Thoughts on Connectivisim

To go along with my Learning Network Mindmap, and this weeks topic of Connectivisim, here are more of my thoughts.

Access to the internet, and the expert information contained within it’s pages has certainly changed the way I learn about my general areas of interest. In the past I would have had to travel to a library, or purchase books and magazines to access much of this information. The time and cost barriers would probably have meant I simply would have missed out or passed up on those opportunities.

In a similar way, the savings in travel time afforded by taking this ID course online has been fairly critical in making it feasible for me to do it at all. Telecommunications in general provides easier access to the friends in my network that I rely on for various types of expert knowledge.

The tool I probably rely on most is Google, although Google relies on a huge ecosystem of content, and a variety of information linking, retrieval and display technologies.

The first thing I do if I have a question about anything these days is usually to type (or speak) a question to Google. I’ll then scan through the responses to find valid sources with answers. I may simply read the answer. Sometimes I’ll apply the new knowledge directly to a problem I was trying to solve. I may print out or bookmark a page for future reference. Sometimes I may share a link with friends or colleagues via Email, Facebook, or Google+.

Although I’m not all that sure yet that I agree that connectivism as a particularly useful theory of learning, it’s true that my network involves many of the principles of connectivisim. It’s critical to my job, and my life in general, to always be learning more. These days the world changes a great degree within each generation. To optimize our opportunities we need to learn how to use new technologies, understand different cultures, and new ways of doing things. While new books are constantly being written, the web is a far easier way to keep information up-to-date. The low cost and ease of access also make it far easier to find and compare different opinions, which is critical to gaining a broader and less biased viewpoint on information.

Certainly the vast majority of information I access each day resides in non-human appliances. I recognize that this is a very recent development in human history (even written records only go back a few thousand years, and till a few hundred years ago even written records were accessed by a tiny minority). Like humans, the digital formats generally afford the ability to learn by making connections to other nodes or information sources, which is another aspect of connectivisim (Davis et. al., 2008).

I don’t disagree with principles of connectivisim that point out how certain aspects of learning are now more important for a greater number of people, but I think I have a problem with how it’s presented as a new learning paradigm. While the nature of our networks may have changed, and the pace of change in technology and society is faster for more people than before, individual humans have had to deal with massive changes in networks and culture for thousands of years. At times even whole cultures have had to adapt in a short timeframe. I think in general that humans are very good at adapting to new situations. We adapt by learning, rather than changing physically. Does it matter much on an individual level if more of us have to adapt on a more regular basis? It matters to society, we need infrastructure to support the ongoing education of the population, but does it matter to the individual?

In one of his Blog posts Stephen Downes seems to suggest we should all but abandon methodical inquiry in favour of just finding out what everyone else’s point of view is.

“The very forms of reason and enquiry employed in the classroom must change. Instead of seeking facts and underlying principles, students need to be able to recognize patterns and use things in novel ways. Instead of systematic methodical enquiry, such as might be characterized by Hempel's Deductive-Nomological method, students need to learn active and participative forms of enquiry. instead of deference to authority, students need to embrace diversity and recognize (and live with) multiple perspectives and points of view. (Downes, 2009).”

But how does anyone come up with an initial point of view to compare to, if you don’t start with some systematic methodical inquiry?

I’m all for recognizing that multiple points of view may exist, and I’m always ready to change my point of view in light of new evidence, but this seems to suggest that either nobody is actually right, or that it doesn’t matter if they are or not.

Part of the problem (and this seems to be shared by many learning theories in my view) is that the theorists tend to focus on a particular type of learning or knowledge. Connectivists seem to focus on transitory soft skills (things like using a computer, driving a car, or buying stocks). Their model may work fairly well in this world, but I’m not sure what proportion of our lives, even in the current digital age, really revolves around these skills and knowledge? Understanding things like “what goes up must come down” or “if a car hits you it will hurt”, being able to read, count and do basic math, these are the basic things we spend most of our time using. Probably the biggest barrier to most people for using a computer is not that the technology is hard to figure out, but basic reading comprehension.

Finally, the connectivists seem to imply that the pace of change will keep increasing to some unmanageable level, thus we need new teaching methods to cope. But I think the rate of change has only increased to match what we are capable of, and will naturally match that. As I mentioned, in the past an adventurous traveler could encounter many new cultures, languages, and concepts, and need to learn many new skills and details about the local flora and fauna in order to survive. The difference in recent times is that many more of us live in a world of rapid change, but we have created it because it matches out abilities. Why in the future would we create a world beyond out ability to cope with?

References:

Davis, C., Edmunds, E., & Kelly-Bateman, V. (2008). Connectivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Connectivism

Downes, S. (March 20, 2009). The New Nature of Knowledge [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/post/53404