Thinking out loud about Connectivism — from iterating toward openness by David Wiley

The first part of commentary from David:

I’ve been reading George’s writing on the unique ideas in connectivism. Two assertions leap out at me in his list of how connectivism is different from other approaches.

First is the statement that “the same structure of learning that creates neural connections can be found in how we link ideas and in how we connect to people and information sources (emphasis DSC). One scepter to rule them all.”

This sounds almost exactly like the claim made in John Anderson and Lael Schooler’s 1991 Reflections of the Environment in Memory, which I consider one of the finest pieces of research in our field:

Availability of human memories for specific items shows reliable relationships to frequency, recency, and pattern of prior exposures to the item. These relationships have defied a systematic theoretical treatment. A number of environmental sources (New York Times, parental speech, electronic mail) are examined to show that the probability that a memory will be needed also shows reliable relationships to frequency, recency, and pattern of prior exposures. Moreover, the environmental relationships are the same as the memory relationships. It is argued that human memory has the form it does because it is adapted to these environmental relationships. Models for both the environment and human memory are described. Among the memory phenomena addressed are the practice function, the retention function, the effect of spacing of practice, and the relationship between degree of practice and retention.

From DSC:
David’s posting, George’s posting entitled,
What is the unique idea in Connectivism?”, and the comments therein create in my mind the image of a living, ever-changing, learning ecosystem…full of “nodes” that come into (and may eventually be removed from) our learning environment / sources of information.

Also from #CCK09 First Paper (Draft): ‘Positioning’ Connectivism, here are some more references regarding connectivism:

Three Generations of Distance Education Pedagogy
Facilitator: Dr. Terry Anderson
Institution: Athabasca University
Date and time: Apr 14, 2010 11:00 AM
In this presentation Terry defines three pedagogical models that have defined distance education programming – behavioural/cognitive, constructivist and connectivist. He talks about the challenges and opportunity afforded by each model, with a focus on the emergent development of connectivism.

Past CIDER Sessions PowerPoint Presentation

Past CIDER Sessions Elluminate Recording

Past CIDER Sessions MP3 Recording

Past CIDER Sessions Text chat from Session

Tagged with:  

Narratives of Coherence: Teaching and learning in networks– from George Siemens

“In preparation for a course at Athabasca University on Teaching and Learning in Social and Technological Networks (as part of an institution-wide pilot of the (sort of) open source social network service ELGG dubbed that we’ve dubbed the Landing), I’ve been spending a fair bit of time reflecting on how the role of a teacher is impacted by networks. In particular, how can we achieve the learning goals expected by advisory or curricular boards when we relinquish structural control of content and conversations? I’ve posted my thoughts here: Narratives of coherence: teaching and learning in networks.”

Tagged with:  
Tagged with:  

From DSC: A couple of interesting/recent quotes jumped out at me as being very true:

  1. From a webinar that I just learned about which is later tonight entitled “New Learning Communities: Theoretical Frameworks”:
    A landscape of new tools has lead to entirely new forms of communication. Learning itself is a ‘mashup.’ Teaching and communicating using online tools creates a conversation that takes place in a cloud. New learning skills and styles emerge. This presentation will introduce three concepts especially relevant to teaching and learning in this potentially overwhelming context: learning ecosystems, organizational biomimicry, and connectivism. This is a concise introduction to what’s new in learning and communication and is meant to provide the background knowledge to support changes in practice.
  2. From Mark Berthelemy’s Reflections on Learning Technologies 2010
    We like our systems. I like systems. They help us feel in control of things. Sometimes they’re even useful. The trouble is, the individual process of learning just doesn’t fit nicely in systems. Learning is messy. It happens at the oddest times, for the strangest reasons. Trying to systemise learning is like trying to pick up milk in your hands. Yes, some of it might stick, but that will be the exception rather than the rule.

From DSC:
“Learning itself is a ‘mashup.'” “Learning is messy”. After the numerous learning theories I’ve seen, and the myriad of perspectives regarding what works in education, I’m beginning to agree with these statements. There’s just as much art in teaching & learning as there is science. If someone can prove me wrong here, I’d love it. Give us a clean picture of how people are learning today and it would really help.

I’m wondering if we could create a system that would allow an educator to input which models of learning they believe in, for which subject, and ask them to input some other parameters, and the system/database would recommend some possible learning plans/ideas for them (based upon how they wanted to relay a topic). Hmmm…not sure though…

Anyway, from the items I mentioned above — as well as from my studies in my “Instructional Design for Online Learning” Masters program — I’m just not seeing any kind of silver bullets out there! 🙂

Tagged with:  
© 2024 | Daniel Christian