Connectivism reflections

Part of the work to do for this next session on Friday was to look at some pieces discussing 'connectivism', a learning theory which has been applied to various internet based learning technologies.

The first piece I read was Siemens (2005), where the theory of connectivism is discussed in detail and laid out. In particular the key points seemed to me to be:

1. Connectivism relies on learning being interpreted as a network of nodes and connections. These nodes can be viewed as "thoughts, feelings, interactions or new data".

2. How these nodes are connected, and how strongly, can be influenced by a number of factors, including emotions, motivation, exposure, logic, experience and patterning. This seems to be important in that it does credit each learner as an individual, with different approaches and motivations.

3. There are principles of networked learning: These are directly listed below from the piece:

"Principle 1: Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions. Principle 2: Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources. Principle 3: Learning may reside in non-human appliances. Principle 4: Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known Principle 5: Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning. Principle 6: Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill. Principle 7: Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities. Principle 8: Decision-making is itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the decision."

The second piece I read was by Kopf. This piece was more recent than Siemens, but I wasn't able to see a date (although certain references within the article were from 2012). This article was concentrating on the relevance and potential application of connectivism to learning technologies, particularly within the higher education arena. The key points were:

1. Students are now "D-I-Y" learners - ie they are able to access information independently and don't need a tutor to simply impart information to them. (not sure on this one. I do believe students have the capacity to be DIY learners, but this is not the same thing).

Various learning technology methodologies, eg MOOCs, podcast based learning or simulation software (such as Second Life etc) are emerging as potentially strong ways to improve students learning and enjoyment of learning.



Reflections on these pieces: 
What did I think? Firstly, I can see certain positive points to connectivism as a theory (there seems to be much debate as to whether or not it qualifies as a learning theory, but as a newcomer to this it gives me a headache to try and adjudicate on that argument myself!). The points I think are eminently sensible in this representation of learning, along with some reflections from my own experiences of learning and teaching are:

• This theory allows people to be people, and not machines. It credits that many factors will influence how somebody learns, not only in the manner in which they will organise information, but also in the fact that learning is influenced by dynamic, irrational and 'messy' things such as motivation and emotions. This to me is obvious; if somebody is not in the right emotional frame of mind to learn, they will simply not be able to learn as well as when they are. 
• Siemens emphasises that learning is a dynamic process and is continuously changing. This again to me seems obvious, as seeing student's progressions from simply knowing a fact to being able to apply that fact, appreciate its wider context and critically analyse it makes this clear.
• This theory does seem to be built on the foundation of constructivism (that people develop their knowledge as an individual, often in response to different methods of input from person to person - an idea I find far more sensible than the 'black box' approach to the human brain), however I struggle a bit with where this theory differs: both credit the learner and the teacher as being individuals who collaborate to produce learning, but to me there are so many variables in connectivism that it could be assimilated to constructivism almost entirely or equally described as entirely different. 
• Lastly, I find the fact that both pieces describe learning as complex, confusing and even messy completely reassuring. After all, if we were all a simple black box with defined inputs and outputs wouldn't we all have worked out the most effective ways to learn?!

So onto a slightly more critical angle... As discussed above, I do find that aspects of this theory align reasonably well with  my own ideas on learning. But how do I think this resonates with my practices? I suppose one huge disclaimer I have is that I have to teach students two basic things: Firstly I have to teach them how to pass exams, and secondly I have to teach how treat patients (in both the technical sense and emotional sense!). Whilst we try as far as possible to align these two skills, the fact remains that often students can be excellent at writing examination answers, but find face to face treatment much harder, or vice versa. Therefore one large caveat I see for learning technologies and the application of this learning theory as discussed by Kopf is do these technologies really teach students how to relate to actual real life people?! Maybe not. I appreciate this may not be what they are intended for, and I certainly agree that things such as online courses, podcasts etc can be hugely useful if designed well from an information dissemination and engagement point of view, often for what I am trying to teach, they may be inappropriate. I do try to encourage students to learn from everything they encounter - whether this is something they do well, an exam which went horribly wrong, or something as simple as a social interaction with a patient, therefore this aligns well with social constructivism and probably also connectivism.

Overall I did find this reading very interesting, and it has sparked a lot of trains of thought (both positive and negative) towards the ideas discussed. From a scientific point of view, I find the fact that somebody can imagine a network as a model of learning and then go on to describe imaginary connections as being 'found to be short' etc rather troubling...! This reading has highlighted to me that again, learning technologies when understood, designed and implemented well have a place in HE. I'm just concerned that it is a smaller place than Kopf believes it is (until we converse and seek medical care in an entirely virtual reality!); for now, I think our jobs are safe...