I've never heard cognitivism compared to "folk psychology" before. I'm not totally convinced by this argument. Cognitivist methods do have some research support, after all. (Think multimedia learning, Clark & Mayer's "ELearning and the Science of Instruction.") But their methods could (at least sometimes) be right even if their explanation of the underlying mechanism is wrong.
This link has been bookmarked by 178 people . It was first bookmarked on 11 Nov 2006, by Ole C Brudvik.
-
28 Jun 13
-
04 Jun 12
Christiane BetoulieresLearning networks and connective knowledge
-
01 Jun 12
-
13 May 12
-
28 Mar 12
-
09 Mar 12
-
08 Mar 12
-
19 Feb 12
-
n, though, notice the pattern here. What is happening is that information theorists, such as Dretske, along with educational theorists, such as Moore, are transferring the properties of a physical medium, in this case, the communication of content via electronic or other signals, to the realm of the mental. Transactional distance just is an application of a physical concept to a mental concept. And if you buy into this, you are bound to buy in to the rest of it, and most especially, that there is something we'll call 'mental content' which is an isomorphism between physical states of the brain and the semantical content transmitted to and received by students, who either in some way absorb or construct a mental state that is the same as the teacher's - a 'shared experience'.
-
-
13 Feb 12
-
08 Feb 12
-
05 Feb 12
-
17 Nov 11
-
04 Nov 11
-
26 Oct 11
-
29 Aug 11
-
25 Jun 11
-
Learning Networks and Connective Knowledge
-
-
25 May 11
-
In any network, there will be three major elements:
– Entities, that is, the things that are connected that send and receive signals
– Connections, that is, the link or channel between entities (may be represented as physical or virtual)
– Signals, that is, the message sent between entities. Note that meaning is not inherent in signal and must be interpreted by the receiver
In an environment of this description, then, networks may vary according to a certain set of properties:
– Density, or how many other entities each entity is connected to
– Speed, or how quickly a message moves to an entity (can be measured in time or ‘hops’)
– Flow, or how much information an entity processes, which includes messages sent and received in addition to transfers of messages for other entities
– Plasticity, or, how frequently connections created, abandoned
– Degree of connectedness – is a function of density, speed, flow and plasticity
-
Decision-making is in itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the decision.
-
-
26 Apr 11
Leo de CarvalhoThe purpose of this paper is to outline some of the thinking behind new e-learning technology, including e-portfolios and personal learning environments. Part of this thinking is centered around the theory of connectivism, which asserts that knowledge - and therefore the learning of knowledge - is distributive, that is, not located in anygiven place (and therefore not 'transferred' or 'transacted' per se) but rather consists of the network of connections formed from experience and interactions with a knowing community. And another part of this thinking is centered around the new, and the newly empowered, learner, the member of the net generation, who is thinking and interacting in new ways. These trends combine to form what is sometimes called 'e-learning 2.0' -an approach to learning that is based on conversation and interaction, on sharing, creation and participation, on learning not as a separate activity, but rather, as embedded in meaningful activities such as games or workflows.
-
11 Mar 11
-
09 Feb 11
-
07 Feb 11
Keith HamonThe purpose of this paper is to outline some of the thinking behind new e-learning technology, including e-portfolios and personal learning environments. Part of this thinking is centered around the theory of connectivism, which asserts that knowledge - and therefore the learning of knowledge - is distributive, that is, not located in any given place (and therefore not 'transferred' or 'transacted' per se) but rather consists of the network of connections formed from experience and interactions with a knowing community. And another part of this thinking is centered around the new, and the newly empowered, learner, the member of the net generation, who is thinking and interacting in new ways. These trends combine to form what is sometimes called 'e-learning 2.0'—an approach to learning that is based on conversation and interaction, on sharing, creation and participation, on learning not as a separate activity, but rather, as embedded in meaningful activities such as games or workflows.
Stephen Downes connectivism elearning social networking PLN Education 2.0
-
06 Feb 11
-
31 Jan 11
-
19 Jan 11
-
08 Jan 11
-
30 Nov 10
-
10 Nov 10
-
01 Oct 10
Mohsen SaadatmandLearning networks and connective knowledge by Stephen Downes 2006
-
28 Sep 10
-
07 Sep 10
-
22 Aug 10
-
19 Jul 10
-
30 May 10
dolors reigThe purpose of this paper is to outline some of the thinking behind new e-learning technology, including e-portfolios and personal learning environments. Part of this thinking is centered around the theory of connectivism, which asserts that knowledge - a
-
26 May 10
-
10 May 10
Giorgio BertiniThe purpose of this paper is to outline some of the thinking behind new e-learning technology, including e-portfolios and personal learning environments. Part of this thinking is centered around the theory of connectivism, which asserts that knowledge - a
-
27 Mar 10
Alvaro GalvisStephen Downes, October 16, 2006
connectivism learning networks e-portfolios personal learning environments networks downes elearning web2.0 pedagogy
-
18 Mar 10
-
The purpose of this paper is to outline some of the thinking behind new e-learning technology, including e-portfolios and personal learning environments. Part of this thinking is centered around the theory of connectivism, which asserts that knowledge - and therefore the learning of knowledge - is distributive, that is, not located in any
given place (and therefore not 'transferred' or 'transacted' per se) but rather consists of the network of connections formed from experience and interactions with a knowing community. And another part of this thinking is centered around the new, and the newly empowered, learner, the member of the net generation, who is thinking and interacting in new ways. These trends combine to form what is sometimes called 'e-learning 2.0' -
an approach to learning that is based on conversation and interaction, on sharing, creation and participation, on learning not as a separate activity, but rather, as embedded in meaningful activities such as games or workflows.
-
-
13 Mar 10
Andrea VinczeSzerző: Stephen Downes
HTK01 konnektivizmus connectivism tanulás networks learning e-learning theory web2.0 pedagogy Stephen Downes
-
24 Feb 10
-
08 Jan 10
-
25 Nov 09
-
05 Nov 09
-
04 Nov 09
-
24 Oct 09
The purpose of this paper is to outline some of the thinking behind new e-learning technology, including e-portfolios and personal learning environments. Part of this thinking is centered around the theory of connectivism, which asserts that knowledge - a
downes connectivism e-learning leertheorie netwerkleren paper
-
17 Oct 09
Ruby VineThe purpose of this paper is to outline some of the thinking behind new e-learning technology, including e-portfolios and personal learning environments. Part of this thinking is centered around the theory of connectivism, which asserts that knowledge - and therefore the learning of knowledge - is distributive, that is, not located in any given place (and therefore not 'transferred' or 'transacted' per se) but rather consists of the network of connections formed from experience and interactions with a knowing community. And another part of this thinking is centered around the new, and the newly empowered, learner, the member of the net generation, who is thinking and interacting in new ways. These trends combine to form what is sometimes called 'e-learning 2.0' - an approach to learning that is based on conversation and interaction, on sharing, creation and participation, on learning not as a separate activity, but rather, as embedded in meaningful activities such as games or workflows.
-
16 Oct 09
-
15 Oct 09
-
14 Oct 09
-
11 Oct 09
-
10 Oct 09
-
09 Oct 09
-
08 Oct 09
Luz PearsonLearning Networks and Connective Knowledge
Stephen Downes,
October 16, 2006 -
06 Oct 09
Christy TuckerLong paper by Stephen Downes on the nature of knowledge, connectivism, learning, and e-learning 2.0
CCK09 connectivism teaching education learning networks learningtheories e-learning
-
Add Sticky NoteIn other words, cognitivists defend an approach that may be called ‘folk psychology’. “In our everyday social interactions we both predict and explain behavior, and our explanations are couched in a mentalistic vocabulary which includes terms like ‘belief’ and ‘desire’.” The argument, in a nutshell, is that the claims of folk psychology are literally true, that there is, for example, an entity in the mind corresponding to the belief that 'Paris is the capital of France', and that this belief is, in fact, what might loosely be called 'brain writing' - or, more precisely, there is a one-to-one correspondence between a person's brain states and the sentence itself.
-
-
Add Sticky NoteWe may contrast cognitivism, which is a causal theory of mind, with connectionism, which is an emergentist theory of mind. This is not to say that connectionism (see also) does away with causation altogether; it is not a ‘hand of God’ theory. It allows that there is a physical, causal connection between entities, and this is what makes communication possible. But where it differs is, crucially: the transfer of information does not reduce to this physical substrate. Contrary to the communications-theoretical account, the new theory is a non-reductive theory. The contents of communications, such as sentences, are not isomorphic with some mental state.
-
From Wikipedia: "A property of a system is said to be emergent if it is more than the sum of the properties of the system's parts." If I understand Stephen's argument correctly, part of what he's saying here is that rather than knowledge being exactly what we perceive it to be (a sentence like "Paris is a city in France"), what's happening in our brains is more than that. When a teacher shares knowledge with a learner, it doesn't work like a copy machine where the teacher gives the learner a duplicate of the original and then both people have discrete copies of that knowledge.
-
-
Add Sticky NoteFor example (and there are many we could choose from), consider Randall O’Reilly on how the brain represents conceptual structures, as described in Modeling Integration and Dissociation in Brain and Cognitive Development. He explicitly rejects the ‘isomorphic’ view of mental contents, and instead describes a network of distributed representations. "Instead of viewing brain areas as being specialized for specific representational content (e.g., color, shape, location, etc), areas are specialized for specific computational functions by virtue of having different neural parameters...
-
I struggle a bit with the neurological arguments, but it does seem to make sense that the brain is divided by the different functions and not by the symbols we've created to communicate. And certainly when you look at brain scans of people doing different tasks, the activity isn't just in one area: multiple areas of the brain are involved in any complex task.
But I'm also cautious about the brain evidence because, frankly, I don't really understand it that well. I'm also aware of research about how people find arguments more convincing when they're shown with pictures of brain scans, even if it's the same text. I don't want to fall prey to that fallacy.
-
-
Add Sticky NoteFor example, when I say, "What makes something a learning object is how we use the learning object," I am asserting a functionalist approach to the definition of learning objects (people are so habituated to essentialist definitions that my definition does not even appear on lists of definitions of learning objects).
It's like asking, what makes a person a 'bus driver'? Is it the colour of his blood? The nature of his muscles? A particular mental state? No - according to functionalism, what makes him a 'bus driver' is the fact that he drives buses. He performs that function.-
These are better examples; this makes more sense to me. It does seems to support creating learning environments where content can be used multiple different ways, which fits with connectivism.
-
-
Add Sticky NoteTo illustrate this concept, I have been asking people to think of the concept 'Paris'. If 'Paris' were represented by a simple symbol set, we would all mean the same thing when we say 'Paris'. But in fact, we each mean a collection of different things and none of our collections is the same. Therefore, in our own minds, the concept 'Paris' is a loose association of a whole bunch of different things, and hence the concept 'Paris' exists in no particular place in our minds, but rather, is scattered throughout our minds.
-
Back to the cognitivist idea of the teacher as mental copy machine handing a student a duplicate copy of knowledge--this is the opposite of that. It's more like if 20 artists sit down to draw the same scene; there will be similarities and overlaps, but nobody's picture will be the same. This is, perhaps, part of why connectivism makes more sense when applied to learning complex topics. You don't need connectivism to explain memorizing the state capitals or multiplication tables; the idea of the mental copy machine is probably a functional enough explanation. But if you're trying to learn a big, gnarly topic, a model that works for regurgitating facts isn't enough.
-
-
As we examine the emergentist theory of mind we can arrive at five major implications of this approach for educational theorists:
- first, knowledge is subsymbolic. Mere possession of the words does not mean that there is knowledge; the possession of knowledge does not necessarily result in the possession of the words (and for much more on this, see Michael Polanyi's discussion of 'tacit knowledge' in 'Personal Knowledge').
- second, knowledge is distributed. There is no specific 'mental entity' that corresponds to the belief that 'Paris is the capital of France'. What we call that 'knowledge' is (an indistinguishable) pattern of connections between neurons. See, for example, Geoffrey Hinton, 'Learning Distributed Representations of Concepts'.
- third, knowledge is interconnected. The same neuron that is a part of 'Paris is the capital of France' might also be a part of 'My dog is named Fred'. It is important to note that this is a non-symbolic interconnection - this is the basis for non-rational associations, such as are described in the recent Guardian article, 'Where Belief is Born'
- fourth, knowledge is personal. Your 'belief' that 'Paris is the capital of France' is quite literally different from my belief that 'Paris is the capital of France'. If you think about it, this must be the case - otherwise Gestalt tests would be useless; we would all utter the same word when shown the same picture.
- fifth, what we call 'knowledge' (or 'belief', or 'memory') is an emergent phenomenon. Specifically, it is not 'in' the brain itself, or even 'in' the connections themselves, because there is no 'canonical' set of connections that corresponds with 'Paris is the capital of France'. It is, rather (and carefully stated), a recognition of a pattern in a set of neural events (if we are introspecting) or behavioural events (if we are observing). We infer to mental contents the same way we watch Donald Duck on TV - we think we see something, but that something is not actually there - it's just an organization of pixels.
-
Add Sticky NoteIf this is the case, then the concepts of what it is to know and what it is to teach are very different from the traditional theories that dominate distance education today. Because if learning is not the transfer of mental contents – if there is, indeed, no such mental content that exists to be transported – then we need to ask, what is it that we are attempting to do when we attempt to teach and learn.
-
I'm finding myself resisting some of these ideas, and I'm not quite sure why. Is it because it's so different from what I've been taught and assumed? Is it because I'm just too used to the folk psychology ideas and I need to unlearn them? I still feel like even cognitivism is a "good enough" explanation for some basic kinds of knowledge that do seem to operate as content transfer. Cognitivism isn't a perfect model, but a simple knowledge transfer model might be good enough for some areas. But maybe education has focused too much on the simple knowledge transfer because it's easy and we have an easy model to explan how it works--and education should be about a lot more than the kinds of learning that cognitivism explains well. The learning theories we believe must affect what we choose to teach, and not just how we choose to teach it.
-
-
Add Sticky Note
we can identify the essential elements of network semantics.
First, context, that is, the localization of entities in a network. Each context is unique – entities see the network differently, experience the world differently. Context is required in order to interpret signals, that is, each signal means something different depending on the perspective of the entity receiving it.
Second, salience, that is, the relevance or importance of a message. This amounts to the similarity between one pattern of connectivity and another. If a signal creates the activation of a set of connections that were previously activated, then this signal is salient. Meaning is created from context and messages via salience.
Third, emergence, that is, the development of patterns in the network. Emergence is a process of resonance or synchronicity, not creation. We do not create emergent phenomena. Rather emergence phenomena are more like commonalities in patterns of perception. It requires an interpretation to be recognized; this happens when a pattern becomes salient to a perceiver.
Fourth, memory is the persistence of patterns of connectivity, and in particular, those patterns of connectivity that result from, and result in, salient signals or perceptions.
-
Earlier in this section, Stephen says that the constructivist idea of "making meaning" is meaningless. But here he says "Meaning is created from context and messages via salience." What's the difference between "making meaning" and "creating meaning"? I don't get it.
-
I think what he is getting at is that meaning is infered from the perceiver based on context and salience vs a meaning that is constructed by the perceiver alone. So it is not that I construct meaning for something, meaning is created based on the interaction of variables and my perception.
-
-
Add Sticky NoteFor example, in order to illustrate the observation that ‘knowledge is distributed’ I have frequently appealed to the story of the 747. In a nutshell, I ask, “who knows how to make a 747 fly from London to Toronto?” The short answer is that nobody knows how to do this – no one person could design a 747, manufacture the parts (including tires and aircraft engines), take it off, fly it properly, tend to the passengers, navigate, and land it successfully. The knowledge is distributed across a network of people, and the phenomenon of ‘flying a 747’ can exist at all only because of the connections between the constituent members of that network.
-
This is an example of complicated knowledge, I think, and not complex, but the idea of complicated knowledge being distributed makes sense.
-
-
Add Sticky Note
“What happens,” I asked, “when online learning ceases to be like a medium, and becomes more like a platform? What happens when online learning software ceases to be a type of content-consumption tool, where learning is "delivered," and becomes more like a content-authoring tool, where learning is created?”
The answer turns out to be a lot like Web 2.0: “The model of e-learning as being a type of content, produced by publishers, organized and structured into courses, and consumed by students, is turned on its head. Insofar as there is content, it is used rather than read— and is, in any case, more likely to be produced by students than courseware authors. And insofar as there is structure, it is more likely to resemble a language or a conversation rather than a book or a manual.”
-
Summary of e-learning 2.0, although so much of what is being developed is still about content consumption
-
-
The idea behind the personal learning environment is that the management of learning migrates from the institution to the learner.
-
Add Sticky NoteLearning therefore evolves from being a transfer of content and knowledge to the production of content and knowledge.
-
I'm not sure if learning always has to be about the "production" of content by the learners; it could be about analyzing, summarizing, aggregating, tagging, etc. Am I really "producing content" with my comments on this article? I don't feel like I'm producing something new, but I definitely feel like this is e-learning 2.0. I'm building on Downes' work. But maybe my problem is with how I'm defining "content"; if "content" includes tagging and critiquing and commenting, then I am producing content now.
-
-
Add Sticky NoteIn a distributed environment, however, the design is no longer defined as a type of process. Rather, designers need to characterize the nature of the connections between the constituent entities.
-
An interesting idea for instructional design. Usually a big part of what we do as instructional designer is think about the structure and order of learning objects. But if the learning objects are scattered in different places and nonsequential, then the support learners need isn't being told what order to follow: it's how the objects relate to each other.
-
-
Add Sticky NoteIn effective networks, content and services are disaggregated. Units of content should be as small as possible and content should not be ‘bundled’. Instead, the organization and structure of content and services is created by the receiver.
-
The problem from everyone who has tried reusable learning objects is that it's so hard to get objects that are really independent and free of context. I think this is a very difficult thing to actually achieve.
-
-
Add Sticky NoteAn effective network is desegregated. For example, in network learning, learning is not thought of as a Separate Domain. Hence, there is no need for learning-specific tools and processes. Learning is instead thought of as a part of living, of work, of play. The same tools we use to perform day-to-day activities are the tools we use to learn.
-
This is already happening to some extent. Blogs, wikis, and Twitter weren't designed as learning tools, but lots of people use them as such. A look at Jane Hart's top tools collection shows lots of tools used by learning professionals that weren't originally intended for learning.
-
-
Add Sticky NoteKnowledge is a network phenomenon. To 'know' something is to be organized in a certain way, to exhibit patterns of connectivity. To 'learn' is to acquire certain patterns.
-
If learning is about acquiring patterns, then the "to learn is to practice and reflect" would be ways of following and reinforcing those patterns. I suspect for this to really make sense that "pattern" has to be my individual pattern as a learner; my pattern isn't the same as Stephen's, even as I'm learning from him. But my pattern might be similar to Stephen's or overlap with his, or connect with his.
-
-
Add Sticky Note
Downes Educational Theory
A good student learns by practice, practice and reflection.
A good teacher teaches by demonstration and modeling.
The essence of being a good teacher is to be the sort of person you want your students to become.
The most important learning outcome is a good and happy life.-
One thing I've been wrestling with a bit lately is the idea of teachers demonstrating and modeling. It seems like demonstrating and modeling are mostly the same thing. What's the difference between the two? And I do feel like "teacher" implies something a little more active than being a model off in the distance. What if we say that good teachers model and nurture instead? Nurturing doesn't imply direct instruction or even most of what we think of as teaching, but it does imply interacting with students in ways that supports them and helps bring out the best in them.
-
-
Add Sticky NoteIn essence, on this theory, to learn is to immerse oneself in the network. It is to expose oneself to actual instances of the discipline being performed, where the practitioners of that discipline are (hopefully with some awareness) modeling good practice in that discipline. The student then, through a process of interaction with the practitioners, will begin to practice by replicating what has been modeled, with a process of reflection (the computer geeks would say: back propagation) providing guidance and correction.
-
This description is helpful, but I again don't see how demonstrating is different from modeling.
-
-
Add Sticky NoteThese environments cut across disciplines. Students will not study algebra beginning with the first principles and progressing through the functions. They will learn the principles of algebra as needed, progressing more deeply into the subject as the need for new knowledge is provoked by the demands of the simulation. Learning opportunities - either in the form of interaction with others, in the form of online learning resources (formerly known as learning objects), or in the form of interaction with mentors or instructors - will be embedded in the learning environment, sometimes presenting themselves spontaneously, sometimes presenting themselves on request.
-
This reinforces what Stephen said earlier about tools not being specific to learning; learning tools should be the tools we live and work and play with, integrated in our daily lives.
-
-
Add Sticky NoteThis does not mean that a 'science' of learning is impossible. Rather, it means that the science will be more like meteorology than like (classical) physics. It will be a science based on modeling and simulation, pattern recognition and interpretation, projection and uncertainty.
-
This is in the postscript about the futility of traditional empirical research on learning. Maybe this is where I run into problems reconciling the cognitivist research I've read (which is all traditional "change one variable" research) with connectivism. This would also explain why some of the cognitivist research that works OK in a lab environment fails in real classrooms; a lab environment doesn't actually reflect the chaos of a classroom well enough. I've heard Stephen make this argument on a number of occasions, but I've always assumed that it meant any educational research would be worthless. That isn't what he's saying though; he's saying that educational research is a different type of research. Now it's finally making sense to me; of course educational research should be more like psychology, where we have trends and patterns but few absolutes.
-
-
-
05 Oct 09
-
nowledge - and therefore the learning of knowledge - is distributive, that is, not located in any
given place (and therefore not 'transferred' or 'transacted' per se) b -
that knowledge - and therefore the learning of knowledge - is distributive, that is, not located in any
given place -
connectivism
-
but rather consists of the network of connections formed from experience and interactions with a knowing community
-
In any network, there will be three major elements:
-
hings that are connected that send and receive signals
-
Entities
-
the link or channel between entities
-
Connections
-
Signals
-
message sent between entities
-
networks may vary according to a certain set of properties
-
how many other entities each entity is connected to
-
Density
-
Speed
-
ow quickly a message moves to an entity
-
how much information an entity processes
-
Flow,
-
how frequently connections created, abandoned
-
Plasticity
-
Degree of connectedness
-
function of density, speed, flow and plasticity
-
The Move to 2.0
-
As the web surged toward 2.0 the educational community solidified its hold on the more traditional approach
-
Even so, as traditional instructional software became entrenched, it became difficult not to notice the movement in the other direction. First was the exodus from commercial software in favour of open source systems such as Moodle, Sakai and LAMS. Others eschewed educational software altogether as a wave of educators began to look at the use of blogging and the wiki in their classes. A new, distributed, model of learning was emerging, which came to be characterized as e-learning 2.0.
-
“What happens,” I asked, “when online learning ceases to be like a medium, and becomes more like a platform? W
-
hat happens when online learning software ceases to be a type of content-consumption tool, where learning is "delivered," and becomes more like a content-authoring tool, where learning is created?”
-
The answer turns out to be a lot like Web 2.0:
-
Insofar as there is content, it is used rather than read— and is, in any case, more likely to be produced by students than courseware authors. And insofar as there is structure, it is more likely to resemble a language or a conversation rather than a book or a manual.
-
-
29 Sep 09
-
17 Sep 09
Nicola Avery+ http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/publications/littleboxes/littlebox.PDF
-
-
selves, because there is no 'canonical' set of connections that corresponds with 'Paris is the capital of France'. It is, rather (and carefully stated),
-
a recognition of a pattern in a set of neural events
-
-
30 Aug 09
isobel falconerStephen Downes: Learning Networks and Connective Knowledge
Outlines the thinking behind new e-learning technology, including e-portfolios and personal learning environments. Part of this thinking is centered around the theory of connectivism, which assert -
06 Jul 09
John RodgersThis is an excellent overview of research which supports in some ways the concept of network learning theory
-
30 Jun 09
Tania ShekoLearning Networks and Connective Knowledge
by Stephen Downes -
19 Jun 09
Natalie SpenceStephen Downes theorises on educational theory of connectivism
-
05 Jun 09
-
27 May 09
-
04 May 09
-
03 Apr 09
Ian GuestStephen Downes outlines some of the thinking behind new e-learning technology, including e-portfolios and personal learning environments. Part of this thinking is centered around the theory of connectivism, which asserts that knowledge - and therefore the
-
05 Jan 09
-
19 Dec 08
-
connectivism, which asserts that knowledge - and therefore the learning of knowledge - is distributive, that is, not located in any
given place (and therefore not 'transferred' or 'transacted' per se) but rather consists of the network of connections formed from experience and interactions with a knowing community -
communication consists of information that flows through a channel
-
-
09 Dec 08
-
08 Dec 08
-
30 Nov 08
-
16 Nov 08
-
05 Nov 08
-
04 Nov 08
Lynne JonesThe purpose of this paper is to outline some of the thinking behind new e-learning technology, including e-portfolios and personal learning environments. Part of this thinking is centered around the theory of connectivism, which asserts that knowledge - a
network_literacy Stephen_Downes connective_knowlege learning_networks theory PLEs e_portfolios
-
sandra rogersStephen Downes' paper, "Learning Networks and Connective Knowledge"
The purpose of this paper is to outline some of the thinking behind new e-learning technology, including e-portfolios and personal learning environments. Part of this thinking is centere -
03 Nov 08
Doug BelshawStephen Downes on Personal Learning Networks and eportfolios
-
Kristina Hoeppnerpaper by Stephen Downes; October 16, 2006
connectivism networking network learning theory stephendownes research ple
-
Will RichardsonThe purpose of this paper is to outline some of the thinking behind new e-learning technology, including e-portfolios and personal learning environments. Part of this thinking is centered around the theory of connectivism, which asserts that knowledge - a
-
21 Oct 08
-
We begin with the nature of a network itself. In any network, there will be three major elements:
– Entities, that is, the things that are connected that send and receive signals
– Connections, that is, the link or channel between entities (may be represented as physical or virtual)
– Signals, that is, the message sent between entities. Note that meaning is not inherent in signal and must be interpreted by the receiver
-
Downes Educational Theory
A good student learns by practice, practice and reflection.
A good teacher teaches by demonstration and modeling.
The essence of being a good teacher is to be the sort of person you want your students to become.
The most important learning outcome is a good and happy life.
-
-
29 Sep 08
-
connectivism, which asserts that knowledge - and therefore the learning of knowledge - is distributive, that is, not located in any
given place (and therefore not 'transferred' or 'transacted' per se) but rather consists of the network of connections formed from experience and interactions with a knowing community -
Cognitivism is probably best thought of as a response to behaviourism
-
. It is founded on the view that the behaviourist assertion that there are no mental events is in a certain sense implausible
-
His view is that the effectiveness of communication is improved through interaction. Instead of viewing communication as a one-time event, in which information is sent from a sender and received by a receiver, the transfer of information is enabled through a series of communications, such that the receiver sends messages back to the sender, or to third parties
-
What is happening is that information theorists, such as Dretske, along with educational theorists, such as Moore, are transferring the properties of a physical medium, in this case, the communication of content via electronic or other signals, to the realm of the mental
-
We may contrast cognitivism, which is a causal theory of mind, with connectionism, which is an emergentist theory of min
-
As we examine the emergentist theory of mind we can arrive at five major implications of this approach for educational theorists:
-
first, knowledge is subsymbolic. Mere possession of the words does not mean that there is knowledge; the possession of knowledge does not necessarily result in the possession of the words
-
second, knowledge is distributed
-
hird, knowledge is interconnected
-
fourth, knowledge is personal.
-
fifth, what we call 'knowledge' (or 'belief', or 'memory') is an emergent phenomenon
-
For the presumption of these theories is that, when you believe that 'Paris is the capital of France' and when I believe that 'Paris is the capital of France', that we believe the same thing, and that, importantly, we share the same mental state, and hence can be reasonably relied upon to demonstrate the same semantic information when prompted.
-
If we accept that something like the network theory of learning is true, then we are faced with a knowledge and learning environment very different from what we are used to. In the strictest sense, there is no semantics in network learning, because there is no meaning in network learning (and hence, the constructivist practice of ‘making meaning’ is literally meaningless)
-
ith the nature of a network itself. In any network, there will be three major elements:
– Entities, that is, the things that are connected that send and receive signals
– Connections, that is, the link or channel between entities (may be represented as physical or virtual)
– Signals, that is, the message sent between entities. Note that meaning is not inherent in signal and must be interpreted by the receiver
-
In an environment of this description, then, networks may vary according to a certain set of properties:
– Density, or how many other entities each entity is connected to
– Speed, or how quickly a message moves to an entity (can be measured in time or ‘hops’)
– Flow, or how much information an entity processes, which includes messages sent and received in addition to transfers of messages for other entities
– Plasticity, or, how frequently connections created, abandoned
– Degree of connectedness – is a function of density, speed, flow and plasticity
-
What it is to 'know' is, if you will, a natural development that occurs in the mind when it is presented with certain sets of phenomena; other things being equal, present the learner with different phenomena and they will learn different things
-
What it means to 'know' then is based on organization and connectedness in the brain
-
if knowledge is a network phenomenon, then, is it necessary for all the elements of a bit of knowledge to be stored in one’s own mind?
-
This assertion constitutes an explicit recognition that what we ‘know’ is embedded in our network of connections to each other, to resources, to the world.
-
The capacity to form connections between sources of information, and thereby create useful information patterns, is required to learn in our knowledge economy.”
-
Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.
Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.
Learning may reside in non-human appliances.
Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known
Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.
Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.
Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities.
Decision-making is in itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the decision.
-
Practice: Content Authoring and Delivery
– Numerous content authoring systems on the web…
– Weblogs – Blogger, Wordpress, LiveJournal, Moveable Type, more
– Content Management Systems – Drupal, PostNuke, Plone, Scoop, and many more…
– Audio – Audacity – and audioblogs.com – and Podcasting
– Digital imagery and video – and let’s not forget Flickr
– Collaborative authoring – Writely, Hula, the wiki
-
Practice: Organize, Syndicate Sequence, Deliver
– Aggregation of content metadata – RSS and Atom, OPML, FOAF, even DC and LOM
– Aggregators – NewsGator, Bloglines – Edu_RSS
– Aggregation services – Technorati, Blogdex, PubSub
– More coming – the Semantic Social Network
-
ractice: Identity and Authorization
– A raft of centralized (or Federated) approaches – from Microsoft Passport to Liberty to Shibboleth
– Also various locking and encryption systems
– But nobody wants these
– Distributed DRM – Creative Commons, ODRL…
– Distributed Identification management – Sxip, LID…
-
Practice: Chatting, Phoning, Conferencing
– Bulletin board systems and chat rooms, usually attached to the aforementioned content management systems such as Drupal, Plone, PostNuke, Scoop
– Your students use this, even if you don’t: ICQ, AIM, YIM, and some even use MSN Messenger
– Audioconferencing? Skype…Or NetworkEducationWare…
– Videoconferencing? Built into AIM… and Skype
-
The ‘future VLE’ is now most commonly referred to as the ‘Personal Learning Environment’, or PLE. As described by Milligan, PLEs “would give the learner greater control over their learning experience (managing their resources, the work they have produced, the activities they participate in) and would constitute their own personal learning environment, which they could use to interact with institutional systems to access content, assessment, libraries and the like.”
-
the PLE connects to a number of remote services, some that specialize in learning and some that do not. Access to learning becomes access to the resources and services offered by these remote services.
-
idea behind the personal learning environment is that the management of learning migrates from the institution to the learne
-
PLE allows the learner not only to consume learning resources, but to produce them as well. Learning therefore evolves from being a transfer of content and knowledge to the production of content and knowledge.
-
E-learning 2.0 promises a lot.
-
, these principles may be realized in the following design principles. It is worth noting at this juncture that these principles are intended to describe not only networks but also network learning, to show how network learning differs from traditional learning
-
he idea is that each principle confers an advantage over non-network systems, and that the set, therefore, may be used as a means of evaluating new technology. This is a tentative set of principles, based on observation and pattern recognition. It is not a definitive list, and indeed, it is likely that there cannot be a definitive list.
-
. Effective networks are decentralized
-
Effective networks are distributed
-
. Effective networks disintermediated.
-
liminate ‘mediation’, the barrier between source and receiver
-
In effective networks, content and services are disaggregated
-
entities in a network are not ‘components’ of one another.
-
In an effective network, content and services are dis-integrated
-
message is coded in a common ‘language’ where the code is open, not proprietary.
-
t the structure of the message is logically distinct from the type of entity sending or receiving it
-
An effective network is democratic
-
a fluid, changing entity, because without change, growth and adaptation are not possible
-
An effective network is dynamic.
-
An effective network is desegregated.
-
Knowledge is a network phenomenon
-
o 'know' something is to be organized in a certain way, to exhibit patterns of connectivity. To 'learn' is to acquire certain patterns
-
The distinction between groups and networks. Drawn in Auckland by Stephen Downes.
First, diversity. Did the process involve the widest possible spectrum of points of view? Did people who interpret the matter one way, and from one set of background assumptions, interact with people who approach the matter from a different perspective?
Second, and related, autonomy. Were the individual knowers contributing to the interaction of their own accord, according to their own knowledge, values and decisions, or were they acting at the behest of some external agency seeking to magnify a certain point of view through quantity rather than reason and reflection?
Third, interactivity, or connectedness. Is the knowledge being produced the product of an interaction between the members, or is it a (mere) aggregation of the members' perspectives? A different type of knowledge is produced one way as opposed to the other. Just as the human mind does not determine what is seen in front of it by merely counting pixels, nor either does a process intended to create public knowledge.
Fourth, and again related, openness. Is there a mechanism that allows a given perspective to be entered into the system, to be heard and interacted with by others?
-
f the network theory applies to individual minds as well as to societies, then the network pedagogy I am proposing may be summarized as follows (and I know it’s not original, or even substantial enough to be a theory properly So Called):
Downes Educational Theory
A good student learns by practice, practice and reflection.
A good teacher teaches by demonstration and modeling.
The essence of being a good teacher is to be the sort of person you want your students to become.
The most important learning outcome is a good and happy life. -
n essence, on this theory, to learn is to immerse oneself in the network. It is to expose oneself to actual instances of the discipline being performed, where the practitioners of that discipline are (hopefully with some awareness) modeling good practice in that discipline. The student then, through a process of interaction with the practitioners, will begin to practice by replicating what has been modeled, with a process of reflection (the computer geeks would say: back propagation) providing guidance and correction
-
earning, in other words, occurs in communities, where the practice of learning is the participation in the community. A learning activity is, in essence, a conversation undertaken between the learner and other members of the community. This conversation, in the web 2.0 era, consists not only of words but of images, video, multimedia and more. This conversation forms a rich tapestry of resources, dynamic and interconnected, created not only by experts but by all members of the community, including learners.
-
What needs to be understood is that learning environments are multi-disciplinary. That is, environments are not constructed in order to teach geometry or to teach philosophy. A learning environment is an emulation of some 'real world' application or discipline: managing a city, building a house, flying an airplane, setting a budget, solving a crime, for example. In the process of undertaking any of these activities, learning from a large number of disciplines is required.
-
These environments cut across disciplines
-
The ‘pedagogy’ behind the PLE – if it could be still called that – is that it offers a portal to the world, through which learners can explore and create, according to their own interests and directions, interacting at all times with their friends and community. “New forms of learning are based on trying things and action, rather than on more abstract knowledge. ‘Learning becomes as much social as cognitive, as much concrete as abstract, and becomes intertwined with judgment and exploration.’”
-
-
21 Sep 08
-
-
e-learning 2.0
-
emergent phenomenon.
-
there is no meaning
-
Dreyfus talk about 'levels' of knowledge
-
Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.
-
-
20 Sep 08
-
Daniel CraigStephen Downes writes about networked learning theories, in particular connective knowledge and connectivism
connectivism connective connectiveknowledge knowledge knowledgemanagement network learningnetworks danielcraig StephanDownes web2.0 theory pedagogy learning stephendownes research
-
19 Sep 08
-
Xaver InglinThe purpose of this paper is to outline some of the thinking behind new e-learning technology, including e-portfolios and personal learning environments. Part of this thinking is centered around the theory of connectivism, which asserts that knowledge - a
connectivism downes networks knowledge theory education learning e-Learning community web2.0 research fromdelicious
-
17 Sep 08
-
16 Sep 08
-
15 Sep 08
-
It provides an explicit description of the ‘inner workings’ of the mind that behaviourism ignores. It is founded on the view that the behaviourist assertion that there are no mental events is in a certain sense implausible, if only by introspection.
-
What is happening is that information theorists, such as Dretske, along with educational theorists, such as Moore, are transferring the properties of a physical medium, in this case, the communication of content via electronic or other signals, to the realm of the mental.
-
These technologies, in other words, would empower students in a way previous technologies didn’t.
-
The traditional approach to e-learning… tends to be structured around courses, timetables, and testing. That is an approach that is too often driven by the needs of the institution rather than the individual learner. In contrast, e-learning 2.0 takes a 'small pieces, loosely joined' approach that combines the use of discrete but complementary tools and web services - such as blogs, wikis, and other social software - to support the creation of ad-hoc learning communities.”
-
resources and services are organized in order to offer learning opportunities in a network environment.
-
a description of an environment intended to support a particular pedagogy.
-
the ecosystem, a collection of different entities related in a single environment that interact with each other in a complex network of affordances and dependencies, an environment where the individual entities are not joined or sequenced or packaged in any way, but rather, live, if you will, free, their nature defined as much by their interactions with each other as by any inherent property in themselves.
-
What is needed is to attain a middle point, where full connectivity is achieved, but where impulses in the network ebb and flow, where impulses generated by phenomena are checked against not one but a multitude of competing and even contradictory impulses.
-
diversity
-
autonomy
-
connectedness
-
openness
-
frames or points of view from with one may approach the creation of learning environments
-
Learning, in other words, occurs in communities, where the practice of learning is the participation in the community. A learning activity is, in essence, a conversation undertaken between the learner and other members of the community. This conversation, in the web 2.0 era, consists not only of words but of images, video, multimedia and more. This conversation forms a rich tapestry of resources, dynamic and interconnected, created not only by experts but by all members of the community, including learners.
-
-
13 Sep 08
-
thought his
-
This was a significant difference between computation and neural networks. In computation (and computational methodology, including traditional causal science) we look for specific and predictable results. Make intervention X and get result Y. Neural network (and social network) theory does not offer this. Make intervention X today and get result Y. Make intervention X tomorrow (even on the same subject) and get result Z.
-
-
28 Aug 08
-
24 Aug 08
Lani Ritter HallConnectivism asserts that knowledge, the learning of knowledge - is distributive, not located in any given place (not 'transferred' or 'transacted') consists of the network of connections formed from experience and interactions with a knowing community.
stephendownes pedagogy connectivism connectivism_course_readings onlinelearning
Public Stiky Notes
But I'm also cautious about the brain evidence because, frankly, I don't really understand it that well. I'm also aware of research about how people find arguments more convincing when they're shown with pictures of brain scans, even if it's the same text. I don't want to fall prey to that fallacy.
Page Comments
In fact, all that is really required is that there is a change in the assessment of possible states - you may become more convinced that one possibility is more likely than others, without ruling any out - this is still a result of a transfer of information (and happens to fit quite well with Bayesian analysis - not that that is a requirement!)
Communication is (almost) a misnomer for the one-way event - "meaning" has to be negotiated, especially with the multiplicity of different meanings for some words, and the innate capactiy of communication channels to corrupt signals (including attentional problems in the receiver causing mis-understanding).
The differences, I would suggest, are what can spark an imaginative leap to new knowledge, as the idea from the "teacher" triggers other memories in the "student"
Belief is holding a concept without a justification (but may still be correct)
Faith is holding a belief without any need or desire for justification.
Superstition is holding a belief despite evidence that it is untrue.
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.