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
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