Sinikka over at lost in translation has written up another thought-provoking post titled “CCK08 – looking for patterns” in which she discusses the differences between educational theory and practice.

In particular she reflects on the trends in education over the years from differentiated education to “constructionism, together with pedagogies and methods, such as co-operative learning, experiential learning and inquiry-based learning.”

From the standpoint of someone who works in education, but not as an instructor, posts like this provide invaluable insight into the the classroom environment as it is on the inside, as well as how educational trends affect educators. I encourage everyone in a similar position to share your experiences because practical insight is as critical as theory in the research process – at least as far as I’m concerned.

Regarding the place of Connectivism in education, Sinikka indicates:

“Even though I do appreciate many aspects of connectivism, I don’t yet believe that it will be the one and only solution to revolutionise education.”

In response to her post I added the following comment:

…I don’t see Connectivism as being all things to all people; I suspect it wasn’t intended to be. Ultimately it comes down to context.

One of the main sources of disagreement that keep arising in the course relates to how Connectivism can be implemented within a formal education framework. This is a very different matter, I think, to the overall efficacy of the theory.

By focusing on the formal aspects of learning such as course curriculum, learning outcomes, assessment and the like we place the highly personalised and locally contextualised notions of Connectivism within a highly structured, top-down, hierarchical framework of formal education.

It’s of little surprise then, I think, that we’re seeing so many stumbling points. To a large degree the two are out of phase with one another.

Especially given the point you mentioned about “externally-imposed testing routines”, and teacher performance review (which I don’t think mentioned) – the practical aspects of Connectivism in formal education will have to consider the local culture – including requirements, accountabilities, and learner (and parent) expectations.

As with most theories, I think Connectivism provides an ideal, or a mindset, that can inform practice – but I definitely don’t think it dictates it.

So as far formal education is concerned, what Connectivism does is provide a new way of looking at learning that – along with other learning theories – can be rolled into plans that address the local needs of the community of learners.

As we delve further into the course, I think it’s critical to differentiate discussions on the theory itself from those regarding implementation of the theory within a specific context. Both matters are very important ones to explore, but they are – at the core – very different questions.

I highly recommend reading and discussing Sinikka’s post on her blog.