The Ways We See the World » My Position on Connectivism

My Statement on Connectivism:

Connectivism [1] challenges the contemporary education system and its orientation by contrasting it with emerging ways of knowing, interacting, collaborating producing, mixing or any other significant mode of expression afforded by emerging technologies of the new century. Downes and Siemens initiated new discourse on learning that is relevant and required for the new types of learners and engagement for the new Internet and Web 2.0 environment, in particular in the context of e-learning. What I find most relevant about Connectivism is its criticism of the existing education system and its inertia to bring about changes that are required to empower the new types of learners. Downes, in particular, repeatedly emphasizes in his numerous writings and presentations that learning is not about acquisition of the content and that there is no “experts” as such to transfer their knowledge to “novices.” The critical stance on the existing education system resonates the 20th century thinkers who were critical of the dehumanizing aspects of the modern institutions shaped by the industrial development. Illich’s deschooling and anti-professionalism[2], Freire’s “banking education,” [3]or Fromme’s the modern men’s obsession with “having” mode are known well.[4] For Illich, the solution was to develop convivial alternatives that ensure “autonomous and creative intercourse among persons, and the intercourse of persons with their environment”(Illich, 1973 cited by infed.org). In his convivial arrangements, the role of technologies is to serve individuals rather than managers (Illich, 1975 cited by infed.org). Freire also believed in connecting and networking people based on its local community through its informal and popular education leading to informed community action (infed.org, 2002). Fromme (2005) critically pointed out modern men’s erroneous focus on “having” rather than “being” in To Have or to Be? Similarly, Connectivism negates the creation of disengaged learners by simply transferring the same traditional pedagogies over to the online sphere with the implementation of the e-learning products such as Content Management System or Learning Management System. Downes and Siemens instead see potentials in a new emerging networked pedagogy, which is shaped and negotiated among the participants through their interactions in the environment of Web 2.0 and social media.

The concept of “network”[5] is central to both Downes and Siemens. For Downes (2006), the nature of a given network depends on how entities of the network are connected. He lists seven characteristics arise from it. This means that each entity plays some part in the network but no one entity can control its holistic effects or how all the connections in the network are working. Under the heading, “semantic condition,” he states that reliability of connective knowledge is achieved by “the promotion of diversity, through the empowering of individual entities, and the reduction in the influence of well-connected entities, is essentially a way of creating extra sets of eyes within the network.” Unfortunately, I am completely lost when Downs starts to talk about the nature of human perceptions or our inherent ability to recognize some patterns in everything at the level of neural connections, on the one hand, and the technical protocols of the Word Wide Web, on the other, and he continues to extend his discussion to sociological concepts such as “group vs. network.” His discussion then continues to refer to Social Network Analysis! I wonder if this is indeed a modeling of how Connectivism can be practiced?! They tend to relate to it in very abstract terms such as a set of properties at one moment , more concrete network phenomenon of the World Wide Web and Web 2.0 media, at another moment.

We were introduced to technical terms used in Social Network Analysis (SNA) in the 2nd week of the course. The common criticism of SNA is that it’s “just methodology.”[6] The success of SNA is when there is rich qualitative and contextual information about what are being analyzed. White & Johansen (2004)[7], for example, successfully utilized SNA in their longitudinal study of a Turkish nomadic clan based on detailed ethnographic data and contextual knowledge of the people. The nuances and contexts of the study were gathered by the fieldwork of Johansen that was carried out from 1956 to 2004. In a similar way, some of the nuances and contexts in which interactions, social relations, ideas or artifacts that constitute a network of given social configurations have to be qualified. In other words, “network” can be used as a shorthand for any number of configurations and contexts.

There are researchers who discuss more concrete findings regarding the nature of the network in social media. danah boyd (2009)[8], for example, delineates in her analysis of Facebook vs. Myspace that the race, class, education, and other societal divisions are being played out in the digital sphere. According to one of her subjects she interviewed, “Myspace became the “ghetto” of digital landscape.” Wesch (2008) [9] also effectively contextualizes the contemporary net generation youth at the 2008 Personal Democracy Forum and situates them in the context of American cultural dynamics of the past 25 years. His presentation narrates tensions of growing up and developing identity as represented by youth and popular culture. For the current net generation, engaging with the media like YouTube–which allows them to connect to many while in fact, talking to computer screen alone in their room late at night–would be added to their mix. Wesch, however, ends his presentation with certain optimism that the contemporary youth to change the world for better despite the inheritance of narcissism, individualism, consumerism and their own vulnerability. He might be a believer of human culture in which the youth can reframe the situations for better by responding to the inherently human value of connections and community in the social networking media.

I am looking for some extra perspectives or concepts to apply connectivism thinking in my practice. Edwards (2005)[10] refers to a useful concept of “boundary object” as something to facilitate and mediate the “in-between arena of boundary practices” when learning is taking place in unbounded environment in life-long learning where multiple learning domains and sites are involved. According to Edwards, the in-between arena is “hybrid, networked and mediated domains, which give raise to alternative framings and metaphors.” Star and Griesmers (1989) developed the notion of “boundary object” and they explain:

“Boundary objects are objects which are both plastic enough to adapt to local needs and constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites. They are weakly structured in common use, and become strongly structured in individual-site use. They may be abstract or concrete. They have different meanings in different social worlds but their structure is common enough to more than one world to make them recognizable means of translation. The creation and management of boundary objects is key in developing and maintaining coherence across intersecting social worlds.”

I am still premature to elaborate on some specific examples of boundary objects. They are something to help refram the known meaning in one situation and bridge us adopt to a new somewhat unknown space and situation. The concept can be useful in understanding the mechanisms of how Connectivism works in various situations and contexts.

References:
[1] I draw my understanding of Connectivism based on Elluminate presentations for the course and Downes, Stephen (2006). Learning Networks and Connective Knowledge. Retrieved: October 22, 2009. http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper92/paper92.html

[2] Smith, M. K. (1997, 2004, 2008) ‘Ivan Illich: deschooling, conviviality and the possibilities for informal education and lifelong learning’, the encyclopedia of informal education, http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-illic.htm. Retrieved October 22, 2009.

[3] Smith, M. K. (1997, 2002) ‘Paulo Freire and informal education’, the encyclopaedia of informal education. Last update: June 18, 2009] Retrieved October 22, 2009. http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-freir.htm

[4] Fromme, Eric. (2005). Have or to Be? New York: Continuum, 2005. 182pp.

[5] Downes, Stephen (2007). Groups vs. Networks: The Class Struggle Continues. Retrieved October 22. 2009. http://www.downes.ca/post/42521
Siemens, George (2008). Groups vs. Networks, Articulate slides presentation. Retrieved October 22.2009. http://elearnspace.org/media/CCK08_Wk5/player.html
Krebes, Valdis (2008). Social Network Analysis, A Brief Introduction. Retrieved October 22, 2009. http://www.orgnet.com/sna.html
Network Theory. (2009, October 9). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved October 22, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_theory

[6] Borgatti, S.P., Mehrs, A., Brass, D.J. & Labianca, G. (2009). Social Network Analysis in the Social Sciences. Nature, 323 (5916), 892-895
(I used the same article available from http://www.steveborgatti.com/papers/SNA_Review_for_Science.pdf, Retrieved October 22, 2009. The cited item is in p.17.)

[7]Network Analysis and Ethnographic Problems. In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved October 22, 2009, from http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/PDF2009.html.

[8] boyd, danah. 2009. “The Not-So-Hidden Politics of Class Online.” Personal Democracy Forum, New York, June 30. Retrieved October 22, 2009. http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/PDF2009.html

[9] “The Machine is (Changing) Us: YouTube Culture and Politics of Authenticity” presented by Dr. Michael Wesch. Democary Forum, New York, June 29-30, 2008. Retrieved October 22, 2009. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09gR6VPVrpw&feature=player_embedded

[10] Edwards, Richard. (2005). Contexts, boundary objects and hybrid spaces: theorizing learning in lifelong learning. Education-Line: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/142037.htm Retrieved October 22, 2009.

[11] Star SL & Griesemer JR (1989). “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39″. Social Studies of Science 19 (4): 387–420.

Be Sociable, Share!