My Position on Connectivism

What follows is my submission for CCK08 Short Paper 1

Connectivism is a new theory of learning and knowledge that seeks to explain how the scale and scope of information, depth and levels of discourse and interaction, and technological opportunities that have emerged in the wake of the Digital Age have affected the learning process.

Connectivism can be classified as a learning theory due to its embodiment of five key principles (Siemens, Sept. 2008):

1. We have a need to externalise to make sense;
2. We have a need for frameworks and structures for sense-making;
3. We have a need to socialise and negotiate around knowledge;
4. Our mind is a patterning mind;
5. We have a desire to extend our humanity through technology.

Siemens and others argue that the onset of the Digital Age has produced a climate of abundance characterised by an overwhelming quantity and therefore complexification of information, which existing learning theories fail to address. The significance of networks then is one of both filter and source of information and knowledge, thus permitting “a scaling of both abundance and diversity” (Siemens, Aug. 2008). As such the value or quality of one’s network is dependent on the depth and diversity of their connections.

Furthermore, whereas theories such as Constructivism argue that knowledge is internalised and meaning “made”, Connectivism argues that information has no inherent symbolic meaning, but instead relies on a specific context (Downes, 2007). As such, knowledge cannot be transferred but is instead distributed across networks. The act of learning then involves establishing neural, conceptual, or external connections to nodes within or across networks (Siemens, Sept. 2008) and recognising patterns between nodes. Thus enables the development of further connections.

Importantly, while Siemens (Sept. 2008) argues that consideration for technological opportunities is an important distinction between Connectivism and other learning theories, it is arguably not an essential component. Furthermore, the concept of what qualifies as technology is important to bear in mind as well. Technology does not refer merely to the Internet and web-based tools, but anything that “enables us to overcome our limitations” (Siemens, Sept. 2008) and establish or enhance connections. This includes, for example, telephone, television, and the automobile.

The practicalities of Connectivism
A fair amount of discussion has emerged regarding the practicality of Connectivism – particularly with respect to formal education. Some, including myself at one stage, have argued that Connectivism is very contextually dependent and is therefore more relevant to certain situations than others. Highly structured environments, such as classrooms founded upon instructivist pedagogy for example, will not be as conducive to the empowering of Connectivist learners as a more learner-led environment.

While this may or may not be the case, it’s important to emphasise that the underlying concepts and ideas in the theory of Connectivism and Connective Knowledge are independent of a specific pedagogy or educational model – formal or otherwise. Certainly there are opportunities in which to implement Connectivist learning models in classroom settings, however as Etienne Wenger (1998) discusses in his notion of communities of practice, networks of learning can occur both formally and informally within the shadow of an organisation or educational system.

Effectively Connectivism need not be formally implemented in the classroom to stand as a valid theory of learning; indeed in all likelihood network learning may occur informally outside the classroom.

Joost Robben (2007), found that in a sample of 224 students of preliminary vocational education in The Netherlands: “The technologies that are most frequently used facilitate or support relations with other individuals.” While sweeping conclusions cannot be made based on this sample, Robben’s findings nonetheless point to high levels of interactivity between individuals outside of formal education.

Additionally, given the fact that “On average students have around 200 contacts in their [MSN] contact list,” Robben’s findings indicate the average student is part of a large online network. This is is marked contrast to the number of offline contacts, in which “28% reported to have contact with 5 to 9 friends and 41% reported to have contact 15 or more friends.” These findings would seem to support the Connectivist notions of technology being an important opportunity for facilitating connections.

Conclusion
Connectivism is not a prescriptive model that proposes a universal implementation framework for both formal and informal education. It is a theory that seeks to describe how learning occurs and to a lesser degree, why.  This is a critical distinction for educators to make.  Instead of focusing on perceived problems or challenges in implementing Connectivistic models in the classroom, perhaps it’s better to look to the theory to better understand the way some students are beginning to learn so educators can more effectively connect with them.

Works cited
Downes, Stephen. (2007). “What Connectivism Is” Half an Hour, 3 February 2007. http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-connectivism-is.html

Siemens, George. (Aug. 2008); “What’s the unique idea in Connectivism?” Connectivism Blog, 6 August 2008. http://connectivism.ca/blog/2008/08/what_is_the_unique_idea_in_con.html

Siemens, George. (Sept. 2008) “What is Connectivism?” Connectivism and Connective Knowledge MOOC, 8 Sept 2008. http://elearnspace.org/media/WhatIsConnectivism/player.html

Robben, Joost (2007). Learning Environments for the Net-generation learners. Masters Thesis, University of Twente, Enschede, August 2007. http://joostrobben.info/files/Robben_Master%20Thesis_Learning%20env%20Net-gen%20learners_28-08-07.pdf

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning as a Social System. Systems Thinker, June 1998. http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/lss.shtml [viewed 28 Jul 2008]