Con+Connectivism

= =

= Arguments Against Connectivism =

What is Connectivism?
According to George Siemens, connectivism is a new learning theory for the new digital age. It is a process that occurs based upon a variety of continuously shifting elements. Earlier learning theories such as behaviorism, congitivism, and constructivism were developed pre-technology times and no longer address the needs of today.

One tenet of connectivism is that knowledge is not contained within one person, but in many different 'nodes' - some of which are "non-human appliances," such as computer software.

Connectivism places more importance on one's ability to obtain and acquire information rather than one's learning of content. It argues that our knowledge is amplified as we make new connections in our search for understanding.

Connectivism is crouched in the student-centered learning theory matrix that includes experiential learning and constuctionism/constructivism.

Learning Theory or Pedagogical Strategy?
In his article, "Connectivism: a new learning theory?" Verhagen argues that connectivism is not a learning theory and makes the following distinction: Learning theories focus on //how// learning takes place. Connectivism is more of an //instructional strategy (//that focuses on //what// is learned and //why// it is learned) rather than a learning theory.

[|Bill Kerr] (2006) also challenges connectivism as a new learning theory. Although he does acknowledge that networking is important in today's world, it hasn't changed learning enough to establish an entirely new learning theory. According to Kerr (2006), connectivism fails to qualify as a theory based on three criteria:
 * 1) Connectivism does not contribute to a theory or learning reform, due to its use of "language and slogans that are sometimes ‘correct’ but are too generalized to guide new practice at the level of how learning actually happens,"
 * 2) Connectivism does "contribute to a general world outlook", but we already have theories that address this.
 * 3) Connectivism "misrepresents the current state of established alternative learning theories such as constructivism, behaviorism and cognitivism, so this basis for a new theory is also dubious".

Some of the most convincing arguments within connectivism are very similar to that of constructivism, an already established learning theory. For example, constructivism states that we learn best through our experiences and that we "build" our knowledge through these interactions. Connectivism just adds the technological aspect to the "interaction" aspect of constructivist theory. Although constructivism is an accepted learning theory, there are still mixed results as to its effectiveness as a learning theory. In some studies, the "discovery learning" improved students' acquistion of knowledge, yet in others it just led to more confusion. Unlike constructivism, connectivism lacks any extensive research on its effectiveness as a learning theory. As Verhagen states, it seems, instead, to be just "unsubstantiated philosophising."

Connectivism seems to be primarily associated with learning strategies and curriculum which makes is a learning strategy/curriculum not an internal processing learning approach. If it was, no learning would have occured before Tim O'Reilly coined the term [|Web 2.0]

Relevance to Teaching Practices
As Robert Rubis states on his [|blog], "It seems to me the Connectivity, while a powerful exploitation of the power of the new tools available to learners, is a new //Means// to an //End//, rather than the //End// itself." Connectivism is based on sharing knowledge and networking. This is not something new. It is human nature to question, solve problems, socialize, and share information--we just did it without technology. Information still passed from generation to generation. We now have additional tools.

Connectivism is relevant to teaching as far as tools and concepts go, but as far as learning theories go, it falls short.

Connectivism and Students
As far as connectivism's relation to students, it may go too far to suggest that just knowing "where" to find information is the only important aspect of learning. Yes, perhaps requiring students to memorize facts seems less important in this digital age (where answers can be found anywhere), yet such knowledge acquisition is still important in many subject areas (such as mathematics). Even if students can "find" the information, they need to have some factual knowledge to be able to assess it (or even to //understand// it!). What place does experience (away from a computer), creating mental models, processing, critical reasoning, reflection, epistimologies have in the learning theory of connectivism? If connectivism is a curriculum/pedagogical approach then these things are part of the picture. If connectivism is a learning theory then how did we learn prior to web 2.0? What separates connectivism from [|Piaget's Constructivism or Papert's constructionism]? Is there a place for [|personality theory] in constructivism? There are simply too many questions still for connectivism to be considered something other than a new [|meme] that is popular among the early adopters and [|edupunks.]

Compelling Parts
One compelling part of connectivism is that it seems to match our neural networks, so viewing it as a learning theory is a logical extension. Although we are arguing against the concept of connectivism as a learning theory, we still do believe that connectivism's ideas and implications have a place in education. This video was created on YouTube by wdrexler. It makes a compelling argument for connectivism and highlights how learning can be enhanced through the numerous networks avaliable to us.

media type="youtube" key="XwM4ieFOotA" height="344" width="425"

Confusion
The concepts of //knowledge//, //information//, and //learning// are used often in the discussion of connectivism, and it can get confusing when trying to distinguish between them. Are //knowledge// and //information// both inherent truths, some of which are yet to be discovered, and //learning// is the process by which we get closer to those truths? Is it our //knowledge// of //information// that is changing or is it the //knowledge// itself that is actually changing?

These questions to point to a fundamental problem with Siemens' theory, and that is his lack of conceptual clarity. We found the article more confusing than enlightening, and a critique might simply focus on Siemens' style of writing. We believe, though, that this confusion is not simply a matter of writing style but is attributable to his failure to adequately define and clarify his concepts. His notion of a node, for instance, is initially defined quite generally to include "any element that can be connected to any other element." That definition is so broad as to be really unhelpful, as it would apply to everything from subatomic particles to individual neurons to the gravitational pull of planets. Indeed, one might wonder what is //not// a node, given this broad definition. Later in the essay, when he is discussing "rougue" nodes and memes, he seems to be restricting his definition of "node" to mean an idea. And yet identifying a node as an idea conflicts with his earlier assertion that "nodes are characterized by a general sense of autonomy (Siemens, 6)." The problem here is that ideas //per se// cannot be autonomous; autonomy only applies to agents. Perhaps he means that nodes are like atomistic [|monads], but then that directly contradicts what Siemens takes to be the essential quality of nodes, namely, their connectivity.