we should just be swimming in, right?
Disintegration is *exactly* what you do when you distribute from the center — which is exactly what you are doing. It’s brittle. You tell everyone to tag — they must tag! You tell everyone that anything goes — their Twitter, their Facebook group — all are relevant in the great Connect up in the sky. But why dissipate conversations off to Twitter and its giant firehose (I follow 1,000 people on there and only tune in twice a day). It’s like Scoble’s discussions about the Twitter stream versus threaded FriendFeed discussions or blog discussion. In the end, you know the blog is where the most serious discussions happen, especially if they don’t have the nuisance of threading. So why dissipate?
Stephen’s diagram with the stuff flung all over is exactly a good example of disintegration — it only integrates if the administrator describing the taxonomy or folksonomy introduces the tag into all the streams and the picks out what he likes — either all tags, or selective tags (as The Daily in fact does). So…we are back to Connectivism that in fact is merely Centralism, aren’t we?
“Distributing” has become such a buzz word for you, and such a perceived civic virtue, that you don’t see the loss. There’s no objective reason why somebody should run off to make a separate Facebook group. You have 1,900 people, why not organize them merely on the Moodle thing, then leave them alone wherever they roam and not even insist on tagging them?
Information is not fragmentary in a regular class. It is organized in a book, with an outline, and with the teacher’s plan. Their *plan*. The concept of the learner as aggregator is merely your doctrinal notion. The learner can be absorber. The learner can be learning by rote. Indeed, he may have to learn by rote if he wants to learn something Russian verbs of motion. It’s not like his own subjective aggregating nonsense about that makes the reality of what those verbs of motion are any different — he can only get them wrong.
Again, you are describing types of learning that might work for some subjects. Perhaps, oh, studying science fiction literature or educational theory. But for other kinds of content and subjects it’s deadly.
Oh, I realize there’s curation. But you are also deliberately stepping on your own curation and constantly apology for it. It really is too weak, and will largely be ignored.
Informal teachers — bloggers, community activists, journalists, professionals all online — are curators. Better curators are needed. But that’s not the same thing as a professor in the university, who cannot be so casual. Just because the world is allegedly “more complex” doesn’t mean that you get to undo standards.
gsiemens Sep 11th 2008 at 07:51 am 27
Hi Prokofy,
Many issues to clarify.
How about a discussion on skype, elluminate, or ustream? We might make more progress in defining our positions if we engaged in a verbal conversation…
George
Response: Connectivism & Constructivism | Lisa's Edublog Sep 11th 2008 at 10:45 am 28
[...] the discussion of fraud broke out, I had posted a response on the Connectivism blog where I tried to help delineate constructivism and connectivism: I am not a specialist in [...]
Jeffrey Keefer Sep 11th 2008 at 03:29 pm 29
George, I listened to the recording from yesterday as well as the readings listed for this week, and am wondering about two things right now regarding Connectivism:
1. Connectivism seems to be a learning system where learning occurs through harnessing relationships with a network. Learning occurs through growing and adapting. If this is the case, how can this fit with reflective practice or learning through reflection and internal processing of personal experiences?
2. As you and Stephen seem to speak so much about this, why is Connectivism so difficult to explain in a simple way where people can agree or disagree and then begin the dialog? So much of our discussions in the course thus far seem to concern people just trying to understand what exactly you mean?
You mentioned how you want to have this definition in an elevator speech–perhaps now is the time to do this?
David Elliott Sep 11th 2008 at 05:14 pm 30
I find the papers and discussions (eFest) relatively clear. They repeat many constructs that help cement them. Even the network of comments above helps. I jump into this course and long periods of time disappear without boredom. Practically, however, I hop around the learning theories. With my concept maps before me, I’m working on “constructing” ideas that make sense to me. Just the network doesn’t seem to do that for me. The thoughts need to be processed internally. Perhaps then because of my background I look for “cognitive” structures that can transfer and that can be recalled and finally I need to prepare a presentation for schools on the subject where I will be held accountable and paid (”behavior” will be expected). Connectivism seems to relate to new understandings of the brain and new social networks enabled by technology but I can’t yet subsume all the insights of the other theories into the new one.
Jim2 Sep 13th 2008 at 07:20 pm 31
Technology certainly makes connecting much easier and it is encouraging to see that those attempting to connect are not like sheep in a flock that simply follow the leader. The dialogue is very interesting and reminds one of the process, or test, new concepts go through until they are ultimately discarded or accepted.
Connectivism seems to me to be a natural evolution of the learning process – a synergistic combination of cognitive and constructive models that can keep pace with technology and globalization. Progress is change and to think that new learning ideologies won’t develop is naive. Connectivism makes a lot sense and I’m looking forward to testing the concept for myself too.
Luciano Seta Sep 18th 2008 at 10:18 am 32
Dear all,
I have some troubles about the introduction of terms without a clear explanation of the need to use them (Occam’s razor). I have not problems with the term connectivism, also if the relation with the Fodor and Pylyshyn connectionist should be clarified, but it is the word “network” that sounds me confusing. The network paradigm is now so pervasive, so spread, that I cannot understand very well as these networks work, what these networks are.
Regarding this I love to cite Bruno Latour “you should not confuse the network that is drawn by the description and the network that is used to make description. [...] Drawing with a pencil is not the same thing as drawing the shape of a pencil. It’s the same with this ambiguous word: network”
Ciao
Luciano
CCK08 - Week 1- What is Connectivism? (September 8-14) « Cck08m5’s Weblog Sep 30th 2008 at 10:59 am 33
[...] Siemens presentation on Defining Connectivism and Comparing [...]
Luciano Seta Oct 2nd 2008 at 07:21 am 34
I’m sorry for my bad English, but my point is not about “definition” but about the use of the network metaphor in the educational practices.
In my opinion, using, for example, conceptual maps to sketch processes or phenomena is very different with respect to considering concepts or relations in the map as a genuine representation of the reality, or as a key factor to understand an effective scientific approach.
Power law, small worlds, complex systems, emergence, bifurcation and chaos, are very interesting scientific concepts but I think there is a big hiatus between to teach\learn them and to consider them as part of a new paradigm able to define a different way to teach and learn, or as tools useful to open a new vision of the learning process.
Perhaps, the networks do not create new meanings but it is the comprehension to establish new ties generating meaningful networks.
Thanks and sorry for these “old-style” considerations.
Connectivism & Connective Knowledge » Week 1, CCK09 Sep 13th 2009 at 10:17 pm 35
[...] Siemens presentation on Defining Connectivism and Comparing connectivism with other learning [...]
Connecting to CCK09 « TechKNOW Tools Sep 15th 2009 at 08:15 pm 36
[...] http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/connectivism/?p=101 [...]