Connectivism and Childhood Learning
Very early on into the CCK08 course I made a connection between the concepts being discussed in the course and those much more specific to my own context. I have, however, been trying to avoid discussing it – largely out of fear of being branded a radical and burnt at the stake by traditionalists. Yet something Stephen Downes said in the CCK08 Ustream.TV recording from 19 September really struck a chord with me and I’d like to explore the idea here now.
In discussing the notion of how Connectivism relates to – or can be related to – the learning experiences of children, the conversation began by essentially echoing the sentiments I expressed in my last post.
Paraphrasing the response: In trying to implement a Connectivist model in an authoritarian, curriculum-based, hierarchical structure, educators are effectively trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. In many regards the two are fundamentally opposed to one another.
You cannot empower learners and encourage them to sieze hold of their own learning experiences while at the same time controlling what they learn, how they interact, who they listen to, the networks they form, the way they are exposed to the information, and the time frame in which they are expected to learn it. You can’t both give away control and keep it at the same time.
Then Downes went one step further, saying [49:23]:
“We teach our children by separating them from society and putting them in little rooms. This strikes me as exactly the wrong way to do it…Education ought to be the process of integrating children into society.”
While Siemens took a much softer approach, reaffirming the importance of considering “multiple stakeholders” as well as the role of educational institutions, the implications of Downes’ message were pretty clear.
Thus brings me to my opinion on childhood learning and Connectivism. The two can absolutely work together, and do it well; but not in traditional, highly structured educational systems. In my view, Connectivism works best in learner-led environments, and the most learner-friendly environment of them all is the home.
As author, educator and proponent of homeschooling, John Holt, once wrote (source unknown):
“What children need is not new and better curricula but access to more and more of the real world; plenty of time and space to think over their experiences, and to use fantasy and play to make meaning out of them; and advice, road maps, guidebooks, to make it easier for them to get where they want to go (not where we think they ought to go), and to find out what they want to find out.”
Based on the next few minutes of Downes commentary, the above paragraph could have quite easily been said by Stephen as John Holt.
One of the key concepts for many homeschoolers is the importance of connecting interest with real world application. Instead of lecturing on music, you encourage exploration of musical instruments or go to symphonic concerts; instead of looking at pictures of animals, you go to a zoo or an aquarium, visit a veterinarian or animal shelter. If parents don’t understand a concept or subject their child is interested in, they don’t fudge it; they seek out someone who does understand it; or better still, explore and learn together. You don’t teach your child; you facilitate connections with tangible, relevant concepts or people so your child can realise the learning experience themselves.
Furthermore, on several occasions I’ve read or heard Downes emphasize the importance of doing away with the idea that learning is done in a specific place, rather than being natural part of life that occurs anywhere and everywhere. In my view, by conditioning children to see learning as something you go someplace to do – namely the physical classroom – you imply that learning doesn’t occur outside of there – or worse still, doesn’t need to.
Worse still is the notion of learning being scripted, and the motivation to learn arising from the external in the form of lesson plans with a grade or mark associated with them. In those conditions, learning becomes something to get through in order to get back to real life, and the focus of the experience directed towards the achievement of a mark rather than the curiosity and fulfillment of the process.
In contrast to this, by tying learning interests back to real life examples and applications – and importantly letting the learner dictate the flow of the experience – with all the tangents that may entail – you reinforce the idea that learning is something to be explored, discovered and enjoyed, rather than endured.
