CCK08
Connectivism is presented as a theory of learning for the network age, where learning is something that takes place within networks of humans and non-humans, including objects, and connections mediated by digital networks and devices. The growth of the Internet, connected digital media are seen as the backdrop for the development of a new theory of learning. In this blog post, I am questioning how connectivism itself stands up as a learning network.
“At its heart, connectivism is the thesis that knowledge is distributed across a network of connections, and therefore that learning consists of the ability to construct and traverse those networks.” http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-connectivism-is.html
Siemens offers eight principles of Connectivism that promote diversity, connection, inclusion of non-human appliances, know how rather than know that, maintenance of and ability to spot connections, currency of knowledge, learning nature of decision-making http://www.itdl.org/journal/jan_05/article01.htm
So is connectivism a network in connectivism’s terms?
Connectivism comprises a network of people (such as George Siemens, Stephen Downes and those who have blogged about it ), things such as published papers, blog posts (see previous search), and events such as the recent MOOC CCK08 and the 2007 Connectivism Conference.
Connectivism shows evidence of porosity:
- links with Cormier’s ideas on rhizomatic knowledge (that draws on Deleuze )
- biological models where Downes draws in his (and others’) earlier work on Connectionist knowledge
- inclusion of Chaos Theory
- and other examples
We have also had examples of diversity within connectivism. George acknowledged the difference between his and Stephens views of Networks and groups in his mid-course reflection, Dave Cormier’s comments at EVOLVE MOOC online event on 3 Nov 2008 .
Early in CCK08, George Siemens seemed to recognize that the MOOC might be a site for critique of connectivism saying:
“I hope we can make progress in this course [on critiquing Connectivism], but I don’t think we’ll achieve the task in only 12 weeks. Exploring, critiquing, extending, and revising a theory is a task of generations.”
http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=808#p4369
If we position connectivism in a historical trajectory of knowledge we can identify research/theories that:
- influence connectivism
- could (or could have) influence connectivism
This can help us identify connectivism’s (potential) contribution to broader networks of knowledge.
Connectivism is clearly an attractive theory for practitioners wishing to change their practice to take advantages of the affordances of digital media, increasingly available at the location where learning can be acquired and put into practice (witness >2300 people signing up to CCK08). More broadly, there is an appetite for new models of knowledge, challenges to barriers to the spread of knowledge, evident in open publishing and open educational resources.
I am beginning to construct a critique of Connectivism, based on its own principles and informed by my own analysis and experience on CCK08 as at 10 November 2008 - comments most welcome.
| Principle | Comments |
| Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions. | Diversity is evident in sources that inform connectivism but I question the impact of the diversity of opinions present in CCK08 forums, blogs and events on the theory itself. |
| Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources. | The agency of CCK08 participants in connecting themselves, their writings, and the sources provided has been impressive.The CCK08 wiki will remain a permanent starting point for those wishing to explore the CCK08 archive but they may have difficulty finding the tweets and blog/forum posts, unless more work is done. I am working on simple searched that can locate in time some of these disparate channels. |
| Learning may reside in non-human appliances. | I cannot understand why that more established theory that uses ‘symmetric analysis’, namely Actor-Network Theory, has not been referenced, if only to say why it is/is not relevant. |
| Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known | CCK08 has been an excellent model of this, with participants gaining skills in connection and finding information. My own network and knowledge have increased significantly. |
| Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning. | It seems likely that participants have increased connections and learned to maintain them. I couldn’t comment on the protagonists’ extension and nurturing of their connections - scale must have been an issue - promoting filtering that can militate against the nurturing of new connections. |
| Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill. | Protagonists have shown their ability to connect between fields of their own choosing, but less willingness to explore fields suggested by others e.g. Actor-Network Theory |
| Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities. | I see this as almost a weakness of connectivism. Being heavily focused on Internet sources, it suffers from the >70 years or open sources i.e. avoidance of closed academic sources phenomenon. This could explain the absence of Actor-network theory |
| Decision-making is itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the decision. | Q.E.D. If the lens of a shifting reality does not allow connectivism to utilize its networks to look beyond its ‘information climate’, it is inevitably weakened, by its own criteria and more generally. |
I am currently working on a comparison of connectivism and actor-network theory, If connectivism isn’t willing to be mutable knowledge as it extends its network, then it is self-contradictory i.e. not behaving like the knowledge and networks it describes in the theory. There are little or no few links between ANT and connectivism. Observing what has happened when ANT has been mentioned in the MOOC forums (by Ailsa Haxwell, Roy Williams and myself) or in Ailsa Haxwell’s blog, for example, then it has not been taken up by more than few participants, and not by connectivism’s chief protagonists, Stephen Downes and George Siemens. I joined this course to learn about connectivism, and also to try to understand why two theories that are based on networks of human and non-humans are currently latent links (Hayhtornthwaite 2002). Can we help turn them into weak links, and then influence connectivism?
My question/statement at the MOOC EVOLVE event was
If connectivism isn’t willing to be mutable knowledge as it extends its network, then it is self-contradictory i.e. not behaving like the knowledge and networks it describes in the theory.
Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). Strong, weak, and latent ties and the impact of new media. Information Society, 18(5), 385-401.
18 responses so far ↓
1 Andreas Auwaerter // Nov 10, 2008 at 10:15 am
Hi Frances. Your Post inspired me to bring sme thoughts down in words. http://userpages.uni-koblenz.de/~dkauwaer/blogline/?p=529.
It would have been to long for a comment
2 Ed Webb // Nov 10, 2008 at 1:34 pm
I was not familiar with ANT before this, so have had to take a tiny crash course in order to respond (serendipitous learning - yay!). It strikes me that what may be different about connectivist theory is that advances (baby steps only, perhaps) in neuroscience allow us to make slightly bolder assertions about the nature of learning as a neurological phenomenon, and to compare its social (out there) aspects to its neurological (in there) aspects in ways that demonstrate self-similarity. In other words, it is plausible to say that connective learning is more ‘natural,’ given what we think we know about all learning, an assertion less available to ANT pioneers.
As for connectivism - as an ideology, or philosophy, or stance - this seems to differ from ANT in its normative orientation toward egalitarianism, in contrast to ANT’s tendency to mirror the structures of bureaucratic authoritarianism. ANT is a way of describing what is, and what is is often hierarchical and rather rigid. Connectivism is a would-be insurgent discourse, a normative position describing what could be, and how it differs from the status quo. It is, therefore, inherently critical. What we might wish, as you gently suggest above, is that it might be more self-critical.
As the great philosopher Edward Bear, known as Winnie the Pooh, once said: “That’s what I think. But I don’t suppose I’m right.”
3 Frances // Nov 10, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Thanks Andreas and Ed.
Clearly the biological layer is important in that we should feed current knowledge into our understanding of learning as learners and teachers. What troubles me is when the biological metaphor is translated into networks of people and things. Why should the same properties apply?
Regarding the normative stance, this is another thing that bothers me. I don’t think that ANT does necessarily mirror bureaucratic structures but what it does have is a growing set of field studies that have explored and tested its concepts. In connectivism, I find the combination of normative overtones (learning networks will set learners free) and the lack of case studies/field work to be a real problem for me. What is the status of a theory that has not been explored in the field in a systematic fashion? How fixed is it? and should we consider using it for radical change.
BTW apologies to anyone who accessed the blog post through IE - not all was visible - now fixed.
4 Andreas Auwaerter // Nov 10, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Frances Agreed it could be problematic transferring the metaphor into network and things. Would you agree if the “Knoten”(german) would be only things? Such as human thoughts beeing assumable as information. BTW in German literature related to the terms data information and knowledge there is a well brought difference in between. Something which is knowledge for you can just be data, if not interpreted and information if not contextualized. You know what i mean? Regards Andreas
5 Frances // Nov 11, 2008 at 9:33 am
@Andreas I replied on your blog post. Yes, I recognise those distinctions of data, information, knowledge but then I adopt an interpretivist view. I think that connectivism (and ANT) are trying to get away from that interpretivist view by treating humans and non-humans symmetrically and concentrating on relations rather subject/object interpretation.
6 rWorld2 » Is Connectivism an Actor Network? Yes, of course // Nov 13, 2008 at 10:35 pm
[...] Bell asks “CCK08 Is Connectivism a Learning Network?. She critiques the connectivism community/network/group of people who regularly use that term in [...]
7 George Roberts // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Frances, you appear to have caught George Siemens out in striving for grand narrative status for Connectivism. You quote him saying, “I hope we can make progress in this course [on critiquing Connectivism], but I don’t think we’ll achieve the task in only 12 weeks. Exploring, critiquing, extending, and revising a theory is a task of generations.” But it does appears as though Connectivism, by that name, has emerged in less than one generation and you have critiqued it and, in making the link with ANT, extended it. Not bad for a 12 week course. However, if Connectivism is seen in a line, which includes Constructivism, Activity Theory, Actor Network Theory, Critical Discourse Analysis, (Freirian) Student-Centred Learning, Structuration, Third Space Theory, etc AND if Connectivism makes links with and to these other actors in the lineage, then Connectivism is usefully playing its part in critiquing, extending and revising theory (note: not A theory).
Actor network theory is not particularly a theory of education or learning, but of social action. To the extent that education is social action, ANT can be brought to bear upon it. I am not interested in establishing ANT as a grand narrative superior to Connectivism. I prefer to see ANT and Connectivism both as complementary petits recits. Are Connectivists Connectivists? I don’t know. Connectivism certainly is an actor network.
see my full piece here:
http://rworld2.brookesblogs.net/2008/11/13/connectivism/
8 Frances // Nov 14, 2008 at 9:00 am
Thanks George R for your response here and on your blog - you helped me spot an inaccurate claim (corrected above). I am certainly not trying to catch George Siemens out
To be honest, I was noting the quote as a statement of intent. I told George S at ALT-C 2008 that I hoped to use the MOOC to extend my ongoing critique of connectivism, and he was very positive. We (and Stephen Downes and many of the 2300) have had engaged in constructive dialogue in several of the CCK08 learning spaces throughout the period of the course.
I started a comparison and analysis of ANT and connectivism nearly two years ago, and I have collected some interesting data for a small study. CCK08 has been a great personal opportunity to enrich my analysis, as well as ‘grow’ connectivism as a network.
My current work in progress does look at connectivism as a learning network and also as an actor-network.
There are also some interesting questions to be asked about the nature, purpose and provenance of learning theories, and about ‘learning theory’. I wouldn’t see the theories you mention as being in a line but rather as a network, where the relationships are very interesting. Your question “Are Connectivist connnectivist(s)? is a little different from mine.
9 George Roberts // Nov 14, 2008 at 9:27 am
Yes, network (Nexus as Scollon would have it) is better; “line” is not quite right. Thing is, I find Constructivism, Activity Theory, Third Space theory, Critical and Mediated Discourse Analysis (CDA: Fairclough, MDA: Scollon), ANT and what Engestrom is calling 3rd Generation Activity Theory (3GAT) all very useful as theory in terms of: explanation, prediction, generation, modellability and falsifiability (open to challenge). I will read more on Connectivism, with interest. BTW, I wasn’t asking whether connectivists were connectivists, but paraphrasing what I thought was a key part of your argument. The behaviour of the protagonists is not the issue.
10 CCK08: Week 10 Wild Flower Garden « Clyde Street // Nov 15, 2008 at 10:21 am
[...] Frances’s detailed discussion of connectivism as a learning network stopped me in my tracks. I have mentioned before that I must look carefully at ANT and her post is a very good reason why I must accelerate my reading. I had thought that connectivism is open to its own revision. Three thinkers from my network of dead people, Marx (withering away of the state), Weber (science open to on-going change) and Kelly (there are infinite alternative constructions of reality) gave me good reason to think this. [...]
11 Pat Parslow // Nov 16, 2008 at 11:39 am
I would agree about the network of ‘theories’ - you can envisage the theories themselves as a Connectivist network, with adherents and practitioners being the connections between the Nodes, and learning being the shifts in position of the theories themselves. The more links there are between theories (in terms of people experienced with several of them) the faster the progress as there is a better chance of critiquing.
In this view, the ‘reality’ is just another node which interacts with the theories via the network. Because the social reality comprises the theory-network Actors (sorry, that isn’t really an ANT reference), and is thus changed through the interactions, the reality can change just as much as the theories which attempt to describe it.
This is where Siemen’s point about currency is important - we deal with a realm where the theory can act almost as an observer of reality and (quantum theory style) thus modify the reality. The links must then be able to re-adjust to take account of the changes, and in doing so change the underlying basis of the nature of the theories (which are, in a sense, an aggregation of the beliefs of the links - in this case, people)
I think I should post about this on my blog…
12 Frances // Nov 16, 2008 at 1:27 pm
@patparslow In ANT terms, I think you would only see theories as nodes ina network if they were ‘black-boxed’. I don’t think that ANT people would do that, and in the case of Connectivism, it’s not clear. In Schon’s terms, the espoused theory might be that connectivism is not black-boxed but the theory in use suggest to me that it is.
13 Pat Parslow // Nov 17, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Hi Frances,
I see you Black Box point, but I would personally go for a variant in which there are no black boxes, and the “nodes” are merely sub-networks which are perceived as a single entity due to some boundary condition.
In my case, probably my skin, but it would be equally reasonable to look at my boundary condition as being around all the things I have authored, or introspectively I might more typically consider my boundary as containing my mind, with my body as an external (though closely bound) system.
But I guess it doesn’t matter if you choose to consider any system you have defined as a Black Box though
14 A networked conversation // Nov 19, 2008 at 3:09 pm
[...] XHTML ← CCK08 Is Connectivism a Learning Network? [...]
15 ailsa // Nov 20, 2008 at 12:18 am
Hi Frances, your blog usefully stimulated discussion:)
I’d agree with GeorgeR: Actor network theory is not particularly a theory of education or learning, but of social action. To the extent that education is social action, ANT can be brought to bear upon it.
ANT within education seems most focused on talking of the relationships and relationship possibilities between human and non human actors.
Here’s one ref demonstrating this:
Bigum, C., & Rowan, L. (2004). Flexible learning in teaching education: myths, muddles and models. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 213-226.
16 Frances // Nov 20, 2008 at 2:23 am
Hi Ailsa,
I replied to Stephen Downes (who commented elsewhere) on that very point of ‘education as social action’ here http://francesbell.com/2008/11/19/a-networked-conversation/ . Hmmm - so is it worth thining about education as ‘not social action’ too?
Thanks for the article - I found it here http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/73271__713667569.pdf
17 Sarah Stewart // Nov 28, 2008 at 3:06 am
Hi Franes, I’ve never of ANT before so will have a look - thanks.
18 Connectivism’s relationship to theory and practice // Sep 18, 2009 at 9:39 am
[...] am still asking myself the question I raised in November last year. Is Connectivism a Learning network? George’s post and some of the discussion in the Elluminate recording are encouraging, as [...]
Leave a Comment