Ricki,+Willie,+Peggy

= Connectivism: Learning Theory or Pedagogy ? =

The 21st century is here and the world is flat. Numerous Web 2.0 tools exist through which students can access information and converse with fellow learners around the world. Learners will be connected to each other and to non-human resources with increased frequency thanks to technological innovations.

To deal with these emerging technologies Canadian George Siemens named the ability to connect learners all over the world as "Connectivism." And he labeled it a learning theory.

Dutch academic Bijdrage van Pløn Verhagen from the University of Twente and others, have said Connectivism is not a learning theory, but rather pedagogy.

Before we can decide whether Connectivism is pedagogy or learning theory, we need to understand the difference. And then we need to ask, why does it matter? =** Definitions **=

According to Wikipedia, A learning theory explains how people and animals learn. Researchers who contributed to the wikipedia entry claim that many factors come together when people learn: their cognitive abilities ( perception, memory, judgment, and reasoning) , their environmental influences and their emotional conditions.

According to www.dictionary.com, pedagogy refers to how a person teaches, or what instructional methods he uses so that a student will be able to pull together their cognitive, environmental influences and emotional conditions to learn information.

= Think of give and take =

To compare the two, think of pedagogy from a teacher’s point of view: How does the teacher put forth (or give) the information? Think of learning theory from a student’s point of view: What does the student do (how does he take) to learn the information?

Semantically speaking, does it matter whether Connectivism comes from the teacher or student point of view, or should we just get on with it and use the Web 2.0 tools in our classrooms to help students achieve their potential? Obviously we should use all that is available, so the pedagogy of connectivism is alive and well. But there are some serious flaws in considering it a new learning theory.

=** Connectivism is relevant to our teaching practice **=


 * According to Siemens, as educators.....

__We curate__, or create __spaces,__ in which knowledge can be created, explored, and connected: ** =* wikispaces * blogs * podcasts *portfolios = *** books** *** videos** * **presentations** * Interviews ** ** *Lectures *Focus Groups **
 * __We filter:__**
 * __We model:__
 * We persistently offer our students online tools where they can discover information that will help them learn, this is a given.** **But this is also part of our best practices, our pedagogy.**


 * Does it explain HOW people learn?** **The answer is no, and theories by their very nature must not only address how the process works, but be verifiable through testing.**

Connectivism: Learning Theory or vestige of the past?**
 * Citing Miller (1993) Rita Kop and Adrian Hill, state: "In general, an emerging theory should fall within the domain of scientific research, use scientific methods, and be based on previously conducted studies. It should be logically constructed and verifiable through testing."**
 * source

Siemens contends that connectivism is a learning theory unto itself, even though it "borrows' heavily from systems theory, chaos theory and network theory. Theorizing for the sake of theory construction is not in the best interest of established academic research. [|Bill Kerr] points out: "Connectivism does contribute to a general world outlook but we already have theories and manifestos for that view (systems theory, chaos theory, network theory, cluetrain manifesto), so we don't need a new -ism in this respect. " **source** A Challenge to connectivism A contributor to his blog, Sylvia Martinez, makes a good point when she points out that "putting a viewpoint into academic format doesn't make it a contribution to knowledge" and "is this about learning theory or making a name for yourself by announcing you've discovered the new, new thing?" After all, Siemens unabashedly solicits consulting engagements with this post to his website: "If you are considering implementing connectivism as a learning model to improve corporate effectiveness, or revising the delivery of learning for your school system, I am available for speaking and consulting engagements." **source** comment to a challenge to connectivism
 * A rose by any other name.... **

Of course this is not to say that Siemens has not contributed to the overall discussion or need to rethink teaching in the 21st century, but we tend to agree with Verhagen that his "theory" is actually pedagogy. And while we would never begrudge anyone from earning a living, advertising ones expertise in a field that has yet to be accepted as mainstream learning theory smacks of self promotion. Furthermore, Kerr [|challenges] Seimens original paper on the grounds that it:
 * All that glitters.... **
 * does not contribute to known theory, curriculum or learning reform
 * it does not provide a significant new perspective on learning
 * it represents historical learning theories incorrectly

Accordingly, Siemens "theory" fails to provide information on HOW learning actually occurs and draws conclusions based on misrepresentations of the established alternative learning theories, constructivism, behaviorism, cognitivism. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif; font-size: 80%;">**source** A challenge to connectivism

And Kerr is not alone in his criticism. Kop and Hill in their article Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the Past? conclude: A paradigm shift, indeed, may be occurring in educational theory, and a new epistemology may be emerging, but it does not seem that connectivism's contributions to the new paradigm warrant it being treated as a separate theory in and of its own right. Connectivism, however, 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. Connectivism: Learning Theory or vestige of the past?**
 * source

> If any part of the theory were relevant it would be the recognition of the potential of networking and connecting, but these are ways of learning, the pedagogy. Otherwise, the theory does not describe how we learn, how we make the connections inside of ourselves nor does it describe what we learn. **Source**: Against Connectivism > > First, the analogy of a pipe being more important than what flows through the pipe is ridiculous. Why would you need the pipe if you do not need what is to flow through the pipe? > > This seems to be too far to the opposite side of the spectrum. How can you not acknowledge what you have known as being a vital part of what you will need to know in the future? Can you have the skills of the future without relating them at all to the past? **Source**: Against Connectivism
 * <span style="background-color: #000000; color: #ffff00; display: block; font-size: 120%; text-align: center;">Responding to the other questions **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif';">__//Are parts of the theory more compelling or relevant to you than others//__?
 * **Answer**: I find it compelling that Siemens talks about ‘non-human appliances’ in his paper as if this is something new. However this simply is not the case. Storing information in non-human appliances such as books for example has been around for generations (Verhagen 2006). It seems to me that connectivism is Siemens’s way of ‘reinventing the wheel’. His reasoning for developing this new ‘theory’ (which we have established is **not** a theory) is that with our ever-changing world the old learning theories are outdated. However, connectivism does little to supply the solution to this dilemma.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif';">__//Are there parts of the theory which you find confusing//__?
 * <span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif';">**Answer**: "The pipe is more important than the content within the pipe. Our ability to learn what we need for tomorrow is more important than what we know today. A real challenge for any learning theory is to actuate known knowledge at the point of application. When knowledge, however, is needed, but not known, the ability to plug into sources to meet the requirements becomes a vital skill. As knowledge continues to grow and evolve, access to what is needed is more important than what the learner currently possesses."


 * <span style="background-color: #800080; color: #ffff00; display: block; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif; font-size: 130%; text-align: center;">CONCLUSIONS **After much thought and research we have concluded that Siemens ideas do have a prominent place in teaching in the 21st century, and beyond. But we feel that Verhagen, Kerr, Kop, and Hill have all correctly identified it as pedagogy.

=<span style="background-color: #008000; color: #ffff00; display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">Sources =

[] [] [] [] [] [] A challenge to connectivism comment to a challenge to connectivism<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;"> Connectivism: a new learning theory?
 * Connectivism: Learning Theory or vestige of the past?**