 | What I think connectivism is... |
| I think connectivism is an attempt to create a new theory of learning to describe what is happening with education in light of the increased use of digital technologies for communication purposes. |
 | Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
new theory - or old theory? (applied to new technologies) |
 | Re: What I think connectivism is... |
| I like to think of it more like a parent and a child rather than an "old" or "new" theory. Does that work for you? |
 | Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
It certainly has some elements of constructivism (where learners create an understanding with each other), but also has elements of distributed knowledge where knowing something is less important that knowing where to get that knowledge in some ways (and in the process, knowing more). |
 | Re: What I think connectivism is... |
| I would contend that connectivism sits well with actor-network theory (ant) as that theory posits all knowledge as created, shaped, used, within networks, and which in turn also influences the actors in that network. That we have technologies that emphasise the connections, an analysis informed by ant can lend depth to an appreciation for connectivism and connective knowledge. |
 | Re: What I think connectivism is... |
| Is there a distinction between connectivism and ANT in that the former focuses more on why we establish networks in the first place? And if one focuses more on the "why" of it all, won't that lead us to the notion of power laws? |
 | Re: What I think connectivism is... |
| From following CCK08 last year it seemed to me that ANT has much to offer students of connectivism. ANT helps understand the formation and decay of networks with the non-human being given much more attention than in more 'social' theories. I can see what you are saying about the 'why' Benjamin. Although connectivism is interpreted variously by advocates and even Downes and Siemens (just listening to George talk about this on this recording http://bit.ly/4ydBbd). In quite a few of these interpretations there is a strong normative flavour (networks are good for you;) ) which is different from ANT that is using network as a concept for rich description of the world. |
 | Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
I just played with an idea that what kind of theory constructivism would be if the structures were like that (ie. high rate of networking/connectivity) - but to call connectivism as a "constructivism built-in networks" would sound a little bit naive. What seems to separate - at least in the discourse - connectivism from other theories, seems to be - of course - the essence of connections. I'm also eager to hear more evidence about the "strength" of the influences of a connection: as I understood, Siemens/Downes emphasise the connection as an initial element in learning - with it comes the rest, so to banally speak. In some cases, the connectivism is claimed as the "only" theory that emphasizes enough "process-like" aspect. Well, ain't constructivism also a process-oriented (building, etc.). I would like to read more about what the connections add to the process, in addition to the constructivistic theory? What happens in the connections, that extends the learning in that sense? So, does it mean, to utilize "connectivistic" practises in, e.g. in online education, you have to build and promote authentic, rich and versatile environments, where a student becomes "embraced" by connections? If we practice elearning, but do not connect enough, would it be only a limping miniatyre of learning tomorrow? |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
I'm not sure if connectivism implies that "learners create an understanding with each other". Three learners exposed to the exact same learning experience are not going to learn exactly the same thing. Similarly, if they all three work together as a group they are still unlikely to achieve or construct the same understanding, as if the learning began and ended at certain points. The group may reach a consensus but they are not going to walk away with knowing the same thing. My take on it is that the network (i.e., group, class, etc.) learns as a result of continuous growth of each of its participants. Teachers facilitate the process of developing connections among the participants in a way that attempts to achieve some personal goal. This also implies that the established network begins to work for the individual participants. That is, the knowledge resides throughout the network thus benefiting those who interact within it, as long as the nodes (people, entities, etc.) within the network are reliable and valid. So, knowledge resides both within the individual and outside the individual. If I don´t know something, I know where to go to get the information I need. If I don´t know where to go, then I need to continue building my network until I find a reliable and valid node. If I work in a group, I learn from my interactions with others as well, and I continue building my network "infrastructure". But just because I learn how to reach a consensus with the group (albeit an important skill), it doesn't necessarily mean that we as a group have obtained, created, constructed, or built some common understanding. At least, this is how I see it as of right now. |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
I have absolutely no clue of what it means, however I hope to read and find out so that I can make sense of the discussion threads. In the meantime I would like a member of the discussion group to clarify the term for me. |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
Perhaps George's Principles of connectivism may be the definition?
|
| Re: What I think connectivism is... with an ant focus |
|
nice synopsis Ken. I have a dedicated myopic ant (actor network theory) take on all this and the similarites with connectivism and ant keep coming. Both see knowledge as an outcome of connecting, both see learning as occurring because of the same, both see human and nonhuman actors as involved, both see the work required in maintaining connections (ant also sees work in leaving connections). Ant has a greater emphasis on the nature of the network, connectivism has greater emphasis on applying such concepts to education and learning. The point of conflict seems to exist in an incompatability with the concept of network....and ant does this one so much better. |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
| I think these points are powerful. Each of them is complex. I am going to return to them in a few weeks to see how my response has changed |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
Ken, your summary of the principles of connectivism is very helpful. Here's where I get muddled: "Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources." What, then, do we call what happens as a result of making these connections? If we connect the nodes or info sources, does that mean we have 'learned' ? Karen |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
Well, I got the principles, but I still don't get the difference between constructivism and connectivism. I mean that for me, most of these principles could be re-formulated from a constructivist point of view. Can anyone help me on this?:
Or maybe I'm just mixing too many thoughts... |
 | Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
Connectivism is at least a mode of learning. It also describes aspects of a model of how learning may take place in our Internet connected world. Whether it adds anything to existing theories of learning - that would be useful for improving the educational aims for institutions or individuals remains to be seen. It is a movement that is attempting to define what such a learning theory would be through observation of its use in early adopters of emerging technology such as the students on this course. I wonder if the main proposers of connectivism are undertaking an anthropological observation of the processes involved in their fledgling theory (by being connectivist) so that they can define a more robust argument for its adoption and research. It is also a political movement that encourages the open exchange of educational material and ideas. In this regard it is not alone ... but certainly does it using cool tools. |
 | What networking is |
|
The Learning Networks and Connective Knowledge text by Stephen Downes included in the course is very helpful. Its description of networks helped me understand the concept of networking and therefore connectivism. I´ve summarized this part that I found particularly enlightning: What characterizes a network (vs. other entities, like groups) is: - Diversity: The process involves the widest possible spectrum of points of view, there is interaction between people who approach the matter from a different perspective. - Autonomy: Individual knowers contribute to the interaction according to their own knowledge, values and decisions (as opposed to acting at the behest of some external agency) - Connectedness: The knowledge being produced comes from an interaction between the members (not from an aggregation of the member´s perspectives) - Openness: There is a mechanism that allows a given perspective to enter the system, to be heard and interacted with others. |
 | Re: What networking is |
|
Leila I like this summary. It helps me to see how I can use the ideas. I'm stuggling with the complexity of the theory, but I'm hanging in and I hope it will start to make sense. The challenge for me on this course is the assumption of an understanding of all these tools for communication. I realise I have a lot to learn. |
| Re: What networking is |
|
Four words: Does. Constructivism. Exclude. These? Does widening perspective create a new theory? Does constructivism deny autonomy? Is constructivism only aggregation of perspetives? Does constructivism, especially socially cognitive view, understate social "entering", being heard or interacted? |
 | Re: What networking is |
|
Hi Jarmo, could you define constructivism as you see it? I have found it difficult to address constructivist views without first clarifying the definition held by the individual I'm dialoguing with. Constructivism is a broad, broad theory (almost more of a philosophy) with many different gradients. I can better respond to your question if you clarify your view... thx |
 | Re: What I think connectivism is... |
| I believe that connectivism is a helpful theory for understanding how we make sense and learn in our information age. It at least considers the multitude of connections we make every day, to our friends, to our messages, to news and information. How do we find truth in a world where things are constantly changing and everyone has an opinion and interpretation to share? What I am most interested in is how do we determine good information from bad? How do we determine what is most relevant to connect and form knowledge? |
 | Re: What I think connectivism is... |
| I, like a previous poster, also confess to having no idea what connectivism is and having just started to make a connection here, do not feel much better yet but am really enjoying reading and trying to understand people's opinions here. I to am interested in ways of determining good information from bad. |
 | Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
I think the table that George posted in this Google doc is very informative as to the differences between connectivism and other learning theories. However, I would like to argue that connectivism and other learning theories are not mutually exclusive, but that they describe different learning modes. I made a first attempt in this blogpost to provide some arguments. |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
I agree Steven, the table's a good overview. I'd flesh it out a bit further though, the influential factor under connectivism may need to consider what the student's information literacy is like. Just as with other theories where schema is important, in this one, the capacity for discerning the value or nature of knowledge and its sources seems more important than ever. What also might be useful to look at alongside this table is Daniel Pink's summation of what is useful in a knowledge age vs the conceptual age. (See Pink, D. H. (2005). A whole new mind: Moving from the information age to the conceptual age. London: Penguin Books.) |
 | Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
How about the nots of connectivism? This is as I understand them from Stephen's Ustream intro - any misrepresentations are mine - don't hold them against him. Knowledge is not built or constructed. As learners we do not make meaning. Knowledge is not composed of sentences ie it is not propositional. Knowledge is not transferable nor is it a transaction. Knowledge is not a thing. And my nutshell understanding of what it is: Knowledge emerges from the connections; connectivism draws our attention to the networks. Hello to CCK08 nodes & greetings to CCK09 nodes.  minh |
 | Re: What I think connectivism is... |
| If knowledge is nothing, I wonder why so much attention is given to it's acquisition? |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
when you say its 'nothing' I take it to mean there's nothing solid there, its no one thing, it shape shifts, it clots in agreed upon ways... But I think it's still a force to be reckoned with  |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
Hey Old Socs Definitely didn't say knowledge was "nothing". However one can say, (I think), that knowledge is no thing. It can not be constructed etc. Given that there can be no transaction I suppose one can't speak of acquisition either. Anyway I did say that I understood that knowledge emerges from the connections so if that is so it can be apprehended. It is not absent. Thanks for the challenge. this year I am really trying to connect with the theory - be less of a dilettante. Not that there's anything wrong with being a dilettante & lurking about. |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
So knowledge emerges from the connections, but it is not a thing. Then what is knowledge? |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
>Then what is knowledge? Now there's a lovely question. Need help here folks |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
It is not knowlede in the traditional sense? Not one "solid" thing? Not only my "property" (property of an individual)? Breed in networks, but not a property of networks? More a "system" (dynamic) instead of "maybe complex but still a static pile of information"? But, is consctrutivistic knowledge always propositional? Connectivism represents no mechanism of knowledge creation? But the knowledge is "grown"; can it be seen, that if constructivism is more working with building blocks (you can build what ever you want and paint them as you like), knowledge in connectivism is more like "epidemic" -> it grows and breeds undeterministic (like bacteria), and the results can be something, that was not meant to, unpredicted and unexpected. (Sorry for a little naive metaphor..) But, is this is only when we think constructivism being always propositional? |
 | Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
Hi Old, good see you here. For me, knowledge is only the result of the relationship and further processing of data and information gathered from different nodes. And lives in our mind not on the network, making it susceptible to be successively transformed. |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
Hi Dolores. Good to see you here too! I am back for a little more clarification.... So, for you, knowledge can be transformed, and lives in the mind. Is it transferred between minds? If so, how? |
 | Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
I'm also really interested in this "knowledge transfer" illusion/myth/concept. From Knowledge Management and Communities of Practice, it seems to me that knowledge is held in the community (like it being a custodian and gatekeeper) and that the transfer can happen either through formal training (courses/workshops), informal and social learning through participation etc. But I have not seen any description of the mechanisms or effects of transferring knowledge, and how this differs from knowledge translation or knowledge transformation. Nor on which approach to do so is 'better' or 'quicker' than another. Especially in urgent situations like a HIV epidemic, its imperative to find efficient and effective ways to transfer knowledge from the academy to the front line, and perhaps technology can facilitate this by accelerating the connections. I'd love to hear from anyone wit experience in knowledge mgmt/transfer/sharing, and how this all relates to learning theory. Thanks guys! Gurmit |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
 Once we have processed and consolidated the knowledge in our mind, we ship part of them in the form of new data and new information to other nodes and the process is restarted. The network is the channel through which travel data and information, the nodes are the emisor and we the receptor, that moreover, we can be also a emisor. No? |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
Old Socs asked me the question "then what is knowledge?" on the day after a 10 year old asked me "what is knowing?" He & his twin sister are currently working with me studying the brain. We had started out with neuroanatomy but were very quickly engaging with fMRI and memory and consciousness. We'd also been to the exhibition of Leonardo da Vinci's machines & had been been speaking of thinking & being brainy. The lad was quiet for a while & then asked the question- "What is knowing?" I'm going to introduce Old Socs' question to the discussion here. And have a discussion about what we think the difference might be. The word 'knowledge' carries that implication of discretness that 'knowing' with that activity implying 'ing' suffix does not. I am thinking of "The Knowledge" that London cab drivers are required to acquire. Pix of their brain show differences. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/677048.stm minh |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
Hi Minh nice distinction. I am just finally going through Siemen's book Knowing Knowledge and he uses both forms starting at about page 14 with the question "Can knowledge exist independent of human knowing". I've only gotten a short ways further in the book, but it is an easy read and contains answers to several of the questions I've wondered about including what is knowledge etc. While denying that the book was written to define knowledge, there are many attempts at describing it and a statement is made on page 21: "What we define as knowledge is the codifcation of information or data in a particular way". It would appear that the author (quoting Downes extensively) wants the reader to understand knowledge as a changing commodity while acknowledging the different states of knowledge including 'hard' or frozen knowledge (a solid state in fields where change is slow). I don't really see anything new with this. Another statement (p.15) "Knowledge and learning are today defined by connections". I don't know if this is a new revelation or not. Is the use of the word 'connection' with knowledge the pivotal moment in the connectivism movement? |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
Hi Old Socs, Knowledge as connections is hardly new. I've frequently referenced Rumelhart's statement that "knowledge is in the connections". Your ques about "is the word "connection" with knowledge the pivotal moment in connectivism" is not quite what I would state. I would state, however, that connectivism attends to the primacy of the connection in both knowledge and learning. Everything flows from the connection. Everything grows from the connection. A failure to connect (say to read Socrates in philosophy - not sure why that would happen...just an example) is failure to learn. Failure to connect to the internet has caused me many moments of frustration in hotels . Failure to connect concepts in a discipline is also failure to learn. That's why we sometimes encounter people who hold outlandish views that we can't relate to...they have not formed certain concepts as part of their cognitive system. At a neuronal level, failure to connect is devastating (ie. MS)...but so is over connection (seizure). It is the primacy of the connection and the various attributes it (the connection) exhibits and what influences its (the connection's) formation are what I think forms the unique base of connectivism. |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
I´ve been thinking of this sentence for a while: "failure to connect is devastating... but so is over connection" ... How do we know when is connecting going too far? I looked for the term "seizure", (this is what I found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seizure), and was impressed to know the reason for epylepsia is overconnection But without going that far, how do we know when we are connecting too much? I´ve been multitasking a lot for my job recently, changing from one network to another, one reading to another, one group of people to another, back and forth, and at a certain point I felt that it was too much and I was near a mental block. So does this also have to do with overconnecting? Is learning at the "happy medium", between non-connecting and overconnecting? |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
Hi George. So the connection is primary..... What is a connection, in your view? How is it made? Am I connecting when I perceive a phenomenon through any of my senses? What do you mean by the word connection? What is it, to connect? |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
Hi Ken, Perhaps, without sounding glib, I could redirect your question and ask instead: What IS NOT a connection? An artist creating ceramics is using an intricate sequence/pattern of connections - cognitive, physical skill, vision, etc. - to create a piece. A doctor treating a patient is using a blend of personal knowledge (yes, often acquired by memorization of terms, drug types, conditions), experience, insight, and personal tools (computer, drug listing, connections for referral, policies related to ordering tests). A car is a sequence of connections - one producing a smart car and another producing a hummer. A building is a series of connections. So is international airfare/travel. To this end, we are constantly learning. Constantly. Often we are not learning "the right things". For example, a young child frightened by a barking dog has formed a sequence of neural connections that may result in a lifetime of fear. Or a student in a classroom without a watchful teacher may draw interesting internal representations of mathematical concepts that may work to solve a problem now, but will produce an inability to solve a more complex problem in the future because of incomplete conceptual networks. |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
Hi George ...I'll take glib for $100... So, to summarize: Everything is connected Knowledge is not a thing Where does this leave us? |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
Hi Ken, You state: "Everything is connected Knowledge is not a thing" Knowledge is a constellation of connections, or put another way, a certain state of connectedness. The use of "everything" in this sense sets up an unnecessary dichotomy (i.e. the "thing" part of everything). We'd have to first spend time talking about "thing", and the different ways in which in can be used. Is a constellation of connections a thing? Is an idea a thing? Is a conversation a thing? Is a thing like Plato's forms? Or is it an instantiation of Plato's forms? We can go their if you'd like, but I doubt it would achieve much. Instead, I think we are left at a place where consideration needs to be given to the implications of the connection-base of learning and education. What does it mean to "know" a topic well? Or to be an expert? I would say, an expert is a person who has formed diverse neural connections in relation to a particular topic, has formed them deeply (strong ties), is capable of recognizing the impact of context on their existing state of knowing (i.e. when one response is appropriate or when another one is warranted), and has enough weak ties to other areas of inquiry (disciplines, if you will) to understand when a topic requires input from another person/area of inquiry. But how do we "get there" as educators? How do we develop expertise? How do we develop complex and diverse ways of knowing? Here we turn to consideration of the environment/ecology in which learning occurs. Barriers that restrict formation of important connections or the development of important mindsets (critical thinking, depth of thinking) are negative. A teacher that promotes duplication of content in a textbook as "learning" instead of assisting learners to explore broadly and form novel connections (social and to information sources) is not helping a child or adult to learn. A teacher, in my opinion, needs to curate resources (I have a short lecture on this topic) and assist students in forming network connections, and to evaluate those connections, in the service of a learning target. That is where we want to go with the rest of the course. If an individual at this stage is comfortable stating that knowledge is distributed...and that learning is concerned with forming connections (at the levels I've presented before), then we're ready to start considering the more important pedagogical and systemic considerations. If, however, an individual is not comfortable with those assertions, that's quite fine as well. The discussions we'll have shortly on teacher roles and power/control shifts in education may not resonate with those individuals, but I certainly hope they will continue to dialogue, throw out questions, challenge assumptions, etc. For example, Ken, you are playing an important role. I personally don't know what your views are on connectivism (though I'm getting the sense that you're equating it too strongly with behaviourism). You may be throwing out questions to offer a contrarian view. If so, great. Diversity is critical for depth of understanding. You may be throwing out questions because you disagree. Also great. Regardless of your thoughts on connectivism, critiques and counter-views are vital. I'd be concerned if we were all moving in the same direction and expressing identical views. Given a global course, there are too many different contexts for us to agree on all levels. But, if we are able to come to a few points of agreement on both learning and knowledge as networked, then I think we can start to talk about the pedagogical implications... |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
Hi George. Looks like you are mostly concerned with connectivism as pedagogy. As far as my views on connectivism, my initial thoughts as to what it might be are expressed in my post that started this thread. I am not willing to concede to your theoretical views on learning and network knowledge. I don't understand them well enough. But I will enjoy the discussion on pedagogical implications. Would you concede that this is the primary concern of the focus on the primacy of connections? |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
Hi Ken - you certainly don't need to concede to my theoretical views. The word "concede", however, offers a different view of the conversation than I was operating under. You ask: "Would you concede that this [pedagogical implications] is the primary concern of the focus on the primacy of connections?" I think you have a greater affinity for stark categorization than I do . For most people, yes...as long as I can use pedagogy to mean learning & teaching. (the distinction is made by Knowles in advocating androgogy...but popular use of pedagogy seems to imply knowles' use). I think there are a few in this course who enjoy theoretical discussion. Most, I suspect, are here to learn about the implications of connectivism in their teaching and learning. |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
Hi George Stark Categorization? I can't concede this point either (haha). But I do relate to the 'man is the measure of all things' statement..... Yes, I was using pedagogy in the more common usage (not specific to child-teaching-learning). That said, I wonder if most of the teachers here are K-12? |
 | Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
"What IS NOT a connection?" Knowledge is not a Connection. Knowledge is not Connected. |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
hmmm. My word for today is WEIRD. I am thinking the whole knowledge is/is not connection debate is rather weird. e.g. How does one connect to non-things? What is the mechanism for that connection? Is the word 'connect' only of value when used in the context of 'things'. i.e. Can only 'things' be connected? Is a concept a thing? Is knowledge a thing? argghhh... |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
Thanks George and Kent for your interesting debate. I believe, however, that you start from very different views. For George, connection is something indivisible of neuronal connections (everything is connected). Kent, however, believes that the connection is external of the mind. I agree with George and Jerry in that connections are increasingly powerful, but I think that connections are only data and information (data related), not knowledge. The knowledge acquisition, data and information related and processed, supposed strengthening or creating internal connections, either consequently or not of connections externals. |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
Hi Dolores I like how you separated data/information from knowledge. So what is knowledge then, if not in the connection, or the connection itself? I think George is saying knowledge = connection. If I understand him correctly, we no longer need the word knowledge, as the word connection has the same meaning. Removing the word knowledge from the vocabulary may benefit our understanding of connection. The DIKW thingy could be changed to DICW: data - information - connection - wisdom What do you think? |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
Hi Kent, Imagine that I give you a data: 25. What does it mean? 25 days, 25 hours, $ 25, ...? It is a data, but does not provide a specific meaning by itself. Imagine now that I give you: September. You know sure I speak of a month, which is one every year .... Has a specific meaning, Is information. Imagine now that I give you: Connectivism, for example, refers to a series of information: connection, technology ... Is composed for data and information related. It's a concept. And what is knowledge? Is the internal relationship we make of all these data, information and concepts related, processed and anchored in our mind. |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
Hi Kent, Imagine that I give you a data: 25. What does it mean? 25 days, 25 hours, $ 25, ...? It is a data, but does not provide a specific meaning by itself. Imagine now that I give you: September. You know sure I speak of a month, which is one every year .... Has a specific meaning, Is information. Imagine now that I give you: Connectivism, for example, refers to a series of information: connection, technology ... Is composed for data and information related. It's a concept. And what is knowledge? Is the internal relationship we make of all these data, information and concepts related, processed and anchored in our mind. The external connections give us the raw material, but development is a function of our needs. |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
I don't think I can say what I think connectivism is but it is useful to hear about the primacy of the connection in knowledge and learning. As I have said before I struggle with the conflation of neural networks and social networks and networks of people and things. If I was part of a network including an online text of the works of Shakespeare and could dimly remember an analogy between staining and guilt, then I could 'restore' that knowledge by searching the text or by asking a trusted knowledgeable person (or both). Lady Macbeth is then restored to my knowledge. So to me the interesting part is not so much the primacy of the connection but rather the decay and (re)formation of the network. |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
Hi Frances, you state: "So to me the interesting part is not so much the primacy of the connection but rather the decay and (re)formation of the network." Wouldn't this too be a function of connections? Weak/strong/diverse connections produce varying levels of understanding. If I read one theory of motivation in psychology, and never encounter it again, it will be a very weak connection (conceptually and thereby reflected at a neuronal level). If, however, I study to become a psychologist, I will learn many theories. And, as my connections grow, new additions to the network will have an amplification effect...which in turn will allow me to make additional, novel, connections. But, at the same time, this might also produce a level of stasis where an expert becomes too rigid in their framework and fail to consider new connections in context (they rely instead on their framework as a guide which can be misleading if their framework does not somewhat reflect external conditions - i.e. new technology that permits people to microshare and the network that is created around this by offering supportive (encouraging) feedback). Whether growing or withering, connections are still primary, y? |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
| Clearly connections are important but what do we mean by a strong connection - frequent (easy to count), rich (measured qualitatively)? So how would we express the function that relates connections to network decay / formation? I think it's more of a story than a mathematical function. As I mentioned in a recent blog post relating connectivism to other theories and practice, to know connectivism's impact on practice, we would need a rich study. |
 | Re: What I think connectivism is... |
| My understanding of Connectivism is that it is a learning theory that 'denies that knowledge is propositional' or 'grounded in language or logic' (S. Downes). This theory is concerned with the nature of learning via the connections / associations between entities. I thought Stephen Downes introductory video explaining the theory was very good - it clarified some of the key concepts for me. This theory makes sense to me too because I feel it is possible to construct a social myth that is not based on anything particularly substantial. On the other hand by exploring associations I feel we may be able find out more about 'things in the world' - people, places and things that exist in a material sense. |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... an old practice |
|
I've wiki-blogged some thoughts about "what is connectivism?" and pasted them below. ----
My initial rather humble thought about "what is connectivism?" is simply that by being connected we get more than the sum of parts. A bunch of wiki pages, for example, scattered about is less useful in many respects than a bunch of wiki pages which are inter-linked.
I guess connectivity theory might suggest that connectivity between learners may facilitate their learning? On face value this can often seem to be the case. But it is more complicated - e.g., we may run into limitations such as Dunbar's number and too much connectivity may even be detrimental. A Deweyian approach would probably say that the proof is in the pudding - or in our case - in the dog food (reference to comment by Downes in the first CCK09 session - i.e., that in this course, we aim to eat our own dog food - if we're talking about connectivism, let's do connectivism).
The more I think and learn about connectivism, the more it seems to me that connectivity has always been important and that we are simply exploring connectivity's potential in our current cultures with new technology tools (such as the internet and web 2.0). Downes' and Siemens' thinking, research, and teaching into, about, and through connectivism, nevertheless is fascinating, worthwhile, and timely and may even be most notable for articulating and highlighting something we've always been doing when we learn, a skill/quality which is now vastly extendable with internet and web2.0 technologies. And the course is very successful in eating its own dog food, with knowledgeable experts at the helm, all helping to make it authentic. My main suggestion, then, is that connectivity theory could be strengthened by acknowledging its evolutionary role and historical importance, as opposed to positing it as a distinctly new learning theory. |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
Reading all the replies above, I'm inclined to agree that connectivism is a mode of learning for the moment. It was always a mode, when we tried to create classrooms as learning communities 10 years ago, except that it's now a mode that's accelerated thanks to learning technologies. While the mechanisms of this mode seem pretty apparent, I think more research needs to be done on the effects of connectivism as a learning mode. I agree to the 'what is knowledge' question above, because it will affect how we assess students' learning via connectivism. Also, before connectivism becomes the new social constructivism, someone needs to disrupt its heterenormativity, and look at the performance and shaping of learner identities and discourse in this learning mode. So, it is a mode, and it can aspire to a 'critical connectivist' pedagogy. Gurmit |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
>it can aspire to a 'critical connectivist' pedagogy. What is that. Tell us more, please. |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
Hi Jarmo The criticality comes from learning to read the wor(l)d as critical pedagogy, feminist theory and queer theory attempt to do. I think this perspective needs to penetrate the connections so that learning as connectivism has a social justice goal as well. Technology enables this critical thinking to be activated faster, as part of the personal search for meaning, which contributes to advancing the knowledge(s) of the network, making sure it keeps social justice at the forefront of its growth, so that we avoid repeating the imbalanced social and economic development that happened after decolonisation, and the interventions of the World Bank and IMF in 'building' nations. Gurmit |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... an old practice |
|
Hi James - I agree that connectivism is old as an experience. As an explicit concept, less so. Thorndike was the first person to use the term "connectIONism" (I believe) in his work with associative learning. That's over 100 years ago. Prior to that, I would suggest, we find connectivism as an experience any time a group of people shared ideas in voice or in artifact. The growth of the internet, however, makes this connection forming basis of connectivism more explicit. For what it's worth - I did address the link (hah!) between connectivism and other learning theories several years ago: http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/wiki/Situating_Connectivism. I have a paper that I'm presenting in Lisbon on Tues that I will be posting later this week on the topic: From Behaviorism to Connectivism. Heritage is important for all so called new ideas... |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... an old practice |
|
oh, and small distinction: Complicated refers to elements that can be known and have a place (like a puzzle - each piece belongs somewhere...once the puzzle is finished, we have completed our task). Complex refers to things that have multiple interacting elements where the outcome can not be fully known because it (the outcome) is based on how various elements connect (or fail to). Think of a weather system. Sudden unpredicted changes occur when systems combine in interesting ways. Complexity science tackles this systemic, multi-agentic challenge. Snowden's Cynefin framework may be of interest to you in this regard. |
| Re: What I think connectivism is... |
|
>it is possible to construct a social myth that is not based on anything particularly >substantial Only with connectivism? How about the all social science researchers etc. with the thoughts about non-propositional yet constructivistic ideas about society, etc. who've seen something "between" and "beyond". If they've acted from constructivistic basis, are they all wrong? What if they've find 'things in the world' (myths, tacit knowledge, fuzzy experience, etc.) using constructive modelled thinking, claimed to be propositional? |