All Discussion Threads]

#CCK11 Moving beyond Connectivism

Commentary by ken427 (Ken Anderson) on link by deadvocate, #CCK11 Moving beyond Connectivism, March 3, 2011.

Hello Ken (yes, I am addressing myself here :-)

I wonder at the need to move beyond connectivism at such a seemingly early stage in the discussion. Is it merely the apparent emotive nature of the word, the disagreements that it produces, that lead you to seek a different language framework? Is it the value linkages that connectivism has spawned, the linkage of influential = undesirable in the distribution of nodes? (Hits Today: 888 Total: 888)

[Link] [Tags: none] [Previous][Next]

---

Comments

Small 'c' connectivism

Ken Anderson, March 3, 2011

Well, on my blog that is linked to this thread, a distinction is made by Gordon between small 'c' and large 'C' connectivism, and I find this useful. Connectivism is embedded in specific valuations; connectivism is a descriptive term. The valuations of Connectivism irk me somewhat, and they are argued as being the true state of the world, when in fact they are interpretive in nature. The descriptive term connectivism, on the other hand, may be useful as Gordon suggests:

"I don't think connectivism (small 'c') has outlived its usefulness as a term – its continued use might be simply as a loose description of education's move from the confines of the classroom to the connected world at large"

So maybe it is really Connectivism that I would like to move past, leaving its valuations and emotive responses behind, and moving in the direction of connectivism as a loose description. The problem is, just like trying to distinguish distributed networks from distributive networks (Stephen Downes labelled them networks and groups in order to make this distinction, and admittedly regrets his choice of terms), the terms are so similar that some confusions are likely to arise.

So I still wonder if a new language framework would be better.

Re: #CCK11 Moving beyond Connectivism

Gordon Lockhart, March 4, 2011
To be honest, some of the finer distinctions made by Connectivism pass me by but I'm not too worried. There's no need to buy any ideological T-shirts - and, in my experience at least, no sign that anyone would have it otherwise!

T-shirts 4 sale

Ken Anderson, March 4, 2011
pssstt.....

I have a couple T-shirts left, available at a small discount (25% off regular price), trying to clear out the stock of large "C" logos before the introduction of the new model....

Hi Gordon, well, yes, there's no need to buy the ideology, but I think there are very strong suggestions to embrace it, even in the presence of claims to the contrary. But my intention is only to raise some counter-points and awareness, ultimately, hopefully everyone decides for themselves what is valuable and what is not. The complexity for me begins when a specific value system becomes part of an institutional system, like education for instance. Since the public education system is mandatory in my jurisdiction (Ontario), my offspring will be required to attend, and I like to know what values are being inculcated within. So, if Connectivism were to prosper and become a greater part of the formal education system, or even to replace it, I want to know its foundational values, not just the mechanics and tools of it. The main foundational value seems to be that groups (distributive networks) are bad, and networks (distributed networks) are good. I would like to explore this further. I wonder if the division is too simplistic, and if the valuing of networks over groups serves to blind people to any values that might be found in groups.

I also find the dichotomy in Connectivism between reason and emotion to be problematic. Promoting reason at the expense of emotion within a learning process serves to marginalize, and I wonder that there is any basis in science for doing so. There are statements in this emotional post about reason and emotion:

http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2006/10/that-group-feeling.html

My 2 cents. For what it's worth. The T-shirts cost more.

Re: #CCK11 Moving beyond Connectivism

LeahGrrl, March 7, 2011
Hi Ken,

As you know, I've commented in my Assignment #1 about the reason/emotion dichotomy. To me as both a teacher and learner, it's a false dichotomy. Certainly we could even prove it on a biochemical level.

For your overstock Ts, if you have any colorful ones left at the end of the sale, donate them to a quilting club.

Have a good week,
Leah

Shade of grey

Ken Anderson, March 8, 2011
Thanks Leah

Yes, down with this false dichotomy. What purpose does it serve? It produces far too much conflict and grief. Let's acknowledge the reality of it, and not try to use it to make debating points for our various ideologies. Even neuroscience struggles with its modularity approach.

On another note, unfortunately, all the T's came in one shade only, a kind of dirty grey. Even the big 'C" logo is in the same shade, which seems a little ridiculous when you think about it, as if the whole thing is in the same shade of grey, then how do you see the 'C'? I guess that may be part of my problem, I don't quite see the 'C', and I made a mistake in ordering these T's, and now I am stuck with them. I don't think the quilt makers will want them, unless they can be used as a constrast to the other brighter colours in use? Maybe even a bricolage requires a a less-vibrant colour so that the lively ones stand out?

I don't make quilts, but maybe I should start.

Your Comment