Chris Lott

I’ve been following the 2008 Connectivism and Connected Knowledge course (see course blog, daily newsletter, wiki, aggregation page, and Moodle course page with forum) from an intellectual distance enforced by having too many other things going on at the start of a very busy local semester. As with other ventures along these lines (though none that I’ve seen have operated at this scale and, so far, this intensely) the flood of discussion and resources was immediately overwhelming… but the discussion hasn’t spent as much time as I feared going over the same old ground.

At the same time, it’s clear that despite the volume there is considerable disagreement, misunderstanding, and misapprehension about what these two theories do and do not mean. Alan’s recent post talking about the role of memory is a good case in point. My understanding of Connectivism doesn’t suggest that memory isn’t or shouldn’t be an important part of learning, but that it has a potentially different, additional role when what we remember is also information potentially accessible to other "network nodes" in a connected environment– each of which have their own memory as well– and that the primacy of some kinds of memorization in some kinds of operating situations is open to question, memorization sometimes being an artificial constraint that is just accepted as a prior practice. That’s just my take; these kinds of questions and ruminations being considered by a large group of interested, but not all Confirmed Connectivismists will probably be the single greatest outcome of this Massively Open Online Course.

Inevitably, too, there is the question of the scope of these theories. As I see it, Stephen is positing a wider epistemological theory that is intended to supplant, rehabilitate, and colonize more than George’s theory, which to my mind builds on– but is less exclusive of– other and previous theory. Stephen is clearly more politically radical (in terms of being a break from existing theory). The difference is non-trivial, with ramifications for addressing issues like the role of memory that Alan brings up. I’ve always seen Connectivism as adding to a variety of other theories and their resulting practices that are not eclipsed but remain useful; any one of them alone leading to at least insufficiency, if not outright educational travesty.

Last week we had George Siemens, czar of Connectivism, on-site at the Center for Distance Education as our most recent visiting scholar.

Except for a disagreement about Marc Prensky (I think he’s a polemicist/provocateur/gadfly who deserves a tip of the hat in passing; I suspect George would happily put him in a head crusher) I found that most of what George presented to and discussed with us resonated with my evolving view of education, teaching and learning. That’s no surprise given that I’ve been talking about Connectivism and Connected Knowledge since their early days (this dialogue between George and Stephen Downes is another part of the puzzle, as are some of the conversations that took place during the online Connectivism Conference, such as this Challenge to Connectivism thread). If nothing else I knew it had to be a good thing for faculty and staff to hear some of these ideas from someone other than me!

Despite all that, and it being my suggestion that we try to bring George up, I was a bit skeptical. I’m naturally suspicious of all good ideas that are not my own, particularly when they come under the umbrella of a clever coinage, and George is a seemingly tireless presenter. Frankly, I was concerned that he might be more salesman and sophist than educator and theorist.

My concerns were for naught. I’m sympathetic to Bill Kerr’s continued questioning of Connectivism, particularly these three basic queries (as I would rank them in ascending order of importance):

1. is Connectivism really a learning theory
2. have the important parts of Connectivism already been covered (and possibly covered better) by earlier thinkers such as Papert and Vygotsky
3. does Connectivism misrepresent constructivism and other earlier pedagogical theories

But I’m not sure that resolving those questions matters as much to me as the productivity of Connectivism as a lens for examining and transforming educational practice. George made regular, accurate references to those that had come before (his ability to do so on the fly while making relevant points without just throwing citations around and name-dropping as some do was impressive) and I see what he is promoting as building upon– not throwing away– earlier theories. All I can do is continue my own investigations and if something dissonant comes up I’ll ask him about it.

Connectivism in practice is the key question. As I said, the theory/model resonates with me and fits with my experience not just as teacher, but also as a learner. The latter might even be more important. I see Connectivism as an essential part of a fabric that includes social networks, learning communities, information fluency, and Third Places. But what does it mean to a faculty member on the ground teaching class X to a diverse group of students? How specifically can they engage (or take into account) Connectivist theory? What will students be doing and how will they be assessed?

We’re working towards answers to these questions with individual course development efforts and it might be that generalized answers aren’t possible beyond those many of us are already promoting: educational conversation, collaboration, network resource building, etc. Educational blogging (the practice encapsulating micro-publishing, syndication, and subscription)– for learner and educator alike– is certainly a fundamental practice, a platform upon which we can share the answers we discover…