I just arrived in Reykjavik for a conference on PISA 2006 and the transition to e-assessment. It’s my first time in Iceland, and I must say it was a bit surreal. I’m just reading Green Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson, which contains a lot of descriptions of a newly terraformed Mars: cold, lots of rocks and lots of lichen. Trust me, walking around in Iceland came scarily close to how I had been imagining the novel in my head up till then.
I’m hoping to find some time over the next days to post my thoughts on the conference. There is a very impressive lineup of international experts on assessment scheduled to speak, and I am looking forward to exchanging ideas and opinions with them. Pictures will have to wait I’m afraid, as I forgot to pack the cable that connects my camera to my laptop…grrr…
The article Learning Networks and Connective Knowledge has been really valuable for me in understanding the ideas behind connectivism a lot better. It is a bit of a read, but in my opinion well worth the time and attention.
What resonated particularly well for me, is the idea of building an emergentist theory of learning. I have always preferred a holistic approach to understanding. One of the major weaknesses in our ‘Western’ view of the world is the idea that we can understanding everything by reducing it to it’s component parts. I suppose it is something that developed with my long term practice of Chinese martial arts and philosophy. More recently I have found tremendous value in ‘system thinking’ as described by Peter Senge in his book ‘The Fifth Discipline‘. In this book Senge criticises the reductionist approach to running businesses such as our obsession with KPI’s and the like. I think I’m starting to realise that connectivism really is based on similar principles, applied to learning.
Reflecting further on connectivism, and in particular on the idea of ‘levels of knowing’, there are several other things falling into place as well. I have been a fan of the SOLO taxonomy ever since being introduced to it by Graham Gibbs about 3 years ago. For me it makes so much more sense then the archaic taxonomy of Bloom. It classifies levels of understanding by the amount of connections that a learner makes, and the broadness of those connections (for instance into other domains of knowledge). It seems to me to be an excellent reflection of how learning would develop according to the connectivist model.
So after a somewhat sceptical start, I must say that I’m beginning to warm to some of the ideas behind connectivism. I do still think some of the theory and arguments behind it need more refinement, and perhaps that is something I should try and articulate over the next few weeks to help this discussion along. For the moment though many of the ideas are still somewhat in the ‘primordial soup’ stage, and so I will give myself a few weeks before venturing down that path further.
Research done by PISA has shown convincingly that school systems whit a high degree of autonomy perform better (see my post on SAT troubles for a bit more info) . It seems that the Liberal Democrats have now formally adopted this position, and have outlined plans to scrap the national curriculum. A brave move. It will be interesting to see how this discussion unfolds, and if it will survive the inevitable backlash from the control brigade.
It’s only the first week and I’m already behind schedule, how embarrassing. Either way, here are my reflections on the first week of connectivism: Levels of analysis Although not a part of this weeks reading, I did find a lot of value in a video recommended by Clark Quinn: (not Donald Clark as I erroneously said earlier):
It seems to me that a lot of the differences in the various theories and views on learning really boil down to the level of analysis or perspective that you take on the problem. Connectivism in that sense is the result of the analysis of learning within a new level or structure that has been created through new technology.
Analogies Aside from the level of analysis, analogies can form another perspective on a problem. Often we start employing an analogy because it aids in the representation of an aspect of an idea. However, analogies are always flawed, and so when we start employing our analogy to liberally we inevitably run into problems. Unfortunately our brain seems to like, and need, simplicity and so we often find ourselves stuck in our own analogy.
The brain as a computer is a very obvious analogy. Knowledge as an object that can be internalised is perhaps also the result of a subconscious analogy. In the days where books were not too abundant and the number of views expressed in them relatively limited perhaps it was logical to see the book as a synonym for knowledge. And so reading the book, internalising it, equivalent to learning. the observation had very little to do with what learning really is. It is more an expression of how learning commonly took place.
And so for the blogging, networking and podcasting fanatics amongst us, networked learning has become our preferred mode of learning. And while it serves a lot of us very well, I am not sure it actually makes it a theory of learning, or if it is merely an instantiation of it. And to be very precisely, perhaps it is more a means of sense making, more then learning. Learning, to me, is still something I cannot easily separate from the individual.
