While reading George Siemens' "Connectivism: Learning Theory or Pastime for the Self-Amused?," I was most struck by his point about the dynamic and ever-changing nature of knowledge and learning in this day and age. Siemens responds to another academic's critique of his previously published writing, which hypothesized the existence of a new learning theory called Connectivism (which emphasizes the social, networked, technologically-linked-in, and ever-changing nature of learning.) Siemens points out that the other academic's review of the static text (and, Siemens alleges, subsequent misunderstanding of it), perfectly illustrates the theory of Connectivism. Since the reviewer did not consider the text in light of changes in the world of technology and education since the initial article was written, Siemens makes the point that the reviewer "missed the boat" in understanding that change is one of the key tenets of connectivism. Connectivism cannot be considered as a static theory; it will be different tomorrow than it is today. This is certainly convenient for Siemens-- it will be difficult to scientifically evaluate a theory that is ever-changing, and therefore he risks few serious challenges to his theory. At that same time, it will be difficult for this theory to move from the realm of "soft" science and gain long-term acceptance if it is too difficult to produce scientific evidence to support it. It will be quite interesting over the next few years to see if Connectivism takes deeper root within the realm of learning theory, or if, by its very nature, it will morph into a different theory entirely.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hi Michelle, like you, I too wonder what will become of connectivism - i.e. whether in the future it will take root as a theory or morph into something else. The adoption of connectivism (as I've presented it) is actually not the point of greatest focus. What's most important is that educators recognize the changes of information/knowledge/personal interactions. These changes require a systemic response (i.e. changing our institutions and practices of teaching). Whether it is connectivism as currently presented, or a related concept from what others have called networked learning or learning networks (Koper most prominent in the latter) or navigationism (as presented by Tom Brown), is secondary. What's more important is that we recognize changes and respond suitably.
In terms of your point about my response to Plon Verghagen's critique - my criticism centred on Plon's system of learning and coming to know. We make artifacts of dialogue, thoughts and ideas regularly (your post is one example). Sometimes we put significant effort in and publish a book, journal article, produce a video, etc. But the artifacts reflect a point in time of understanding. I didn't intend to claim that Plon "missed the boat" (i.e. an indictment of his knowledge), but rather that he functions under a system that fails to be aware of rapid changes. Instead of networked and adaptive, his critique represents a static view of the article and subsequent contributions from many others. I don't think this development makes it "difficult scientifically" to evaluate the theory of connectivism. The very nature of science is one of evaluation, adjustment, change, new theories, etc. Had Plon's critique (and I should state - it is a good, coherent critique of the initial article) been directed to me shortly after the article was published, I would have seen things differently. But even today, if I critique a theory which has since evolved (let's say, I criticize Newton without acknowledging what Einstein contributed to our understanding of space and time), most people would state that I've missed important contributions since then. To a degree all theories are fluid and changing, and so should be our criticism of them...i.e. our criticism should capture the current state, not previous.
All of this to say - you're raising important questions: the acceptance of theories, the importance solidity in acceptance, and the ability to objectively evaluate claims. Good luck as you continue with the course...
Take care
George
Michelle raised a very good question about Connectivism, and how it is difficult to prove and disprove the theory. In addition, very interesting response from Siemens for clarifications. Kudos Michelle!
These are good points that you have brought up.
Connectivism is not a static idea. It is every changing is the world. As technology and communication advance so will this idea of 'CONNECTIVISM.'Like all complex ideas and thoughts. Time and refinement are required for a thorough definition.
Post a Comment