TASK 6

Elaboración de una pauta de evaluación de blogs.

TASK 4

Tema: violencia

Texto: "Symbolic Violence and Global Capitalism" [http://zizekstudies.org/index.php/ijzs/article/view/140/214, retrieved: 05/10/14]

Autor: Tonči Valentić
Fecha: 2008
Fechas que aparecen en el texto
Autores que aparecen en el texto

Symbolic Violence and Global Capitalism

Tonči Valentić - University of Zagreb

In the contemporary world violence has become an inescapable part of modern life. Beside its coercive character and brutality, it also troubles us with its two major characteristics which obstruct any clear and theoretical analysis: violence often seems to be random and irrational and its motives seem incomprehensible. Violence is often described as the exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse, and the word usually stands for forceful human destruction of property or injury to persons, usually intentional, and forceful verbal and emotional abuse that harms others. In this essay I would like to tackle the notion of violence in contemporary philosophical discussion, having in mind that violent acts cannot be fully grasped neither by scholarly empirical analysis (e.g. sociological, psychological or political) nor by media coverage of violence. That is to say, there are very few possible theoretical standpoints that can fully address this problem today, going much deeper below the surface which is, almost without exemption, always focused on violence undertaken by some easily identifiable agents (such as terrorism, assaults, riots, ethnic cleansing, murders, wars, etc.). I would argue that, in order to philosophically analyze that problem we have to assume completely opposite approach, i.e. to start to think about violence in terms of its symbolic and systemic character instead of focusing on clearly visible acts. In order to do so, I will concentrate on several authors whose ideas are stimulating and might be challenging or placed against the line of contemporary discussion. 

First of all, I will refer to Slavoj Žižek`s recent book Violence that provides some contentious insights on the subject. In addition, ideas of such authors as Hannah Arendt, Etienne Balibar, Jürgen Habermas, or Walter Benjamin will also be discussed in accordance with the main purpose of this essay which is to emphasize that violence stem from the system itself; it represents the very "heart of darkness" of contemporary multicultural societies, which ultimately means that every violent act is deeply rooted in all liberal-democratic countries in the world. In other words, we should pay more attention to the catastrophic consequences of the functioning of our economic and political systems as systemic violence than to the violence represented, for example, by Islamic suicide bombers or even riots on the streets in Europe (such as those in suburbs in Paris a few years ago or recent one in Denmark).

The mayor task of philosophical analysis of violence in contemporary world should be developing a theory of political violence. Obviously, there are numerous theories on the respective issue, but very few of them reflect properly today's global socio-political constellation. For example, authors like Weber or Arendt provided noteworthy insight, but they cannot fully cope with issues we are dealing today in the beginning of 21st century. The main problem with violence is that it doesn't have always a deep-lying cause based on rational articulation, which means it is impossible to understand it only using arguments of classical political theory or moral philosophy: one had to incorporate psychoanalysis and semiotic or symbolic interpretation as well. Where in should we search for relationship between violence and politics in today's world? Since violence is a complex phenomenon, several things have to be taken into account: first of all, it is always primarily a "structural" problem, an "objective" feature of today's capitalist societies. Second, as I mentioned before, structural (or objective) violence is placed in the very heart of capitalism itself (this is the idea that Slavoj Žižek advocates - relying on the idea which came from Balibar and is even earlier extracted out of Marxism). Third, violence does not necessarily refer to activity or any deeds: passivity can also be violent. The major point here is, as Žižek would put it, that violence presented in media (such as suicidal bombings, humanitarian crisis, terrorist attack, and so on) actually blinds us to the objective violence in the world where we become "perpetrators and not just innocent victims".

As Žižek would argue, we consistently overlook the objective or "symbolic" violence embodied in language and its forms, i.e. democratic state's monopoly on legitimate violence. He asserts that "subjective and objective violence cannot be perceived from the same standpoint: subjective violence is experienced as such against the background of the non-violent zero-level, as a perturbation of the “normal” peaceful state of things; however, objective violence is precisely the violence sustaining this “normal” state of things. Objective violence is invisible since it sustains the very zero-level standard against which we perceive something as [visible] violence – in order to perceive it, one has to perform a kind of parallax shift". 

The horror of violent acts and empathy for the victims inexorably function as a lure which prevents us from thinking, for example when we are forced to act urgently, or when confronted with "humanitarian politics" of human rights that serves as the ideology of military interventionism for specific economic-political purposes, which utterly prevents any radical socio-political transformation (i.e. charity becomes the humanitarian mask hiding the face of economic exploitation). Having that in mind, there are four possible theoretical tasks one should undertake in order to clearly articulate a theory of political violence: 1) to point out that "structural" violence is in the heart of global capitalism, 2) to deconstruct media's coverage of crime, terrorism as well as humanitarian crisis, 3) to unravel true motives of terrorists, 4) to expose racism and racial violence as fear which is deeply rooted in the liberal and tolerant multicultural societies obsessed with political correctness. Therefore, as Žižek has pointed out, subjective violence we see (the one with a clear identifiable agent) is only the tip of an iceberg made up of "systemic" violence.

Regarding systemic violence, it should be emphasized that every state is in a way founded on violence, as many authors have pointed out so far. In the classical definition by Max Weber, the modern state is "that human community within which a defined territory successfully claims for itself the monopoly of legitimate physical violence [or legitimate use of physical force]". Relation between state and violence has particularly been emphasized in classical Marxist theory. Hannah Arendt in her essay on violence accurately affirmed that "violence had not generally been regarded as essential to revolution until recently". In standard Marxist terms, revolutionary violence is a mean of bringing into existence a just society (e.g. a Communist one). Most roots of the theoretical analysis of violence stem from the ideological dimension of Marxism which became the basis for a theory of political violence as such. The very idea that violence may be justified by just ends is today inherently prone to excess, so when Fredric Jameson, for example comments that violence represent a sign of the "authenticity of the revolutionary process", one cannot ignore understated irony in that sentence (or, Arendt who claims that "violence can be justifiable, but it never will be legitimate"). 

Today's liberal-democratic attitude is based on the idea that acknowledging any aggressive act means to "politically suspend the ethical". Nevertheless, as I mentioned before, today we cannot use same parameters or same tools in the analysis. For example, today's focus on terrorism as a "global" destructing force demands thinking about the way in which ideological frameworks are deployed in justification of violence. That is to say, now one has to try to reformulate distinction between political power and the mere exercise of social violence, as Arendt has done. Going one more time back to Marxist ideas, it is of crucial importance to rethink its classical concepts in a way Balibar did. His critique of the Hegelian-Marxist notion of "converting" violence exclusively into an instrument of historical Reason, i.e. a force that begets a new social formation, ends up with a conclusion that Marxism is fundamentally unable to think any excess of violence that cannot be fully integrated into the narrative of historical Progress. A step further has been taken in Žižek`s recent book on violence where he, following Balibar`s notion of excessive, non-functional violence (not grounded in any utilitarian or ideological reasons), develops a stubbornly provocative idea how we should relate to it: instead of "aggressive passivity" when people act all the time in such a way that nothing really changes, the solution is in the "passive-aggressive behavior". "Withdrawal into passivity" is thus proclaimed to be the only viable solution on how to react to the violence in contemporary world.

This is the reference point of the everlasting utopian idea of revolution. As we know, the revolution without violence is the same kind of a dream of a "revolution without revolution", as Robespierre had put it. Speaking of arguments against "big" political interventions in world today, which aim at a global transformation based on the experience of 20th century catastrophes that unlashed horrible crimes and modes of violence, Žižek in another book names three main approaches regarding that problem: 1) Habermasian approach: he sees Enlightenment basically as emancipatory process with no inherent "totalitarianism", i.e. the violence is born due to the fact it has not been finished yet: 2) Adorno-Horkheimer approach (where one should also include Agamben) – the essence of Enlightenment is today's "administered world" (verwaltete Welt): 3) Balibar sees modernity as a process which opens up both freedoms and dangers. Violence by the oppressor is, paradoxically, better than charity because it openly confesses itself.

The ultimate reference to the problem of violence can be found in Benjamin's seminal essays "Theses on Philosophy of History" and "Critique of Violence", two crucial texts which Žižek also analyses at the end of his book. Benjamin drowns his reflections on violence from Georges Sorel, making an apology for a "divine violence" understood as "the heroic assumption of the solitude of the sovereign decision". Divine violence is precisely not a direct intervention of the omnipotent God to punish humankind for its excesses; it ought to be understood as a cataclysmic, purifying violence of the sovereign ethnical deed, quite dissimilar from famous Heidegger's assertion that "only a God can still save us" ("nur noch ein Gott kann uns retten"). "Domain of pure divine violence is the real domain of sovereignty, the domain within which killing is neither an expression of personal pathology (idiosyncratic destructive drive), nor a crime (or its punishment), nor a sacred sacrifice. It is neither aesthetic, nor ethical, nor religious (a sacrifice to dark gods). So, paradoxically, divine violence does partially overlap with the bio-political disposal of homini sacer: in both cases, killing is neither a crime nor a sacrifice. Those annihilated by divine violence are fully and completely guilty: they are not sacrificed, since they are not worthy of being sacrificed to and accepted by God - they are annihilated without being made a sacrifice." This is why Giorgio Agamben`s biopolitical theory perfectly fits into this new theory of violence, giving us deep insights into the structure of the contemporary political constellation. 

How to define a form of subjectivity that will be truly revolutionary violence, confronting the inauthentic, excessive and illegitimate violence of the state? One should focus more on those "useless" and "excessive" outbursts of violence which display hatred of the Otherness, in accordance with the post-political multiculturalist universe of tolerance for difference. The problem is that today's "radical democracy" is not "radical" enough: it basically accepts the liberal-capitalist horizon, and the logic of liberal capitalism is so total it makes any alternative unthinkable. Does it ultimately mean that, for example, Žižek offers an alternative which is genuinely progressive and transformative, or does he bring about only the empty negativity of "active nihilism"? Does "doing nothing" means that "resistance is surrender"? Today's Left reacts in a wide variety of ways to the hegemony of global capitalism and its political supplement, liberal democracy. It might accept hegemony but continue to fight for reform within its rules (e.g. Third way) or to do nothing and wait for an outburst of "divine violence". It is not enough to merely reform the existing system; we need to radically transform the world.

Of course, Žižek is not a ground-breaking author regarding that issue: many anti-capitalists assert that "capitalism is violent", believing that private property, trade and profit survive only because state (or police) violence defends them and that capitalist economies unavoidably need war to expand. His notion of "systemic" violence also heavily relies on numerous theories on "structural violence" denoting a form of violence in which social institutions kill people slowly by preventing them from meeting their basic needs, leading further to social conflicts. What is really innovative, and in a way provocative, in his book is the idea of passivity: It is "better to do nothing than to engage in localized acts whose ultimate function is to make the system run smoother (acts like providing the space for the multitude of new subjectivities, etc.) The threat today is not passivity, but pseudo-activity, the urge to “be active,” to “participate,” to mask the Nothingness of what goes on. People intervene all the time, “do something,” academics participate in meaningless “debates,” etc., and the truly difficult thing is to step back, to withdraw from it. Those in power often prefer even a “critical” participation, a dialogue, to silence – just to engage us in a “dialogue,” to make it sure our ominous passivity is broken."

What would then be the most plausible theoretical answer and practical advice regarding this theoretical puzzle in which violence is utterly invisible and does not refer any more to "exertion of physical force in order to injure or abuse", or to intentional and forceful human destruction? We need to rethink it in terms of new biopolitical and biosocial constellation where revolutionary or emancipatory potential might be placed at the same time in the passivity and violent activity. The first step would be, paradoxically, to point out the meaningless of violence, to reject all teleological and theological justifications and empirical analysis, and finally to listen in theoretical silence instead of participating in the noise it constantly produces.

Síntesis no lingüística:

"La violencia" video de Agarrate Catalina y No te va gustar:

"Ningún pibe nace chorro" de Curtidores de Hongos:

LETRAS DE LAS CANCIONES:

“La violencia” - Agarrate Catalina y No te va gustar

Vengo de la cabeza

soy una banda descontrolada
hoy no me cabe nada

vas a correr porque sos cagón

Son todos unos putos

unos amargos, unos buchones
llaman a los botones

vinieron todos se quedan dos

Hoy vas a correr, porque sos cagón
con el culo roto, porque mando yo

Voy a salir de caño

ya estoy re duro, estoy re pasado
como ya estoy jugado

me chupa un huevo matarte o no

Mi vida es un infierno

mi padre es chorro, mi madre es puta
vos me mandás la yuta

y yo te mando para el cajón

Yo soy el error de la sociedad
soy el plan perfecto, que ha salido mal

Vengo del basurero

que este sistema dejó al costado
las leyes del mercado

me convirtieron en funcional

Soy un montón de mierda

brotando de las alcantarillas
soy una pesadilla

de la que no vas a despertar

Vos me despreciás, vos me buchonéas
pero fisurado, me necesitás

Soy parte de un negocio

que nadie puso y que todos usan
es la ruleta rusa

y yo soy la bala que te tocó

Cargo con un linaje

acumulativo de lisiadura
y un alma que supura

veneno de otra generación

Yo no sé quién soy, yo no sé quien sos
el tren del rebaño se descarriló

Ya escucho las sirenas

la policía me está encerrando
uno me está tirando

me dio en la gamba, le di a un botón 

Pasa mi vida entera

como un tornado escupiendo sangre
manga de hijos de puta

me dieron justo en el corazón

“Ningún pibe nace chorro”- Curtidores de hongos

Por aquí nació mi vieja
mis abuelos y mi padre
mis hermanos y hermanastros
aquí nacieron también
entre estos ranchos de lata
rodeados de basurales

Me hice hombre sin ser niño
sin confiar en las vocales
eche a rodar por el mundo
sin brújula ni timón

Hoy me dicen que mi barrio
no es igual a esos lugares
donde vive gente linda 
que siempre se porta bien
que aquí vive gente mala
que no figura en sociales

Guarida de malvivientes
reducto de marginales
y menores peligrosos 
que es preferible encerrar

Yo bien pude haber nacido
en este o en cualquier lado
eso no lo elije nadie
para bien o para mal
hoy con una sota y media
me sobra pa’ jubilarme
en el submundo en que vivo
ya hay razón pa’ rescatarse
poder llegar a los veinte
sin pasar por el COMCAR

Mi madre hizo lo que pudo
de ella no voy a quejarme
si parió siendo una niña
si pasó las que pasó

Si apenas somos un dato
una cifra un porcentaje
cuantificable en la lista
de daños colaterales
de un sistema que fabrica
cosas peores que yo

Pero una vez tuve un sueño
soñé que éramos iguales
yo tengo tu mismo origen
el vientre de una mujer

Yo nunca quise ser malo
ni andar lastimando a nadie
ojalá me hubieras visto
me hubieses cuidado antes
cuando fui quedando solo 
y mi sueño se truncó

Hoy soy la nueva pandemia
que agitan para asustarte
y solo si agarro un chumbo
salgo en la televisión

Lo que hice ya está hecho
no voy a justificarme
pa’ mí ya no pido nada
igual me las voy arreglar

Pero son muchos gurises
que están creciendo en la calle
No salgas a perseguirlos
acercate pa’ abrazarles
Que un libro y un mimo a tiempo
puede más que tu temor...

TASK 7


- Visitamos el blog: http://ssggnn.blogspot.com/

En cada tarea realizamos un comentario positivo y una sugerencia, también asignamos un puntaje a cada una.

TASK 5

Visitamos el blog de Sofía y Sabrina:

http://daydreamsofiandsabri.blogspot.com/

1. Realizar como mínimo un comentario positivo
2. Dejar como mínimo una sugerencia
3. Puntaje máximo 2 puntos para cada tarea
4. Opción de asignar un punto extra a la tarea 4

TASK 3

Tema de interés personal: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (Trastorno por déficit de atención con hiperactividad)

Conocimiento previo:

- Algunos niños y niñas padecen este trastorno.
- Incide en el desempeño académico de quien lo padece.
- Es importante que los docentes posean información al respecto.

Preguntas al texto:


¿Qué tipos de comportamientos presentan quienes presentan el trastorno?
¿Cuáles son los síntomas del trastorno?
¿Qué tratamiento se indica?




Texto:

Quick facts on ADHD: A brief overview of the signs and symptoms, and how it's treated, in children and adolescents.

Overview

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, is a condition that makes it unusually difficult for kids to concentrate on tasks, to pay attention, to sit still, and to control impulsive behavior. While some children exhibit mostly inattentive behaviors and others predominantly hyperactive and impulsive, the majority of those with ADHD have a combination of both, which may make it very difficult for them to function in school, and create a lot of conflict at home.

Symptoms of hyperactive or impulsive ADHD:

• Fidgeting or squirming, trouble staying in one place or waiting his turn
• Excessive running and climbing
• Trouble playing quietly
• Extreme impatience
• Always seems to be "on the go" or "driven by a motor"
• Excessive talking or interrupting, blurting out answers

Symptoms of inattentive ADHD:

• Makes careless mistakes
• Is easily distracted
• Has difficulty following instructions
• Doesn't seem to be listening when spoken to directly
• Has trouble organizing
• Avoids or dislikes sustained effort
• Is forgetful, always losing things

Treatment and Prognosis

In most cases, the first line of treatment for ADHD is medication which helps children concentrate and limit impulsiveness. Psychostimulants such as methylphenidate (Ritalin) and dextroamphetamine (Adderall) are commonly used to stimulate the production of neurotransmitters that regulate attention and impulse control.

Behavior therapy is sometimes used in combination with medication. Parent-child interaction therapy and other forms of parent training teach parents how to cultivate good behaviors while minimizing impulsive or inattentive ones. When a child is old enough, cognitive behavioral therapy can help teach a child to control his behaviors by understanding how his thoughts and feelings influence them.

Fuente: http://www.childmind.org/en/quick-facts-adhd/ [16/09/14]



Síntesis:

TASK 2:

Convalidating sources/information

Texto: https://www.hetl.org/wp-content/uploads/gravity_forms/2-298b245759ca2b0fab82a867d719cbae/2013/01/Connectivism-hand-out.pdf [30/07/14]

1)

2) TABLA

Texto:

Connectivism as a Learning Theory for the Digital Age

Betsy Duke, Ginger Harper, Mark Johnston

Kaplan University, Ft. Lauderdale, FL

Abstract

George Siemens and Stephen Downes developed a theory for the digital age, called connectivism, denouncing boundaries of behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. Their proposed learning theory has issued a debate over whether it is a learning theory or instructional theory or merely a pedagogical view. While the theory presented is important and valid, is it a tool to be used in the learning process for instruction or curriculum rather than a standalone learning theory? It has also forced educators to look at what is being done in digital education and rethink, debate, and philosophize over how each part fits. Continually evaluating how each new generation learns with regard to instruction and curriculum serves to hold education to high standards. Certainly this theory is worth our thorough consideration.

Connectivism as a Learning Theory

George Siemens and Stephen Downes developed a theory for the digital age, called connectivism, denouncing boundaries of behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. Their proposed learning theory has issued a debate over whether it is a learning theory or instructional theory or merely a pedagogical view.

What are the essential criteria for something to be a learning theory?

A theory generally applies to the synthesis of a large body of information. The criterion of a theory is not whether it is true or untrue, but rather whether it is useful or not useful for explaining or predicting behavior. A theory is useful even though the ultimate causes of the phenomenon it encompasses are unknown. A theory can be refined, or with new information, it can take on a new direction.

If thoroughly tested, a theory may be widely accepted for a long period of time but later disproved (Dorin, Demmin, & Gabel, 1990). So a useful theory of learning must have resulted from considerable testing and observation. In the evaluation of the quality of a theory, one must consider several other criterions as well. The criterion of falsiability, developed by Sir Karl Popper, requires that a researcher carefully examine any negative evidence that proves their conclusions untrue. Additionally, a rule of parsimony is the preference of simple theories over highly complex ones (Johnson & Christensen, 2004).

What are the essential criteria for something to be an instructional theory?

An instructional theory, on the other hand, must prescribe procedures to enable learning efficiently and effectively. According to Jerome Bruner (1966) an instructional theory should deal with four major elements: (1) the learning predisposition, 2) the design of concepts to be presented and its structure for ease of understanding, (3) the most successful progression of ideas in which to present a body of knowledge, and (4) the administration of rewards and punishments. Therefore, an instructional theory focuses on the overall structure of learning material for the most successful learning experience. As a result of Benjamin Bloom’s Taxonomy of Education Objectives from 1956, instructional theory enabled the educator to code the learning process (Bloom, 1984). This spawned a series of instructional theorists such as Robert Gagne, who published Conditions of Learning in 1965 for the Florida State University's Department of Educational Research.

From the late 1970s, instructional theory has been traditionally split into two categories: behaviorism and cognitivism. B. F. Skinner’s behaviorist theories were popular, because they could be evaluated using the new categorization kind of process, were as it was more difficult to demonstrate a cognitive learning result. In opposition, Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed criticized the idea of an educational model being “banked”. Much like Bruner’s definition of instructional theory, Schott and Driscoll (1997) formulated a proposal for a universal instructional theory. Four components for an instructor and designer to consider were: (1) the learner, (2) the learning task, which includes learning outcome goals, (3) the conditions and instructional methods for learning, the overall environment, and (4) a frame of reference for specific learning. “Therefore, the purpose of instructional theory is to be prescriptive, to provide principles by which teachers and instructional designers can assure learning” (Driscoll, p. 353).

Robert M Gagne more clearly defined instructional theory during World War II for the process of training pilots in the Air Force. He later developed a sequence of requirements that codify what educators should use for instruction. Gagne is considered to be the foremost researcher and contributor to the organized approach to instructional theory. His major input to the theory of instruction was his model for "Nine Events of Instruction" from his book, The Conditions of Learning: Training Applications in 1996.

1. Gaining attention

2. Informing learners of the objective

3. Stimulating recall of prior learning

4. Presenting the content

5. Providing learning guidance

6. Eliciting performance

7. Providing feedback

8. Assessing performance

9. Enhancing retention and transfer

Robert Gagne is regarded as the leading researcher to a methodical approach to instructional design and teaching. Since the focus is on behaviors as the outcomes that result from specific training, his followers are regarded as behaviorists (Gagne & Medsker, 1996).

What are the differences between a learning theory and an instructional theory?

What might not have been clearly obvious is that learning theory differs from instructional theory in that learning theories describe how learning essentially occurs, while instructional theories explain how to achieve the preferred learning outcomes. One may reflect on the idea that cognitive theory is the leading theory in instructional design and many of the instructional strategies promoted and used by behaviorists are also used by cognitivists, but for a different purpose. For example, behaviorists evaluate a learner to assess prior knowledge, while cognitivists evaluate a learner to establish their predisposition to learning (Ertmer & Newby, 1993). Therefore, instructional design can be viewed from a behaviorist or cognitivist approach instead of the constructivist approach. Designing instruction by using a behaviorist or cognitive approach requires the educator to analyze the situation and then set specific goals. These goals are broken down into learning objectives and are further broken down into individual tasks. Assessment is based on whether specific criteria for each objective have been met. Instructional designer defines what the learner should know. Evaluation could be based on tests for mastery learning.

The constructivist approach, on the other hand, requires that the instructional designer produce a result that is more facilitative than specific. Knowledge gained is not pre-specified for the learner and evaluation is more subjective, since it does not rely on specific quantitative criteria. Results are obtained from the process and self evaluation of the learner instead. Evaluation could be based on notes, projects, or journals. Because the learner can understand numerous realities, the learner is better able to deal with real life circumstances. If a learner can problem solve, he or she may be better able to apply existing knowledge to a new situation. A learning theory tries to classify what is known about learning. It has two central values for the researcher or instructor. Learning theories provide a conceptual framework and vocabulary to enable observations to be interpreted and understood. By using this commonality, those involved in the learning process can effectively explain what is observed and build or develop new ways to provide more meaning. Second, a learning theory provides a resource for the educator to solve a practical problem with a practical solution. (Merriam & Caffarella, 1991)

What is connectivism?

Stated simply, connectivism is social learning that is networked. Stephen Downes described it as, “… 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). Connectivism is characterized as a reflection of our society that is changing rapidly, complex, connected socially, global, and mediated by increasing advancements in technology. It is the orchestration of a complex disarray of ideas, networked to form specific information sets. Ways of knowing are derived from a diversity of opinions. The individual does not have control; rather it is a collaboration of current ideas as seen from a present reality. The core skill is the ability to see connections between information sources and to maintain that connection to facilitate continual learning. Decisions are supported by rapidly altering fundamentals as new information is quickly integrated to create a new climate of thinking. This constant update and shift of knowledge also can be contained outside the learner, such as in a database or other specialized information source. For the learner to be connected to this outside knowledge is more important than his or her existing state of knowing. The first point of connectivism is the individual. Personal knowledge consists of a system of networks, which supplies an organization, which in turn gives back to the system. The individual continues the cycle of knowledge growth by his or her access back into the system. The advantage is that the learner can remain current on any topic through the connection they have created. Within any defined social network, there is a focus for groups of people with a common goal. They can promote and sustain a well-organized flow of knowledge (Siemens, 2004).

Why Connectivism is a new learning theory for a digital age

Siemens stated that, “Exponentially developing knowledge and complexification of society requires nonlinear models of learning (process) and knowing (state). We cannot sustain ourselves as learning/knowing beings in the current climate with our current approaches” (Siemens, 2009). With increasing technological connection through the internet, digital cities that collaborate on a wide array of topics have become a collective network that links communities both locally and globally. This paradigm shift and proliferation of social networks have caused educators to embrace this new option for knowledge for use in the classroom.

From his viewpoint, Siemens (2006) pointed out that knowledge has changed from categories and hierarchies to networks and various ecologies. Knowledge is based on the two ideas that it explains some part of our existence, and that the knowledge is useful for some kind of action. “Viewing learning and knowledge as network phenomena alters much of how we have experienced knowledge in the last century” (Siemens, p. vii). Concepts can be viewed much like a mind map, as a network, rather than as a linear progression of ideas. He asserts that this networking is the manner that an individual receives learning. Therefore, with such a dramatic change that is continually developing through technology, its institutions and schools are all, “stretching under the heavy burden of change. New epistemological and ontological theories are being formed…” (Siemens, p. 3).

Why Connectivism is considered to be a learning theory

Connectivism could be a learning theory for the following reasons. First, connectivism is characterized as, “the amplification of learning, knowledge, and understanding through the extension of a personal network” (Siemens, 2004). It is only through these personal networks that the learner can acquire the viewpoint and diversity of opinion to learn to make critical decisions. Since it is impossible to experience everything, the learner can share and learn through collaboration. Second, the sheer amount of data available makes it impossible for a learner to know all that is needed to critically examine specific situations. Being able to tap into huge databases of knowledge in an instant empowers a learner to seek further knowledge. Such a capacity to acquire knowledge can facilitate research and assist in interpreting patterns. Third, explaining learning by means of traditional learning theories is severely limited by the rapid change brought about by technology. Connectivism is defined as actionable knowledge, where an understanding of where to find knowledge may be more important than answering how or what that knowledge encompasses.

Opposing viewpoints pose reasons why connectivism might not be considered a learning theory. First, while connectivism is an intriguing development for discussion, it is not a totally new educational approach to learning. Rather, when compared to established learning theories, there is an overlap of ideas. B.F. Skinner considered having a specific boundary as crucial for unique learning theory. Mark McMahon (1997) stated that learning can be defined within the boundaries of the three broad theoretical approaches: behaviorism, cognitivism, or constructivism (McMahon, para. 6-7). The internet functions in a manner similar to the way person thinks (Gygi, 1990), which implies opportunities to link information required for processing within a cognitive framework. Specifically, Piaget (1977) defined Cognitive Constructionism as learning with a process of accommodation, assimilation, and equilibration. Cognitive Constructionism is a "dialectic process in which the subject resolves perturbations in the coherence of his or her structuring activities by coordinating and constructing new, more adequate cognitive structures" (Saxe, 1991). Cognitive Flexibility Theory (Spiro, 1995), as explained by Archee & Duin, 1995, is another corresponding theory. This theory pulls together multiple elements of content, where knowledge is interconnected and complex (Archee & Duin, 1995). Second, connectivism “misrepresents the current state of established alternative learning theories such as constructivism, behaviorism and cognitivism, so this basis for a new theory is also dubious" (Kerr, 2006, para. 5-7). Additionally, Pløn Verhagen (2006) stated that connectivism is a pedagogical view instead. He asserted that learning theories should address the issue of how to enable the learner at the instructional level. By contrast, connectivism is directed to the examination of what is learned and why at the curriculum level. If connectivism is considered a learning theory instead of a theory of just being connected, there should be a provision for the transference and promotion of the learner’s understanding. In agreement with this viewpoint, Bill Kerr (2006) argued that the idea of connectivism as a theory is not valid. His debate with Stephen Downes occurs repeatedly in internet discussions. Kerr considered connectivism to be part of existing learning theories, where various technologies only affect methods of instruction in numerous ways (Downes, 2006). Third, while connectivism might apply to selected areas of knowledge, it would not be universal for all subjects. Knowledge cannot only be derived on a system that is available 24/7. Specific instructor connection and teaching or mentoring must take place for a learner to internalize concepts and apply them to their real world circumstance. While having a current data source handy is helpful and at times, necessary, certain hubs of knowledge must be actualized by the learner. For example, a hospital patient would not be happy to see his or her doctor consulting his iPod for a diagnosis. Even though having the latest in research available is a requisite for the best medical treatment, it is no substitute for experience and personal knowledge from the doctor.

Rather than a new learning theory, connectivism offers an educator a model or mental representation that depicts something that cannot be observed or experienced directly (Dorin, Demmin & Gabel, 1990). While the debate over the status of George Siemens and Stephen Downes’ theory of connectivism will continue to be debated for many years, it is undoubtedly an important school of thought directly applicable to the use of technology in the classroom today. There is no doubt that online learning is a direct technological response to different learning cultures, methods, and inspirations. “The integration of 3D interactive graphics and web technologies (Web3D) will allow educators to develop highly interactive and realistic learning environments to enhance online learning” (Chittaro & Ranon, 2007). Established the learning theories of behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism each contribute in unique ways to the design of online materials through their ideas of how learning takes place. Behaviorist strategies teach facts and what is needed for understanding concepts. Cognitive strategies focus on how the process should be implemented for the most successful learning. Constructivist strategies use a shift toward real-life application, where the learner is given the opportunity to construct personal meanings from what is presented. Connectivism can be used as an important instructional guide or theory to develop previous learning theories for their application to a globalized and networked world, but not as a standalone learning theory (Ally, 2007).

Within the framework of cognitive constructionism, Jean Piaget defined two principles for learning. First, learning is presented actively, and second, learning must be authentic and connected to real life (Piaget, 1977). Connectivism supports this definition by offering specific technological opportunities for the learner to be actively involved in the presentation of a body of knowledge. Students are able to recognize and interpret patterns by connecting to a diversity of representative networks. Furthermore, they are able to personally acclimate within a social network that encompasses experts from specific bodies of knowledge.

For example, with the aid of multimedia, a student can experience a computer based environment on Mars, while still being supported by their larger classroom setting. With constructivist factors that influence learning, such as engagement, participation, social, or cultural issues, the student can also build their own society or culture there, allowing networking opportunities to assist the critical analysis of this new world. Factors associated with prior knowledge of how life is supported and adapted to the elements and patterns seen in this new world show how being immersed into a new situation through the computer can make the learning personal and meaningful.

Technology influences all theoretical viewpoints by providing techniques and unique instructional methods. Every new idea or theory presented merits close examination for the possibility of helping students learn more successfully. With such a diverse population, an equally diverse selection of instructional techniques is necessary. Connectivism offers that diversity through a variety of networks, helping the new generations collaborate to find solutions to an ever increasing number of questions. Chris Dede (2007) mentioned how the nature of collaboration has changed. Throughout the years, educators and technologist had to learn to incorporate these changes in order to maximize learning. Engaged learning relies on collaboration among the members of the learning community (Conrad & Donaldson, 2004). These connectivist socializations help the learner structure (cognitivism) and create meaning from what is observed (constructivism), thereby establishing recognizable patterns to use in future situations (connectivism). Although Siemens (2006) argues for the shortcomings of existing learning theories, the continued rapid advancement of new technologies and associated ideas will continually transform instructional methods and expectations for acquiring knowledge.

There is always a certain amount of core knowledge that is required to be able to understand any information presented. Depending on the field of study, this core knowledge will vary. If a person with limited core knowledge accesses internet information beyond his or her ability to understand, then that knowledge is useless. Most people will give up and not continue learning. In order to acquire the core knowledge for a specific field, a structured study using the existing learning theories is required. Most individuals will not have the understanding in a specific field to access the data in that field and then assimilate the knowledge in a sequence that will make it understandable.

While the theory presented by George Siemens and Stephen Downes is important and valid, it is a tool to be used in the learning process for instruction or curriculum rather than a standalone learning theory. It has also forced educators to look at what is being done in digital education and rethink, debate, and philosophize over how each part fits. Continually evaluating how each new generation learns with regard to instruction and curriculum serves to hold education to high standards.

References

Ally, M. (2007). Foundations for educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson (Eds.), The theory and practice of online learning, (pp. 15-44). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Anderson, T. (Ed.) (2008). The Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Archee, R., & Duin, A. H. (1995, ). The WWW and Distance Education - Convergence or Cacophony? Paper presented at the AUUG '95 & Asia-Pacific WWW '95 Conference and Exhibition, Sydney, Australia.

Black, E. (1995). Behaviorism as a learning theory. Retrieved from http://129.7.160.115/inst5931/Behaviorism.html

Bloom, B. S. (1984). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Chittaro L., Ranon R. (2007). Web3D technologies in learning, education, and training: Motivation, issues, and opportunities. Computers and Education, 49(1), 3-18.

Conrad, R., & Donaldson, A. (2004). Engaging the o line learner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Dede, Chris. “The Importance of Collaboration featuring Dr. Chris Dede." Walden University. 2008. Laureate Education, Inc.

Dorin, H., Demmin, P. E., Gabel, D. (1990). Chemistry: The study of matter. (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Downes, S. (2007). What connectivism is. Retrieved from http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-connectivism-is.html

Driscoll, M. (2000). Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Connectivism as a Learning Theory for the Digital Age 8

TASK 1: Reasons/purpouse for reading

TASK 1:

Reasons/purpouse for reading

1) Blog.

2) Look for authentic academic text in english.

Para esta actividad trabajamos con el siguiente texto:
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED442707.pdf [23/07/14]

3) Complete