Good points I definitely wouldn’t go far as saying Connectivism should be used exclusively. Connectivism itself, in fact, stresses the importance for context when evaluating meaning – and to a large degree needs and relevance as well.

I think it’s important to distinguish here, though, that the context of this post was more about Rhizomatic Knowledge than Connectivism. Whereas R.K. discusses alternative notions to canons, I don’t think Connectivism singles them out nearly as pointedly.

So I think one could quite easily establish a form of Connectivism that ensured certain entry pathways were in place through which learners were exposed to concepts flagged as important.

There are other differences between the two which are worth looking at I think – an idea for another post I think – but as for now I’m late for work. gotta run!

One last thought though:

You mentioned: “Remembering an operable number of words of a foreign language, for example, does help any further understanding of meaning in that language.”

Very good point. I think we definitely find subjects where Connectivism and Rhizomatic Knowledge start to have trouble in practice (as opposed to theory). So once again the context in which it’s used – and knowing when to look outside the theory – is critical

Cheers,

Mike

I’m toying with an idea here, and don’t have a clear conclusion (or point) in mind yet – so please bear with me.

In terms of Joost’s point, what if negotiating with a 3rd grade class on whether the Earth is flat or round is exactly what we should be doing?

For example, if we’re trying to help them develop deeper thinking and reasoning skills, instead of asking “Is the Earth flat” or “Is the Earth round”, we’d could ask “How could we determine whether the Earth is flat or round?” or perhaps “Identify whether you think the Earth is flat or round and provide evidence to support your conclusion.”

The last two are very different questions from the first two and could lead to some very interesting and valuable exploratory research in which the learners direct their own investigation. The learning opportunities in that respect would be far greater than simply asking them a yes or no question, since they would would need to realise the overall context and interrelationships before being able to conclude the ultimate answer: “the Earth is round.”

For that matter, in gathering and developing the information needed to support their arguments learners would start to experience some of the important lessons that we did during the first two weeks of the CCK08 course. Namely, how do you start to navigate through the existing knowledge pool to locate the information that is relevant for you; how do you determine which nodes or reference points are the most appropriate; and then having done that, how do you assess the accuracy of the information.

These processes would require far more in depth planning and consideration on their part than simply telling them the Earth is round and leaving it at that.

If what Connectivism says is true, then the learning experience is in the development of connections, and especially in realising how this process actually takes place, and why it’s important; and not simply accepting information at face value and memorising facts. If we simply do the latter, then there will arguably be little or no context in which to place the information – which makes it less useful in the long run.

Cheers,

Mike

in reply to your argument: “effectively you can’t have a canon; the reality is distributed across the network.” I think i can agree with this in some situations. I guess this mostly applies to the fields knowledge workers are in. But what about our formal educational structures? I wouldnt like to be negotiating with a 3th grade class on wether the earth is flat or not (alltough Thomas Friedman has given his meaning to it). Also, I don’t think oil companies would like to negotiate on ways to enter platforms safely.

I think we can use connectivist ideas in various learning settings and we really need to be considering more open and connective ways to create learning experiences in contexts that are suited for it. Loads “training” questions are still answered with…training whereas a more connective apporoach would be more effective.

Whatever remains must be analyzed by people with vast exposure to documentation in its many forms, and time-tested methodology, in order to advance knowledge.

All the canonical sources of history are documents, often from a single point of view. They are therefore naturally biased, and such bias is only offset by other documents, and analysis of them within their own historical context, as well as that of the historian. But the presence of the original document is the fact that begins the process of interpretation, which with additional input and skills becomes an analysis that sheds light on the era being studied.

And yes indeed, the presentation of the canon by the instructor, his/her interpretation, is crucial — it’s the “modeling” that Downes discusses and with which I am so enchanted. Students must know why the instructor is treating the canonical readings in a particular way. Thus the canon is by no means static. In the case of translations, it is very helpful to know the historical context within which the translation is developed (I’m thinking here of some current “translations” of Beowulf in graphic novel format).

As you’ve noticed, I am similarly concerned about the balance between the freedom to explore within ones chosen network and the need for foundational knowledge. Delighted to be conversing about it!