1
CONNECTIVISM - MY NEW WAY OF KNOWING
Connectivism
My New Way of Knowing
Julia Renberg
EDUC 800
George Mason University
November 18, 2012
Rationale
The purpose of this paper is to explore the historical roots and fundamental assumptions of connectivism - a way of knowing that is new to the author,to reflect on its strengths and limitations,and to argue its implications for research and practice.Part 1 of the essay is dedicated to the description and analysis of the theory, while Part 2 delineates and compares the author’s ways of learning toconnectivism, adding a personal perspective to the current dialog on the central topic of the nature of knowledge.
Part 1: Connectivism as a Way of Knowing
Historical Roots
Originally, the term ‘connectivism’ was used forbiological models of the brainand when applying the ideaof neural networks to computers and other machines:
The overall view that a strongly interconnected neural network and its firing
patterns must be considered as part of a whole became an important principle
of orientation in the study of the nervous system; it is referred to under
the name of connectivism (Gestzi, 1990, as cited in Kop & Hill, 2008).
Connectivismwas reborn at the dawn of the 21st Century. George Siemens, a Canadianresearcher with the Technology Enhanced Knowledge Research Institute(TEKRI) at Athabasca University and the founder and president of Complexive Systems Inc.,isconsidered to be the “father” ofconnectivism (Pressley, 2012).Siemens’ interest in thepotential of technology to transform teaching, learning and society drove his research into the area of e-learning (Darrow, 2009). Contributions of another Canadian, Stephen Downes, a designer and commentator in the field of online learning and the Editor-at-Large of the International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, are also significant to both the development and the dissemination of the theory. The primary postulations of connectivismwere presented by Siemens in 2006 book Knowing Knowledgeand have been further argued througha series of published articles, at George Siemen’s webpage at Stephen Downes’ blog at a rather largeand seemingly growing number of conference presentations, and three instances (2008, 2009, and 2011) ofMassive Open Online Courses (MOOC)titled “Connectivism and Connective Knowledge.”
Fundamental Assumptions
Two principal originators of the theory, Siemens and Downes, claim that connectivismexplains how people learn in a networked and digital world. Siemenswrote that “given the nature of today’s complex problems - we have hit the limits of cognition in the head. We need to rely on the network as a cognitive agent” (Siemens, 2009, p.5). And just a few years earlier, Downes argued for an existence of connective knowledge –a third category of the previously known qualitative and quantitative domains of knowledge, the one that could be described as distributed knowledge or knowledge of interaction (Downes, 2005). In a nutshell,connectivismposits on two primary postulations:1) learning can reside in connective nodes – digital leaning communities of similar areas of interest that allow for interaction, sharing, dialoguing, and thinking together,and 2) knowledge emerges from an individual’s personal learning network (PLN), while growing exponentially and externally via networks of Internet technologies(Siemens, 2004). The learning process is viewed as cyclical- learners connect to a network to find new information, modify their beliefs on the basis of new learning, and then connect to a network to share these realizations and find new information once more (Kop & Hill, 2008). Thus, connectivism focuses on both - knowledge consumption and knowledge creation processes(Siemens, 2005). Finally, the theory denies that knowledge is propositionaland includes no concepts of transferring, making, or building knowledge; rather, knowledge is literally viewed as a set of connections formed by actions and experience (Downes, 2007).This flexible definition of knowledge includes a person’s own sense-making of the world and provides a basis for viewing “knowledge as residing in networks of humans and non-human appliances, whilst leaving space for human agency” (Bell, 2011, p.100).Learning and knowledge are defined as:
…processes that occur within nebulous environments of shifting core
elements - not entirely under the control of the individual. Learning
(defined as knowledge patterns on which we can act) can reside outside
of ourselves (within an organization or a database), is focused on connecting
specialized information sets. The connections that enable us to learn more
are more important than our current state of knowing (Siemens, 2006, p.30).
Moreover, Siemens suggests that when a learner is engaged in creating and recreating their own learning network, understanding arises through applying meta-cognition to the evaluation of which elements in the network serve useful purposes and which elements need to be eliminated, while Downes asserts that in connectivism ‘deep thinking’ or ‘creating understanding’ are equivalent to the process of making connections (Kop & Hill, 2008).
Strengths and Limitations
In the Structure of Scientific Revolution, Thomas Kuhn declared that the epistemological paradigm shift typically occurs with the development of new communication technologies (Kuhn, 1962). Pink detected and discussed a shift from an information age to a “conceptual age” due to the increasing ability of performance technologies (Pink, 2005, as cited in Dawley, 2009, p. 110). According to Polkinghorne, learning and technology are now interrelated:
In technical-rational practice, decisions about what to do are determined by applying scientificallyvalidated general propositions to particular goals. The technical-rationalmodel is the dominant method of making practical decisions in contemporary Western society” (Polkinghorne, 2004, as cited in Wade, 2012).
Darrow (2009) stated that the modern day shift in the cognitive process itself is what is significant and different, and this shift requires a new theoretical perspective.And so it seems that George Siemens’ theory described a new paradigm - a consequence of the developments of the network information technology of the 21st Century, and can be viewed as an attempt to advance the philosophy of epistemology by proposing a new learning theory that adequately depicts the realities of the modern world.
Certainly, various efaffects of the Internet revolution were gainingattention of researchers prior to the birth of connectivism. The fundamental changes in the sociotechnical context, for example, lead to a controversial discourse on‘digital natives’vs.‘digital immigrants’, and to a birth of a new science named ‘information ecology’. Recent studies also focused on social networking- “digital interactionamong users without a participant limit” (Yuzer & Kurubacak, 2011) and technology-enabled learning - “virtual learning environments (VLE) and learning management systems (LMS), such as Blackboard” (Bell, 2011).It could be argued, however, that connectivismaddresses multi-facetednovelties of the digital age, directly or circuitously,as a fundamentalholistic theory.
Interestingly, many analysts find the synthesizing capacity of connectivismto be its greatest weakness, rather thanthe strength. This is because at the core of George Siemens’ theory liesa combined effect of different principles, concepts, and theories: social constructivism, behaviorism, cognitivism, collective intelligence,sense-making, network and chaos theories(Davis, Edmunds, & Kelly-Bateman, 2012;Dunway, 2011). Siemens himself characterizes connectivism as “the integration of principles explored by chaos, network, complexity and self-organization theories” (Siemens, 2004; as cited in Ally, 2008, p. 19). Thus, many question whether connectivism is a theory at all, suggesting that it might be more appropriately labeled as a phenomenon, a curriculumor a pedagogy; while others do not accept it as a learning theory, but rather as an information management theory, an instructional theory,a digital extension to social constructivism or, even, as a theory that is unnecessary (Wade, 2012; Anderson & Dron, 2011; Kop & Hill, 2008; Verhagen Kerr, 2007;2006; Rovy, 2005).
It appears that connectivism is grounded in a wide range of classical and neo epistemological theories, and yet it cannot be reduced to any one of them. This is dueto limitations of these theories: 1) intrapersonal view of learning; 2) failure to address the learning that is located within technology and organizations; and 3) lack of contribution to the value judgments that need to be made in knowledge-rich environments (Siemens, 2006b). Clearly, connectivismaddresses these deficiencies, building upon previous theories selectively–incorporating concepts that are applicable to an era defined by rapid knowledge development and shrinking of “half-life of knowledge” (Gonzalez, 2004), while simultaneously denying their overall relevance to today’s institution of learning.
Finally, connectivismis based on a pluralist epistemology, emphasizing the importance of diversity of opinions (Bell, 2010). This particular point of view in connectivismis controversial and unsettling because itinvolves a shift from human-expert to human-amateur (Gorman, 2007) andnon-humanknowledge producers. David Cormier supported the assertions made by Siemens, arguing that “the traditional, painstaking process of validating knowledge where expertsinterpret information into knowledge, which is then rigorously assessed by degree-holding peers, and compared to an existing canon is virtually obsolete. Today, any delays in sharing knowledge from emerging fields can make the knowledge subject outdated by the time it is verified (as cited in Darrow, 2009, p. 19), while Verhagen arguedthat “Using knowledge that is stored in “non-human appliances” has been done through the ages. Memory limitations have been compensated by writing things down, printing books and creating databases. Modern cognitive tools are nothing but an extension of the toolkit” (McMinn, 2008).
Without a doubt, there is enough evidence to conclude that connectivism is under attack. To analyze the predicament of connectivismappropriately,however, it would be wise to recall Cronbach,who wrote:
Acceptance or rejection of a practice or theory comes about because a
community is persuaded. Even research specialists do not judge a conclusion
as it stands alone; they judge its compatibility with a network of prevailing
beliefs (Cronbach, 1988, p.6, as cited in Lyons & LaBoskey, 2002).
This begs a question of whether there is a part of a community of theorists and practitioners that has accepted this theory.
Implications for Research and Practice
Since2004, whenSiements coined and launched his idea of connectivism, a large number of individuals around the world have used the theory as a framework for their studies, most notably - in the field of education. For example, Craig (2007), Dawney (2009), Darrow (2009), Kidd andKeengwe (2010), and Kop & Fournier (2012) are among many whofocused on virtual world pedagogy, emphasizing that since social network technologies “actually impact the thinking process itself, new pedagogies are needed to effectively integrate these communication mechanisms into the learning environment” (Dawney, 2009, p. 110) so that students become active self-directed learners and constructors of knowledge. Moreover, Pettenati and Cigognini argued that connectivismcan lead to a re-conceptualizationof learning in which “formal, non-formal and informal learning can be integrated to build a potentially lifelong-learning activities to be experienced inpersonal learning environments” (Pettenati & Cigognini, 2007, p. 42). Othersprovided new research data by questioning basic assumptions of the ‘net generation’ phenomenon –a computer-savvy and technology fluent age bracket, concluding that ‘digital natives’ are “students who have grownup in the knowledge society with the Internet and social software as part of their everyday lives. Instead of fearing a ‘moralpanic’, we should take advantage of the skills the students have and help them to understand thepossibilities of social software for learning”(Valtonen et al., 2010, p.217). Dunaway (2011)encouraged critical inquiry into the ways in which emerging theory of connectivism can improve information literacy education. In a personal communication with the author, Dunaway wrote:
As a librarian, I think that the connectivist perspective of learning
has important implications for helping educators understand where
and howstudents get the information that they use to form knowledge
andunderstanding. I think research in this area should explore how students
form learning networks (for example, how does a particular resource, such
as Wikipedia, become a part of a student's network such that she/he regularly
goes there to get information?), as well as how learning networks evolve.
In yet another approach, Yuzer & Kurubacak (2011) concentrated on Internet Protocol Television (IPTV),“the most effective distance education delivery tool” (p. 259), and discussed concerns, issues and potentials of a process of knowledge negotiation by a global communityfrom a multicultural perspective.
Part 2: Connectivism as a Personal New Way of Knowing
Thisoverview of the theory of connectivism presents a fairly confusing landscape. Driscoll (2000), however, reminds us that the nature of any theory is provisional and limited in its views of learning. Thus, an essential question in such perplexing situation might be: How does onepersonally make sense ofconnectivism and identifywith this way of knowing?
I came across the theory of connectivism by chance, while exploring postulations of chaos theory and its implications for research and theory. I was immediately intrigued by the innovation, theoretical richness and applicability of Siemens’ ideas, but wondered: How does it relate to me personally? As an individual born into the 1970s, I see myself as a ‘digital immigrant’ and easilyacknowledge that cognition today occurs in a more collaborative fashion and at a global level. There is an unprecedented opportunity for anyone to project his or her thinking outward digitally and so, the Web can be viewed as “the extension of the contents of one’s own mind” (Siemens, 2006a, p.79). What is happening today is different from the phenomena described by Kuhn in hisStructure of Scientific Revolution because the digital world today does not equate to the textbooks of yesterday – although it creates an illusion of continuous accumulative development of knowledgeand serves pedagogical purposes, it does not hide the process of how wearrive to the point of a paradigm shift. Similarly, the world seems to function at an accelerated speed and what one learns today may be completely irrelevant and useless tomorrow. In today’s digital age, information is continually being acquired, developed, distributed and thus, personal and social networking participants must learn quickly how to navigate these new systems. As an educator, I see a need for developing new methods of deploying instruction, utilizing intelligent social networking and encouraging student generated curricula. And I admit that connectivism provides an ideological framework that is capable of impactingme and other practitioners.
On the other hand, I wonder if such developments would becomethe bright future of education, where individuals co-create knowledge in a global networked environment, or ifit would fossilize only as an interesting experiment and a fascinating theory that captured the realities and anxieties of our time in a revolutionary way. As a product of my generation and as a scientist, I tend to rely significantly on propositionalknowledge and, therefore[c1], I am greatly concerned by an apparent lack of a center of measurement of what is “true” in socially constructed and negotiated knowledge. And so at this moment, it would be impossible for me to join a community of passionate believers in connectivism, yet I would likely incorporate the word into my vocabulary, continue monitoring the updates to the theory, and even consider utilizing the concept as a structure for my future work as a researcher and a practitioner.
Conclusion
This paper explored and analyzed how modern society comes to know from a point of view of connectivism – a relatively fresh theory that was previously unknown to the author of this essay. Despite of being at its infancy stage, connectivism has already attracted enough attention to generate an abundance of critique and to accumulate a large number of advocates and followers. Although not closely familiar with the proposed way of knowing, the author recognized an intellectual lure of connectivism as it appeals to the accepted epistemological theories and holds significant implications for research and practice.
References
Ally, M. (2008). Foundations of educational theory for online learning.Theory and practice of
online learning (2nd ed.)Alberta, Canada: Athabasca University.
Bell, F. (2011). Connectivism: Its place in theory-informed research and innovation in
technology-enabled learning.International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning,12(3), 99-120.
Craig, E. (2007). Changing paradigms: Managed learning environments and
web.Campus-Wide Information Systems,24(3), 152-161.
Darrow, S. (2009).Connectivism learning theory: Instructional tools for college courses.
(Master's thesis, Western Connecticut State University) Retrieved from
Suzanne_ Connectivism
Learning Theory_Instructional Tools for College Courses.pdf
Dawley, L. (2009). Social network knowledge construction: emerging virtual world
pedagogy.On the Horizon, 17(2), 109-121.
Dunaway, M. K. (2011). Connectivism: Learning theory and pedagogical practice for
networked information landscapes.Reference Services Review,39(4), 675 - 685.
Driscoll, Marcy P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction. 2nd Edition. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Downes, S. (2005). An Introduction to Connective Knoweldge. Retrieved from
Downes, S. (2007). What connectivism is. Retrieved from
Gorman, M. (2007). Web 2.0: The sleep of reason, Part I. Retrieved from
Kopp, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past?The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3). Retrieved from
McMinn, S. (2008, November 05). Connectivism [Web log message]. Retrieved from
Pettenati, M. C., & Cigognini, M. E. (2007). Social Networking Theories and Tools to Support
Connectivist Learning Activities.International Journal of Web-Based Learning and
Teaching Technologies (IJWLTT), 2(3), 42-60.
Pressley, L. (2012, October 12). [Web log message]. Retrieved from
Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved from
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: Learning as network-creation. ASTD Learning News, 10(1).
Retrieved from
Siemens, G. (2006a). Connectivism: Learning theory or pastime for the self-amused? Retrieved
from
Siemens, G. (2006b). Knowing knowledge. Retreived from
-knowledge/545031
Valtonen, T., Dillon, P., Hacklin, S., & Va¨isa¨nen, P. (2010). Net generation at social
software: Challenging assumptions, clarifying relationships and raising
implications for learning.International Journal of Educational Research,49, 210-
219.
Yuzer, T. V., & Kurubacak, G. (2011). Integrating internet protocol television in
distance education: A constructivist framework for social networking. Turkish
Online Journal of Distance Education,12(3), 259-278.
[c1]yes, I share your concern.