TechTicker
educational technology, eLearning & emerging technology

A thought occurred to me on the way to the train station this morning that I’d like to explore; and that is, that one way to better understand Connectivism is to place it within its own context.

Specifically, I don’t know much about the subject but would like to learn.  So what processes then, according to Connectivism, would I need to undertake (or would occur) in order to learn more about the subject?

Five Common Principles of Learning Theories

According to Siemens’ presentation this week, every learning theory features five key principles:

• We have a need to externalise;
• We have a need for frameworks or structures for sense-making;
• We have a need to socialise and negotiate around knowledge;
• Our mind is a patterning mind.  We are uniquely attuned to note, recognise and draw patterns from complex environments and situations.  Act of recognising a human face for example is a complex and distributed neural system;
• We have a desire to extend our humanity through technology.

In the context of my example on Connectivism itself I have no - or at most a minimal - existing understanding of Connectivism, or indeed many other learning theories.  Therefore the process of making sense of the concepts first requires that I seek external sources and stimuli - in this case the course facilitators, other students, the information and readings that arise, and the discussions that take place.

This alone is insufficient however, as an awareness of existing information does not necessary translate to its understanding.  Therefore the need for a framework within which to contextualise and relate the information is necessary.  Once again though, the structures and frameworks are not internalised by default; it must be developed through interaction with external sources. This leads to the need to socialise and negotiate around the knowledge.

In doing this patterns and relationships between ideas and concepts start to emerge and we become better able to appreciate the implications of the subject matter.  Over time our overall understanding expands and we are better equipped to make connections that were beyond our comprehension initially.  Thus begins the process all over again.

Connectivism & Networked Learning
The unique aspects of Connectivism and Networked Learning, Siemens argues, revolves around the idea that knowledge is distributed or networked in nature and the act of knowing or understanding involves the extent of our connectedness with the network.

He continues that “Learning in a Connectivist or Learning Network sense is therefore a function of the depth and diversity of connections. Our ability to understand is related to how well and consistently we’re connected to ideas and concepts.”

In my example I have only minimal existing connections to the network across which the knowledge of Connectivism is distributed, as such my understanding of the subject is minimal as well.  The act of learning more about Connectivism will require the development and enhancement of ties into and across the network, as well as my ongoing participation within it.

The latter is of particular significance in Connectivism, Siemens argues, because the continuously expanding and complexifying nature of contemporary information is dynamic and in a constant state of flux.  This reinforces the notion that out ability to understand is related to how well and consistently we’re connected to the relevant networks.

What does “Networks” refer to?
At this stage it’s important to clarify what the notion of Networks refers to.  In the Connectivist sense, there are three areas of types of networks where learning occurs:

• Neural/biological - learning is the formation of new neural connections.
• Conceptual - Relatedness and connectedness or associations between ideas or concepts.  Depth of understanding related to conceptual network that learners have formed; or relationship between concepts and ideas that learners have formed in a particular discipline.  Ability to learn new information related to existing conceptual network (how is this different from existing knowledge - e.g. constructivism).  Connections create meaning.
• External/social - relates to social relationships; how we’re connected to other people or information itself.

In the case of the example on Connectivism itself it would seem that the first network that must be explored and nurtured is that of the external/social.  Given my minimal existing connections and levels of understanding, the first two network types - neural and conceptual - do not come into play yet.  It is only after beginning to establish connections that the neural and conceptual processes can begin to take place.

Networks of Learning are not new
Siemens goes on to say that the notion of networks of learning is not new; what’s changed are three key ideas.

• Climate of Abundance - through technology we’ve realised the ability to increase our participation (creation and sharing of content); barriers have been significantly reduced.  Anyone and everyone can create content.  As such the aggregated volume of content and information has drastically increased.
• Complexification has resulted from increased opportunities to dialogue with others.  Due to the climate of abundance, virtual every viewpoint can be represented.
• Unique opportunities in technology - We can now simulate experiences that are just not possible outside technology (e.g. - documentaries, virtual worlds)

The example of the Connectivsm course is a clear illustration of the above points.  There are nearly 2,000 students taking this course - both formally or informally - which translates to 2,000 unique perspectives on the subject, and as a result 2,000 potential stimuli.  In this environment it is critical that adequate connections to external/social networks be developed and nurtured in order to make sense of the deluge of content and avoid what Siemens refers to as “parallysis due to an overwhelming amount of information.”

Day one of CCK08 begins today and we’ve been provided with a hefty reading list to get our heads around and start to ponder and discuss.  In addition to this, George Siemens has put together a presentation - “What is connectivism” (audio only version) - to help introduce the topic, as well as place it in the context of several other learning theories such as Behaviorism, Cognitivism, and Constructivism.

Following on this he’s asked us to consider “Do you agree? Does connectivism add something not covered by existing theories of learning?”

My Learning Curve

Thus marks the beginning of a tremendous learning curve, as I have only a basic understanding - if that - of all of these theories.  I’m in the midst of the other readings as we speak and hope to develop a better appreciation during this process.  In the meantime I have also begun to discuss some of the ideas with members of my various networks.

I expect much of this process will involve building/establishing a wider context within which I can begin to explore these ideas.  Almost inevitably this will include seemingly unrelated discussions.

For example a Twitter discussion I had today with @petrock that went like this:

Mike: Spending a lot of time tonight asking questions like “what is knowledge”. Is it discovered, made, acquired, realised or something else…

Mike: Also, is knowledge static, dynamic, dependant on context, etc?

petrock: @mbogle Typically, I don’t see knowledge as discovered. It’s not realized either. Made & acquired, yes. But this depends on the definition.

petrock: @mbogle For instance, a discovery or apparent realization is made and then knowledge is constructed to express that. What do you think?

Mike: @petrock Would you say for example a link is established between two concepts or ideas, and then the nature of the connection identified?

Mike: @petrock Next question is, are we talking about constructivism right now or is this something different?

petrock: @mbogle I think I agree with seeing a “link” and then identifying that. Constructivism may apply but not necessarily. For instance…

petrock: @mbogle Does knowledge made from self-realization fit “constructivism”? Seeing how one acts seems different than linking pre-existing ideas.

petrock: @mbogle If I act like an ass and see it, I have realized something about myself but haven’t really linked theories or used others’ ideas.

Mike: @petrock “I’m not sure” would be the short answer Couldn’t self-realisation involve linking of private/internal ideas?…

Mike: E.g. in order to “realise” something don’t you need to have a comparative point of reference and therefore a way to link ideas?

Mike: In your example, the point of reference could be the ideal, and the realisation occuring when compaing ideal to reality.

petrock: @mbogle Ahh, I see. Yes it could be a result of comparing the ideal to reality. Though, I meant a genuine realization in my example.

petrock: @mbogle For instance, I hurt someone and see that hurt first-hand. I didn’t read in a book what an “ass” is. Rather, the fact penetrated me.

Mike: @petrock But even in this case you’d be making a conclusion. E.g. instead of just observing an effect, you’d also be realising your relation to it

Mike: @petrock …and then comparing this to an ideal of some kind, such as “you’re not suppose to hurt people.” Getting late here too

Comparing Learning Theories

At this stage I can clearly differentiate Behaviourism and Cognitivism from Constructivism and Connectivism, but I’m having some trouble differentiating  the latter two from each other.

Stephen Downes’ “What Connectivism Is” should hopefully shed some light on this.  If you’ll excuse me for quoting this at length, I suspect I’ll need to read this several times before I fully appreciate the implications:

“In a representational system, you have a thing, a physical symbol, that stands in a one-to-one relationship with something: a bit of knowledge, an ‘understanding’, something that is learned, etc.

In representational theories [such as Constructivism], we talk about the creation (’making’ or ‘building’) and transferring of these bits of knowledge. This is understood as a process that parallels (or in unsophisticated theories, is) the creation and transferring of symbolic entities.

Connectivism is not a representational theory. It does not postulate the existence of physical symbols standing in a representational relationship to bits of knowledge or understandings. Indeed, it denies that there are bits of knowledge or understanding, much less that they can be created, represented or transferred.

This is the core of connectivism (and its cohort in computer science, connectionism). What you are talking about as ‘an understanding’ is (at a best approximation) distributed across a network of connections. To ‘know that P’ is (approximately) to ‘have a certain set of neural connections’.”

Justified true belief

The ‘P’ that Downes refers to in the final paragraph of the above quote appears to refer to notion of Justified True Belief account of knowledge.  According to Wikipedia (”Gettier problem“), this suggests that:

…the claim that knowledge can be conceptually analyzed as justified true belief — which is to say that the meaning of sentences such as “Smith knows that it rained today” can be given with the following set of necessary and jointly sufficient conditions:

A subject S knows that a proposition P is true if, and only if:

1. P is true
2. S believes that P is true, and
3. S is justified in believing that P

I’m still trying to get my head around all this.  If anyone can provide some insight I’m all ears.  In the meantime I’ll keep reading.

Brian Kelly from the UK Web Focus blog, began a Seesmic thread earlier this week, by asking “What is the most rewarding aspect of blogging?” Given this weeks FOC08 theme of Blog Networks, the timing of this discussion is quite apt and I’ve posted a couple of responses.

Whether you contribute to the Seesmic thread or not though I think this question is an important one for every blogger to ask themselves, as it can be a valuable reminder of the motives, mission and values that lead us to maintain a blog in the first place.

The discussion began with a post from YouTube, and for some reason the embed clip that Seesmic provides is to the YouTube instance rather than the Seesmic one. So in the interests of providing access to the thread I’ll start with the first response from a Seesmic user. You can view the original YouTube post here.

Original Post:

Resulting Seesmic Thread:

Re: Video blog post 4: Is blogging rewarding?

The downside of video
With respect to online video discussion - and in fact online video in general - one thing I should have added to my second contribution of this thread, but didn’t, is the idea of indexing. Search engines enable us to locate relevant material on the web by indexing the content of posts and then cross-referencing search criteria against it to yield the most likely and appropriate results. In the case of online video this isn’t possible, because there isn’t much of anything to index. Aside from the title of the clip and perhaps key points (if any) included in a description field, the actual contents of the clip are unknown and difficult to determine until you actually view it.

In discussions with other colleagues this was flagged as a major downside of online video, as was the inability to quickly skim the content. Unlike text where the entire message is clearly visible all at once, the only way to consume the information in a video is to sit and watch it at speed. If you get to the end of the clip and it wasn’t what you hoped it would be, too bad.

I think this highlights the significance of properly annotating clips in the description field. Online video is a powerful medium, but it’s important to bear in mind the viewer of the content and give them as much advanced information as possible.