Why Connectivism is not a Learning Theory

Firstly, the question of how to label Connectivism is an important one because this affects how people connect with the theory. As a relatively young theory, its growth, acceptance, employment and how people actually understand Connectivism all depend partially on how it is represented. Representing a theory inaccurately limits the quality of the potential connections made with that theory, an insurmountable obstacle for such a theory that is concerned with the creation of successful networks and connections of specific quality to support this success. Secondly, to be clear, my position isn’t one of anti-Connectivism. To say that Connectivism is not a learning theory is not to devalue the theory. I seek to clarify what Connectivism is and to hopefully bring up some questions, presenting it as a fundamental theory of Education, not Learning.

Education is Intention

There are any number of network types in the world: Restaurant Franchises, Delivery Networks, even Networks of Excellence. All are particular instances of applied network theory, and Connectivism is the instance that is applied to Education. In any type of educational system, intent permeates the process of learning. This intent is the source of structure that is a part of all education to some degree; in simply stating a topic for study it begins the building of boundaries on learning. The way that structure guides educational learning towards its intent is to use the qualities of connections to shape itself. Via connections, structure presents content in select ways, providing learners with avenues to navigate through a course. In the past, these routes were limited; since the boom of information technology the number of qualities has become much more complex, calling for a theory like Connectivism to help make sense of the map. Connections themselves relate to learning in a binary way: with connections a learner can learn, without connections they cannot. Connections need to be driven by structure and intent in order for Educators to be able to grow, develop and describe successful networks. Education is in tension between intention and learning, and connections act as agents on behalf of structure to work for the quality of learning in education.

Distribution follows Distinction

That knowledge is distributed is one of the key characteristics of Connectivism. The emergence of Connectivism in recent years as an important theory can be partially connected to the ability for information to sit more accessible in current learning technologies than it has been able to in past technologies such as oral language and static printed word. However, distributed knowledge cannot avoid the distinction of intent. Unique educational networks distinguish themselves by their intention or purpose, thus different networks place unequal values on knowledge. Knowledge that contributes to the success of one educational network, may contribute more, less or even harm the success of another. The connections between distinguished networks, which value knowledge differently, must accommodate for this discrepancy of value. Looking at it from a human learner perspective, we all are a part of endless networks upon networks. For example, the network that is my mind must somehow connect with the network of a group of MOOC participants, and to do this in this example, through a connection I need to use a system of representation to receive and communicate certain values about knowledge between both networks. It is not exact, it is approximate, but there is no other way to do this since the distinction of intent dictates different measures for success and thus different values on knowledge for different networks. Learning in Educational Networks involves a measurement, representation, a playing out of that learning that connections cannot translate.

Representation Matters

Connectivism, which includes the separation of meaning and representation, cannot say anything about actual learning. Learning is a term of high approximation, that doesn’t fit in with the exact or pure approach of “non-representational” Connectivism. The theory of Connectivism certainly includes representation, but only in so much as it affects or adds to the quality of intentional messages of a connection. The realm of a learner includes representation as a medium to translate the values of knowledge that the individual learner understands and expresses as their own learning to compare with the various networks they are a part of. To interpret actual learning and collect concepts based on observed learning is the role of a learning theory, and these tasks lie outside the capabilities of Connectivism. In the tension between structure and learning, a learning theory will communicate with an educational theory (design strategy, educator roles, etc) in order to produce a successful network or system. The role of Connectivism, working as an access agent for structure, is on the educational side of this tension, receiving its direction from along a spectrum of ideas that could be applied to a range of complexity in educational concepts or ideas. Explained much better than I can by Richard Feynman in this video (starting at 1:20), a hierarchy of ideas and concepts probably has a lot to do with the more modern complexity theory. I would suggest that ideas like Learning and Learning Theories lie at the more abstract end of the hierarchy, where Connectivism is at the fundamental end, being as fundamental as a social science like education would allow.

The Values of Learning

Taking into account the approximate quality of intentional learning, and the representation needed to interpret this learning into distinct educational networks, Connectivism is best situated to concern itself with the quality of access to distributed knowledge, not with how learners learn. This is illustrated in structure’s dependence on connections to present quality to serve intent, and further reflected by the objectives of Connectivism to grow, develop and describe successful networks. Success in an educational system can only be measured with respect to the intent of that system. Thus, Connectivism is linked to the structural, design side of education, not the side of individuals or Learning.

Connectivism and Learning do have a relationship, or better put Connectivism has an important view of learning. Concern for quality of access is not learning. The ability or the capacity to use connections or the actual use of connections is not learning either. Connections influence actual learning, they control the limits of what can be learned, even strongly provide such things as efficiency or motivation, but to consider this learning is mislabeled. Learning is what plays out, the change as a result of using connections, among other things. The presence of connections are one of the things that allow learners to undergo the change in themselves that is learning. Driscoll looks at this change in the light of stand alone performance, or performance potential. Connectivism, which ultimately mediates the types of access to knowledge for learners, views learning free of access concerns: Learning is the change in value of knowledge.

What this all hopefully points to is the nature of Connectivism as a fundamental Theory of Education, one that shapes structure and access to information. Connectivism is a theory that sets limits on the potential of learning so that education can be directed ever closer to an ideal intention. The relationship to learning might be thought of as the rules of a sport to an actual game. A sport like basketball values certain skills, so basic rules were put in place to let those skills determine the outcome of the game. Rules are fine-tuned to maximize the values of these skills. For example, the rule that doesn’t allow a player to dribble the ball again after they pick it up can raise the value of the skill of dribbling, since the better dribblers will be able to keep the advantage of movement. However, this particular rule (connection) doesn’t affect a dead-eye 3-point shooter or a 7 foot center as much. A successful game of basketball (judged here by the balance of competition, not by who wins and loses) is set up by the rules, but these rules are not a game itself. The athletes themselves determine what happens in an actual game under the set of rules, just as learners determine what learning takes place among the boundaries of connections. Clarifying access to information, liberating dynamic values of knowledge, Connectivism is a starting point of intentional learning that can anchor the revitalization of education.

Note: Since writing this I have come across this post. I’m trying to find the original…and would also love to read similar postings. (update: here the original)


About these ads

41 thoughts on “Why Connectivism is not a Learning Theory

  1. Pingback: Why #Connectivism is not a Learning Theory | Connectivism | Scoop.it

  2. Pingback: Why #Connectivism is not a Learning Theory | Educational Technology and New Pedagogies | Scoop.it

  3. Pingback: Why #Connectivism is not a Learning Theory | e-learning y aprendizaje para toda la vida | Scoop.it

  4. Pingback: Why #Connectivism is not a Learning Theory | Educación flexible y abierta | Scoop.it

  5. Pingback: Why #Connectivism is not a Learning Theory | Connectivismo | Scoop.it

  6. Pingback: Why #Connectivism is not a Learning Theory | blended learning | Scoop.it

  7. Pingback: Why #Connectivism is not a Learning Theory | UkrEL11 | Scoop.it

  8. Pingback: Why #Connectivism is not a Learning Theory | OER, OEP, MOOC, Openness | Scoop.it

  9. Pingback: Why #Connectivism is not a Learning Theory | Innovations in e-Learning | Scoop.it

  10. Pingback: Why #Connectivism is not a Learning Theory | Connectivism and Networked Learning | Scoop.it

  11. Your perspective continues to be from the paradigm that knowledge is an object and that a learning theory necessarily has to be about its acquisition. You also limit learning to merely intentional acts, when much of what we retrospectively understand as our learning emerged quite unpredictably. That the theory should describe “how people learn” is a demand not held by all threads in the learning theory mosaic–however, connectivism does map the connected landscape with a neural network model of internal representation, so what more could you want?

    You approach your critique from an orthodox and limited view of what a learning theory “should” be. Connectivism, transforms the boundary of what learning entails, and that is its point.

    However, there is one point that you dance around in terms of intentionality. I take the pragmatic rather than positivist stance in claiming that the value of any theory comes in its usefulness. For Reigeluth and others, a learning theory is only useful if it is associated with a methodology, ie a consistent set of actions or prescriptions about how to ground the theory. That is where the intention should lie, not in the theory itself. For example, there is no implicit intent in “situated learning” (which is an accepted learning theory), but there are methods of intent that are consistent with that perspective on learning (eg. problem-based learning).

    Like

    • Thanks for the comment, Ron. I have no problem with knowledge as an object – we all bathe in its qualities and affects. If you mean strictly as a physical object, apart from a few weak metaphors like “avenue” and “route”, I really don’t think there is any overwhelming suggestion of acquisition here. The statement that “Learning is the change in value of knowledge” is not physically bound or restricted to some sort of physical addition at all. I can value knowledge the same way that I can value objects like love or hate.

      I am absolutely limited to intentional learning here, that’s my point. The boundaries that Connectivism is trying to transform stretch over distinctions that it has difficulty accounting for. I chose my limits in this case at the point where educational learning ends because I feel this is consistent with the objectives and characteristics of Connectivism, and where the activity of the theory seems to dwell. Others who may see the same initial problem might have different solutions, as shown by the link at the bottom of the post.

      I’m not exactly sure on your point of intentionality, we may be talking about different things. I do think it would be easy to reword a line in the post like this though: In the tension between structure and learning, a learning theory (example: Situated Learning) will communicate with an educational theory (design strategy, educator roles, methodology, methods of intent etc) in order to produce a successful network or system.

      @Andy Thx for that link, I appreciate it.

      Like

  12. Pingback: Why #Connectivism is not a Learning Theory | All About Arts | Scoop.it

  13. Pingback: Why #Connectivism is not a Learning Theory | Spaces for Innovation | Scoop.it

  14. Pingback: Why #Connectivism is not a Learning Theory | PLE on PLE | Scoop.it

  15. Pingback: Why #Connectivism is not a Learning Theory | Digital Delights | Scoop.it

  16. Pingback: Why #Connectivism is not a Learning Theory | Educación a Distancia (EaD) | Scoop.it

  17. Pingback: Why #Connectivism is not a Learning Theory | Aplicaciones de Android | Scoop.it

  18. Pingback: Why #Connectivism is not a Learning Theory | Educación y TIC | Scoop.it

  19. Pingback: A Connectivism Description of How I Learn Language « A Point of Contact

  20. Pingback: Why #Connectivism is not a Learning Theory | Connectivism versus Constructivism | Scoop.it

  21. Pingback: Why #Connectivism is not a Learning Theory | UkrEL11 | Scoop.it

  22. Pingback: Why #Connectivism is not a Learning Theory | Technology in EducationTeaching and Learning | Scoop.it

  23. Pingback: Why Connectivism is not a Learning Theory | Máster en E-learning. Universidad de Sevilla | Scoop.it

  24. Constructivism in education is a paradigm or model that includes different theories. From my point of view, the Connectivismo is a theory that can be framed perfectly in the Constructivism, but does not exclude the other theories, such as those relating to meaningful learning (Ausubel) or social influence of learning (Vygotsky), etc. .

    Like

    • I think what I’ve written in this post agrees with you, except maybe that Connectivism is the one that does the framing. I tend to see it as something like the mechanics of Instructional Design – the putting together and maintenance of the ‘pipes’, which are potentially *just as* important as the content within.

      Like

      • Ok, I agree. The structure now are the connections. I appreciate your response and clarification. I also think that what changes is the instructional aspect.

        Like

  25. Pingback: What does a Connection do? « A Point of Contact

  26. Pingback: Why Connectivism is not a Learning Theory | Information Abundance | Scoop.it

  27. Pingback: Why Connectivism is not a Learning Theory | All Things Educational Technology | Scoop.it

  28. Pingback: Why Connectivism is not a Learning Theory | The Learning Experience | Scoop.it

  29. Pingback: [Su-IT570] Reading: Why Connectivism is not a Learning Theory | J.S.S. in Neverland

  30. Pingback: Why #Connectivism is not a Learning Theory | The Digital Stranger: Education, participation, social networking and creativity | Scoop.it

  31. Pingback: Why Connectivism is not a Learning Theory | DeepEducationalThought | Scoop.it

  32. Pingback: Why Connectivism is not a Learning Theory | #ETMOOC Topic 1: Connected Learning (Ongoing debate) | Scoop.it

  33. Pingback: What would be the next big theory of learning and education? | Learner Weblog

  34. Pingback: Connectivism | Annotary

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s