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.