#Change11 #CCK12 Is Connectivism credible for Advanced Degrees Research

I read this post by Sarah on

Is Connectivism a credible theoretical framework for my EdD research?

This is a challenging one, as least to me.

First, I must declare that I am not doing any research degrees, and so my comments here are based solely on my experience with Connectivism.

I have been interested in the theory, application and research on Connectivism since 2008. I understand that there has been a lot of debates about Connectivism, and that there hasn’t been any “agreement” from the academia or scholars that it is a new learning theory.

Here is my short response:

My short “answer” is: Could Connectivism explain your “formal” education? Would you be assessed against models and criteria based on a formal EdD? I think it depends on what your research entails, not whether it is a theory or not in your research. When I conducted research on CCK08 and PLENK2010, I would never use such a lens to “please” any examiners, under a formal education system, because, for sure, you wouldn’t be able to pass the criteria (even in your proposal) if someone tells you that he/she doesn’t believe or agree that it is a new learning theory. I would call myself fortunate (and am really grateful to my colleagues on the researches that we have done) that all papers were published that easily, with just a slight amendment to minor points in the peer review process. I don’t think it is that difficult to get your research published with the traditional education and learning theories, as a backup. However, with Connectivism, you must be ready for the challenges ahead, and I don’t know who would be reviewing and examining your dissertation. So good luck.

Relating to the similarities and differences between Connectivism and Constructivism, I have shared them here and here.