Reflections: Connectivism: Learning Theory or Pastime of the Self-amused?


As I read the paper on Connectivism, I found myself circling phrases, time & time again. As indicated, the world has shifted significantly, when “ GNP of virtual games (is) exceeding the GNP of many countries”. “Instead of approaching learning as schematic formation structures, learning is the act of recognizing patterns shaped by complex networks.” Yes!!

He reviewed the invention of the printing press, when “access to books was simply a conduit to the higher goal of learning and knowledge”. What is interesting is that he describes the spoken/dialogue form of education during Socrates/Plato as fluid in nature, and compared that to the books/text as object or static in nature. In essence, he reflects that the internet allows us to return to the fluidity of conversation and; therefore, learning outside of space and time.

I loved this calculation from Liebowitz in 1999:
data (+relevance +purpose) = information (+application) = knowledge (+intuition +experience) =wisdom

He suggests, as do others, that “due to rapid growth of knowledge, the act of learning has shifted from acquisition to assimilation, from understanding of individual elements to comprehending an entire space, and thereby, understanding how elements connect”.

I agree completely, from an IT standpoint. Years ago, analysts learned more & more year by year, expanding their zones, until they were highly skilled, fitting the cognitive / pragmatism scenarios. High levels of specialty and access make it impossible for the standard form of developing learning to continue, especially when systems run 7×24 with high availability.

For knowledge growth to occur, I was interested to see that Stephen Downes (2005) suggested that connective knowledge, which has four traits: diversity, autonomy, interactivity and openness. This plays out in system problem resolution, when it is essential that nodes in the network engaged fit those categories.

My challenge in reading this paper, and others, is that it still is missing of the criticality of the selection of those nodes. In order to do so, one must have strong knowledge of such characteristics of the nodes, such as “subject”, “wisdom” , “availability”, “localization”.

Ø Nodes, using the “wisdom” trait may be defined as “brilliant”, “experienced”, “average” or “dangerous”. Dangerous would be defined as someone who will answer a question incorrectly while suggesting they are knowledge in the area.

Ø The availability characteristics could include such sub-traits as “time zone” & “load”.

Ø The localization characteristics might be sub-traits as “region”, “language”

Within informal multi-node networks, there are multiple duplications of nodes.
Example: When a problem occurs in a complex global ERP system, an individual with significant connective knowledge intuitively knows which nodes to engage. As the problems are analyzed, nodes may be released from the analysis, or engaged, based on shifting requirements and regional time zones/availability.

The learning is taking place within the network, yet the ability to learn, and hence, resolve is based on the knowledge of the network and the nodes.

This entry was posted in Connective Knowledge and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Reflections: Connectivism: Learning Theory or Pastime of the Self-amused?

  1. Hi Pinga: If the cosmos is in an innate state of synthesis – and most leading thinkers and intuitives agree that it is – then wisdom is seen as synthetical (pertaining to synthesis), and knowledge as analytical. Then wisdom is the intuitive experienc of IT (the innate state of synthesis), and knowledge the analysis of IT.

    To conceptualize the experience of IT in words and concepts is an analytical avtivity, which grows as our analytical knowledge grows, and is unique for each individual because of our individaully unique, conceptual framework. Thus, the interpretation of the intuitive experience of IT is different from individual to individual, and grows as our common body of knowledge grows.

    In a manner of speaking, wisdom, or rather the interpretation of wisdom, grows as knowledge grows. One enhances the other; one enriches the other.

    The more we share, the more we grow.

    THE GODHEAD
    or
    Getting IT

    IT is we; we are IT.
    We can’t comprehend IT without experiencing IT,
    But we can experience IT without comprehending IT-
    For we are IT!

    IT reveals everything;
    IT explains nothing.

    The interpretations
    Of ITS revelations
    Are our creations.

    -Hermann Harlos

  2. I like what you guys tend to be up too. This sort of clever work
    and exposure! Keep up the superb works guys I’ve you guys to my blogroll.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s