Connectivism CCK08 [view: normal]

As mentioned in June, we are offering an open online course on Connectivism. The course begins on Monday and is freely available to anyone with an interest in learning more about the topic. You can sign up for free here. The course outline is also available. And, for a bit more information, I've put together a short introductory presentation on how the course operates.
For learners wishing forma...

As posted on my elearnspace site, I have an article available on New spaces and structures of learning: the systemic impact of connective knowledge, connectivism, and networked learning (MS Word file). The concepts explored in the article are reflective of a previous discussion on this site about "a world without courses". How long, after all, can we flirt at the edges of change before we seek a f...

I had a nice chat with Richard Schwier this morning on connectivism. He has posted the video on his site: Interview on Connectivism. As I mentioned during the discussion, at a recent conference, Stephen Downes and I were chatting about research basis for learning theories. The notion of connectivism - pick another term like networked learning if that works better for you - is better supported thro...

Matthias Melcher (I think that's his name - had to dig around his x28 blog for a bit) provides an interesting commentary on why he feels connectivism should not be seen as a learning theory. I'll quote it at length:

IMO, a definition or description would be more appropriate for simpler things that do not suffer when they are isolated and formalized. I think, a complex, emerging concept like conne...

Late last week, I threw out a question to Gary Stager on Twitter: "when a constructivist constructs knowledge, where does it reside physically/biologically?". Gary replied with something along the lines of "we don't know and I don't care. I can teach well without knowing the details of how the mind works". Fair enough. Different educators adopt different approaches in order to makesense of the teaching and learning process. I'm trying to define it from the perspective of how our mind works. Gary is - in true constructionist form (and I don't mean that negatively!) - is focused more on the practical results and activities. Gary then asked a critical question: what is the unique idea in connectivism? The response takes a bit longer than the 140 characters allowed by Twitter, so I'll tackle it here. First, a new idea is often an old idea in today's context. For example, what is the new idea in constructivism? That people construct their own knowledge? Or the social, situated nature of learning? Or that knowledge is not something that exists outside of a knower? (i.e. there is no "there" out there). Obviously each of those concepts can easily be traced to numerous philosophers. The ideas have existed in various forms over 2000 years ago. What is new with constructivism today is that these principles are being (have been) coupled with existing calls for educational reform by individuals such as Spencer, Dewey, and Piaget. See Kieran Eagan's book Getting it Wrong from the Beginning for a more detailed exploration. But it is more than just the shift in policy and calls for increased learner control. Constructivism made sense in that it rode on the cultural trends and philosophical viewpoints of the day. As authority in society shifted, Truth was questioned, post-modernism flourished, and our understanding of diverse cultures and ways of knowing increased, it only seemed natural that cognitivism and behaviourism took a back seat. What is new in constructivism, and please provide commentary if you disagree, is that it combined existing ideas into a framework that resonated with the needs and trends of the current era. In this regard, connectivism also shares in bringing to the forefront ideas of philosophers and theorists from previous generations. Much of what is unique is the particular combination and integration of ideas that reflect the broader societal and information-based trends. But I do think there are unique ideas in connectivism. Before I get into those, however, I'll address some of the existing theory that serves as the fertile soil of connectivism (and, I think, to a large degree constructivism). From whence does connectivism originate? All ideas have a heritage. All concepts have roots. A few related to connectivism: 1. Tools augment our ability to interact with each other and to act. Tools are extensions of humanity, increasing our ability to externalize our thinking into forms that we can share with others. Language is an example. Activity theory provides a basis in this regard. So does the socio-cultural work of Vygotsky. Gibson's notion of affordances of tools, while based in his research on perception, also serves a role in validating tool use. And how could we leave Wittgenstein's notion of negotiated understanding out of a language discussion? Similarly, tools are "carriers of patterns of previous reasoning" (Pea) and reflect some type of ideology. This view is also prominent in Postman's assertion that all technology carries an ideology. 2. Contextual/situated nature of learning. Situated learning draws from the work of Lave and Wenger, though, it's not too much of a stretch to say that Papert's emphasis on active doing fits this at least partly. 3. Social learning theory. Here we can draw from Bandura's emphasis on self-efficacy, Bruner, Vygotsky, and others. 4. Epistemological views: all learning theory is rooted in epistemology (even though von Glaserfeld declares we are in a post-epistemological era, suggesting that providing a theory of knowledge is exactly what constructivism cannot do). As an epistemological basis for connectivism, I've found Stephen Downes' work on connective knowledge valuable. More recently, Dave Cormier has been advancing the concept of rhizomatic knowledge and community as curriculum. 5. Concept of mind. The notion of mind is enormously complex. We encounter a unique blend of philosophers, neuroscientists, and artificial intelligence in this area such as Churchlands, Papert & Minsky, McClelland & Rumelhart, Clark (embodied cognition), Spivey, and more. Mind is seen - too varying degrees - as embodied and distributed across numerous devices, relationships and artifacts. Hutchins popularized the notion in his text on Distributed Cognition. These concepts are also reflected in Weicks' papers on heedful interrelating. Salomon's edited text on Distributed Cognitions extends these ideas into an educational context. 6. We also find a compatible view of connectivism in the work of new media theorists such as McLuhan, exploring the impact of technology on what it means to be a human. The impact of technology on humanity will continue to grow in greater prominence as we are increasingly able to augment human cognitive functioning through pharmaceuticals and the future promise of embedded chips. 7. We also find support for connectivism in the more nebulous theories of complextiy and systems-based thinking. For example, Mason, Davis, and others, recently published a series of articles on the impact of complexity theory on the enterprise of education. Individuals like Barnnett suggest it should more accurately be called "supercomplexity" as we are not able to even begin to understand the directions things will take in the future. 8. Network theory. Sociologists, mathematicians, and physicists have spent several decades defining networks and network attributes. We are able to define key network structures, manner of behaviour, and flow of information. Concepts like small worlds, power laws, hubs, structural holes, and weak/strong ties are common in literature. Educational focus of networks comes from work by Starr-Roxanne Hiltz, Chris Jones, Martin de Laat, and others. Networks are prominent in all aspects of society, not just education. This prominence is partly due to the recognizable metaphor of the internet...but networks have always existed. As Barabasi states, networks are everywhere. We just need an eye for them. The Unique Ideas in Connectivism If those elements form the basis of connectivism - and to varying degrees share in the heritage of constructivism and cognitivism - what is it that's unique about connectivism. As a starter to the discussion, and one that will be a critical focus in our fall course, I'll suggest the following: 1. Connectivism is the application of network principles to define both knowledge and the process of learning. Knowledge is defined as a particular pattern of relationships and learning is defined as the creation of new connections and patterns as well as the ability to maneuver around existing networks/patterns. 2. Connectivism addresses the principles of learning at numerous levels - biological/neural, conceptual, and social/external. This is a key concept that I'll be writing about more during the online course. What I'm saying with connectivism (and I think Stephen would share this) is that the same structure of learning that creates neural connections can be found in how we link ideas and in how we connect to people and information sources. One scepter to rule them all. 3. Connectivism focuses on the inclusion of technology as part of our distribution of cognition and knowledge. Our knowledge resides in the connections we form - where to other people or to information sources such as databases. Additionally, technology plays a key role of 1) cognitive grunt work in creating and displaying patterns, 2) extending and enhancing our cognitive ability, 3) holding information in ready access form (for example, search engines, semantic structures, etc). We see the beginning of this concept in tool-based discussions of Activity Theory. Connectivism acknowledges the prominence of tools as a mediating object in our activity system, but then extends it by suggesting that technology plays a central role in our distribution of identity, cognition, and thereby, knowledge. 4. Context. While other theories pay partial attention to context, connectivism recognizes the fluid nature of knowledge and connections based on context. As such, it becomes increasingly vital that we focus not on pre-made or pre-defined knowledge, but on our interactions with each other, and the context in which those interactions arise. The context brings as much to a space of knowledge connection/exchange as do the parties involved in the exchange. 5. Understanding. Coherence. Sensemaking. Meaning. These elements are prominent in constructivism, to a lessor extent cognitivism, and not at all in behaviourism. But in connectivism, we argue that the rapid flow and abundance of information raises these elements to critical importance. As stated at the start of this post, constructivism found it's roots of growth in the social reform-based climate and post-modern era. Connectivism finds its roots in the climate of abundance, rapid change, diverse information sources and perspectives, and the critical need to find a way to filter and make sense of the chaos. As such, the networked centrality of connectivism permits a scaling of both abundance and diversity. The information climate of continual and ongoing change raises the importance of being continually current. As Anderson has stated, "more is different". The "more" of information and technology today, and the need to stay current, forms the climate that gives roots to connectivism. This is simply a starting point of a discussion. I don't know if I've fully managed to address Gary Stager's question. I'd appreciate reactions or comments to the above ideas....

Parmenides held to a view that nothing changes. Everything is permanent and unchangeable. While we have only fragments of his writing, his ideas are prominent in Plato, which in turn gives Parmenides a weight in philosophy that is often not explicitly acknowledged. Heraclitus, on the other hand, felt everything was in a state of flux and change. He is credited with some variation of the common s...

We've set up a course blog for our Connectivism and Connective Knowledge online course. The intention of the blog is to open up the conversation around course design and delivery and changing value points in education. The transparency will hopefully capture some of our (Stephen Downes and myself) thinking around course design and foster interaction with others on ways to improve delivery. From ...

My understanding of education and learning technologies is largely confined to European, Canadian, Australian, and American contexts. While I have frequent informal interactions with individuals from other regions, my understanding of the unique challenges facing these areas is limited. In particular, I’m largely unfamiliar with African, Russian, Asian, Middle Eastern, and South American use of in...

Stephen Downes and I will be offering an online course starting September through University of Manitoba on Connectivism and Connective Knowledge. The course is available for credit (enrollment is required) or for personal interest (no fee). All discussions and learning resources will be freely available. More information on how the course is run, weekly topics, etc., is available on the course wi...

I was at CNIE earlier this week and participated on this panel discussingopen educational resources (OERs). Educators are periodically afflicted with a psychological condition called "Cute Kitten Syndrome". This syndrome manifests itself as evoking perceived universal favor for an idea or concept and with those opposing cast as lacking some key element that comprises humanity. I mean, really, w...

In dealing with faculty and instructional designers, a series of almost default phrases are vocalized once technology is mentioned: "We need to start with pedagogy"..."It's pedagogy first". Or, whenever I'm in a meeting and someone says "pedagogy first", the apparently genetic instinct to nod viciously is enacted by everyone around the table. "Yes, that is right. We need to have priorities here....

**UPDATE - for some reason, I'm having issues with comments on this entry...several people have said they posted a comment, but it's not showing up. If all else fails, send me an email (see bottom of post). About a week ago, I posted a short presentation on A World Without Courses. It generated a fair number of comments, was picked up by Wired Campus (with the attendant dismissal found in many tr...

I was born in Mexico. Spent the first six years of my life in a society very different from what I have known since. Somewhere, in my already weakened neural connections, reside memories of a world not based on explicit networks. Our community was without paved roads and electricity and its many associated benefits. News and information didn't travel very quickly. Some homes had a diesel generator...

Gardner Campbell’s post stirred my thoughts on attention. Linda Stone coined the almost intuitive "yeah, that’s it!" term "continuous partial attention". While we might not always see it as such, our attention is limited and how we use it has notable consequences. For example, I am not a goal setter, nor do my "to do lists" embody an organized spirit. I find myself frequently distracted from perha...

For some reason, I'm encountering all kinds of resources or instances of discussion on connectivism. A few resources today: Situating Connectivism Connectivism - Teaching and Learning Connectivism I should mention as well, all of the talks from our online conference last year have been transcribed if anyone is interested (I keep wanting to get them formatted in .pdf file for printing as a book...

I've been somewhat peripherally following this discussion on connectivism: A stand for connectivism: "Contrary to criticisms against this theory, information and knowledge do not only lie in human brains, but in electronic networks that are constantly moving and being shaped." A stand against connectivism: "If any part of the theory were relevant it would be the recognition of the potential of ...

Earlier this week, I posted a short blurb on elearnspace about the importance of connective versus collective intelligence. Several others commented on or reacted to the post, including Chris Lott and Stephen Downes. A fair bit of discussion attended each of these postings. The distinctions between collective and connective are important, so I'll take a stab at summarizing the conversation and con...

During the discussion on ITForum on my paper - Learning and Knowing in Networks: Changing roles for Educators and Designers (.pdf) - we had a brief discussion on some practical ways to implement connectivism in classroom environments. Here are a few suggestions I threw out (it is a list intended for educators who are just beginning to explore networked technologies, so advanced bloggers/wiki'ers/twitterers will find it to be somewhat basic). Would love to hear how others are using networks to improve quality of learning experiences. 1. Create a class blog...have students blog. Compile their work in an aggregator - such as PageFlakes - that will provide learners with a single page to refer to in order to get an overview of what other learners are blogging about. From my experience, many learners find it stressful simply blogging and are somewhat lost in a highly distributed environment. To build their comfort in these spaces, the use of a central starting spot can be valuable. 2. Use collaborative learning activities - have learners contribute to wikipedia or conduct group work in their own wiki. Better yet, find a colleague at a different university (or school) who is teaching a similar course and create cross-institution collaboration projects. 3. Open your own resources to collaboration and sharing. Start a "english wiki" or "physics wiki" or "psychology 101 wiki" and network with colleagues at other institutions or other countries in developing the resource and keeping it current. 4. To be networked, resources and conversations need a degree of openness. This is one of the drawbacks of an LMS. Learners need to develop comfort with transparency and see the impact. In a recent course on digital literacies, Peter Tittenberger and I found learners can be uncomfortable with posting thoughts in an open public forum. There is something personal (vulnerable?) about learning that certain individuals prefer to keep "secure". To balance openness and privacy, tools exist, such as ELGG, that allow educators to create mini-networks with greater privacy than the open web. 5. Use existing open education resources in planning and delivering course materials. Focus on using a variety of media - games, videos, podcasts, interviews. Many resources already exist for this type of content...and the list grows daily. 6. Direct students to conference proceedings, recordings, and keynote presentations from recent conferences within the field. Many conferences now record keynote presentations. If the class is focused on a particular theorist or scientist, instead of talking about him/her, direct learners to the source - a recorded keynote or interview. 7. Contribute to the resource pool. When attending conferences, conduct podcast interviews with speakers...or grab a FlipVideo and record the interview...highlight a few key theorists and conduct and email interview and post it on your blog for future class references. 8. Experiment with different tools and instructional approaches. Build a "let's play" component into your course. Spend a class in Second Life. Create podcasts. Involve learners - have them brainstorm learning activities. 9. Provide learners with resources that will continue to feed their learning after the course is complete. Direct them to blogs, listservs, ning networks, or other communities and networks. The content of a discipline will change. When learners are "plugged in" to a network, they have the opportunity to stay current. 10. Develop learner's skills in participating in and contributing to networks. Detail meta-skills such as evaluating authenticity of information...encourage them to develop conceptual skills - such as accepting ambiguity and functioning in uncertain environments. Learning projects that focus on building specific cognitive skills can also be wrapped with meta and conceptual skill development components. 11. Combine worlds - involve 4th year (or graduate) students in interacting with 1st year students (in blogs or wikis, for example). Or, as one faculty member has done at U of Manitoba, have 3rd year students write the text book for first year students (http://webmail.cs.umanitoba.ca/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page) 12. Bring in virtual guest speakers through elluminate, skype, or ustream. Reduce the centrality of one educator and shift the role of teaching to a network of external experts and other learners (graduate level, other institutions). While this is simply a starter list, the key concepts I'm hoping to communicate is the ability to offload content creation, learner interaction, teaching, and skill develop to a network that exists beyond classroom walls. As learners develop their own personal learning networks, they will find tasks such as filtering information abundance, developing meta-skills, staying current, making sense of complex subjects, etc. can be handled through networks. In fact, those tasks can be better handled by networks than they can be with our existing model. My assertion is that our world is presenting greater complexity to learners than experienced by previous generations. To meet this challenge requires a systemic shift from hierarchies, as evidenced in classroom only models, to networks that take advantage of participatory sense making and emergent curriculum. The educator continues to play a vital role in the process...but her/his role becomes one of assisting learners in creating networks that will enable the development of needed skills and will model the attitudes and skills needed to effectively participate in information abundant environments....

I'm currently presenting a paper to ITForum on Learning and Knowing in Networks: Changing Roles for Educators and Designers (.pdf). From the abstract: "Current developments with technology and social software are significantly altering: (a) how learners access information and knowledge, and (b) how learners dialogue with the instructor and each other. Both of these domains (access and interaction)...

I find informal publishing in blogs and online articles more rewarding than traditional publishing processes. The feedback on what I write informally is more immediate and, as a result, plays a greater role in the subsequent formation of ideas. Writing a journal article, book, or book chapter, is concerned with presenting what one knows. Writing in informal spaces (such as a blog) is concerned wit...

The edublogspace has become, in a period of about five years, an effective forum of debate and arbiter of important ideas. Occasionally, someone will post a concept that resonates with others and a period of hyper-evaluation and critique ensues. Alec Couros wrote a post of this nature recently: Understanding Digital Citizenship. He broadly explores definitions of citizenship, provides examples of...

Only connect! That was the whole of her sermon. Only connect the prose and the passion, and both will be exalted, and human love will be seen at its height. Live in fragments no longer.
E.M. Forster, 1910

Networks and connections are deceptive. It would not appear that the formation of a simple connection has the capacity to reverberate across a network, rewriting both form and function. And yet ...

I've posted a few presentations on connectivism (delivered to University of Alaska Fairbanks). Slideshare version available here: Connectivism 101 Practical Connectivism Organizational Impact of Networked Learning...

Over the last few years, I've increasingly encountered reference to Marc Prensky's distinction between "digital natives and digital immigrants". I'm currently editing a journal special edition, and find almost every article provides some reference to the concept. Last week, I was in Edmonton presenting at ADETA. The reference to natives/immigrants was again abundant. I personally find the distinction offensive (after all, it casts a conflict between immigrants and natives in mild tone of intolerance). David Thornburg recognizes this and writes about his own presentation at an entirely different conference, and concludes that he owes his audience an apology for relying on the false distinction. Why has the idea of immigrants and natives gained so much ground, in the apparent absence of effective research? I assume the concept of immigrant/native gained popularity because it expresses emotions/feelings many educators have about next generation students. They are, like every generation before, different. The memorable distinction between immigrant/native is a theme that transfers readily amongst educators, largely because the inherent ambiguity allows us to see/speak our experiences and biases into the terms. The life we see in immigrant/native terminology is what we ourselves bring to the definition. But I don't think the distinction has merit beyond a buzz phrase that has outlived the role it initially played in getting educators to think about the different types of learners now entering our classrooms. Let's explore Prensky's thoughts on digital Natives and immigrants (Part 1 and Part 2 (both .pdf)). Prensky begins by saying that today's students are different. Our school system hasn't been designed to meet their needs. This is the first generous step taken in the argument - namely that we change our schools because learners are different, but we'll get back to that shortly. Prensky states (accurately, I think) that our students think and process information differently. Then he takes his second (very) generous step: the differences in our students today is tied to age, not simply experiences. As a result of these differences, we are immigrants, they are natives. Pop-culture-science is then liberally added to the discussion to generate appropriate levels of hype. Digital immigrant instructors, we are told, speak an outdated language. Multitasking is actually effective (though the immigrants don't understand this - after all, research is still uncertain (btw, that's sarcasm)). Then we have the personal slant: "every time I go to school, I have to power down". I hear 1-800 numbers being listed in the background as I survey a landscape of students unable to connect their computers to the internet...a voice saturated with concern states: "please, send 30 dollars a month to give these children internet access". Prensky is blurring too many concepts here. I agree learners are changing. I agree our institutions need to change. But our institutions need to change because of the increasing complexity of society and globalization. Schools and universities play a dual role: accommodating learner’s method and mode of learning and transforming learners and preparing them to function in the world that is unfolding. This distinction may seem slight, but it's important. Why should schools react to learner's methods of learning and interacting with content? Well, obviously, if we ignore how they interact with each other and with content, we are largely subjecting them to a mode of thinking (linear, certainty-based) that is at odds with how they experience life (complex, social, and collaborative). Contrary to Prensksy's views, this distinction is NOT a function of age. It's a function of attitude...a mindset of experimentation...experience with technology. Secondly, education plays a role in society that goes beyond reacting to emerging trends. Education's role is one of preparing people for life, for engagement in academic discourse, for awakening and nurturing talents learners are not yet aware of, for critical dialogue on "big trends" and how we should conduct ourselves in relation to these. Quite simply, education utilizes the tools and manner of expression and dialogue of a particular culture in order to transform learners into citizens capable of tackling the increasingly complex problems of the world. Prensky neglects this vital distinction. Toward the end of Prensky's first article (p. 4), he adds a discussion of the need for teaching good thinking skills and "legacy content" (reading, writing, logical thinking) and "future content" (software, hardware, politics, ethics). He is moving in more productive directions here, though I again disparage at his attempt to force a duality based on age. The age distinction is entirely false, unnecessary, and conflict prone. The school system is in need of overhaul, but as mentioned above, the overhaul is needed because society has changed, not because learners have iPods. Secondly, the discussion of immigrants and natives overlooks the fact that the younger generation often understands technology at a utilitarian level (i.e. how to use a piece of software for its intended purpose, but not much beyond that). Depth of understanding, social implications, trends, and other more advanced concepts are often not present (I wish I could point to research to support this - at this point, my opinion is based on what I've seen with students in the classroom). In his second article (listed above), Prensky continues his general line of reasoning, but begins to rely on neuroscience to support his arguments. I would encourage Prensky and others to review The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations (.pdf) before beginning any discourse on research which finds its roots in neuroscience. As we were. Prensky suggests that because people have different experiences, they are physically different, which then requires that we design our entire school system to align with - here's the shocker - the field in which he consults: digital game-based learning. By page five of this article, the paucity of Prensky's toolkit is revealed. Even concepts like "reflection" must be handled in digital native language. If all you have is a hammer...every problem looks like a nail (Maslow). I’ll leave things there. More criticism could be levelled at Prensky, but I’m content by simply stating: the premise is wrong (and offensive), the remedy suggested is wrong, and the research is needlessly twisted to lead readers in directions at conflict with even the slightest amount of critical thinking. Prensky’s articles takes readers through a very shallow dive of a very deep pool. I recently attended a workshop by Susan Crichton and Karen Pegler. They presented research they were conducting at U of Calgary on the distinction between learners based on age. They found that individuals involved in work-based tasks had very similar technology use rates. However, when outside of the workplace, the younger generation was more likely to use technology for social means. While the research is emerging, I draw a few quick conclusions: - Technology use is determined by context, not by age - Our peer-group influences the manner in which we use technology for socialization Aside from insulting an entire generation and coddling to the needs of younger learners, Prensky doesn't provide us with a compelling model forward (other than "use digital games"). Lately, I've noticed an increasingly strong resistance among educators to technology use in education. I think we are at a push back stage - many are afflicted with "technology weariness"...too many failed implementations, too many promises that didn't materialize, too many hyped-conference presentations, too much "rhetoric of the electrical sublime" thinking. The over-hyped "I've fallen in love" mindset often presented in relation to technology helps to drive hype for a while, but in the long run, the impact of this approach damages future - less hyped - approaches to learning and technology. As I was preparing this post, I saw a link from Migel McGuhlin to Jamie McKenzie's article on Digital Nativism - a critique of Prensky well worth reviewing....

Jean Baudrillard made some important points that reflect well on the discussion of technology and educational change (the rest of his conversation provides enough basis for about a decade of controversy and offense to many):

We are changing our system of values, changing all our identities, our partners, our illusions, and so on. We are obliged to change, but changing is something other than beco...