Connectivism

Siemens, G. (2006). Connectivism: Learning theory or pastime for the self-amused? Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism_self-amused.htm

1. Problems

• Our educational model today is largely defined by the desire to achieve and produce in an economic system. Many of the nobler elements of learning, often found in the belief or faith domain, have yielded to the increased quest for efficiency and utilitarianism.
• The space of shifting ideals presents challenges for society as a whole: (a) the erosion of existing structures of knowing and need for knowing, and (b) the yet to emerge characteristics of the new space are unknown, or speculative at best (p. 23).
• Educators today face challenges relating to: (a) defining what learning is, (b) defining the process of learning in a digital age, (c) aligning curriculum and teaching with learning and higher level development needs of society (the quest to become better people), and (d) reframing the discussion to lay the foundation for transformative education—one where technology is the enabler of new means of learning, thinking, and being.

2. Technology is changing the society

Instead of knowledge residing only in the mind of an individual, knowledge resides in a distributed manner across a network. Instead of approaching learning as schematic formation structures, learning is the act of recognizing patterns shaped by complex networks. The networked act of learning exists on two levels:

• Internally as neural networks (where knowledge is distributed across our brain, not held in its entirety in one location)
• Externally as networks we actively form (each node represents an element of specialization and the aggregate represent our ability to be aware of, learn, and adapt to the world around).

3. Distinction between connectivism and other learning theories

We are social beings. Through language, symbols, video, images, and other means, we seek to express our thoughts. Essentially, our need to derive and express meaning, gain and share knowledge, requires externalization. We externalize ourselves in order to know and be known. As we externalize, we distribute our knowledge across a network—perhaps with individuals seated around a conference, readers at a distance, or listeners to podcasts or viewers of a video clip. Most existing theories of learning assume the opposite, stating that internalization is the key function of learning (cognitivism assumes we process information internally, constructivism asserts that we assign meaning internally—though the process of deriving meaning may be a function of a social network, i.e. the social dimension assists in learning, rather than the social dimension being the aim of learning). The externalization of our knowledge is increasingly utilized as a means of coping with information overload. The growth and complexity of knowledge requires that our capacity for learning resides in the connections we form with people and information, often mediated or facilitated with technology.

4. Media, Symbols, and Technology

• While not quite in alignment with Vygotsky’s (1986) assertion that language gives birth to thought, Bandura (1986) stated, “power of thought resides in the human capability to represent events and their interrelatedness in symbolic form” (p. 455). Media, language, technology, and symbols are devices that enable humans the capacity to externalize the nebulous elements of private thought. The externalization of thought is an important concept to consider in light of traditional theories of learning largely emphasizing knowledge construction and cognition as primarily internal events (in the mind of individuals).
• McLuhan (1967) suggested, “societies have always been shaped more by the nature of the media by which men communicate than by the content of the communication” (p. 8). The rapid growth of social-based technology tools creates an unprecedented opportunity for anyone with a computer and internet access to play the role of journalist, artist, producer, and publisher. If media truly does shape humanity, the changed nature of dialogue and information exposure created by the internet will have greater implications to our future than the nature of the content currently being explored. Much like tools shape potential tasks, the internet shapes opportunities for dialogue—outside of space and time—that were not available only a generation ago.

What is learning?

• Most theorists approach learning as some type of change in performance due to acquisition of skills or knowledge. However, knowledge acquisition does not equate with learning. Completing a certain task may be a function of learning on a basic level (i.e., driving a car), but does little to address the larger, interconnected nature of learning in relation to other aspects of the learners competence, comprehension, and skills. In a society of information abundance, these definitions of learning seek to address primarily lower-level cognition and emotion. The greater need of learning is to make sense of the space in which the learner functions and the potential implications of acquired knowledge. Learning how to operate a forklift may be learning at a basic level. Skills of this level, while important, are declining in a societal context. Learning needs are currently driven by high volumes of data and information, requiring a shift to higher-level models of learning.
• Learning is more than the acquisition of information. Our capacity to accept new information is hindered by existing mindsets and understandings. In a sense, what we believe influences our capacity to know more. Numerous factors—internal and external to the learner—influence the likelihood of learning occurring. Stokman (2004) explored social networks as structures that influence and foster learning, concluding that mutual interdependencies influence the potential for interaction or connection forming. Similarly, learning is a multi-faceted process that functions in a milieu of different needs, interdependent tasks, barriers, affordances, and numerous other contributors and detractors to the experience.

Theories

• Educational technology is replete with theories. Some adapted from previous models (behaviourism, cognitivism, constructivism), blended theories¹, emerging theories (connectivism), and related views of networked learning (Wikipedia, 2006). Blended and emerging theories counterbalance established theories in pursuing a theory in line with the nature of the society it purports to support. Tools change people. We adapt based on new affordances. To rely on a theory that ignores the networked nature of society, life, and learning is to largely miss the point of how fundamentally our world has changed.

Learning Theories

• Behaviourists are largely concerned with the outcome, or observable elements of learning. Behaviourists see learning as a “black box” (Driscoll, 2000, p. 35). Instead of focusing on the internal mental activities, behaviourists focus on observable behaviour (Gredler, 2005, p. 28). Behaviour is managed through a process of strengthening and weakening of responses. Key theorists in behaviourism include: Pavlov, Watson, Skinner, Thorndike (Gredler, p. 29, Driscoll, p. 19).Cognitivists, to varying degrees, have posited a structured view of learning that includes the model of a computer (input, encoding, storage, outcome), a staged process of development, and schematic views of knowledge, with learning being the act of classifying or categorizing new knowledge and experiences.
  
• Cognitivists see learning as information processing. The computer is often used as a metaphor for learning (Driscoll, 2000, p. 75). Sensory input is managed in short-term memory and coded for retrieval in long-term memory. Situated cognition, the view that thought is a function of, or adaptation to, the environment in which the thinking (or learning) occurs (p. 154), and schema theory, the view that meaningful learning (p. 116) is a process of subsumption in an internal hierarchy of concepts, are extensions of basic cognitivism. Piaget and Vygotksy are sometimes classified as cognitivits (Gredler, 2005, pp. 264 & 304; Driscoll, pp. 183 & 219). Other cognitivists include Bruner, Gagne, and Ausubel.
• Constructivism is a frustratingly vague concept. The Centre for Research on Networked Learning and Knowledge Building (n.d.) suggested, "constructive “theory” of learning, generally, has not at all become more specific or articulated or gained any increased explanatory power or unification. There has not been any progressive problem shift after the 80s but a continuation of a very general and ideologically colored discussion." (¶ 2)
• Constructivists hold learning to be a process of active construction on the part of the learner. Learning occurs as the learner “attempt to make sense of their experiences” (Driscoll, p. 376). The roots of constructivism can be found in the epistemological orientation of rationalism, where knowledge representations do not need to correspond with external reality (p. 377). Adherents to constructivism borrow heavily from theorists previously mentioned: Piaget, Vygotsky, and Bruner (Dabbagh, 2005; Driscoll, 2000).
• Learning theories and theorist classifications are contradictory. For example, Driscoll (2000) listed Bruner as a pragmatist/cognitivist, while Dabbagh (2005) listed him as a constructivist. New entrants into this space quickly find a convoluted mix of psychology, philosophy, and theory pop-culture. Discerning theories with underlying assumptions of learning is challenging. Particularly confusing is the theory of constructivism, which researchers tend to treat as a banner under which to fly numerous aspects and new views. It has come to mean everything, anything, and nothing. While not as acerbic, Driscoll stated, “there is no single constructivist theory of instruction. Rather, there are researchers in fields from science education to educational psychology and instructional technology who are articulating various aspects of constructivist theory” (p. 375). Additionally, it may be unclear whether constructivism is actually a theory or a philosophy (p. 395).

Also see:
Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

Connectivism (learning theory). (2008, August 17). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved August 27, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Connectivism_(learning_theory)&oldid=232432157