Connectivism – reflected.

I got informed via twitter about this reflecting post from Frances Bells Blog – where she reflects about the connectivism in a way – I think we all should recognize and discuss.  

In the beginning Frances Bell summarizes the characters of connectivism with following attributes: 

Connectivism is presented as a theory of learning for the network age, where learning is something that takes place within networks of humans and non-humans, including objects, and connections mediated by digital networks and devices. (Source) 

And there my 2 cents will start. Those are based on my reflections about explaining connectivism approaches  to others and see the difficulties in argues and understanding. 

So first related to the based model, there is the metaphor of the term „network“, which causes a lot of problems in understanding. I love this metaphor of the network because it brings up the possibility of dynamics it brings in the value of relationships and you can argue and explain or illustrate a lot using this. Even when you are not an IT guy (thanx i got some semesters of IT-Science) you can get the definition of the technical view how to decribe a network: Ever related to „Kanten“ (Edges) and „Knoten“ (Vertex).

But then – thinking in this metaphor – f.I. an technican, you will soon get the Problem: How are they defined. There is a ground of a lot of misunderstanding – i found out during discussions. In the first glance it seems to be easy. Determining the human knowledge even in life exchange and in fixed form – you can place and describe the vertex. Collecting these points was the origin reason for an older post. But here you will have to differ between a lot of things:

Lets take an example: You have found a nugget of knowledge – you want to assimilate in your network of knowledge. You must get deeply imagined that this was fixed as an fragment as a result of a learning process. There is a lot of context brought you to bring up the fragment of knowledge, which has to be uncovered and placed also. One Person can change a mind. But Fragments are still there. This was the reason hermeneutics got highly valued in academic science and nothing changed until years – except the speed the connections got established.

But again take the metaphor and the problem of misunderstanding: If the edges are related to personal fixed human originated knowledge, but not the individuals – where to locate those in this metaphor? There you’ll find two actions who could easily be described: First is assimilating of human knowledge second is fixing human knowledge. The way to fix may hyperindividually differ like the ways to assimilate. Educators could be in the role to arrange knowledge „nuggets“, so students are easily enabled to get them. So they could be in all the common roles: Collectors, pre-interpretors  … Students getting the informations they need for their own learning can root their learning on shoulders of giants or on individual experience of experts – knowing that an extert is somebody who has an expertize on what he stands for.  

But there is a change – which could bring the use of techology. The above understanding describes passivly a learner – student. pupil or adult. Get them in the metaphor they are jumping from „nugget“ to „nugget“ from fragment to fragment of fixed previous knowledge. There is one more thing: In fixing their learning, reflecting their knowledge – they are enabled to participate on the change. They can be creators of nuggets. So others can relate to them on their own work. So they change from passivly assimilation to the creative leraners – teachers – learners role.

To resume the above: It isn’t easy allegorically (like we learned in arts and science) to get this metaphor to an very dynamical world. We have to make clear when taking the network metaphor – what is our understanding of knowledge – information – edges and vertices. Thats a need to avoid musunderstandings – because reflecting on my observation with colleques and students this is diffuse.  

The second thing i would like to value from Frances Post: 

Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities.

I see this as almost a weakness of connectivism. Being heavily focused on Internet sources, it suffers from the >70 years or open sources i.e. avoidance of closed academic sources phenomenon.  This could explain the absence of Actor-network theory

I am not sure if this really an weakness. It could also return the honesty of science. Sorry – now i start claiming about the last years observations. It i hope so it maybe more a problem on society reception than on the origin sources. But I’m about to get rid about the daily dozen of studies all produces claiming that telling you the truth – even when they tergiversate each other or themselves. Just bringing one example, who are in mind with real effects: „Wifi in school? and health“ – Big Discussion and really a show stopper for many educational plans.  Not funny observing claiming parents who are engaged to avoid network extension in schools using a moment later their cell phone in car – without external antenna.  

This has to do with the Transport of information and what is made of this. We as scientist want to get the truth – but in the knowledge the truth is out there and its value is bound on circumstances. Truth has been wrong before. Even in facts also in believe. And so its a gerat human consequence bringing the context in under which situations, with which methods, related on which sources what i think is truth. And we also have to take an eye on the reception of it. So it may be a weakness on the first glance. In my point of view it is a very very important step – to get reliability back. 

So far my 2 cents

Andreas

Be Sociable, Share!

•