Thursday, February 17, 2011

[[CCK11]]:About CCK and MOOC

Is it a new theory of learning? Or is the concept of theory distracting?

Connectivism is a theory framework. It relates to learning. But it is not a “theory of learning” in the traditional academic definition. It is more than that.

“Learning Theories”, in its psychological context, tends to address the learning that happens in biological entities. In its “machine learning” context, it is the study of algorithms1. Connectivism addresses the knowledge that exists at a universal level which includes all existing matters and not limited to human learning alone. It could be classified as a “Theory of Knowledge” and its application in “human learning” is a small subset.
In my opinion, the way connectivism is presented in the Siemen’s-Downes model is confusing, for the following reasons:

(1) It tries to encompass three concepts in one:

a- Defining learning as a function of networks;
b- Learning and knowledge building happens with machines as well; and
c- Connectivism is a suitable educational paradigm for the knowledge age.

Each of these concepts has a merit on its own. The first two could be easily demonstrated in empirical scholarship. It fails miserably in the third one. Connectivism cannot be applied in a traditional scholarship environment (see the "weakness section" for details). Connectivism creates a new learning paradigm, not a new educational paradigm, that contradicts many of the basics of educational system. It is a quantum leap, not an evolution of education, for the creation of universal knowledge. It is a “Noo Theory”, theory of global awareness!
What are the weaknesses of connectivism as formulated in this course? What are the strengths?


Note: I interpreted the question to mean the weaknesses/strengths of MOOC as a representation of Connectivism and not as a critique of connectivism itself. I hope I am not wrong!

The weaknesses:

MOOC as a massive course has its merits. But it is extremely weak as a credited course because, as mentioned above, connectivism does not work in a traditional educational setting. For example:


  1. This assignment is designed to meet scholarship grading requirements. However, its assessment rubric does not match the objectives of the course (it does not assess if I have built a strong network of knowledge). I think connectivism deserves a new assessment model that measures the strength of links created due to participation in the course.

  2. The format of the assignment defies connectivism itself where I am supposed to refer to academic references while my knowledge was built through connection to “lay-individuals” through the Internet.

  3. The expectation is that my answers are supposed to be at a “Master’s Level” while the course is at a certificate level.


Clearly the credited part of MOOC has been designed hastily and needs thoughtful redesign. It is worth mentioning at this stage is that I am learning a tremendous deal from the non-credited MOOC activity but minimally through the MOOC credited model.

The Strengths:
The MOOC, as a non-academic model, is a powerful concept:

  1. It allows the participants to learn based on their learning preference.

  2. Since it is not graded, it allows participants to determine what they want to learn then indulge in the learning process through connecting to other individuals.

  3. It offers a safe environment to allow participants to experience connectivism in a non-threatening environment; consequently, they can develop themselves to “survive” the connective age.

  4. The course encourages “continuous learning” where knowledge is expected to be continuously created and recreated.

  5. It offers an excellent environment to get immersed in the new overload of information we experience and train us on developing our own selection process.


Does connectivism resonate with your learning experiences? If so, how?

Yes, it definitely resonates with my learning experience. For the last 10 years, I lived in the “knowledge-on-demand” domain where I learn about something just when I need the information and limit my learning to just what is required rather than mastering the whole related body of knowledge. Connectivism puts words to this learning approach. At the same time, I am immersed with gadgets around me that facilitate my knowledge-on-demand concept. Connectivism is helping me to go further and accept that “knowledge resides in machines” as well, which means they are add-on to my knowledge. Finally, connectivism gives me many tools to understand the theories and ideas of De Chardin that fascinates me.

What are your outstanding questions?

  1. Why connectivism is a learning theory and not a knowledge theory.

  2. Why is it essential that connectivism conform under the traditional educational system and not consider it as a new learning/knowledge paradigm that does not fall under the scholarship umbrella?

  3. What are the set of knowledge, skills and value sets that need to be developed by a person to become a connected person?


References



Note: For further references and sources to the above arguments, please refer to my blog posts and my CCK11 networks. Connectivism should not be limited to APA format. Right?






Detect language » Arabic







Detect language » Arabic


Tuesday, February 15, 2011

[[CCK11]]: A reply I posted on Wikipedia discussion

... I admire your passion to prove your point. My initial reaction is that you are mixing up between three inter-related concepts:

1) Connectivism as a theory (i.e. the concept that learning is the expansion of connections and that knowledge resides in machines)
2) Connectivism as a learning approach (i.e. learning in the knowledge age will depend on how we connect with individuals and other knowledge devices/machines) and
3) MOOC as an application to the learning approach (i.e. 2 above). MOOC is a course designed to introduce the concept of connectivism in a "connective" way. The success of the attempt is not indicated by the number of the participants in the Elluminate sessions, but by the number of "knowledge connections" that are formed outside the course. Try to search for #CCK08, #CCK09 or #CCK10 (the tags used to connect the groups) and you will find out that numerous groups and networks exist in the Web 2.0 world that continue connecting even after the conclusion of the course. Which proves that there is a merit to the theory and its application! (although it still need to be captured, analyzed and documented! ;)

I agree with you that the article should be re-written and I will start early next week working on it. AboluayTalk2me 18:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Detect language » Arabic


Saturday, February 12, 2011

[[CCK11]]: I am not a connectivist!

In a post on our CCK11 group I wrote:
I am confident, so far, that I am not a real connectivist... the real connectivists are now changing governments (like in Egypt and Tunisia), they are changing the meaning of diplomacy, dignity and conspiracy (like in Wikileaks), they are creating knowledge (like Wikipedia), writing phenomenal apps (Open Source) and so on... they live connectivism naturally. They do not need MOOC to become connectivists.

They developed skills that our generation strives on eradicating... for example: they utilize their idle time, they change their values when needed, they are not afraid about their identity, they are not afraid if someone else use their information, they do not believe retaining information themselves is essential, they can work with massive knowledge add-ons (like knowledge on machines), they do NOT plan for the deep future, they do not have worries (although we push them to develop theirs), they believe EVERYTHING can supply knowledge (whether friend or enemy, genius or ignorant, machine or ??), they are not worried if the information is correct or not, their friends and community is on constant change, their friend-set changes based on the issue they are addressing... They do not worry about respect or trust ... and few other skills that I do not own... yet!

Who among us have these skills? not me so far!

Don't get me wrong: I am connected, I have a huge PLN that helps me with my day to day learning and decision making, I believe that knowledge resides in machines and I make a good use of these tools. But all of these are "simulated connectivism". They are not natural traits. When I compare my connectivism with my son, I still find huge gaps between how my brain is connected and how his brain is connected. Adopting the famous phrase: I am an emigrant to the connectivim and not a naturalized connectvist!

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

[[CCK11]]:Switch VS Hard Disk

For few weeks now, I have been immersed in the connective learning. Although my connections and nodes are not strong, and they are unidirectional (from me out, and I rarely get feedback), I have to admit that I am learning. So, I am convinced it has a merit.

One thing I have noticed is that "I" need to change to survive this new learning paradigm. After considerable reflections, though I was hoping connections :(, I found few things I had to "rewire" in the infrastructure of my brain. I will use the computer as an analogy (so, I apologize to those who are not familiar with the terms that I will use):

1) Storage Vs Connectivity: I need to move from relying on "large hard disk storage" to a system that has "a super smart network switch". The core "technology" my brain need to invest in is high connectivity and not storage. Education and my upbringing forced me to rely on investing in "huge long term storage" systems and they did not train me or prepare me to handle large influx of information. To the contrary, I was trained to reject influxes because it means distraction, and to accept focusing on one thing at a time as a virtue!

2) Memory: Does this mean that I need to get rid of all memory to be effective in the connective world?  No. I just need to move from a "hard disk" system that keeps all information stored to a new storage system that allow us to get information when needed, store what need to be stored and purge the obsolete information. Sticking to the computer analogy: we need to replace the hard disk storage with a ROM (to store the basic skills, knowledge and habits we need to function, like communication, logic) and a fast RAM that is used to manipulate the information we need and get rid of them when they become obsolete. In none computer terms: I need to practice to prevent my previous knowledge, habits, values and habits to influence the new knowledge. I should be ready to accept new knowledge without allowing my previous knowledge to distort it.

3) Scripts: For the Switch-RAM-ROM to work together, I need to put right scripts in place that allows the right information to be processed and converted to knowledge. In a non-computer terms this means I need to develop the right habits, attitudes and value sets that facilitate the process. In addition, I need to rely on technology to filter the information and ensure I get the maximum information I need in the smallest junks possible. This needs more in-depth thinking and analysis.

Then it hit me. The disparity between formal education and connectivism is:  Education promotes "increasing the capacities and contents of the long term storage" while connectivism advocates "increasing the power of the network switches, put the basic knowledge in ROM's and replacing the hard disks with volatile RAM"!

Now I understand why education will resist the connectivism. Now I understand why some critics argue that connectivism is a twisted mirror for older learning theories. Now I understand why many individuals are not comfortable with the experience: they still use hubs which cannot handle the huge information influx and they feel connectivism does fill their hard disk is still empty...

Even more, I recognized that my education did not prepare me for this new way of management of knowledge. Since I work in international education, I am confident that education, anywhere (except in a small committee in Europe), is designed for "hub/hard disk" individuals and not for the "Switch/RAM" individuals. But, hey, does the Switch/RAM person need schools to learn? This will be another post.

Detect language » Arabic


Monday, February 7, 2011

[[CCK11]]: A reply I posted on Wikipedia discussion:

A reply I posted on Wikipedia discussion:


... I admire your passion to prove your point. My initial reaction is that you are mixing up between three inter-related concepts:

1) Connectivism as a theory (i.e. the concept that learning is the expansion of connections and that knowledge resides in machines)
2) Connectivism as a learning approach (i.e. learning in the knowledge age will depend on how we connect with individuals and other knowledge devices/machines) and
3) MOOC as an application to the learning approach (i.e. 2 above). MOOC is a course designed to introduce the concept of connectivism in a "connective" way. The success of the attempt is not indicated by the number of the participants in the Elluminate sessions, but by the number of "knowledge connections" that are formed outside the course. Try to search for #CCK08, #CCK09 or #CCK10 (the tags used to connect the groups) and you will find out that numerous groups and networks exist in the Web 2.0 world that continue connecting even after the conclusion of the course. Which proves that there is a merit to the theory and its application! (although it still need to be captured, analyzed and documented! ;) ...

Sunday, February 6, 2011

Sh3er men Al Shab Amen

Below are some poems composed by my friend Amen... he suggest we make mo3alaqa billionieh

عبيلي كاسي عبي وعيارو طبشيلي


وازا حدى غيري عليكي طب شيلي


اوووووف اووووف


وتاءغفى انا على صدرك طبشيلي


لاءنو حلال النوم عا صدر الحباب


and another one for Tim Horton type 3arak chain

ستار بكس و تم هورتن قال معاهن مش ماشي الحال


و ما بيمشي حالو لراسي الا معبي شي بكاسي


وكاسي كاسين بيكاس لو عبيتو اناس يا خال


فيك تطلب بي دريف ثرو وهالمازا كلها معو


قصبي وسناسل عالبال والنية وثوما حلال


بدقيقة و ثانية ونص لو هالشاليمونة بكاسك بتمص


ابتنسى اليصاير والصار وعل مية بترجع بترص


بتعملك برمي وبتلف وبترجع عدريف ثرو بتفوت


وبتغني وزمورك توت توت بدنا نسكر بيبيروت






Detect language » Arabic



Detect language » Arabic


[[CCK10]]: Trying to understand - Is Connectivism a mix of three concepts?

A discussion is taking place in Wikipedia about the article with the same topic. Some participants refuse to accept the concept as a theory. There argument was based on the pattern of decreased enrollment in MOOC. This made me recognize that the way connectivism is presented opens the door for confusion between three aspects of the idea:

(1) Connectivism as a theory: which (as I understand it) has the following arguments: (a) defining learning as an increase in connectiveness and (b) knowledge resides in machines as well as human brains; consequently it is essential in the knowledge age that knowledge be accurate, current, individualized and ever-changing.


(2) Connectivism as an educational approach: As a consequence to the theory, the connectivists suggest that education should evolve to address the issue of accuracy, currency and ever-changing. Classroom instruction is not the only form anymore. Modern learners need to connect with humans and machines to generate their knowledge. This requires new set of learning skills, styles, habits, attitudes... that traditional education does not offer 1.  The new set of personal attributes developed by the new learners should allow them to build connection quickly with nodes (human and machine) whenever they are trying to create/develop new knowledge.


(3) Connectivism as a course: The MOOC (as I understand it) demonstrates how connectivism (as an educationalapproach) is applied in  real-life learning setting. The facilitators are creating a connected environment to help the participants learn and practice "connective Learning". In this context, learning should happens OUTSIDE the course through connecting in FaceBook, Twitter, Blog-sphere and any other Web2 medium. The Elluminate session is not the course. It is an activity that initiates the discussion about a certain topic related to connectivism. Although Elluminate chatting and back channels facilitate some sort of connections for learning, but the real learning happens outside Elluminate: through the different web2 medium. So, the enrollment in Elluminate session does not indicate the success of the attempt. The real indicator should be the number of channels/connections that are created and maintained outside the course. Right? (side note: This means we need to do some research in this area!).


Since I am planning to rewrite the article, I need your help criticizing my standpoint... am I on the right track? Is there any other way to look at it? Any input is appreciated!
ايون التسرب من connectivism أو من MOOC.






Detect language » Arabic





Detect language » Arabic



Detect language » Arabic