tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post4788165533270616192..comments2024-03-29T08:44:12.249-04:00Comments on Half an Hour: Connectivism as Learning TheoryStephen Downeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06140591903467372209noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-58069605537862806082021-07-18T13:31:53.173-04:002021-07-18T13:31:53.173-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-69709915170045410002021-06-01T17:03:59.174-04:002021-06-01T17:03:59.174-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.umairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15705729898144754991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-50329211051265314232021-05-23T07:38:48.749-04:002021-05-23T07:38:48.749-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Zohaib malikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06910145537604870292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-5290210176392819652021-04-17T09:54:03.688-04:002021-04-17T09:54:03.688-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-91643828421695872682021-04-14T06:58:22.148-04:002021-04-14T06:58:22.148-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.ziyyaraedutechhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15440038962098802924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-38326320578795901672017-04-10T09:37:12.602-04:002017-04-10T09:37:12.602-04:00As far as I can gather and I stand to be corrected...As far as I can gather and I stand to be corrected, Connectivism is collaborative learning and as the name suggests, it connects people from different areas and different walks of life. I took out of it that not only while the learning topic may be the same, the learning experience of each of the individuals in the learning are all going to be different because each of the learners will bring their own previous experience and previous learning with them. That while people may be experiencing life events at more or less the same way, their learning is informed and coloured by the experiences that others bring to the learning and this may be vastly different as they may be from different locations and connected because the internet enabled it. Learners may never ever meet in this lifetime but they are connected and may be more connected to each other in ways that they will may never have connected had they been in the same space on a university campus. The topic may be the same but the perspective from which they share their learning is coloured by the lives millions of miles apart. I find this fascinating about Connectivism as it makes for a world that is tolerant of others. <br /><br />Is it also correct to say that Connectivism requires us to engage with the higher levels of Blooms Taxonomy, that of creation, analyzing and synthesizing. <br /><br />Connectivism does however require an independent and more mature learner who is autonomous and self-motivated. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16862045921697006982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-12663463284845090662017-04-10T09:36:53.410-04:002017-04-10T09:36:53.410-04:00As far as I can gather and I stand to be corrected...As far as I can gather and I stand to be corrected, Connectivism is collaborative learning and as the name suggests, it connects people from different areas and different walks of life. I took out of it that not only while the learning topic may be the same, the learning experience of each of the individuals in the learning are all going to be different because each of the learners will bring their own previous experience and previous learning with them. That while people may be experiencing life events at more or less the same way, their learning is informed and coloured by the experiences that others bring to the learning and this may be vastly different as they may be from different locations and connected because the internet enabled it. Learners may never ever meet in this lifetime but they are connected and may be more connected to each other in ways that they will may never have connected had they been in the same space on a university campus. The topic may be the same but the perspective from which they share their learning is coloured by the lives millions of miles apart. I find this fascinating about Connectivism as it makes for a world that is tolerant of others. <br /><br />Is it also correct to say that Connectivism requires us to engage with the higher levels of Blooms Taxonomy, that of creation, analyzing and synthesizing. <br /><br />Connectivism does however require an independent and more mature learner who is autonomous and self-motivated. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16862045921697006982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-57156843614412738822017-04-10T05:04:07.268-04:002017-04-10T05:04:07.268-04:00Hi Stephen. What I find particularly insightful ab...Hi Stephen. What I find particularly insightful about connectivism is that knowledge is described as the connections we have access to. I agree with your comment to Ken in 2014 that more connections don't necessarily mean better connections. Successful networks are reliable networks because knowledge rests in a diversity of opinions and learning is more critical than knowing. I also agree with the comment you made in one of your YouTube videos that "knowledge is something that is recognised and needs a perceiver" - and that different perceivers will look at the same information and interpret it differently. Different perceivers will see different things in the information at hand because they come from different backgrounds and/or may have different prior knowledge to another perceiver. This is brilliant because it is true. Not only does this open up new ways of growing connections but also that also very insightful because learners do look at the same information and have different interpretations which furthers the development of connections and provides the learners with a global and holistic view on any given topic. Knowledge is built/constructed whereas networks are grown, developed, nurtured. Knowledge is not transferred because it isn’t a “thing” – it is a process of growth and development that happens when learners connect to a network.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01427544876416052969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-80946684787861048662017-04-10T05:03:29.112-04:002017-04-10T05:03:29.112-04:00Hi Stephen. What I find particularly insightful ab...Hi Stephen. What I find particularly insightful about connectivism is that knowledge is described as the connections we have access to. I agree with your comment to Ken in 2014 that more connections don't necessarily mean better connections. Successful networks are reliable networks because knowledge rests in a diversity of opinions and learning is more critical than knowing. I also agree with the comment you made in one of your YouTube videos that "knowledge is something that is recognised and needs a perceiver" - and that different perceivers will look at the same information and interpret it differently. Different perceivers will see different things in the information at hand because they come from different backgrounds and/or may have different prior knowledge to another perceiver. This is brilliant because it is true. Not only does this open up new ways of growing connections but also that also very insightful because learners do look at the same information and have different interpretations which furthers the development of connections and provides the learners with a global and holistic view on any given topic. Knowledge is built/constructed whereas networks are grown, developed, nurtured. Knowledge is not transferred because it isn’t a “thing” – it is a process of growth and development that happens when learners connect to a network.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01427544876416052969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-61665791953950550152017-04-08T12:38:46.377-04:002017-04-08T12:38:46.377-04:00Reasoning with the fore discussion, connectivisim ...Reasoning with the fore discussion, connectivisim is a learning theory whose emergence is as a result of the integration of computers in the business of teaching and learning. It is therefore specific and distinct from other learning theories – Behaviourism, Cognitivism and Constructivism. These three other learning theories have generalised the way people learning.<br />I will agree with George Siemens in his article, Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age, that “Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill” of connectivism. Thus, by the theory of connectivism, the individual initiates the learning process.<br /><br />What I do not seem to get is, how the theory (connectivism) can be a ‘standalone’ taken into cognisance of the fact that nodes in a network is not a standalone, and also inferring from my quote above from Siemens’ article. One’s “ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill” has to do with the use the brain (mind) and to prove that one has learned is to demonstrate. These you have concurred in your explanations to behaviourism, instructivism and constructivism in the discussion above.<br />Could you clarify this dilemma for me pease?<br /> Monas Alloteyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01835463889566302028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-62879843508812154212017-04-04T19:40:43.968-04:002017-04-04T19:40:43.968-04:00I concur that the 21st century learning landscape ...I concur that the 21st century learning landscape has been transformed by technology's new kid on the block , Connectivism. I do applaud the up-to-the minute and diverse nature of the knowledge that a learner is afforded by this space at the click of the button ( Terms and Conditions: As long as one can navigate the net). However, I am not convinced by the claims that Connectivism makes about it being different from the theories that predate it. I find it a hybrid of mainly Constructivism, as noted above by Naseerah; in the sense that it has echoes of Vygotsky's "expert other" in its assertion that:<br /> "learning is the formation of connections...in a network... <br /> between two entities...a change in one entity can cause a change of state in the second entity." <br /><br />The entity that causes the change suggests the expert other , in this case, the network 'community'. The "brains adjust" to the dictates of this network.Such learning is technologically enhanced, as it is determined by the existing networks thus, in a state of flux. That on its own , while it has sparks of positivty ( up-to date information) also brings a question to the academic validity and authenticity of the knowledge accessed through the many sources one is exposed to on the net. Maybe the challenge in Downes'article is that the 'net' learner should know where to find reliable information. What intrigues me in Downes' article is the Hebbian rule -"What fires together, wires together" suggesting the notion of a schema- a cognitivist lens to learning. The " wires" have a semblance of the schemata - an enabling condition for learning in a Cognitivist terrain which is somehow an enabling environment for learning to occur in a Connectivist one. Connection forming or networking suggests to me a social 'presence' just as constructivism subscribes to the notion that learning is first a social construct before it can be appropriated on the individual plane.Connectivism further posits that "the ability to see connections between fields, ideas" is crucial to learning.Isn't that realisation, "the ability to see", a form of a schema? So, in a way, Connectivism speaks to Constructivism. In a number of ways I find it a version of Constructivism, one that is technologically inclined. <br />Please explain how learning occurs in Connectivism. How does learning take place in Connectivism? Busisiwe Dongahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02973596544830572774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-59079778951865674652017-04-03T15:03:52.482-04:002017-04-03T15:03:52.482-04:00The main features of connectivisim are chaos, netw...The main features of connectivisim are chaos, network, complexity and self-organization. According to connectivisim, knowledge resides outside ourselves. It is focused on connecting specialised information sets and connections that enable us to learn. New information is continually being acquired, some of these alters the landscape based on decisions made yesterday. It works with a distributed cognition theory. It sees cognitive revolution as the central concept of psychology. With connectivisim we are moving away from learning something an individual does towards a social phenomenon located in cultural practices and relationships between people. This draws on the concepts laid out by Vygotsky as he believed that learning is socially created. Social processes are internalized to form cognition. The mind is not seen as the same as the brain and central nervous system. The mind is distributed across all different entities that make up any human activity. Learning is embedded in the cultural practice it is situated in. The learning design for ICT is collaborative learning. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03980959415136344534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-75058816792259923212016-11-17T16:20:38.014-05:002016-11-17T16:20:38.014-05:00I love this topic and would like to add an element...I love this topic and would like to add an element, which makes it more accessible to everyone. By adopting a learning as inquiry approach and diving in head first. Only then might we trust in the 'collective wisdom' of the crowd. In the context of Education, and full adoption of the connectivist approach to knowledge, communication between students and teachers is the lifeblood of what we do. We may be so perceptive as to admit in our most honest of moments that the act of communication too has been corrupted by the desire for acknowledgement, recognition, and reward. True social learning cannot take place in conditions where the ego still exists. Numerous Educational Institutes have attempted to traverse the pathless land of personal and professional knowledge formation through various connectivist blended learning approaches. However, what seems to still be lacking in practice is a focus on listening. When one listens, one listens for the “source” of the voice. Not just the name, the form, the capitalization opportunity, but the true wisdom of the synchronicity of that connection can a truer definition of learning can occur.<br /><br /><br />As further caveat, I believe it will be the juxtaposition of the added element of a trust in the anonymity, and synchronicity of the learning experience. Only then can we step forward and devour the beautiful fruition of the collective wisdom of the crowd. <br /><br /><br />Its definitely a great time to be an educator, and I’m excited about the next step!Regan Duffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02860557733263568628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-30351423444574228932015-08-22T08:30:45.554-04:002015-08-22T08:30:45.554-04:00I appreciate that theory is not a set of instructi...I appreciate that theory is not a set of instructions, a theory of learning is not a method of teaching. I wish that idea were more widely accepted. It's not even entirely accepted in the very course of assuming it we see above.<br /><br />The version of connectivism offered here seems oddly physicalist: learning is entirely different now that students don't memorize vocab sheets or sit facing a blackboard. (A) many still do, and (B) even memorization in the past was not the be-all end-all of learning. <br /><br />Presumably, learning has always been the same, it's only teaching practices that differed. So the theory of learning being detailed here through teaching methods is oddly out of sync with the very key assumption with which the presentation starts. <br /><br />It also seems like a weak point that there's no such theory as "instructivism." It seems to be offered here as a straw man. "Instructivism" is required here to make it seem like BC (Before Constructivism) no one ever thought knowledge was a a mental model, a network, and whatever else connectivism might want to say.<br /><br />In short, it seems to make more sense to say "our social arrangements and communication technologies have changed" than it does to say 'now we know that learning is the construction of mental models' or 'now we know that knowledge is a network.' (And people have been saying that learning involves building mental models long before constructivism, so that does not seem to distinguish constructivism as a theory, if indeed it is a theory, of learning.)<br /><br />When writing was more strongly linear, a line seemed like a good model for knowledge. And now that our communication technologies are structured like networks, it seems more sense to think of knowledge as a network. But these are displaced physical descriptions of the material form knowledge takes projected onto some 'underlying' idea of what knowledge is. <br /><br />Perhaps that is why the explanation of connectivism as a theory of learning needs constantly to refer implicitly to methods: the network model is doing double duty on both sides, and so the very effort to maintain a theory of learning/method of instruction distinction keeps collapsing.<br /><br />It still may be useful to say 'knowledge' is a network or to get learners to work in groups.<br /><br />But then no special theory is required to do this.Edward R. O'Neill, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10308521407494524243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-56651200889194358442014-09-09T01:14:47.309-04:002014-09-09T01:14:47.309-04:00Jennifer Englund: mentioned this in Countdown to C...<a href="http://jenniferenglund.net/author/admin/" rel="nofollow">Jennifer Englund</a>: mentioned this in <a href="http://jenniferenglund.net/countdown-to-connected-courses/" rel="nofollow">Countdown to Connected Courses</a>. <br> <a href="http://jenniferenglund.net/countdown-to-connected-courses/" rel="nofollow">via jenniferenglund.net</a>Stephen Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06140591903467372209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-33436272719222393232014-05-06T06:51:45.382-04:002014-05-06T06:51:45.382-04:00Ken: yes. That would be accurate. Ken: yes. That would be accurate. Stephen Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06140591903467372209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-54299586389490668192014-05-05T20:58:02.873-04:002014-05-05T20:58:02.873-04:00So I am thinking that rather than 'apply' ...So I am thinking that rather than 'apply' connectivism in a classroom, a teacher might better 'permit' or 'foster' an environment wherein the network properties (autonomy etc.) would thrive, thus permitting the emergence of the sweet spot of connectivity and optimal organization of the nodal connections. Does this sound accurate? Ken Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04751260562041067681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-77052194471530708862014-05-05T20:56:28.909-04:002014-05-05T20:56:28.909-04:00So I am thinking that rather than 'apply' ...So I am thinking that rather than 'apply' connectivism in a classroom, a teacher might better 'permit' or 'foster' an environment wherein the network properties (autonomy etc.) would thrive, thus permitting the emergence of the sweet spot and optimal organization. Ken Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04751260562041067681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-62681957972342054992014-05-05T06:42:44.934-04:002014-05-05T06:42:44.934-04:00No it doesn't, Ken. More is not better when it...No it doesn't, Ken. More is not better when it comes to connections. For any given set of nodes, there is a 'sweet spot' of connectivity. Learning is the management of the connections around that sweet spot, organizing them optimally.Stephen Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06140591903467372209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-59930586363820781272014-05-04T22:12:11.315-04:002014-05-04T22:12:11.315-04:00"They see a person learning as a self-managed..."They see a person learning as a self-managed and autonomous seeker of opportunities to create, interact and have new experiences, where learning is not the accumulation of more and more facts or memories, but the ongoing development of a richer and richer neural tapestry."<br /><br />Does this mean that learning is the accumulation of connections, rather than facts or memories?Ken Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04751260562041067681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-50586631838550153032014-05-04T22:07:33.133-04:002014-05-04T22:07:33.133-04:00"They see a person learning as a self-managed..."They see a person learning as a self-managed and autonomous seeker of opportunities to create, interact and have new experiences, where learning is not the accumulation of more and more facts or memories, but the ongoing development of a richer and richer neural tapestry."<br /><br />Does this mean that learning is the accumulation of connections, rather that facts or memories?Ken Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04751260562041067681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-74768424692704194092014-05-02T13:00:10.327-04:002014-05-02T13:00:10.327-04:00What you describe as a very simple learning phenom...What you describe as a very simple learning phenomenon is actually a very complex learning phenomenon.<br /><br />Moreover, it is complicated by the fact that there is no single event that constitutes "A student responds to the equation "1+1 = ?" with "2""<br /><br />If you wanted I could give you a very rough connectivist account:<br />- a student is presented with n instances of a training set with input '1+1=' and output '2'<br />- in instance n+2 the student is provided with input '1+1='<br />- the student responds '2'<br /><br />The connectivist literature is full of examples like that. But of course this does not (except in a very trivial sense) represent the understanding of numbers of of addition that is implies with 1+1=2<br /><br /><br /><br />Stephen Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06140591903467372209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-84550205248146713332014-05-02T11:01:14.349-04:002014-05-02T11:01:14.349-04:00Yep, that's pretty much, what I meant by theor...Yep, that's pretty much, what I meant by theorems: If-Then-statements or principles. If you can, please provide a deductive-nomological account of any one learning phenomenon (e. g. the one I stated or one of your choice) using connectivist thinking (or theorems/statements/principles, whatever you may want to call it). If such an account is not possible, then please provide the most stringent explanation for any learning phenomenon (or the one i mentioned) you can come up with.<br /><br />I'm primarily looking for specific (and simple) instances of explanations here that employ connectivist statements (theorems/principles/etc). I'd like to see its explanatory power demonstrated.<br /><br />I'll provide a rough sketch of an explanation for my example using behaviorist and cognitivist thinking, just to give an idea of what I mean by an explanation. I'd like to see an analogous account of the phenomenon using connectivist ideas. <br /><br />A behaviorist account could be something along these lines: <br /><br />Performance: <br />The response "2" can be thought of simply as a conditioned response to the stimulus "1+1=?". When presented with that stimulus, the response "2" is triggered. <br /><br />Acquisition:<br />This kind of stimulus-response-coupling can be acquired by the mechanism of operant conditioning as mentioned in your article above.<br /><br />A cognitivist account of the phenomenon could be something like this (deploying ideas from John R. Andersons ACT-R cognitive architecture, without some knowledge about ACT-R this is probably hard to understand): <br /><br />Acquisition:<br />A student reads the statement "1+1=2" (for example in a text book), this information thus is enters the visual module (note: the cognitive system is made up of specialized modules in ACT-R) and is then encoded as a chunk in declarative memory that can be retrieved later on.<br /><br />Performance:<br />When the student is presented with "1+1=?" this information enters the visual modules buffer. ACT-Rs pattern matching capability then compares this partial chunk in the visual buffer to the chunks available in declarative memory and finds a partial match (utilizing ACT-R's spreading activation mechanism for memory search) to the "1+1=2"-chunk stored there during the acquisition phase. Other production rules then map the "?" in the presented stimulus/chunk to the corresponding part in the memorized chunk (i. e. "2") and generate the (let's say written) response using the manual module.<br /><br />No matter how incomplete and crude these explanations may be (I happily concede that, but more detailed and stringent explanations can be found in the literature), please try to sketch out an explanation using connectivist thinking that is at least as crude an incomplete for this very simple learning phenomenon.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08529780376742722264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-79493033945749878442014-05-02T09:39:41.054-04:002014-05-02T09:39:41.054-04:00> I hope it's fairly evident that an expla...> I hope it's fairly evident that an explanation is possible within those frameworks<br /><br />I think it's far from evident but you're welcome to try.<br /><br />> this observable phenomen can readily be explained with theories from behaviorism and cognitivism <br /><br />Why 'theorems'? What exactly do you mean by theorems? Are you offering a deductive-nomonological model where explanations come exclusively in the form of general principle+initial conditions?<br /><br />Stephen Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06140591903467372209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-86047526313085328882014-05-02T09:28:48.021-04:002014-05-02T09:28:48.021-04:00Stephen, a learning theory is supposed to provide ...Stephen, a learning theory is supposed to provide an explanans to an explanandum within the domain of learning phenomenons. So let's put connectivism, as a learning theory, to the test with this simple explanandum: <br /><br />A student responds to the equation "1+1 = ?" with "2" - this type of knowledge can be learned, right? I hope you agree with me, that this observable phenomen can readily be explained with theories from behaviorism and cognitivism (If so desired, I can supply suitable explanans, but I hope it's fairly evident that an explanation is possible within those frameworks).<br /><br />I'd like you to explain within your connectivist approach<br />(1) how such knowledge is acquired and <br />(2) how performance is accomplished. <br /><br />Please do so, by stating the required theorems.<br />Thanks!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08529780376742722264noreply@blogger.com