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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- It allows the participants to learn based on their learning preference.
- 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.
- 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.
- The course encourages “continuous learning” where knowledge is expected to be continuously created and recreated.
- 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?
- Why connectivism is a learning theory and not a knowledge theory.
- 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?
- What are the set of knowledge, skills and value sets that need to be developed by a person to become a connected person?
References
- Aitken, R. (2007). Surviving the New Learning Landscape: A Guide for E-Learners, p15, Lulu Publishing.
- Lee, M., Gaffney, M. (2008). Leading a digital school: principles and practice, New Learning Though Technology -Connectivism, pp 57 - 200.
- Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age, International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, Last accessed: 10 Feb 2011.
- van Pløn, V. (2006). eConnectivism: a new learning theory?, University of Twente.
- Wikipedia:
- Pierre Teillard Du Chardin, Last accessed 10 Feb 2011
- Noosphere, Last accessed 10 Feb 2011
- Interactions with my PLE:
- FaceBook CCK11 Group
- FaceBook Connectivist Learning
- Twitter #CCK11
- MOOC OL Daily Subscription
- Delicious CCK11 and CCK09 tags
- My Personal Blog
Very good! I think you have put your finger on some excellent points. For one, although anyone can have a go at the "Is it a new theory of learning?" type of question at an armchair philosophy sort of level a proper academic assessment must be a different kettle of fish. As an ex-academic with little background in educational theory I think I can still see that quite extensive background reading is necessary to deal with this question at all rigorously. Secondly, I can appreciate the assessment dilemma faced by the organizers of a 'course' that appears, by definition, to have little or no learning objectives! I'll be interested to see how things develop but I would be very surprised if anyone, like yourself, obviously making a serious effort, failed to gain credit.
ReplyDelete1. “I think Connectivism deserves a new assessment model that measures the strength of links created due to participation in the course."
ReplyDeleteExcellent point! To return to my pet peeve, there are too many nodes in the network and I personally have issues in selecting out the curators. I just don’t care to spend time wading through all the junk, which of course is pejorative. One person’s junk is another’s priceless object.
I did blog on this and actually got come responses. http://change-leadershipllc.com/learning/?p=282
For my views on the role of a curator see my entry http://change-leadershipllc.com/learning/?p=338
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.”
Frustrated by the info overload, I have taken 2-3 classmates and all of the readings, and focused. Mainly, I attend to the class readings. That takes a bit of time. And, Anas, you are correct, this is a certificate program, not a Masters degree program. I remain I the old school of info overload handing, I just don’t read it!
3. Course for credit in a MOOC needs thoughtful redesign.
a. Limit the MOOC size to a reasonable number. What is that number? I don’t know- but 900 is way, way too many to find the needles in the haystack.
OR
b. Divide the for credit students into a set of 100. If we have 1000 players in the MOOC, and 20 for credit, fee paying students, and each of us has a set of 100 different folks, we can create a overlapping network.
c. Up front tips to manage the info that is coming into you as in the blog above.
d.. Lay out a new paradigm for assessment based on Connectivism.
e. We needed a list serve at the beginning of the course to identify the 20 needles in the haystack of 1000 that are following the course. I created a Google Group but I never created one before. I messed it up. This should have been set up at the very beginning by faculty so that those in the class know and not relay on a newbie to ms it up.
f. Show us examples of past artifacts by building that into the syllabus.
g. Faculty ought to make a point to coment on someones bog sometime. It may be happening but so much is out there I for one can't find it.
Your comment about the requirement of the for credit students to submit a paper and the possible disconnect the rubric demonstrates to the actual design of the course is very interesting to me. It brings up a similar example demonstrated by the Big Idea high schools. In these schools students [who have not succeeded at other schools] spend 3 to 4 years earning credits by working in areas of high interest to them, actively work in community, design with the help of mentors their own learning path, and demonstrate what they have learned with required exhibitions of work. In the end the school still has to translate the work the students have done, the success they have had, and their artifacts of learning into a mark...a number..that means something to the colleges and universities they will apply to [and about 90 percent of all students get into university]. The Big Idea schools are ahead of their time and have to bend slightly to adhere to existing norms..perhaps that is where connectivism is.
ReplyDeleteI did not read the description of the requirements for paper 1 as having to address the MOOC directly but I did appreciate your words.
Stu
I had to come back and read this again because we're now gearing up for Assignment #2 and George's general response to Assignment #1 was puzzling. You point out here that the theory of the MOOC doesn't align very well with traditional requirements of the education system, which we expect will have clear assignments with clear assessment criteria. Since I entered this "traditionally," i.e., for credit, I guess I bring the expectation that some of the traditional functions of the teacher-learner relationship will still apply--like clear assessment criteria, timely feedback, consistent structures of lessons and assignments, and so on. But since I don't have any of that...and do have these requirements to fulfill...it actually doesn't feel very "safe" to me.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Anas.