CONNECTIVISM, A LEARNING THEORY OR A NECESSARY SKILL FOR MODERN LEARNING? #CCK12

Connectivism has been proposed as an alternative learning theory particularly in the age of modern digital technology. As discussed by Robertson in a video lecture (2007), it is true that most of the prior learning theories such as constructivism and cognitism were proposed before our major leaps into the internet revolution happened, and therefore, the possibility of needing a new theory to explain how we learn may be timely. But is CONNECTIVISM, as described by its two main proponents, Siemens and Downes, it?

Siemens, in his 2005 paper “Connectivism: a learning theory for the digital age,” claims that learning occurs in “nebulous environments, and that it can “occur outside of individuals.” He is also of the opinion that learning can occur outside of human appliance.

Learning, on the other hand, is defined in many ways, but the one I am inclined to use is the one by Cobb (2009), “Learning is the lifelong process of transforming information and experience into knowledge, skills, behaviors, and attitudes.”
My paradigm for learning is that its evidence occur in many levels, from unicellular organisms (as evidenced by intercellular bacterial communications through quorum sensing), to specialized cellular communication of a complex organism, such as the neurons of the brain. Beyond the individual, there is some evidence of social learning, like how a group such as a flock of birds learn how to avoid buildings in its path, or as political animals, many human societies have learned to fight repression. In essence, there is individual learning; there is organizational learning, and social learning as well.

Using this paradigm of the levels of structures, it seems that Downes and Siemens are pushing for a view that is even wider than the social learning paradigm, a sort of extra-societal interactions that go way beyond individuals and maybe societies. CONNECTIVISM is in a way, paradigm shifting (as a skill necessary for learning, rather than a theory of learning), because it allows for conscious formation of network of learners, which allows each learner to sort into addresses and locations various bits of knowledge that they will need to access to process learning themselves. The main strength of this conscious network formation is that there is high degree of resolution and critical evaluation of the formed networks. A good learner can discern a valuable connection to less valuable ones. On the other hand, the main illusion that is brought about by connectivism is that we are always in a group, and that the group, including the connections between the members, are learning. In the end I believe that we are all in this together, alone.

In the positions of Siemens (2005) and particularly of Downes (2006) where he claims that “learning may reside in non-human appliance” (or by extension, non biological), it seems that they are claiming that the connections themselves are capable of learning. This is where my opinion diverges. I believe that learning, at least in the current level of technology, is still very much within the province of biology, and in our case, of the human brain. Even in organizational learning, it is the individual that captures that learning and encapsulates it into norms and traditions for the organization or society. Knowledge residing in processors, in the cloud, in the memory chips and in the connections between the biologics, is merely a collection of fact, no different to all the knowledge stored in Alexandria’s libraries. Despite automated processing that may happen to facts, these automated processing still means very little to where it resides. The resulting product of knowledge processing may move robotic arms and adjust machines, but in reality, these processors do not understand what is happening. It is the seat of consciousness that programmed the machines on how to transmit and process information – this is the location of learning. I agree with Kop and Hill (2008), when they concluded that: “Connectivism ...continues to play an important role in the development and emergence of new pedagogies, where control is shifting from the tutor to an increasingly more autonomous learner” and that “it does not seem that connectivism’s contributions to the new paradigm warrant it being treated as a separate learning theory in and of its own right.”

Conclusion:

Although I concur with Siemens (2005) when he said that “Our ability to learn what we need for tomorrow is more important than what we know today.” I do not entirely agree with the concept that forming connections is learning by itself, rather it is a necessary skill in this day and level of technology. Learning to form connections allows for better access of knowledge, and wider dispersion of sources. But I posit strongly, that the critical thinking, forming opinions and creating new knowledge is a province of the living cell.

References:
Siemens G. Connectivism: a learning theory for the digital age. 2005 as viewed from: http://www.itdl.org/journal/jan_05/article01.htm on 15 February 2012.

Cobb J. A definition of learning. 2009 as viewed from: http://www.missiontolearn.com/2009/05/definition-of-learning/ on 17 February 2012.

Robertson I. Introduction to learning theories. 2007 as viewed on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsX5Tq3WTBw on 21 February 2012.

Kop R and Hill A. Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? International Review of Research and Distance Learning Learning. 2008 as viewed on:
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/523/1103 on 20 February 2012.

Downes S. Learning Networks and Connective Knowledge. 2006 as viewed from:
http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper92/paper92.html on 17 February 2012.

Who's afraid of social media? CCK12

With the advent of social media, many are afraid of the impact that it may have towards education. While it is obvious that the use of technology, particularly the internet and social media affect the learning of the students, such as increasing individualization and its resulting de-institutionalization, I have a feeling that our fear of social media;s impact on education is largely based on the fear of the unknown.

For one thing, this is not the first time that there was a mass media threat to learning. Even modern music was thought to be a threat, and then came television, that one way information delivery systems that created a generation of zombies, or so they said. But this generation that was raised by a box-shaped nanny also produced the innovators that led to social media, like Sergei Brin, Mark Zuckerberg, and learning products like wikipedia, howstuffworks, etc.

Internet has even raised the bar of television even higher, besides the commercial version of interactive TV that is meant to sell, newer generation of are using the internet for learning.

How often have I seen a socially interesting commentary because of the newspapers from far-away have come within reach through not just the internet, but through facebook, or heard of earthquakes through twitter, and updated the developments of revolutions through you tube.

I believe that social media is only another system of learning/knowledge delivery system, it is not a threat, but has a potential to to elevate learning.

Now who is afraid of social media? Not I.

Are we connected yet? [For CCK12]

We have been at this CONNECTIVISM thing for the past 3 weeks. That is so far the length of my exposure to connectivism, connectivity and networking. Sure, I have been part of many networks,from the internet-based social networks to real-life community networks (i.e. neighborhoods, alumni, family networks, etc - which are all being represented in the internet btw), but I have never truly paid any attention to the elements and semantics of connectivity.

According to Downes in 2006, in his paper "Learning Networks and Connective Knowledge", he mentioned 3 elements of the network:
a. entities - the connected things that send and receive signals
b. connections - the links between entities (can be physical or virtual)
c. signals - the message sent between entities

The question that I want to pose in this blog is, how do we practically define connections in the virtual world?

In the real world, the answer is simple, if you are my cousin, I am almost certainly your cousin, and if you are my parent, I am most certainly your child; and socially, if you are my classmate, then I am yours too, etc.

And yet in a virtual world with superusers, ordinary users, lurkers, inactive users, how do we determine connections. For example, I may have 600 friends in my facebook account and yet, I cannot say that I am connected to all of them. Quite frankly,I do not get to see all their posts, and certainly, I do not believe that they see and real all of mine. In the same context, when I post a question in google groups and it is virtually received by everybody, am I connected to those who ignored that particular email? How about to those who read it but did not do anything about it?

Thus I submit that the 3 elements that were mentioned by Downes above should have a 4th element: FEEDBACK. It is only in feedback that we are assured that the message is received. Whether orn ot there is action may be considered a separate matter - in many cases, non-action is an action. But we have to separate this decision of the receiving entity to NOT ACT as the preferred action versus the receiving entity's inability to receive the message in the first place.Therein lies the value of FEEDBACK.

With FEEDBACK, we are assured of a connection.

Connection and Evolution [For CCK12]

Evolutionary biologists tell us that the most important traits for survival are preserved by evolution, and the useless ones are slowly taken away. Thus, while the ability of "newer-generations" of animals to have their young grow inside the womb appears to remain intact, the mammals' webbed feet seemed to be disappearing.

But surprisingly, one of the most preserved characteristics that stretch all the way from single-celled bacteria to humans is the ability to CONNECT.

In bacterial populations, the bacteria seem to sense the optimum population density and control of multiplication through chemical signals. This is called QUORUM SENSING. Quorum sensing allows bacteria to coordinate their behavior and quite simply "talk to each other" (University of Nottingham, undated). Between members of bacterial populations, connections are achieved through chemical signals. Animals evolved a broad range of communication and connectivity tools such as colorful plumage, travelling in pods, creating social hierarchy and language.

The need to connect is a primal drive that evolution has conserved because it allows the species to survive. In any case, is it not true that a community is stronger than an individual?

The Great Migration [For CCK12]

One of the greatest phenomena of the human civilizations is the great population migrations. There are a few examples, such as the Chinese and the Indian diasporas, as well as the current Filipino diaspora where I am a part of.

When diasporas happen, there are culturally two events that occur simultaneously, one is that of assimilation and the other multiculturalism.

In a bigger sense, I believe that what we are experiencing right now is the greatest diaspora of all time, when we migrate from the analog world that we live in (or used to live in) to the digital world of the current generation. Much like the geographical migration, where in the parents made the decision to migrate, the children born in the new location seems more at ease at fitting in than their parents.

We are the 'parents' of the internet generation. We are the ones who decided to migrate and to forge ahead, thinking that this will give the next generation a better world, but it is our 'children' who function about it with utmost ease. It is not second nature to them, but rather the digital world is the only natural world for them.

And yet, we are in danger of losing connections to these our children, much like the parents of the migrant families tend to lose touch of their children. They either assimilate to the new culture or they impose their original culture on their children whose world is now different. I believe in doing both simultaneously.

The whole rationale of studying Emerging Technologies for me is that - to be able to adapt to the digital nation that received me as a migrant, the world where our students (our children) are natives. I believe that instead of imposing the old ways of learning, we need to understand how the world around them functions and to teach them along the new ways. I also believe that we have to celebrate the old ways of teaching and learning. To teach the values of community and team spirit through old tools such as sports and group projects; to be able to teach empathy through exposure and experience. This alongside teaching them how to google and create wikis, and how to blog and to facebook.

There are many examples of new age tools that we need to learn and navigate. We have to learn to assimilate. There are also a lot of 'old' things in the real world that is highly applicable to the virtual world. Most of these digital tools still yield to old-fashioned common sense of security and boundaries. "Don't talk to strangers" is an adage that serve well both the analog world as well as the digital world.

Connectivism is a new concept of learning, mostly brought about by the new technology. It seems that this technology has rewired how we learn, or so the theory suggests. I would like to explore this during this module. And it situation permits, I would like to use the concept of migration as the backdrop of my understanding of connectivism.

After all these years....

Yes it has been 2 years since my last blog on this site. Probably because all my need to express myself in the net has been thoroughly and adequately (up til now) been addressed by Facebook.

It seems such a long time, particularly in the digital world where internet companies come and go. But then again, the adage that everything you post in the net stays there forever is proven by blog. Oh well,better be careful about what we blog, that is what I always advice my students. You do not know who are reading, and we do not know how to delete our posts.

I am now excited with re-entering the blogosphere (do facebook postings count?)particularly to join the module on Emerging Technologies for Teaching and Learning and interact with a few hundred classmates from all over the world.

Singaporopolis

I was just at the National Museum of Singapore visiting the exhibit on the Greek Masterpieces (will run until 16 March 2008), and although I saw what I expected to see, it is my reflections on the exhibit that I find novel.

The exhibits, mainly sculptures (like that of Ares Borghese seen on the left) talk about city states that are ruled by men, with social classes that have varying rights...it sounds like Singapore, but actually, they were talking about ancient Greek cities.

Athens, and many other Greek city-states, called polis, are self-ruling political enclaves that are multi-layered. Each layer is a class of people that have different privileges, and of course varying responsibilities. At the top of the pyramid is a small group of men that rule, and create laws and decide on the affairs of the common man. Below them are men called citizens, who are allowed to exercise full political rights. They can vote or be voted in office. But then, they also have the added repsonsibility of having military training (National Service?) and defending the city-state in times of war....well, to many Greeks, dying for a country is not a responsibility, it is a privilege, a direct ticket to Greek heaven, the Elysian fields.

Below them is a group of foreigners, called "metics," typically they are artisans that are residing within the territory, paying taxes, conducting business or practicing trade, but having no political rights (Permanent Residents or on Employment Pass-holders?).

At the bottom of the structure are workers that are not registered and not paid, considered as goods, traded as commodities....these are the slaves (officially, we do not have them in Singapore...).

Funny, but the Greek structure that flourished had 1/3 citizens and their families, 1/3 foreigners/ and 1/3 stateless slaves. It sounds very similar in the case of Singapore in the sense that, without the free foreigners and the slaves, life in ancient Greece would not flourish at all.

Besides war, the main preoccupation of the learned and the leaders is politics. Thus, no self-respecting Greek man would not know how to handle discourse and debate. Ideas flow freely, both assenting and especially dissenting. This freedom, although at that time is enjoyed fully only by men extends not only to literature and political thought, but especially to lifestyle choices. Thus, even if women are not granted equal status, they are considered partners. Sappho of Lesbos is a known lesbian and yet respected as a poet and lyricist. Homosexuality is largely practised as a form of apprenticeship, where the elder will have to teach the young partner various bodies of knowledge (no pun there).

It is with this freedom to discourse that has given rise to creativity. Partner that unequalled creativity with agon, the love of sports and competition--and what you have is almost a cult-like devotion to the human figure. So much so that the Greek gods have taken the form of humans. And heroic humans are given gods for ancestors-in turn making them demi-gods, if not outright gods. And because they are heroes and gods (or demi-gods), their bodies are perfect, and therefore have to sculpted naked and without embellishment.

In terms of trade, besides spending time in war and sports competitions, the Greeks have excellent maritime technology and industry. How else will they be capable of launching a thousend ships to retrieve Helen from the Trojans? Never mind that they nearly failed and that Odysseus of Ithaca got lost in the tiny Mediterranean Sea for a few years.

I suppose the Singapore model, as envisioned by the founding fathers, probably had some Greek city states in mind. But what cannot be replicated are the wonderful sense of identity and art that came along. Even the conquering Romans became the conquered, when they began absorbing the culture of Greece. In essence, the Greek culture was disseminated by the more widespread Romans-sort of piggybacking their culture on another. Even the Roman gods took on the identity of the Greek gods (sans the name).

Singaporopolis is relatively young, with less than half a century of history, but what we have to be cognizant of, is that culture cannot be instructed, legislated and roadmapped. It is a spontaneous expression of the moral and artistic convictions of the people, that does not need prodding, and convincing. It moves by itself, finds inspirations by itself, like the Greeks with their gods and heroes.

Maybe when this city state has produced enough heroes, enough demi-Gods, and has survived long enough through many travails like war, politics, sports and has fully opened to freedom of ideas, like many a Greek city-state has...then maybe, just maybe, this nation will start singing poetry of great men (and women), sculpting its own figures, building its own architecture, and defining its own culture.

There is hope yet. But I will not be holding my breath.