Assignment:Paper 1: Position on Connectivism

Learner:Lisa Lane

Marker:George Siemens

Date: October 16, 2008

Marking Criteria:

Criteria / Comments
Arguments presented in the paper are supported with appropriate and relevant citations / Balanced evaluation of original thought/arguments with appropriate citations.
Citations should include both course discussion (blogs, Moodle forums, live discussions in elluminate and Ustream) and course readings. / Citations are well-managed, Lisa. You include numerous citations from course discussions, reading list,as well as your own thoughts (networks of dead people, concept map, etc)
Synthesis and integration of various concepts discussed during the course / Great work here. You took a particular focus of connectivism and presented a framework through which you interpret suitability of assertions made – i.e. you express ways in which connectivism can be seen as a theory and then provide a balanced criticism of its short comings (or, at least, concerns that you have with the theory).
Creativity and originality of ideas presented / Your approach of small/large “c”onnectivism is an interesting approach to handle what you define as difficulties with the theory. You effectively tie together the longer-historical view of connected learning, setting it apart from connectivism. While I’m personally not sure this distinction is necessary, as you have framed it here, it lends originality to your interpretation.

Grade: A+

Comments:

Great work on this paper, Lisa. Your writing is clear and concise. After presenting broad areas of agreement, you move into a well thought out discussion of where connectivism falls short for you. Your paper is a good example of clear thinking and effect presentation.

I would like to see you develop some of your ideas on knowledge in particular. You mention that you have difficulty accepting weak-connection knowledge as equally valid with established (traditional?) knowledge. This is a significant statement and potential area of debate. While it’s partly based on Stephen’s views of knowledge, I think you’d do well to begin by defining your view of knowledge. This is a short paper and a full critique is not possible. If, however, you disagree with assertions made, it would be helpful to provide reasons. For example, the introduction of strength of connections as a value base is an interesting concept. As it stands in your article, however, it doesn’t receive the appropriate treatment. What about “connections” can serve to make value statements? Why is weak less superior to strong connections? Or, turning to the readings earlier in the course on latent semantic analysis, why is it that some connections yield greater results than is inherent in the connection itself? Is historically validated knowledge superior? If you feel it is – and can provide reasons why, then you could use it as an effective lever in addressing the technological aspects of connectivism that you find unsettling (or even the moral dimension). Filling out this area of your argument would serve as a basis for addressing the final two points you mention as well: content/connection distinction and the “presentism” that you see as part of connectivism.