Week 5 Activity 18 - Connectivism - Shredding Siemens

5.4 Connectivism

Connectivism has been described by George Siemens, its original proponent, as a learning theory for the digital age. As such, connectivism is often referenced when people talk about MOOCs or learning with OER. Most learning theories were developed prior to the digital, networked age and have been adapted to fit with it, whereas connectivism was developed specifically in response to the possibilities offered by a global network. The question ‘Does this give us anything new?’ is also relevant for connectivism, as some of the criticism about it has been that connectivism repackages existing ideas.

Siemens (2005), Connectivism: a learning theory for the digital age

Connectivism should not be confused with constructivism.   (Papert?)

Social environment should drive the pedagogy - okay. Like schools were created for industrial revolution and so may not match today's needs (Sir Robertson on this).

“One of the most persuasive factors is the shrinking half-life of knowledge. The “half-life of knowledge” is the time span from when knowledge is gained to when it becomes obsolete.

But principles do not become obsolete and a fact does not become half a fact.

Just because the amount of "knowledge" (which has not been defined) may be doubling every 18 months (Moore's law) doesn't mean that it's worth is halving.

This paper is all over the place without any supporting justifications. Too many unsupported statements across many fields and topics.

Know-how and know-what is being supplemented with know-where (the understanding of where to find knowledge needed). - I agree with this point.

Do we gain knowledge through experiences?
Yes, burn your hand (experience) don't touch fire (knowledge)

Is it innate (present at birth)?
No. Instincts are not knowledge, they are pre-wired instincts. Explain an instinct.
 
Do we acquire it through thinking and reasoning?
Yes, it is possible, but that is reflection which was seeded by an experience in the first place. This leads to wisdom.

Is knowledge actually knowable?
No. You need to have processed it first. Only when the experience has been processed does it become knowledge. You cannot force feed someone knowledge, it would be meaningless to them.

Is it directly knowable through human experience?
No, needs to be processed (sorted, searched, linked and filed away in the right place).


Objectivism (similar to behaviorism) states that reality is external and is objective, and knowledge is gained through experiences.
No, reality is internal. No, it's subjective. Yes, knowledge gained by experience.

Pragmatism (similar to cognitivism) states that reality is interpreted, and knowledge is negotiated through experience and thinking.
Yes, reality interpreted. Agree on the knowledge part - I'm okay with this.

Interpretivism (similar to constructivism) states that reality is internal, and knowledge is constructed.What's the difference between "internal" and "interpreted"? I think reality is interpreted to become internal. Knowledge is constructed from the negotiation between experience and thinking.

So, I am either a pragmatic interpretist or an Interpretistic pragmatist. I think the first one needs to happen in that order. So I will henceforth define myself as a pragmatic interpretist. And a hungry one at that - so time to eat something...

I see knowledge as a connection of inter-connected and intertwined facts with subjective and emotional weighting. That was my thought when answering the above, so therefore disagree with
"All of these learning theories hold the notion that knowledge is an objective (or a state) that is attainable (if not already innate) through either reasoning or experiences."
I didn't assume that when thinking about the above.

So my best learning system for the student would be:
1. Provide many examples that allow for the reality to be interpreted
2. Have the student think and reflect on the examples
3. Let them construct their own example (to demonstrate learning) or provide a slightly modified example requiring demonstration of understanding

Which is what I do, although the reflection time could be longer and more guided.

I disagree with Behaviorism - internal activities are more important then observable behavior. It isn't all about simple stimuli and responses. Learning is not just about behavior change.

Cognitivism is too basic and takes no account of emotion and subjectivity or instinct.

Constructivism - okay. But there is more to it than creating knowledge from understanding experiences. This is the closest I agree with.

So I am now a pragmatic interpretistic constructivist, cool! Also a less hungry one now.
(I'll have to work this into a report somewhere).

"These theories do not address learning that occurs outside of people (i.e. learning that is stored and manipulated by technology)." - Err... Look over there, there's some learning going on outside of any people!

 i.e. learning that is stored and manipulated by technology.
What crap is this? A.I? Are we at that point yet?

How on earth can you quantify the value of what is learned. It is totally subjective.

"the very manner of information that we acquire is worth exploring." - What is that supposed to mean? It's meaningless.

"The need to evaluate the worthiness of learning something is a meta-skill that is applied before learning itself begins." Yes, but also it's a continuous process during learning, and explains why people change their direction or drop out of a MOOC.

All over the place again - ramblings of a mad man. And this got peer reviewed and published?

"new sciences (chaos and networks)" and goldfish and cheese. I mean, lets just bung any old topics together, what about "string theory"? Indeed. Let's talk about bio-mechanics.

"How are learning theories impacted when knowledge is no longer acquired in the linear manner?" Oh come on! Since when did knowledge become acquired in a liner fashion, err. never.

Okay, the introduction is a poor hotchpotch of ideas, off topic suggestions and biased unsupported statements. The editor must be a very close friend or more.

"chaos is “a cryptic form of order”" so  stability is a "random form of disorder". Which it is if you wait long enough or take one event/snap shop from the random form of disorder.
I say, that's darn profound, or is all bollocks?

"Alterations within the network have ripple effects on the whole." It all depends upon the type of network topology

Connectivism -  this is bullshit. It's definition is too undefined and consists of a few known ideas strung together.

Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.
Not new. Better to check with multiple sources when finding out about something. We call it, taking a second opinion.

Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.
We call this research or looking things up that may be related.

Learning may reside in non-human appliances.
Like my toaster. Is it really there when I leave the kitchen, that's the question. Of course, everything is made of atoms and so it's just a case of re-arranging them to form some learning.

Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known
We call that being curious or inquisitive.

Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.
This is known as not getting Alzheimer's. Also known as moving primary learning into long term learning (storage).

Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.
We call this creativity and imagination.

Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities.
And also everyone in the world.

Decision-making is itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the decision.
Oh God. Come on, get some perspective man "Shifting reality", only after a few too many beers. "Information climate" - do me a favour!  So, to sum up, we call this changing your mind.

Data resides in a database. It is interpreted to form information, and from information you derive knowledge, having gone through a process described at the start above, from which learning may take place. Knowledge does not reside in a database. Knowledge may one day reside in a A.I. self-aware computer, but not yet.

"Quantum theory of trust" - Is this similar to the relative theory of reliability or the Newtonian theory of honour, or is that all bollocks also. Clearly some ones mind is in a spin in the wrong orbit.

What's with all the quotes at the end. Is this supposed to be supportive evidence to the paper or was it tacked on to fill out a few extra words?

Well, this paper just severely reduced the status of Mr. George Siemens in my opinion as well as the
"International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance learning". I see the current issue on the home page is Sept 2012. I am not surprised.