Defending Connectivism

Chris Swimmer, a fellow student in Massive: The Future of Learning at Scale, recently wrote a great piece on some of the pitfalls of connectivism, as we experience it in this course.  If you’re reading this and aren’t part of the course, our class follows a connectivist model, in which students contribute different things and take away different things, depending on their skill sets and interests.  In theory, the differentiation strips away much of the “busy work” that people often experience in formal education, and what’s left is a community of students whose collaboration mirrors that of “real-world” workplaces.  (You can read more in-depth about culture and connectivism here.)

I wanted to respond to Chris’s comments not because I disagree, but because I think they highlight an important element of many HGSE courses that focus on new (or unfamiliar) pedagogies, and I’m trying to make sense of the purpose behind it as well.

Chris refers to “meta-learning,” which I take to mean that Massive, among other classes, focuses on an alternative method for learning (and teaching), and does so by implementing that same method.  In Massive, that method is connectivism.  In Karen Brennan’s class, Designing for Learning by Creating, it’s constructionism.  In Tina Grotzer’s Applying Cognitive Science to Learning and Teaching, it’s Deeper Learning/Teaching for Understanding framework.  All of these HGSE courses teach deep, powerful concepts that build upon how I–and I’d imagine, most people–envision education, and they “walk the walk.”  So yes, definitely meta-learning.

Chris also admits that connectivism, because of its loose structure, doesn’t hold him accountable.  He potentially does less work than he might in a normal class with stricter standards.  I, too, have worried about this–and I’ve talked to a fair number of students in Justin’s class, Karen Brennan’s class and other classes who feel the same way about constructivist-heavy classes.  Chris mentions the importance of learning within a familiar framework; these methods of learning are unfamiliar, so using them right away is risky.

But when I think about learning environments that have worked best for me, they are the ones that nicely balance theory and practice.  I don’t truly subscribe to any specific way of learning something, but after I hear about a new idea, I generally like to see it in action, and interact with it.  My guess is that most of us do.

And that’s why I like Massive as a model of a connectivist course, although I also feel less pushed to produce than I might in a traditional setting.  I am interacting with connectivism as I write this post, and I’m constantly challenged to question my assumptions about what makes “good education.”  The jury is still out, but I’m glad to have the space to reflect as a sceptic of new methods.  (Paradoxically, if I decided that a didactic, lecture-based class was better than a connectivist class, and I found that out through taking a connectivist class… wouldn’t that realization mean that it was deeply important to take the connectivist class?)

So Chris, I agree entirely with you, but I’d also imagine that neither of us would be writing these posts if we weren’t feeling pushed to engage critically.  Deciding that you don’t thrive in a connectivist class by taking a connectivist class is, I guess, meta-learning!


4 thoughts on “Defending Connectivism

  1. Thanks for the write up of this! I appreciate your honest feedback. I think the heart of what I was really trying to get I said in response to a comment by Allison Goldsberry. I’ll just repost part of that response here:

    “I suppose my is, what exactly are we supposed to be doing here? Is this class about learning about the different kinds of platforms for learning at a massive scale? Or is about learning how to learn in a connectivist way? Both are okay in their own right, but if it’s the latter that dominates my experience, I feel a bit misled.”

  2. Reblogged this on Ed Tech Wannabe and commented:
    David’s blog post on EdForward took the words right out of my mouth regarding Connectivist learning. In addition to his points on meta-learning, I feel that the mere fact that we are struggling through this is a learning experience. How are we to design learning environments if we haven’t completely immersed ourselves in each type?

    While I struggle to always motivate myself to post something, I am seriously benefiting from reading my peers’ thoughts and findings. I wouldn’t be writing this blog post if I didn’t get something out of what David and Chris posted. Last week, I wasn’t sure what I thought about IRT. I went to the blog hub and read several different viewpoints and subsequently was able to shape my own perspective.

    I see this class as an opportunity to experience the benefits and problems of Connectivism while simultaneously learning about different types of learning environments. By the end, I hope to apply my experiential learning to each of the environments to gain a full understanding of Connectivism.

    We need to define the problems to develop the solutions. By experiencing and learning what works and what doesn’t, we can design better learning environments in the future (whether that includes Connectivism or not!)

    • “We need to define the problems to develop the solutions. By experiencing and learning what works and what doesn’t, we can design better learning environments in the future (whether that includes Connectivism or not!)”

      YES, very well said!

  3. Pingback: Defending Connectivism | Ed Tech Wannabe

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s