Did anyone else read the articles on Connectivism and Messing Around and wonder "What's the big deal?" I don't see much novel about those discussions, just technology-specific applications of pre-existing ideas.
Connectivism is a catchy name which highlights part of the philosophy of Web 2.0, but is not exclusive to the digital world. It seems to be the current incarnation of what used to be the oral tradition, written texts, printed material, etc. These phenomena all entailed wisdom being shared and made collective. Weren't they examples of externalized learning too? Aren't libraries and fellow humans the physical equivalents of digital personal learning networks. Hasn't connectivism been around as long as humans have lived in groups? In that sense, I don't see it at as a replacement of the previous learning theories (behaviorism, cognitivism, connectivism), just a description of a different scale of learning.
The discussion of Messing Around is also not exclusive to the computer realm. Isn't that part of being human, tinkering with things, fiddling, figuring out, making something, whatever. It seems hard to own and use any tool (including a computer or a web application) without messing around with it. Wouldn't people rather mess around with an object than read the instruction manual to figure out how to use it?
Let me know if I'm missing out on the Earth-shattering ideas here, but to me there wasn't much ground breaking about these discussions.
One of the things I struggle with all the time is that I don't believe any of these skills are that new. In fact, I believe they're the same skills we've said we need to be teaching for decades. We just can't seem to figure out how to do it, so every few years we repackage them into something new. This time it's all tied up with a technology ribbon. But in the end, we want the same things we wanted when I was in university: critical thinkers, problem solvers, collaborators, creative minds, etc, etc. Maybe the newness of the technology just makes it an easier sell?
ReplyDeleteI think it's also the ease with which we can connect that makes this new. Two years ago, I was reading journals to get me updated on current thinking and new ideas. Now I am accessing people via blogs and twitter. I find when I read the journals now they are not telling me anything new - I'd found out about it all long before. My colleagues are now the people I work with on a daily basis and the people I've never met who form my network. This is how connectivism is working for me now. Yes it is the same - it's about relationships, but the change is in how we form those relationships with the tools at our disposal.
ReplyDeleteJenny Luca.
My intuition tells me that collaborating with a machine defeats the purpose of collaboration as a socialization skill. My mantra has become social networking to fight the urge to view the computer as a dehumanizing machine. I remind myself that there are people at the other end of an on-line conversation. (By the way, science labs in HS are done using computer simulations and probes limiting hands-on experiences.) Students have already developed a repetoire of tools to reach their own goals which they will need in the workplace so unless we tap into tech schools will be obsolete.
ReplyDeleteConnectivism is proposing that not only that knowedge can be external (as in a dictionary) but that it can constitute learning. That is a very fundamental shift. The individual is not the center. The information is taking action, in part, on its own. This not a trivial difference.
ReplyDelete