Group+B+6-A-1

=Home > Group B Workspace > Learning Activity 6-A-1=

= Connectivism: A Critique =

Overview:
Connectivism is an educational theory which stresses the phenomenon of networked knowledge. According to this theory, knowledge may exist independently, without learners acquiring or constructing new knowledge. Individuals are the most fundamental component of the network system and take part in an ecology of learning. Learning is a process of growth, with each unit of learning existing as an element or node in networks of various sizes. George Siemens, a leading proponent of connectivism, compares and contrasts connectivism with other learning theories such as behaviorism, constructivism, cognitivism. He notes that while these theories focus on the individual, connectivism takes into account networked systems of learning. This theory puts great focus on currency of learning in a digital age and also makes controversial claims as to what learning and the learner actually mean, e.g. “non-human appliance” (Siemens) as actionable knowledge outside of ourselves.

Is Connectivism a Learning Theory?
Verhagen’s critical review "Connectivism: A New Learning Theory?" questions the validity of connectivism as a learning theory. His strongest argument maintains that learning theories must be tested and explain existing phenomena and connectivism may fall short on at least one of those requirements. In contrasting connectivism with other computer theories, Siemens refers to other theories which explain phenomena and express observable learning behaviors. Verhagen notes that connectivism lacks these characteristics (learning theories that explain why?) and can only be considered as a curriculum (How? What?) model.

Connectivism also lacks coherence because it employs the same “integration of principles explored by chaos” which define it. In other words, it's difficult to nail down exactly what it really means. Academics who support the theory even have a hard time defining it or applying it. One defines connectivism as the process by which, “individuals //co-create// knowledge in a global, networked environment” (Darrow). This is a contradiction of Siemen's explanation of connectivism in constrast with constructivism. Another related issue exists due to the inconsistency in Siemens’ concept of the role of the individual in learning. Siemen stresses the importance of learning taking place outside the individual, but at the same time states that the individual is “ the starting point of learning” (Sivan).

Is Connectivism Relative To Your Teaching Practice And Can it Support Our Students?
The question now becomes not one of "support or opposition" but rather application. Verhagen makes several logical observations in his article that are relative to the world of education without delving into in his position on pedagogy vs. theory. For instance, he believes "Pupils from an early age need to create connections with the world beyond the school in order to develop the networking skills that will allow them to manage their knowledge effectively and efficiently in the information society."

Teachers on either side of this fence would have a difficult time arguing the foundation for this statement. With the growing dependence we have on technology, students and teachers in one shape or another need to address the groundwork of Verhagen's point of view. If your teaching practice is anything like mine, I'm always looking for ways to connect the learner to information in the most effective and practical way that benefits both the student and my own personal time constraints. For ways to address this growing curiosity, you can visit THIS site.

Verhagen goes on to discuss the core beliefs in the connectivism argument. He believes that it appears to be the learning process that creates interconnections for knowledge that is distributed over many actual and virtual locations. Again, this is certainly relative to our teaching pedagogy. We are innately interconnected in the world of education. It is at the teachers discretion as to whether or not those connections are made in a cybernetic atmosphere or a brick and mortar location. In the end the creativity and distribution of knowledge is solely presented from the teachers talent to stimulate learning. This question is not necessarily one that supports or rejects the idea of connectivism, but rather how the we decide to use it CREATIVELY in the classroom. And while many argue as to whether or not it is a learning theory, we all agree that it is learning opportunity. In the end the question to ask is a simple one. Will it benefit the student? If it really is the learning process that creates interconnections amongst students then we need to drop the argument of pedagogy vs theory and focus on the learning and interconnections in our classroom. To put it simply, two minds are better than one. This should sound eerily familiar because as college students, we were taught the same technique. We just labeled it differently.


 * Are parts of the theory more compelling or relevant? **

The theory as a whole is extremely relevant considering we as educators and our students are utilizing and learning via Connectivism on a daily basis. As stated above this theory goes hand and hand with our current digital age and the opportunities this age present for networking and connections of that nature. Educators are constantly adapting their instruction with the hope to better stimulate the various learning styles in our classrooms and though not all students learn best from making connections a vast majority do.

The part of the theory I find most compelling and rather refreshing is that Siemens states learning as a "process (emphasis on process) of building connections that enable us to acquire knowledge and learn more". It seems as though educators or more so Administrators are always searching for the best method or methods to get the best "product" out of students. The product alone should be that learning is occurring whether that has been established through connections or not. The part of this theory I find particularly pertinent to a classroom environment is that it essentially supports working and making connections via other people and resources and that "decision-making itself can be a learning process". "It's not attainable alone... one must rely on other nodes".

Are there parts of the theory which you find confusing? **

The concept behind the theory makes perfect sense as I know several people, adults and student who greatly benefit from Connectivist learning but I'm not sure how one aspect of the theory can state "individuals are the vital piece to the network system" and another part claims that the fundamental part of the theory is the network systems alone. I feel it only makes sense for at least equal credit to be given to both aspects as you must have individuals for networking to occur. My question is, minus the "digital age" piece of Connectivism hasn't Connectivism always been around therefore relevant? Prior to RSS tools, Google and the many other tools that pertain to this theory weren't textbooks and other print resources our "nodes" for making connections? Connectivism is without question a valuable theory but when it comes to education all theories need to be considered. An effective classroom can not be based on one theory alone.

Summary
Connectivism is a theory which supports the great amount of shared information that is taking place in the digital age. It sees learning as an organic process in which learners contribute as individuals to group learning experiences. However, for a theory to be valid it must not only explain some phenomena, to stand independently upon its own stated principles. Connectivism has ambiguous aspects and borrows much from existing theories in that it is sociological and epistemologically indiscriminate from other competing theories it rejects. Therefore, it's important to consider the basic premises which underly any learning theory that we as educators may adopt.

Sources: *Darrow, Suzanne “Connectivism Learning Theory: Instructional Tools for College Courses” Spring 2009   

.**
 * Siemens, George. “Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age.” Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Dig ital Age. 22 Sep 2009

> Verhagen, Bijdrage van Pløn. “Connectivism: A New Learning Theory?” 11 Nov 2006. 
 * Sivan, Eyal. “Connectivism as Learning Theory” 26 Aug 2008.

Hotrum, Michael. "Choice Learning: Connectivism Online Conference- George Siemens". 2 February 2007. @http://choicelearning.blogspot.com/2007/02/connectivism-online-conference-george.html

=="Connectivism: Learning Theory or Pastime of the Self-Amused?". 19, January. @http://vancestevens.tumblr.com/post/71536391/connectivism-learning-theory-or-pastime-of-the ==