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.”
Hi Mike, and thanks for transparently sharing your taking in of these ideas.
What kinds of social network connections can/will we make within this course context?
How will we self-identify, and how will we recognize other members of our tribe(s)?
I feel like I’ll be reaching out on all kinds of levels, and I liked what you said earlier about the ways in which establishing personal goals can help with the process of figuring out who you might need in your personal learning network. Then there’s the serendipity factor…
in peace,
Shelley
Hi Shelley,
My pleasure, it’s good to hear that my reflections may have been of use
Now regarding the thoughts you expressed…
As for the kinds of social network connections we can or will make within the context of the course, I believe this will be informed largely by our individual circumstances.
For example, preconceptions on what Connectivism is or is not, existing knowledge or expertise, the summary nature of our experiences, personal learning objectives or goals, values or opinions will all affect the sorts of networks we see as being valuable and therefore nurture or indeed avoid. It’s all a matter of context I think.
Regarding self-identification, to a fair degree I think nature of who we area, our belief systems and experiences will be clearly apparent to others based on the way with which we present ourselves in our blogs, forum posts, reflections, and interactions with others. This would include tone of voice (or text), use of language, and the way we respond to others – especially during disagreements.
When you combine this with the introductions we were meant to do as part of the preparations for the course during Week Zero, I think others will have a fairly holistic picture of who we are. The same goes for our perceptions of others.
As you say too, there is the serendipity factor to consider as well, and I think this will come into play the more we browse the blogs of our fellow learners.
You also spoke of reaching out on all kinds of levels. I think this is really important in this course – both practically and ideologically. Based on my understanding of Connectivism so far, the theory seems to suggests that (among other things) learners require linkages with others in order to develop the connections that constitute the learning process.
So by doing this we are not only developing critical learning networks necessary to collectively – or more appropriately connectively – process and explore the subject matter, we are implementing the same concepts and ideas that we are studying.
Cheers,
Mike
Hi Mike,
Thank you for the clear summary of the essential ideas and your learning journey with them. Poking around all the “stuff” with this course, your comments formed a cognitive foothold for me. I guess this means you have become part of my network of learning. You were an externalized connection that reinforced my conceptual network. Is that how this is supposed to work?
But why would I reply to you? Your writing is full of curiosity and humility. I don’t know what the parameters of trust are but those qualities seem important. It seems that networks are far more than cognitive aggregators. They encourage risking taking and support the hard work of conceptual development.
Thanks,
David
Hi David
Glad my thoughts made a bit of sense! This is one of the fantastic aspects of blogging to me – in our quest to better understand a concept through reflection and conceptual exploration (on our blogs) we help others do the same.
I wonder what this all means for the context of Connectivism? For example, if Social Constructivism says through this discussion we are collectively working towards the realisation of an idea, meaning-making, and/or the construction of an overall understanding – what would Connectivism say?
Well George states that there are three types of networks where learning occurs (Neural/biological, conceptual and external/social), and that in Connectivism:
“Our ability to understand is related to how well and consistently we’re connected to ideas and concepts”.
Perhaps this could mean, then, that through linking with one another, the knowledge distributed across our external/social network (however small) is such that – as an aggregated connective – we can then make the conceptual connection with the subject matter.
For that matter if we consider the first three principles of learning theories that George outlined in his presentation:
# 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;
In the case of items 1 and 3, we can only do these in the presence of a social/external network. This would seem to support the idea that knowledge is distributed. Why this is and what the implications are I’m still a bit unclear about, but the fact is we seem to be able to reach conclusions together that we cannot do as individuals – and it would seem this is a direct result of the social/external factors. Would you agree?
I need to ponder this more I think
Cheers,
Mike
Hi Mike,
The networking thing is exciting yet perplexing a bit. I “lost” your blog connection and am not even sure how I “found” it again. Following is a copy of a forum post I made on the course blog post comparing learning theories that was lost in the flames. (Totally agree with your perspective.)
============= (edited for brevity)
I find the papers and discussions (eFest) relatively clear. 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 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.
==========================
The above is simple yet my first attempt to wonder whether learning theories are more additive than hierarchical? Connectivism is important as it adds the process insights of new brain research and new technologies of networking. I’m suspecting that attempts to include Connectivism in the sphere of Constructivism might not work as the external context when Constructivism was conceived was so different. However, I also can’t see how Connectivism replaces or supercedes Constructivism.
I would appreciate your thinking on how this process of learning might work. Your thoughts above are a helpful context.
Thanks,
David
Hi David,
I’m happy to offer my thoughts on this – I just need to think all this through further and especially read more. Much of what we’re covering is brand new to me – this includes the background on all the other learning theories that have been mentioned – Behaviourism, Cognitivism and Constructionism. So I’ve got a lot of background studying to do.
In fact much of what you just covered was above my head
At a basic level though, I (like others I’ve seen) can grasp the idea that knowledge is distributed – however the notion of how the actual learning takes place within the theory is something I’ve yet to fully come to terms with.
For example, I can parrot back the point that the learning occurs in the establishing of new connections (neural, conceptual and external), but I haven’t managed to grasp what that actually means at a deeper level.
As far as the relationship between Connectivism and Constructivism is concerned. I believe the implication is that there is none – and that Constructivism’s notion of meaning-making doesn’t work in a Connectivism framework, since Connectivism argues that meaning is dependent on context and perspective, and therefore no symbolic or inherent meaning can truly exist. As a result, with no inherent meaning there is nothing that can actually be “transferred”.
That’s about as far as I’ve gotten so far. I’ll think this through, (and try to confirm what I’ve said is correct for that matter according to the readings). I’ll try and post more about this later.
Cheers,
Mike
Hi Mike, I’m already behind with my home work, so I have found this post to be really useful for starting me to think about theory – you have made things very understandable for me. cheers Sarah