This is an older posting that was in my draft folder. Some of what I present here elaborates on more brief entries of past months.
—-
I first saw the podcast link on one of my classmates blogs. I took the time to listen to the 35 minute audio-visual presentation which raised a number of questions. To make sure I went back and reread the main paper and other blog entries. George Siemens’ theory of connectivism is, in my opinion repleat with potential, but certain aspects of his discourse raise questions. Some of his theorizing present a number of oversimplifications and what I consider to be contradictions, or perhaps the wrong choice of words and metaphors. I also felt his views were quite techno-deterministic when I listened to the podcast and this sent me back to reading his papers. Unfortunately rereading didn’t disconfirm my opinion.
Siemens, G. (2005) Connectivism : Rethinking learning in a digital age. Podcast October 19, 2005. University of Manitoba. Retrieved October 24, 2005
George Siemens builds on his Connectivism theory, interpreting today’s technological changes as they conflict with what is still the reality of classrooms and organizations. His main concerns relate to what he calls the wrong focus, content instead of conduit or pipe. What Marshal McLuhan coined wrongly according to some: the medium IS the message.
I did appreciate the different visual models presented (complex, complicated, chaos and simple) and learning domains (accretion, transmission, acquisition, emergence) but viewing these as an evolutionary model is in my opinion inaccurate. There is a strong bias to position the Connectivism model (accretion) at the top or front of the evolutionary hierarchy or movement based on the logic of change from simple to complex.
Where I think it falls short is where it still presents the one best model. I do believe it would be more profitable to see an accretion model not as a replacement model, but one amongst others who continue to be useful according to context and circumstance. For example to take the most taboo perspective in higher education today, Behaviourism is still quite useful. You don’t learn the game of football, dance classical ballet, learn typing or accounting for example by constructing your own version of it, or by discovery, you learn rules, formulas or repeat movements untill you get it. Accretion is not a useful notion to understand these.
His notion of pattern recognition must follow an ability to master certain types of knowledge before one can piece these together in a pattern, emphasizing learning tasks that pre-date pattern recognition.
In slide #18 Siemens presents the problem of ‘amateur contributions’ as an information quality control problem. Aside from limiting access to contributors with gatekeepers, new roles in information management will be needed. Collective filtering and revising (see previous posting), will need more refinement. There is no all encompassing solution other than building discerning skills in readers, and yes using your resource network as orienting and validating mechanisms.
In this same slide he also speaks of the Vacuum or Echo effect of filtering out what we don’t want to read or see or hear, and only seeing what reflects our point of view. Both Andrew Keen and Nicolas Carr are of similar opinion on this one.
Slide 19: Start with process end with content, is an incomplete view of how knowledge should be structured for learning. The processual approach he advocates provides a useful recommendation to balance pedagogy that is too content driven. However, process without the structure of content to inform it, inadequately represents the multiplicity of elements that mediate and shape process, all needing attention. This is an oversimplification.
Finally, the whole concept is wrapped in a technological understanding of learning to an extent that it overrides a more nuanced view of learning. Techno immersed individuals are not a global reality. This is an educated white collar view of the world. Learning continues to happen in places where knowledge artefacts are primarily mediated by people in F2F encounters. Revisions may be necessary to a theory of distributed learning that I continue tol believe has potential once it is more nuanced.