Connectivism and Connective Knowledge

Thoughts on Little Boxes, Glocalization, and Networked Individualism

First thought

The use of bowling as part of the “old” groupings is a red flag for me. My wife bowls in a league every Friday night. You know that this means? We can never go out with friends on Fridays. We can never go to synagogue on Fridays. We can never go away for a weekend. We can never eat at a normal hour on Fridays. We can never go to a play or movie on Fridays, unless they start after 9:00.

It takes a stubbornness and determination to live in a networked society and cling to a little box group (not to mention an understanding spouse).

But I think this points out an interesting point. In the past, geography was probably the most limiting factor in the groups people belonged to. In the future it will be choice. If you do not make an explicit choice, you will belong to groups for very limited timeframes; you will lose the advantages of long term relations and bonds. If you do make an explicit choice to belong and to remain an active member, you will lose the opportunities to form new bonds and interests that can be more exciting, especially for short amounts of time.

In one sense it’s like love, and in another it’s like exercise. There is an excitement about the first kiss, the first few dates, and the many other “firsts” in a new relationship. You lose those in a long term relationship; but you gain something else, something that is deeper. In exercise, we all know how exercise helps the body and the mind. We all, at one time or another, end up joining gyms and/or buying equipment. But, how many of us stick with the regimen for decades?

So, does this indicate that there is more need for us all to learn how to make better personal decisions and how to balance the advantages of maintaining course with change?

Second thought

As the article talks about the decreasing influence of space, I start thinking of my company. We are two partners, both working from our homes. In one sense, we could be anywhere, but we are about 35 minutes from each other. Thus, proximity must have been an influence, but is not now a limiting factor.

And, while we are in the northeast, we work with associates all over the US. But even then, these are associates that we have gotten to know at conferences within a particular industry, and then worked with virtually on projects. These associates work with us on projects where their expertise can help us; they are not corporate employees, there is no formal binding contract; yet we seem to work with them often; and we make some sacrifices beyond contractual obligations so that their needs can be met, as they also make concessions so that ours are as well. Associates usually start with a specific well-defined role, but their roles grow as our mutual desire to work together becomes more important than the specific skills they offered us at inception. And, with most associates, we continue to see them at least 2-3 times a year.

Certainly, the ability to share document (Google docs) and to message each other makes working in this disparate way easier.

And, we have clients all over the world. Again, we have met most of these clients at industry conferences. All have some US component. All speak English reasonably well.

How will our interactions and feeling of belonging to a group change as we grow?

In reading the posted material for week one of the course on Connectivism and Connected Knowledge, I was struck by the singular focus on knowledge, even though the larger context of this subject involves learning theory and related pedagogical implications.

Week 1: What is connectivism?

The concept of connectivism is really appealing and definitely makes sense to me. However, a few thoughts came up.

Are the presented learning theories all learning theories in the strictest sense, and if not, is a comparison useful? Behaviorism and cognitivism are just learning theories since an atempt is made to explain how people learn. Constructivism and connecitvism primarily try to explain the true nature of knowledge and how knowledge is constructed. As a consequence of that, learning is defined. It is not a big deal I guess, but it puzzled me.

Should we think in terms of replacing former learning theories by the new ones or should we think more about merging different theories? I think that there is no such thing as 'one type of knowledge', like there is no such thing as 'one type of learning objectives'. Different objectives require different approaches to learning, and each type of learning practice might require a specific design. For instance, learning to act effectively in life-threatening situations as an aircraft pilot requires the execution of strict procedures in a strict order. Those procedures are best teached according to behavirorist principles I guess. Constructing complex knowledge or developing solutions to a wicked problem can only be done through collaboration. Concetivism offers a useful perspective in that typ of learning situations. I wonder what the 'merging' principle would mean for educational design.

Have you ever wondered why educators are the only professionals that have to reflect about their activity and have created a specific branch in philosophy, the Philosophy of Education? As far as I know Engineers, Doctors, Business Administrator don’t have to. Diego Rojas Ajmad, a Venezuelan professor In the University of Guayana, suggested in his blog Saparapanda that “because teachers are fundamental axels of society, in which hands are the destinies of the inhabitants of a republic, and for this reason society itself requires clarity and wisdom to exercise the profession.”

What I am trying so say is that finally an educator has come out and talked about knowledge and learning because knowledge and learning is what all teachers experience daily in our classroom, and finally we have a Theory of Learning proposed and discuss by the teaching community and not exclusively by psychologist , mathematics, neuroscientist, philosophers etc. (Papert was mathematicians, Piaget, Vygosky and Bruner, Pavlov were psychologist, Ausubel, doctor and psychiatry) and beyond the theory itself, this fact is going to have tremendous implications among the scientific community.

I cannot answer yet what Connectivism is, I am still connecting the dots in order to form a narrative of coherence, but I can sense already that it is Learning Theory that proposes an explanation on how the learner connects with knowledge.

another dimension of seeing and understating how learning occurs or grows .

Like in physics, where String Theory had to add another dimension (the 11th) to integrate gravitation , connectivism helps to deal with the growing complexity all the world of knowledge .

Here is my concept map

Helena Ramos

Connectivism is a “natural process of association” from “connections formed by actions and experiences” (Stephen Downes, 2007). It is a pedagogy rather than construction or transference of knowledge and therefore does include attitude and skills as well as knowledge.

With this in mind, I think, as teachers, one of our most important roles is to make the thinking/knowledge/issues/context/etc. behind whatever we do very clear to our students (never assume that by using ‘x’ students know what it means or that they know why you are using it to demonstrate 'y'). By being explicit, students can make their own connections and develop vital decision-making skills that relate to their life in their social setting within the world at the current time. What more vital skill do we, as adults, need and constantly use than decision-making skills?

Connectivism for me is yet another way for us to try to explain something we have all experienced on a regular basis for most of our lives, the amazing yet utterly mundane experience of learning.  It's very name implies movement, continuity, evolution.  Much like the intricate patterns of diffusion. 

What has been curious for me as I read some of the exchanges and readings is our almost irrisistible need to be definite, to be able to "box it" in words, defined for the ages.  As if . . .

Thank you for the comparison of connectivism with other learning theories.  Reminds me of light through a prism.

And thank you for this course though it is a bit like being invited to dinner only when you arrive you discover it is being held in a 12 story shopping mall with part of the meal served up in each one of the hundreds of stores.  I'm going to need a Tums by next Monday!

I think there is a deep connection between connectivism and ecology. Both of them, indeed, rely on the concept of networks. Ecosystems do not exist as objects, they can only be defined in terms of relationships. And the overall "quality" of an ecosystem (e.g. its capacity to sustain biodiversity) relies on the contribution of each individial member of the species and the qualities of its medium in a way that can only be interpreted as "synergetic" and bound to the concepts of rithm, cycles and equilibrium.

From this perspective, learning could be interpreted as the changing quality of the relationships of each node with respect to the rest of the network. Each node can make the network more responsive to changes in the environment (or capable to exploit new patterns) by changing its own relationship with other members of the community, and this can only happen via what I call "self-education". Self-education could be initiated either by the network - moving towards a new overall pattern - or by the node itself.

I think that the concepts of group, equilibrium, rythm, cycle and self-education are of the essence for connectivism as a learning theory.

Hi George,

It is easy for all fo us  to say that " Connectivism"  is one of the newest learning theory. Ok yes, It is OK well done. But we are still wondering that the TPACK (2006) from Punya Mishra, and Matthew J. Koehler has not been mastered yet (the wicked problem). How people in this real world know knowledge as they have to work in the era of  "knowledge workers" not "skilled workers". So how long do we have to debate that this will be the need of the educator today. In my opinion, it seems to be all right as the person is responsible for what he does and thinks. Good !

Irlan rahardja - indonesia  

After doing all of the readings I have the following observations:

George Siemens on "Connectivism: Learning theory or Pastime of the Self-Amused?" Language is technology but with ideology (stereotypes/filters). Language is needed to learn thus learning occurs when communicating. The more ways to communicate, the more learning. However, I do point out that it depends on the subject. Physical activities for workers that do things with their hands (assembly line work, manual labor, object handling) may not. I have seen simulations of objects that allow a user to see and interact with the object (pistol) in an LMS, but ultimately, the proof of the learning is the ability to do something with the object in the real world. In the tele communications world, my company runs web events that instruct the students (with whiteboards) and then allow the student to "dial in" to the switch and configure it according to a lab exercise. I agree with his observation that acquiring learning does not equal learning. Often learning does not occur until conversations happen around the knowledge or you use it. I found at grad school that I would acquire knowledge, and then have no one to bounce ideas off of. I could not be sure of having an intellectual conversation in the student pub. Using Learning 2.0 tools, I can validate or refute my ideas as quick as I can log on and find a group in that subject.

The "Teens and Social Media" report and "Media Multitasking among American Youth" offer interesting observations however I question the final statistics because all of the statistics revolve around self-reporting. As an information architect, I often find people say one thing and do another. I would consider this study as a "tentative" status. I would suggest a follow on study is needed where a researcher actually has to watch the teens do whatever it is they are doing. Obviously more expensive but using these initials stats, we can figure out the user groups then select a dozen for each group to really see what teens are really doing. If anything, if we could get teens watching 1/2 as much TV and spending that time doing homework (self-study or online), just image what the grade improvement could be! It would also be interesting to do a similar study among adults. My company does it for our workers to determine process improvements.

This course is "forcing" me to use some social software that I have not yet needed to use for my two jobs or personal life (Moodle, Google Maps overlays, Second Life, Open ID) I have used many of the others. The key to making the learning experience work successfully is trying to manage user names/passwords and learning the new software. The less time having to "waste" time learning new software, the more satisfying the experience. Thus, software should be as intuitive as possible. I have been spoiled by operating in the SharePoint 2007 environment for one job and Desire2Learn Learning Management System for the other. Thus, I have not been forced to go to different software for each aspect of social interaction that I need. My company is toying with the idea of how to create the virtual Office environment for the 50% of our employees that work from home/remote offices. Can SharePoint pull it off, or do we need to go to Second Life. Perhaps it is a melding of the two? (Sorry, there is no Innovatia island yet.)

Ursula M Franklin, a professor at the University Toronto, Wrote "The Real World of Technology" in 1998. She talks about the modern interconnected world that was watching a lot of TV. This created pseudo communities in which people become identified with events elsewhere in the world and become mobilized in some way because of that. This comes at the cost of the home community, much in the same way that Barry Wellman talked about the subject in "Little Boxes, Glocalization, and Networked Individualism" Franklin then goes on to talk about pseudo realities where the immersed person then becomes totally immersed in these new realities. This can be for the good and the bad. It is good, if you learn from it, but bad if it comes at the cost of other aspects of your life i.e. becoming addicted to reality shows instead of interacting with your family or friends. Note that Franklin first wrote this in 1990 at the height of the CNN effect and prior to the wide-spread internet.

I learn best with examples, so I want to reflect how Connectivism links to learning to Program. This is a very real problem for me I teach classes on programming at my university. One class has typically over 200 first year undergraduate students from a range of engineering-like disciplines (mostly Information Technology, Computer Science, Cybernetics, Electronic Engineering and Maths). The class spreads out with those with some prior knowledge to those where programming is completely new, but success doesn't match that prior knowledge, some students seem to "get it" and others don't. We spend a lot of time and effort trying to support the students who find it difficult.

So taking the ideas from George's presentation ("What is Connectivism") there are three areas that we should consider in networked learning:

• Neuro-Biological
• Conceptual
• External-Social

For someone learning the Neuro-Biological is what is going on in their brain, the change of wiring if you will. I'm not sure whether the subject of study makes a difference here.

For someone learning to Program the Conceptual level is linking new information with existing information. For example: linking the concept of a programming iterative statement with former idea of doing something until it is finished, for a student who is new to programming; while a student with some experience may link it directly to the FOR statement they know in BASIC. As learners progress with their programming it is important that they link the early concepts with later ones (for example iteration and functions).

A person learning to Program has a number of people in their External-Social network: those formally teaching or supporting a class, their fellow learners, but also the wealth of people across the world who are knowledgeable about the subject. For example if a program gives an incomprehensible error message, the quickest way to interpreting it is often to copy it in to Google and see how others have interpreted it.

--

Am I on the right track here?

Hello George, Steve and participants,

First of all, it´s not a contribuition to the forum, it´s just a question that I ask you to help me to answer! :O)

I am 36 years old and I "learn" everything I know about tecnology, educacional issues and so on. But, as a tradicional student, I feel that my way of learning things has changed since I started to deal with internet, blogs, e-mails and I began to establish connections. In my opinion, I developed an ability. OK!

The youngest, I think, born with this ability to create connections, as if it were an instinct.

Who are using this better? Me, that had learn, or them that had an instinct?

Here's some thoughts on Week 1 Additional Readings:

Maarten de Laat Networked Learning. An outstanding piece of research that shows how learning and human resources managementneed to be linked to provide outcomes based learning that results in improved performance. This is the way industry needs to go. He notes Human Resources Departments must think strategically what are core competencies.

Too often I have seen private libraries or companies create learning, hosted on an LMS that can provide content, testing, and progress (great for HR tracking) but it is not in any way linked to on the job performance, which is the critical indicator.

Stephen Downes The Buntine Oration: Learning Networks. Stephen severely criticizes the commercialization of learning into private for profit LMSs. This has forced me to rethink the companies I have worked for, because this is exactly what they do. My current company provides training in the telecommunications space because the original equipment manufacture recognizes training is essential, but does not want to do it, so they outsource to us. We listen to what content the learners what to learn, however, we don't have all the Learning 2.0 tools in place. We do recognize when pure e-learning will work, when mentoring has to happen, and when a live classroom is best and when you can run virtual classrooms.

In response to Stephens int ital criticism of e-Learning, much of the content was developed in proprietary tools that made it hard to truly interact with the content. We are now at a place with DITA XML where many of those concerns can be alleviated. OEMs are starting to realize the power of topic based authoring and access by the customer and feedback on a much more granular level than before. This goes with learning too. If the documentation is written properly with task flows etc, do you even need training courses? This is a fundamental questions I ask but would my company be out of business?

Stephen criticizes learning designs for packaging of learning. It was needed under the old regime of learning, but as I point out in the previous paragraph, new authoring and publishing technologies allow the user to consume whatever amount of info they want and that they can enter and exit the information at whatever point they desire.

Stephen promotes EDu_RSS and its filters for aggregating and filtering, but in a sense, is this no different than a learning design "filtering" out information that an "expert" has deemed more useful? I question his critique on learning designs and being too formal. What is wrong with having a learning design for people that have little knowledge about a subject? Why can't an expert design a "guided tour" to ensure base knowledge? Stephen says LEanring Designs are a dea end, but Even Connectivism has a learning design to outline what is in and out of the course. It lets everyone know what will be covered. It ensure a basic level of knowledge is discussed. Companies often want to know employees received training although I point out earlier that the lack of good HR performance measure tools mean they default to tracking training received as opposed to performance outcomes. I wonder if a decentralizedweb can provide the needed learning for performance improvement especially for web novices.

George Siemens Connectivism: Learning as Network-Creation offers good ideas that higher education and the corporate world need to move more to Web 2.0. However, George does not offer very complete ideas or implications for the Human Resources management role for performance improvement. In Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age, George indicates that leanring is about outcomes but again he doesn't link this with the human resources function.

All in all, I found these additional readings to be even more interesting than the required readings with more "practical" implications.