We should no more marginalise reading novels, stories and poems in books, than we should expect youtube to replace live perfomances of drama.

I read this story in the Observer, and although I wish it was an exaggeration, I somehow doubt it.  Let’s make the best use of learning technologies but without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

As this rather old book might say - Why Me?

Originally uploaded by ex.libris

This blog post was in answer to a question on the CCK08 forum, but I enjoyed writing it so much, I thought that I would post it here as well.

Illich identified three purposes of a good education system:

1. “it should provide all who want to learn with access to available resources at any time in their lives;
2. empower all who want to share what they know to find those who want to learn it from them;
3. and, finally, furnish all who want to present an issue to the public with the opportunity to make their challenge known.” http://www.preservenet.com/theory/Illich/Deschooling/chap6.html

I thought that I would examine those by exploring some current ‘free’ and ‘open’ models related to software and web services to relate to a possible future scenario for education.

What is the best model for providing access to available resources sustainably throughout the future?  At face value, a distributed ‘web’ model, where multiple copies of resources are available seems attractive.  This approach can protect us against us failure at a central point but raises the problem of knowing which version we are looking at. Let’s compare that with Open Source Software where multiple forks exist all over the place but there is likely to be a version-controlled store at the OSS web site - hmmm! sounds like a library. A big incentive for the investment of resource involved in the management of this configuration-managed code library must be the possibility for the volunteers in OSS communities to make money on their day jobs, offering paid-for professional services (training, hosting, consultancy) associated with the OSS.
(Semi-)’Free’ services like flickr offer structured and more imaginative ways of finding and managing content but how sustainable are they?  A future where the plug was pulled on a service like flickr is not inconceivable.  I have backups of all my flickr images but what about the links to others, dialogue, etc.?  Alternative approaches to the quasi-commercial and commercial described above have been public service organisations like libraries and non-commercial organisations (e.g. BBC) that become ‘institutions’.
Now let’s look at “those who want to share what they know to find those who want to learn it from them“.  To me they sound like people who become some of the best teachers.  So for fun and delight, they could do this on open online forums, but how do they eat and buy the baby a new pair of shoes?  In the OSS model, they could make their ‘content’ freely available but offer add-on services for payment.  What are the consequences of this for the availability of high-quality learning support across society?  There is a (compelling) theory that the middle classes create structures for education (often with the most respectable of motives) from which their offspring derive the maximum benefit.  The ruling elite are not constrained by these structures but know how to get a very effective education for their own, networking being an essential component.

It’s easy to see the problems with schools, but somewhat more challenging to replace them with social organisations that can still address underserved communities and disadvantaged individuals without acquiring some of the undesirable attributes of institutions. Open source/content teachers may or may not become more effective outside do of ’school’ as we know it now.  The question is  how do we find out if and how to make those changes?

Our last challenge (should we choose to accept it) is to “furnish all who want to present an issue to the public with the opportunity to make their challenge known.”  An education systems that wishes to do this can certainly take advantage of the affordances of the web in making public the ideas of a wider range of people.  Unfortunately, this does not guarantee an increase in influence, and the reality of making your challenge known may be much more to with pre-existing power relations.  Herring et al’s findings would suggest we should not be too sanguine about the democratising effects of blogs and other ‘read/write web’ tools and services with regard to public discourse.

“The observation that men are more likely than women and teens to create filter blogs provides a key: It is filter blogs that are privileged, consistent with the notion that the activities of educated, adult males are viewed by society as more interesting and important than those of other demographic groups. ” http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/women_and_children.html

I remain an optimist who believes that a ‘good’ education can offer the chance of empowering individuals to influence the power relations within which they may struggle, as well as  expanding their knowledge networks.

The question is, of course, what is a good education?

I was very grateful for Stephen’s comments, as there is plenty still be ironed out (from my persective at least).  I found it interesting that he said that the application of networks to the social domain is not a metaphor. Presumably it is not a ‘literal truth’.  I can imagine that there could be some links between the social behaviour of individuals in a group or network and their brain activity relating to it, but I don’t know that this has been researched and presented.   It is seductive to think that principles from networks in neural science apply in social networks, actor-networks and connectivist learning networks but I think that we would need some evidence (from neural studies and/or rich case studies of human and non-human behaviours).
I am not holding out on Stephen - but rather still studying this from reading about connectivism and actor-network theory. 
I was interested that Stephen claim a clear distinction between social action and learning theory.  One of the things that has slightly surprised me on CCK08 has been the boldness and desire for radical change, informed by connectivism.  When cast in this light, connectivism seems as much about social action as about learning (though of course the two are intertwined).
I hope that my modest critique can contribute but what I really hope to see are empirical studies (case studies, action research, etc.) that apply ANT and connectivism to educational change and processes (radical and otherwise).  That will really move things forward, I think.  Mine is a developmental critique - not a complaint.

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.

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.

I haven’t used it yet, and would be interested to know how others find it.

The trouble with dead links is it’s often too late to do anything about it, once you discover a link is dead.