Excerpt / Summary "Critique of Connectivism as a Learning Theory
According to Downes (2007), connectivism is essentially “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.” According to Siemens (2005), learners derive their competence from formal connections and their capacity to know is more critical than what is presently known. He describes it as “the integration of principles explored by chaos, network, complexity and self-organization theories” (Siemens, 2004; as cited in Ally, 2008, p. 19). Moreover, Siemens (2006a) claims that knowledge structures are not hierarchical or flat, and learning networks enable contrasting elements to be selected based upon a particular research or learning activity. Further, these allow the adoption of different theories, as required, to solve more nuances of learning problems. Further, this kind of theoretical fluidity, without the complete adoption of a given theory (i.e, interpretivism or positivism), makes the task of seeking knowledge more salient (para. 57).
Instructional Theory
Based upon this connectivist profile by Siemens (2004; 2005; 2006a) and Downes (2007), connectivism sounds more like an instructional theory, which provides specificity to instruction in a given learning context, rather than a learning theory that limits its horizon to general principles. According to Morrison, Ross, Kemp, and Kalman (2011), learning theories are descriptive and generic, but instructional theories should be prescriptive and situation specific. Further, in essence, instructional theory "applies the principles and assumptions of learning theory to the instructional design goal of interest" (p. 382). Its focus is on instructional objectives.
The Current Transitional Landscape
My view (Wade, 2010) is that there is no single theoretical, practical, empirical, or ideological approach that is a solvent to all current educational challenges. To me, cognitivist-developmentalist learning theories are a more appropriate take on how people learn in general, which is to say that learners go through various stages of development from simple and concrete in the early years to more abstract and complex later on. It has long been thought in the historical epistemological view that “the apparatus of cognition is static” (Ohta, MacLeod & Uttl, 2005, p. 1). It is now held that cognition is very non-static (p. 2). Moreover, I claim that both heredity and environment impact upon human learning and development. For cognitive psychology, “Dynamic cognition permits flexible interaction with our environment, allowing us to exert ‘cognitive control’ over our experience: We are not passive recipients of information but active manipulators of it (p. 2). This is especially true of the current modern technopoly, a term coined by Neil Postman, which he defined in an interview as:
“…a culture that has submitted all of its social institutions to the sovereignty of technology and, in doing so, rejects, just about wholeheartedly, all of the traditional accoutrements and beliefs from older forms of culture.... It is a culture that believes generally that human progress and technological innovation are the same thing. And, so, if we can pursue technological growth and development, we can achieve happiness and equanimity and, maybe, paradise" (McCreary, 1993, p. 76).
Therefore, learning and technology (and technopoly) are now interrelated, as described by connectivism. According to Polkinghorne (2004):
“…the technical-rational approach to decision making about what to do and how to do it is held as normative. It is proposed as the only scientific way to make decisions and as the way in which practitioners governed by a technical model would make decisions. In technical-rational practice, decisions about what to do are determined by applying scientifically validated general propositions to particular goals. The technical-rational model is the dominant method of making practical decisions in contemporary Western society” (p. 27).
Even so, it should be noted that the very nature and function of learning theory is itself in flux at the present (Mezirow, 1997). The rate of change within the field in the past three decades has accelerated markedly beyond any previous time in its modern history. (Yet, trends or movements which drive the change phenomenon within the field are outside the scope of this article.)" |