Siemen’s focus on the connection as primary, and comparing it to atoms suggests to me that a closer examination of connections themselves are warranted. I offer this preliminary TOC as a way of generating conversations and ideas about the study of connections:
Ulop's TOC
I am enjoying the debate between Ailsa and Old Socs in this discussion in the moodle forum. As Ailsa has noted in regards to her own leaning, the writing of thoughts helps to clarify one’s thinking, and for me that is the attraction of blogging. Putting my thoughts into sentences that are relatively grammatically correct, or at least having some semblance of order, rationality and perhaps cogency, requires me to reflect upon my thoughts, capture them, and order them using this specific language (I call it English). I wonder why Stephen must continually seek to diminish the utility, necessity and desirability of language? It seems so wrong to me to beat up on language in his fashion. Language is a gift, in my view, and literally, in my mind. Otherwise I might need to have my own fMRI or PET machines in order to observe which parts of your neural networks are firing in response to me, so that I might understand what you are thinking. That seems rather bulky. Through language I can ask you what you are thinking instead.
Further, in the blog I can write whatever I am thinking, without much regard for the reactions to my thoughts, or worry about their reception. Although the ability to comment is available, it is not a concern, and I may write at will here, rambling on if I feel like it, blogging (writing) my thoughts (emergent of my brain?). I can blog my brains out here, and nothing anyone else can do about it. Freedom of the (word) press.
I’ve been reading the moodle forums and some of the blogs about connectivism as well as some of the literature offered. I am really looking forward to diving into this article when I get a chance: Intentionalism (Alex Byrne)
In the meantime I’ve been thinking. What are the origins of connectivism? Is it true that it originated from connectionism, with a dash of eliminative materialism thrown in? And did behaviorism spawn connectionism? Is there a link between all of these concepts? And is there another paradigm, wherein language, symbols, narrative and their ilk exist, apart from the connect -ionist/ivist spectrum duality? Stephen himself suggests that these are different worlds, co-existant. And of course Bruner is all about narrative. So then perhaps connectivism should not be thought of as a linear progression in terms of learning theory development, wherein it replaces constructivism et.al. but maybe should be thought of as merely another perspective, one that may explain some aspects of learning better than other theories do.
Linear or parallel in progression, are there yet other perspectives in the future about learning? I suspect there are, and yet wonder what they might be. Perhaps a synthesis of the connect -ionist/ivist world with the symbolic/narrative world? A linking of these two hemispheres? Together they seem capable of creating worlds…
I thought I better explain better my previous story about connectivism being a new religion as there is a little concern, especially from C**** about positioning it that way. I am not suggesting that connectivism is the new religion, although I can see how some others might think that, and I have read most of the literature in the CCK08 course and some people there are quite taken with connectivism and seem almost to have a, dare i say, religious fervour about this learning theory. Do I think it is a good theory? Sure, for what it says.
But what does it say? I think the proponents are suggesting an entirely novel description of learning as a somewhat mechanical process at a neural level with our ‘consciousness’ of learning being an epiphenomenal occurrence emerging from that process. So, the neurons do their connecting, and ‘we’ are aware of it. I don’t really see this as anything novel. Apparently neuroscience has contributed to this understanding of the nature of neural connections through fMRI and PET technology usage. Very good work, but I am not sure that covers all that can be said about the human condition and human learning.
What is much more interesting to me and of higher value in my opinion is the study of narrative in human affairs and I would suggest that Bruner has a lot to say of value in this regard. As he says, perhaps his ideas may be a little ahead of their time, but I think their is great value in paying heed to his call.
There is some recent chatter on the connectivism ning site http://connectivismeducationlearning.ning.com/ about metaphors as connectors in the context of connection leading to learning. Rather than attempt to address this matter directly, I thought I might suggest a metaphor of my own, and see where it leads.
For those not in the know, the Government of the Province of Ontario runs a public transit organization that funds train and bus service in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). This service is known as GO service, GO trains, GO buses. While riding this service recently, I attempted to make the metaphorical connection between the GO train service and academia. Here are my key points:
Academia is like GO train service because:
1. Both are services primarily funded by a Government, with passengers having to pay additional user fees (fares/tuition)
2. Both are monopoly providers of their respective service
3. As monopolies, both may suffer from inefficiencies (x-inefficiency) as in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-inefficiency
A monopoly is a price maker in that its choice of output level affects the price paid by consumers. Consequently, a monopoly tends to price at a point where price is greater than long-run average costs. X-inefficiency, however tends to increase average costs causing further divergence from the economically efficient outcome. The sources of the X-inefficiency have been ascribed things such as overinvestment and empire building by managers, lack of motivation stemming from a lack of competition, and pressure by labor unions to pay above-market wages.
QUESTION: does the monopoly of academia suffer from overinvestment, empire building, lack of motivation, pressure to pay above-market wages?
A wise person once said, “Theories are like ……… everyone has one.
Connectivism is NOT my theory, but I do have a theory as to its placement in the grand scheme of things.
My theory suggests it belongs where it was hatched: within the realm of technology but more specifically within the realm of digital networks. Schematically, my ontology and connectivism’s placement looks something like this:
Connectivism is a process within and impacting upon a digital learning environment.
I keep thinking about Stripes (1981), and the classic line in that classic of all classic movies….
And how it was, in a sense, prescient of the current economic situation, or, at the least, the above line seems to describe the precipice we collectively in our connectivity are about to fall from or into or over or whatever.
And then, depression set in….
What will this world-wide depression be like? How many victims will there be? How and when will we recover?
Baking in my sauna this evening, I was reflecting on ‘The Who’ lyrics of their 1965 hit song and the relevance of these lyrics to the digital native generation. Which caused me to wonder about the dichotomy between digital natives and digital immigrants. Which in turn led me to contemplate interpretivism vs. connectivism, which became interpretivism vs. positivism, the latter of which I feel dichotomization belongs to.
Agree or disagree? Is dichotomization a positivist tool? I don’t see how it could be considered otherwise.
And interpretivism allows for divergent views on sensed phenomena. But are interpretivism and connectivism polar opposites?
Poking around the network this morning (my network of reading – Jenny, Sui Fai, George, CCK08 etc.) I stumbled yet again onto a thought that I must jot down here so that I don’t lose it.
The CCK08 wrap up recording was rather boring to review, so I thought, and I didn’t really get much out of it but the ensuing discussion by others on the issue of lurkers got me thinking about what the purpose of the CCK08 course was, in the first place.
I recall Stephen’s joy and apparent mission of seeing if a MOOC would indeed work, given the state of technology of the day. I would classify his initial interest to be experimental in nature – would it work? would people come? how would the tools work? What tools would people use ?
In the Moodle debates, I found Stephen’s goal became more like an attempted sale of his views on epistemology, eliminative materialism, philosophy, network etc. He got cranky, I felt, when his views were challenged or disregarded. He definitely had a pre-determined notion as to what tools should be used, and seemed wanting to convince others to ‘do it his way’ in order to support perhaps a theory he had, going into the course, about how things would work. His censoring of blogs in the Daily support my view of this. A more deductive, experimental scientific approach to the course goal.
George’s approach, on the other hand, seemed like an attempt to push his views out on his connectivism theory, but was not quite so inflexible when challenged and seemed willing to adapt. I characterize his mission as that of using the MOOC as an organ, to profess his theory and encourage understanding and debate. A more inductive approach to the course goal.
Not sure how the above relates to the title of this post, but the word Indoctrination has stuck in my craw this morning.
Oh, here we go down that slippery slope to what, personal learning environments? How trendy. I will plug my head into a machine, stick my face on an LCD screen and learn away, lost in my personal world of learning, connected to all I really need! (what about food? -ed)
Who needs nature, physicality, reality? Reality does not exist, in my post-modern, deconstructed world. Reality is a virtual world, of my own creation, where I am free to be what I want to be, not what I appear to be, in the physical world of the past. Oh mighty creator of worlds, welcome me, to what, my Second Life?
Or is SL just a game, engaging yet dangerous, as all games must be?
argghhh…. what will post-post-modernism claim to be?
