Download Connectivism Blog

http://connectivism.ca/blog/2008/08/what_is_the_unique_idea_in_con.html
Connectivism Blog
Connectivism is a learning theory for the digital age.
« A humble call for a new discipline: The Study of Change | Main | My Take on
Connectivism »
What is the unique idea in Connectivism?
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 selfefficacy, 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.
Posted by George Siemens on August 6, 2008 12:35 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://connectivism.ca/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/112
Comments (9)
Wendy Drexler:
Is the theory of connectivism dependent upon technology? While it's not as easy to
build large face-to-face networks, similar behaviors and learning can result from those
relationships. Are we just using technology to take over some of the initial laborintensive thought processes? Or, is the use of technology really changing the way we
think and process information? I've been interested in this question since I left the
corporate world and returned to teaching and grad school. Back in 1997, I left
teaching to work for IBM. The constant state of connectedness was foreign at first,
even for a technically literate person fascinated by innovation. I was immersed in
email, IM, teleconferencing, text messaging, and working on critical projects simultaneously - 50 to 60 hours a week for 7 years. We can argue about the brain's
ability to effectively multitask, but the reality was that it was a critical skill. I have no
proof, but I personally feel that it changed the way I think, communicate, and process
information. It put my mind on hyperdrive. I've heard some argue that this quick
change in gears leads to attention deficit, but what I experienced was intense focus on
many tasks at once. At the same time, I had to power down when it came time to read
complicated, lengthy technical documents. The ability to work effectively in both of
these environments was necessary, and my mind seemed to adapt to it. All of that
said, I believe that human learning is complex and probably encompasses all the
theories that have emerged thus far along with those that will emerge as a result of
continued brain research. For me, the intriguing aspect of connectivism is the
technology component, not the technology itself, but how we humans are adapting to
it. Even more interesting is how (or if) educators will adopt practical teaching
methods to respond to it.
Posted by Wendy Drexler | August 6, 2008 4:01 PM
Posted on August 6, 2008 16:01
Tom Werner:
George, I appreciate the way you discuss these '-isms' (connectionism, constructivism,
behaviorism) as philosophies or world-views rather than as dogma (i.e., you avoid
"connectionism good, behaviorism bad").
One only has to look at the vast user-generated content available on Wikipedia,
YouTube, Flickr, and so forth to see that connectionism is a philosophy/world-view
worth exploring.
And conversely, in the context of YouTube and the others behaviorism (if we define
behaviorism as the world-view that leads us to have needs assessment + objectives +
content creation by experts + content delivery + evaluation) seems to be not very
relevant, sort of like a philosophy that focuses on the little swimming pool and
ignores the big ocean.
However, imagine that you were a corporate trainer at a pharmaceutical company and
you need to train X hundreds of pharmaceutical sales reps about diabetes and your
new diabetes drug so that they can make sales calls on physicians. In that case you
really do have content that they need to know, experts who really are expert, an
interest in testing their knowledge, etc.
I think in that case the instructionist approach (of objectives, content delivery,
evaluation, etc.) that usually derives from behaviorism may be pretty useful.
One might say, "Well, the issue of training sales reps about diabetes drugs doesn't
interest me."
But that's the point: depending on the situation, the kind of learning/teaching/training
one is responsible for, these different -isms have different levels of appeal.
At any rate, I appreciate your even-handed treatment of these different philosophies.
Posted by Tom Werner | August 6, 2008 4:43 PM
Posted on August 6, 2008 16:43
Lanny Arvan:
I struggled with this post, both on the definitions and on whether there is a strong
normative component to the theory that is not articulated here.
On the notion of learning you espouse, there is nothing explicit that much effort might
go in yet with no real take away. Why not make that part of the definition? Learning
is about making situated experiments (Donald Schon)or, less formally, finding new
paths. Those paths could lead somewhere interesting, but they could be dead ends. It
might not be easy to tell the one from the other. So most of the time spent in learning
may be about verification - telling the one from the other.
Constructivism has a strong normative component to it aimed at teachers and in
particular as a critique against straight "content push." The argument is that presenting
students with paths that have been shown to lead to good places does not push the
student to verify that it is indeed a good path nor does it help the student to find other
good paths. It has also come to mean that there should be small group work in the
classroom a good part of the time where students either brainstorm or argue about the
truth of a proposition. I don't entirely subscribe to this view, but at least I can
understand the argument.
I'm inferring from other things you and Stephen have written that Connectivism is
also a critique, particularly addressed at introverts (in the Myers-Briggs sense) who
make much of their meaning via introspection and also at the Academy and the notion
of who is an expert. I'm in "i" and so the critique I'd take is that instead of an
extensive and possibly rocky and heavily blocked mental sojourn done entirely via
introspection, get the early formative ideas out there into the network for others to
react. Connectivism then could be seen as an advocacy for the publishing of informal
and early thinking. This is an attractive idea to me though many might feel threatened
by it. (Should junior faculty who have not yet earned tenure keep a blog about their
research?)
The other idea is about viewing the Academy as a club with rather steep entry
requirements. Club members do make connections with other members, but often not
with anyone outside. Connectivism argues that this is restrictive and ultimately
damaging for learning. (At least, that is my understanding.) We need open access.
Groups of interest will form but they are driven solely by affinity for the subject, not
by any other externally imposed credential. When Wikipedia was newer, there were a
lot of discussions on this point. People seem to have moved on to other questions, but
I believe this argument was never resolved.
Learning technologists might well embrace Connectivism as a way of organizing their
own approach. It may appeal to other unarticulated norms they have. Faculty may be
less accepting of the idea as it appears a threat to the traditional culture. So I wonder
whether you agree there are these normative aspects to Connectivism and if you
perceive these tensions to be the ones you wish to resolve by advocating for it.
Posted by Lanny Arvan | August 7, 2008 6:23 AM
Posted on August 7, 2008 06:23
Doug Holton:
It sounds like connectivism is more related to connectionism (neural networks),
distributed cognition, and Latour's actor-network theory (everything is a node in a
network), which were mainly big in the 80s and early 90s.
You might look into criticisms of those approaches (not that anything is completely
"wrong" or "right"). Connectionism still suffers from the same problems of traditional
symbolic cognitivism, the symbol grounding problem and so forth. If knowledge is
just a "relationship" and learning is making some "connection" then what is
meaningful learning? Actor network theory makes no distinction between people and
things like technologies.
You might want to look into phenonomenology (see for example Don Ihde's
philosophy of technology), embodied cognition/enactivism, and the simulation theory
of mind.
And concerning 'filtering' the deluge of information we receive on a daily basis, look
also into ecological psychology (J.J. Gibson, affordances, invariants, and
effectivities), change blindness, etc. This has been applied to education with the
contrasting cases technique (Bransford et al.). Much of what we are deluged with is
not "processed" or attended to at all.
See for example:
http://nivea.psycho.univ-paris5.fr/ASSChtml/ASSC.html
http://www.neurovr.org/emerging/volume10.html
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_4/kaptelinin/chapter9.html
or this awful wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enactivism
So I guess a possible criticism of connectivism might be that it too ignores
embodiment and what makes 'information' meaningful. It just lumps all resources out
there as undifferentiated "content" like in regular learning objects theory. It doesn't
acknowledge recent research on perception and cognition, and how difficult it is to
really learn and perceive new things.
The alternatives I mentioned above can express learning without using terms like
"content", "connection", "representation", and without referring to knowledge as some
"thing" that you can possess merely by be exposed to it. You can't boil down
knowledge and learning to a flowchart or concept map, and learners are tabulas rasa
blank slates to be filled with content.
Posted by Doug Holton | August 7, 2008 10:00 AM
Posted on August 7, 2008 10:00
Ruth Demitroff:
I'm interested in connectivism and the professional formation process. Most of us
have a whole bunch of introductory courses in various disciplines. From that we chose
a major and learned to view a problem through the lens of a particular discipline. So I
like to ask myself, "How would I look at this particular problem if I were a ________,
theologian, philosopher, health practitioner, scientist, historian, mechanic, my
grandmother, a person from a other cultures, etc. I'm hoping that connectivism gives
us the basic thought pattern used by other people during the decision making process
so we can create a more elegant answer.
Posted by Ruth Demitroff | August 7, 2008 2:22 PM
Posted on August 7, 2008 14:22
Dolors Capdet:
Hi George,
In reading your blog I thought that was hurt by criticism of the conectivisamo. I
answer here because in his blog is not allowed.
I think that criticism is always constructive and that is important because it helps
move. If many people constructively discussed a theory, there are more possibilities
for improvement.
I think we should welcome that to happen.
Best regards,
Dolors Capdet
Comnectivitas, Spanish working group on Connectivism
Posted by Dolors Capdet | August 7, 2008 6:59 PM
Posted on August 7, 2008 18:59
Alana:
George,
Always the pragmatist I am wondering how these ideas translate to education
leadership. Would you say the following (written for an online class) is correct?
Connectivists believe in learner determined goals and objectives augmented by
technology. Since the participants work together to study and produce their own
content that reflects their learning, an education leader’s position is to support these
efforts.
What have I missed?
Best regards as always,
Alana
Posted by Alana | August 9, 2008 12:28 PM
Posted on August 9, 2008 12:28
Charles Nelson:
Outside of perhaps the technology aspect, if connectivism is unique, then what aspects
of it are different from complexity science?
Posted by Charles Nelson | August 12, 2008 3:30 PM
Posted on August 12, 2008 15:30
Eyal Sivan:
Regarding Complexity Theory vs. Connectivism: I don’t think they are very different,
especially where referring to Complex Adaptive Systems (as opposed to chaotic
systems). It could even be said that Complexity is akin to the Scientific Theory of
Connectivism, as they share many parallels, notably emergent order, non-linearity,
and the concept of independent agents. I think the biggest difference (as stated by
Matthias Melcher on his x28 blog - thanks to George for the link) is that
Connectivism applies complexity to areas where previously deterministic (i.e. rules
based) approaches prevailed.
More to the point, Complexity science is just that: science. It maintains the distinct
separation between observer and observed. Connectivism, I think, attempts to take the
observations of complexity science and begin to build social structures that embody
the same theories.
For example, complexity may explain how a given social trend emerged in hindsight,
but does not provide a general framework for creating the emergence of new trends.
In fact, scientifically this is impossible, because complex systems are inherently
unpredictable. So even if you try, you have no scientific way of measuring your
success or failure.
Connectivism, by contrast, seems to address exactly that: providing a social
framework (for instance, in education) that embraces and fosters complexity, but
places social priorities first. So even if your system is not as complex as possible, this
is less important than whether or not the social goals are achieved (for example,
dynamic, distributed learning).
I hope that made some sort of sense...
Posted by Eyal Sivan | August 26, 2008 9:59 PM
Posted on August 26, 2008 21:59
Post a comment
(If you haven't left a comment