Hello and a warm welcome to my enticing discussion which attempts to address the inquiry: Is connectivism a new theory? Happy reading!
As I was taking a lovely stroll down my block, I noticed three traditional looking homes as illustrated in the image above. These homes reminded me of the three learning theoretical frameworks, that is, behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. On the opposite side of these traditional homes on that very same street was a more recently built home that had a rather modern look (as depicted in the image above). This newly built structure which housed a family that recently moved in evoked what George Siemens called ‘a learning theory for the digital age’. He coined this learning perspective, connectivism. As its name suggests, connectivism is all about making and nurturing connections. According to Siemens (2005), “the ability to synthesize and recognize connections and patterns is a valuable skill” (p. 3). This is not only a core skill but also a key principle of connectivism.
Connectivism also stresses the importance of seeking out current information. Siemens (2005) highlighted this as an essential skill because of the ever-changing nature of information that flows within learning communities. In fact, he specifically noted that knowledge has a half-life that is shrinking. He described this as “the time span from when knowledge is gained to when it becomes obsolete” (p. 1). In light of this, he asserted that “the pipe is more important than the content within the pipe” (p. 7). In other words, our ability to know and learn more is more essential than what is already known. Honestly, I think this assertion is a plausible one especially considering the ever-changing nature of information in this digital era. Although this is the case, I have a slight difference in opinion on the matter.
In particular, after much-needed contemplation, I would assert that what is known today i.e., the content within the pipe is just as important as our capacity to know more. Essentially, I do not think the latter should be more important than the former or vice versa. Yes, information is ever-changing and can become obsolete tomorrow. However, it can be argued that some of the information or knowledge that an individual acquires today will be useful, applicable, and impactful tomorrow and years later. For example, the traditional learning theories as considered by many was constructed decades ago particularly in a different era. Nevertheless, students and professionals in various spheres of life are still learning about them and applying them today. They may even continue to apply them in the years to come.
Interestingly, it seems as though these traditional theories have been imbedded in our societies regardless of evolutions, innovations, and time periods. Although some theoretical frameworks have been refuted, there are those that form the basis and lay the foundation of several academic and professional disciplines. Moreover, these foundational frameworks serve as pillars and building blocks that paved the way for thinkers and future scholars to build on. As such, our capacity to know these frameworks along with new information is just as crucial as the content already in the pipe.
So, connectivism may be considered to be the new kid on the block because it accounts for our use of the internet today. However, just like the traditional learning theories, it has its limitations and does not explicate distance learning in its entirety. Instead, it is a valuable piece of the puzzle that provides insights and an understanding of learning. In fact, our capacity to learn more about traditional theories as well as this new kid on the block can lead to new and emerging theories. This ultimately makes the content of the pipe just as significant and important.
What are your thoughts on my analogies and difference in opinion on Siemen’s metaphor? Having read this discussion, do you think that the former part of his assertion is just as important as the latter?
Let’s continue the discourse in the comment section below with your thoughts and queries!
Krista
MDE student
University of Maryland Global Campus
University of Maryland Global Campus | UMGC
References
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved from https://jotamac.typepad.com/jotamacs_weblog/files/Connectivism.pdf
Reading your discussion post, I visualized this picture above. I like the idea of taking what I know and building on it based on bits of information I learned from others (i.e., peers or online videos). My knowledge of a concept keeps evolving. I like your statement, "Instead, it is a valuable piece of the puzzle that provides insights and an understanding of learning."
Concerning your statement, "In particular, after much-needed contemplation, I would assert that what is known today i.e., the content within the pipe is just as important as our capacity to know more. Essentially, I do not think the latter should be more important than the former or vice versa"; I agree with you. If I am thinking correctly, an example that comes to mind: A club swimmer swims freestyle. The swimmer is trying to get a personal best time, so she sets up a blog to get ideas on how to improve her technique. The swimmer applies suggested comments and improves. Yes, it's great that she achieved her goal, but that is equally important as her having the foundation skills to swim freestyle.
Does this make sense?
Great post!