September 2019 – Social Media and Digital Cultures

What sets connectivism apart?

In the maelstrom of seemingly unlimited learning theories, evaluating the defining characteristics of particular theories can help to determine the one most applicable to a given situation, or which have the broadest application to learning in general. As I considered the various readings on connectivism this week, one of the most striking assertions I saw was George Siemens’ statement that “In a networked world, the very manner of information that we acquire is worth exploring. The need to evaluate the worthiness of learning something is a meta-skill that is applied before learning itself begins.” (Siemens, 2005) In most previous learning models, increasing internally-held knowledge has typically been seen as the end goal of any learning activity. Connectivism counters that in today’s world, where people will encounter a never-ending progression of new situations and increased available knowledge, a lot of knowledge does not need to be internalized, merely accessible. The theory holds that being able to find relevant knowledge and ignore unhelpful input is likely to be a more useful skill set than memorizing new processes or facts that are likely to change frequently, or be pertinent only rarely. The theory doesn’t preclude the possibility that people can and will internalize certain learning that remains stable and germane to their life or work. It merely highlights the prevalence of tools that can store and retrieve facts that used to rely on individuals’ retaining them. Very few people remember a long list of phone numbers anymore. Instead, they usually have them programmed into phones and other devices. Simple cooking tasks like how to boil eggs, calculate measurement conversions, or substitute ingredients are quick and easy to find online, so many people look them up each time they need to do the task rather than devoting memory to the process.

In a workplace, last week’s procedures for a particular situation may have been updated as outside factors changed. In this case, remembering the older process too well may in fact interfere with using the new one correctly. Many organizations maintain an internal wiki or blog to store the most recent information. Users can check it to make sure they know the most current version. Learning then involves being able to find and correctly interpret the desired knowledge. Searchable email systems make that another viable system to disseminate information. When in doubt, a person can easily search for keywords about the topic, then use the time stamps to be sure they are using the correct version. In this case, a good subject line, and the ability to choose fruitful search keywords are far more important than memorizing new procedures. When seeking a novel solution to a problem, a good learner will pinpoint applicable information in the sea of facts and opinions available across a spectrum of fields that initially may or may not seem related to the subject at hand. With the assembled data, they can create a resolution for the current need and still remain ready to update anew when situation changes.

Resources:

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved from: https://jotamac.typepad.com/jotamacs_weblog/files/Connectivism.pdf.

What is the capitol of Assyria? One sec…

In the 1975 film Monty Python and the Holy Grail, King Arthur and his knights must answer three questions to cross the bridge of death and continue their quest.

If only Sir Robin had had an iPhone….

This week I’ve studied the concept of connectivism, a theory holding that in the digital age, knowledge is not learned, but rather accessed and managed via networks which are external to the individual. Learning is the process of bridging “nodes” of knowledge, and having those bridges at the ready when called upon. Poor Sir Robin needed to phone a friend.

In pre-digital days, if I asked you what the capitol of Assyria was, you might have used an encyclopedia, or asked a historian. Nowadays you can easily check Wikipedia from a connected device. You don’t need to store the information in your brain the way Sir Robin did. Connectivism holds that this new circumstance, the nearly limitless on-demand nature of information, eases the pressure to store knowledge in our heads, and favors the skill of forming connections between ourselves and sources of information.

As a consequence of this shift in focus, argues the theory, we have drastically changed how we think and learn. A logical conclusion is that instructional systems should pivot their pedagogy towards harmonizing with this new way of learning.

I have questions. As we guide learners to be “network-builders” won’t we degrade their ability to perform original research? Who will be the generators of new knowledge? What is the nature and quality of the new knowledge humankind is supposedly generating at next-order rates? If learning is self-guided, how will employers or universities discern the value of diplomas?

Who will motivate and reward expertise? Many educational theorists complain that our current pedagogy is built on an industrial model, biased toward preparing workers to serve corporate priorities. I don’t believe this to be true in all current pedagogy. Public schools are still teaching Shakespeare and world history. While traditional academic subjects have both their theoretical and their applied aspects, I would hypothesize that it will require a sophisticated level of “curation” or guidance on the part of teachers to maintain a blend of theoretical and practical study. Young learners gravitate to subjects that have meaning in their immediate lives. Learners living on the low end of Malinkowski’s hierarchy of needs might need more than a little guidance on even the available lines of inquiry.

To be fair, advocates of connectivist pedagogy admit that there is still a need for guidance by experts. Flawed as they may be, current educational practices will need more than what connectivists offer if there is to be a ground-up overhaul of the system.

Connectivism

“Technology is altering (rewiring) our brains. The tools we use define and shape our thinking.”

George Siemens sums up a big 21st century phenomenon with this one-liner. As new technology enters our homes and offices, the way we approach problems is changing. Information is now readily available in a way that it has never been before.

Rote memorization of content is now obsolete. Spending time learning facts and figures that you can access at any point from your smart phone doesn’t make the most logical sense. However, as Seimens states in the Ed Surge article “‘Our Technology Is Our Ideology’: George Siemens on the Future of Digital Learning:

[I’m] worried that, rather than advancing our human potential, many edtech companies and universities are perpetuating the status quo. While machine learning and automation are obviating the need for learners to memorize content and develop routine skills, current edtech solutions still focus on helping learners develop these capabilities, he says.

As we race to modernize education, we have to be careful about what the platforms are teaching us. Are they reinforcing old fashioned notions of education? Or are they “[driving] students to hone their uniquely human traits—the ones that will help them thrive in an increasingly automated world” (McNeal)?

Every platform has an agenda as well. As we have discussed in this course, it’s important to be cognizant of the fact that where we get out information has biases of its own. Or in the case of social media, the platform will advertise to your belief systems to raise its own profit margins. As discussed in the Tristan Harris TED talk, companies use our own brain chemistry to get us to click more, check-in more, and post more.

But these platforms also allow people from different learning communities to come together and share their expertise. The pipelines created for information in these communities allow for people to recognize that information is every-changing and not static. It also empowers people to contribute even in small ways as part of the big picture.

This is the element that I think is important to focus on. The ability for people to access knowledge from experts in a vast learning community is going to drastically open access to information. Things like MOOPs will begin to challenge antiquated notions of the college experience.

As Siemens says ” “If we do things right, we could fix many of the things that are really very wrong with the university system, in that it treats people like objects, not human beings. It pushes us through like an assembly-line model rather than encouraging us to be self-motivated, self-regulated, self-monitoring human beings” (McNeal).

Is Knowledge Acquired?

Connectivism is a learning theory that knowledge is not acquired and that learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions. Stephen Downes, one of the founders of Connectivism, stated in his blog post “WHAT CONNECTIVISM IS” in 2004 that “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”.

I both agree and disagree with this theory. Knowledge can still be acquired, and should still be acquired, through self learning. Knowledge starts somewhere, it does not appear spontaneously. Knowledge is gained through personal experiences, critical thinking, reading, discussions and your network of connections. The connections we form can aid in our learning, but we can not limit our learning or knowledge to our connections.

As I work with students in higher education, I find a prevailing thought process that teachers jobs are to give them information. They do not need to do the readings and answers should just be given to them. I find this lack of ownership towards learning to be a side effect of connectivism. Before you can contribute and also gain knowledge from your network, you must have a baseline of knowledge yourself which can only be acquired through self learning.

What we learn is up to us. It is not up to others to learn for us and then share that knowledge.

Let’s connect – Connectivism

Prompt A. Connectivism has a core proposition — knowledge is not acquired. What does that mean? If knowledge is not acquired, then what instead?

Those that believe in Connectivism believe that “learning does not simply happen within an individual, but within and across the networks.” (Wikipedia). My big struggle with this question and prompt is that it sounds like to me that the individual brings nothing to the table on their own and that only through a group are he/she able to learn. I agree with the Connectivism approach that large health issues or educational issues can only be solved by a network of individuals however, each person still brings a set of understandings to the table.

Knowledge is acquired through various means, reading, conversations, following social networks, etc. As I read from these various sources I am acquiring new knowledge that I can bring to different conversations or different problems to tackle. Meaning, as I gain new knowledge, whether I do that on my own or not, and I bring that new knowledge into my network I am contributing as an individual. But at the same time I am gaining from conversations from a larger group and we in turn are solving issues/challenges through Connectivism. But I still brought my own knowledge to the conversation (to the group, to the network).

All that being said, I am a huge fan of connectivism and I believe there is endless potential for those to learn if he/she are willing to connect with larger networks, for example, PLN’s. I too prescribe to the theory that the room is the smartest person in the room theory. I absolutely believe that we are “smarter” and more “affective” in problem solving as a connected group than we are as an individual.

So thankful I was exposed to Connectivism and I really look forward to reading more about it.

Connectivism as Pedagogy

Distributed Cognition as Pedagogical Movement

What is Connectivism? – Lorente D’Vidal, CC BY-NC 2.0

The beauty of a blog is that it provides one with a platform to express an opinion, to agree or disagree with the most brilliant of minds. The blog provides validity to a voice, although possibly an artificial one. For, who am I to say? I am just me; but this is my blog; so I get to say. But how do we sift through all of the voices – including our own? This is, I believe, what George Siemens is concerned about, when he addresses the need to synthesize fragmented information distributed online – to make meaningful connections – in order to avoid the problem of individual knowledge-seekers caught in a “private universal phenomenon of conceptually inappropriate views of the world” (Connectivism TEDxNYED, 3/6/2010).

The answer that George Siemens provides is Connectivism, an approach to learning design that begins with the recognition that our digital spaces allow us infinite paths to content and curriculum. From here, Siemens moves to the premise that knowledge must now be “seen as existing in networks, and learning as forming and navigating these networks” (Learning and Knowing in Networks: Changing roles for Educators and Designers, 2008). Through the “curatorial, atelier, concierge, and networked roles of educators” we must “collapse” or “centralize” the vast sea of information that is accessible in decentralized online environments down to points of connectedness (p. 3). The conduit for making these connection points is the technology itself; data networks are the pipelines – both literally and figuratively – to form the personal learning networks necessary for learners to access understanding.

No small task for teachers. No small task for technology. In fact, possibly Siemens would say that technology becomes the teacher, or at least the connector and collector of knowledge. These infinite technologically-formed networks become the storehouses for knowledge. One gets a sense that, if knowledge resides in these connections or networks, and if the networks reside in technology, then technology is the source of knowledge itself. Is this taking Connectivism to an extreme? I think that is exactly what Siemens is doing with his concept of “distributed cognition” (Siemens, 2008, p. 11).

Certainly technology is a complicated labyrinth that requires meaningful connection-making. Technology as a means and a mode of distributing information and communication shapes society, culture, and education, and could greatly benefit from some new highways and byways to improve its effectiveness as a learning tool. I agree with Siemens that technology and online “media fragments understanding” and that we need to find ways to “weave together narrative coherence that permits individual students and educators to relate well” (Connectivism TEDxNYED, 3/6/2010). But what are we to do with Siemens’s lofty and definitive statements: “Technology is philosophy. Technology is ideology” (emphasis his)? Would it be too great a leap for Siemens’s Connectivism to say that if we can harness technology, if we can “collapse” the online information stream into “a point of connectedness,” then we can unleash truth itself?

Or possibly Siemens is not attempting to define truth in terms of technology. Certainly his Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age (2005) is focused on knowledge, even though it is an ever-fleeting goal because of its “shrinking half-life” (p. 1). But does this necessarily mean that knowledge only exists within personal learning networks? Is there only network “distributed cognition” and no other internal, or even external, places to discover, even acquire, knowledge?

Undoubtedly, technology is a core element of any educational enterprise in our media age. We do indeed need new pedagogical pathways for navigating our digital spaces. As Jennifer Englund explains, Siemens first presented Connectivism because he felt a new theory was needed “that addresses the exponential growth and complexity of information available on the internet, new possibilities for global communication, and the ability to aggregate different information streams” (What is the theory of connectivism?” (10/14/2013). My only difficulty here lies in the term “theory,” since Connectivism, in my view, does not explain learning and knowledge acquisition (or the lack thereof), as much as it gives us a new route and new transportation tools toward learning. In this way, Connectivism is more of a learning design or methodology. So I need to side with Pløn Verhagen (2006) and Bill Kerr (2007), among others, who see Connectivism as pedagogy rather than theory (Siemens, 2008, p. 11).

But Connectivism as practice and pedagogy rather than theory assigns an important role to each of us in education. Siemens (2008) spells this out clearly: “First, teachers interact with learners and content in a different manner. The internet has caused a power shift in classrooms, as learners now have greater access information, experts, and peer learners. Secondly, instructional designers, due to the developing complexity of tools and availability of open education resources, play an educational role of directing educators to tools and resources” (p. 19). Taken as a pedagogical movement, Connectivism is worth joining and its methods worth adopting. Not as the only way to aggregate and distribute knowledge, but certainly a most promising one.

Learning through Connecting

Connectivism is a theoretical framework that explains learning in a digital age (Kop and Hill, 2008). One of its core propositions is that knowledge is not acquired. Existing learning theories, such as Behaviorism, focused on the idea of acquiring and internalizing knowledge. However, Connectivism suggests that “learning is actionable knowledge that can reside outside of ourselves” (Siemens, 2005). With the advent of computer technology, the internet, and learning networks online, knowledge can now be stored externally to a person and easily accessed when needed.

So if knowledge is not acquired, I propose that what a learner must acquire instead is a learning network. Siemens argued that “knowledge is distributed across networks and the act of learning is largely one of forming a diverse network of connections and recognizing attendant patterns” (Siemens, 2008). The World Wide Web facilitates creating such a network. With ample access to blogs, videos, presentations, and online documentation, learners have become more autonomous. They are no longer solely relying on the knowledge and direction of their educator.

However, educators still play an important role. Siemens describes this role as curator. “A curatorial teacher acknowledges the autonomy of learners, yet understands the frustration of exploring unknown territories without a map” (Seimens, 2008). We are experiencing this new role firsthand in our current online class. Our instructor has been introducing us to resources and learning networks that I didn’t even know existed. Take, for example, Twitter chats. They provide a great way to connect with others in your field to learn from each other and bounce ideas off one another. And here I thought Twitter was just for tweeting and getting a few likes or retweets.

There are some arguments that Connectivism is not an actual learning theory, but that doesn’t change the fact that technology is altering the way we learn. And in a world where what we know is rapidly changing and knowledge is quickly amassing, it is more important than ever for learners to acquire learning networks instead of just stagnant knowledge. Without such networks, they may be left behind in their industry or job more quickly than they realize.

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for a digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved September 24, 2019, from: https://jotamac.typepad.com/jotamacs_weblog/files/Connectivism.pdf

Siemens, G. (2008) Learning and Knowing in Networks: Changing Roles for Educators and Designers. Accessible from: https://www.academia.edu/2857165/Learning_and_knowing_in_networks_Changing_roles_for_educators_and_designers

Kop, R. and Hill, A. (2008) Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. Retrieved September 24 2019, from: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/523/1103

Connecting with Knowledge

Connectivism has a core proposition — knowledge is not acquired. What does that mean? If knowledge is not acquired, then what instead?

One of the most important propositions and that have shaped the basis of Connectivism, is that technology and, especially the internet, has changed the way people learn. Connectivism, according to its creators, Siemens and Downes, is a learning theory for the digital age. This theory states that knowledge and learning occur as we interconnect and interact with information and with each other.

Knowledge is not acquired, in the words of Downes (2007):

In connectivism, a phrase like ‘constructing meaning’ makes no sense. Connections form naturally, through a process of association, and are not ‘constructed’ through some sort of intentional action. […] In connectivism, there is no real concept of transferring knowledge, making knowledge, or building knowledge. Rather, the activities we undertake when we conduct practices in order to learn are more like growing or developing ourselves and our society in certain (connected) ways.

According to this modern theory, knowledge is dynamic. New information emerges and is shared every second through networks, thanks to technological advances. Knowledge, then, is not acquired; rather, people consume and create their knowledge through their connection to networks in a “Personal Learning Network” (PLN).

For example, a network is no longer made up of just one teacher and textbooks, but students can connect directly with a subject matter expert, they can have access to research, blogs, reviews, articles, documentaries, etc. that have been published about a specific topic, in addition, they can contribute with their research, opinions, and conclusions on that topic.

This process happens motivated by the learner’s curiosity, creativity, and freedom, and now, facilitated by technology. Networks allow students to learn anything, whenever and wherever. That is why knowledge and learning will be lifelong experiences.

According to Siemens (2004), “Our ability to learn what we need for tomorrow is more important than what we know today.” This statement is interesting, as it has a direct effect on the current education system and transcends into a reconstruction of what it is to be “a learner”.

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. (Downes, 2007)

This means that learning is not about being mere repeaters of information, but about having the ability to find, evaluate, share information at the time it is required. Students develop highly refined skills to discern between facts and opinions, to evaluate the relevance and reliability of the information they find and consume, and to interconnect this information across disciplines.

The ultimate goal of this practice is that education serves students to become successful, innovative, creative, responsible and participatory citizens in the service of their communities. In the words of Siemens (2010), “education has one vital task: to prepare individuals to be part of society, to contribute, to create, to share, to interact”.

References

Downes, S. (2007, February 03). What Connectivism is. Half an Hour. Retrieved from https://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-connectivism-is.html

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved from www.itdl.org/journal/jan_05/article01.htm

Ted Talks. (2010, April 13). TEDxNYED – George Siemens. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BH-uLO6ovI&t=113s

Constructing Knowledge

The act of acquiring knowledge may not be as straightforward as we may have previously thought. Connectivism has a core proposition — knowledge is not acquired. Within this theory, it explains that knowledge is constructed and built from connections rather than absorbed. When we think about learning in a scientific lense, this statement of knowledge not being acquired actually makes a good amount of sense.

Although a memory begins with perception, it is encoded and stored using the language of electricity and chemicals. Here’s how it works: Nerve cells connect with other cells at a point called a synapse. All the action in your brain occurs at these synapses, where electrical pulses carrying messages leap across gaps between cells. The electrical firing of a pulse across the gap triggers the release of chemical messengers called neurotransmitters.

The typical brain has about 100 trillion synapses, which are the points where nerve cells in the human brain connect with other cells.
PUBLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL, LTD.

These neurotransmitters diffuse across the spaces between cells, attaching themselves to neighboring cells. Each brain cell can form thousands of links like this, giving a typical brain about 100 trillion synapses. The parts of the brain cells that receive these electric impulses are called dendrites, feathery tips of brain cells that reach out to neighboring brain cells.

In order to enrich these memories or new concepts, we repeat the information in our heads and apply it to truly remember it. So with all this in mind, just acquiring knowledge will not mean anything until you apply it; or in other words connect it things around you.

George Siemens explains connectivism in this analogy: “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.” What we can take from this is that if we do not apply our knowledge and seek out for more, we will not progress. Imagine if scientist just accepted what we know about certain diseases and didn’t try to further investigate. Knowledge is only useful when use to progress.

Image result for constructivism — https://www.wooclap.com/en/blog/inside-classrooms/blended-learning-blog-n10-objectivist-vs-constructivist-approach-to-learning-and-instruction/images/1.jpeg

Sources: https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/human-memory1.htm
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324179.php
http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Connectivism
https://www.hetl.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/HETLReview2013SpecialIssueArticle1.pdf

Evolution of Technology

My hasn’t technology changed! From handwritten letters to phone calls with wired phones and now 10 second pictures and videos as a part of daily conversation. As mentioned in Tristan Harris’ Ted Talk, generation Z is all about Snapchat as their main method of communication and no longer uses text messages but uses the messaging system that Snapchat provides. While this may seem a rather small change from iMessage or text message, Snapchat has a team of engineers that analyze what is being sent and reactions to what is being said. Gossip is no longer between you and your friends but is now being analyzed by the company and using your life to better their business.

Image result for snapchat data mining — https://image.slidesharecdn.com/agnslides1-160712030644/95/mining-social-media-data-annual-giving-5-638.jpg?cb=1468292925

Now there is a saying that there is “no such thing as bad publicity” and Harris notes this in his presentation that this is just how companies like Snapchat and Facebook feel. Whether the reaction is angry or happy, reactions require a post that people will share or comment on continuing the usage of the website and application.

Just a number of days ago I was discussing jewelry with a friend over snapchat, the following day I had ads on my instagram for jewelry even though I had previously looked up jewelry in my browsing history. We have all become somewhat desensitised to our privacy on our phones be little to none, but where does it end?