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.
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.
