Connectivism Taxonomy – A re-visit

 I have just re-visited George Connectivism Blog:

http://connectivism.ca/blog/2006/02/connectivism_taxonomy.html

 Here is the response that I left on 27 September 2008:

Sui Fai John Mak:

George, great to learn about this taxonomy.

Your taxonomy prompted me to reflect upon Bloom’s Hypothesis:
1. A normal person can learn anything that teachers can teach
2. Under favourable learning conditions the effects of individual differences will approach vanishing point, while under unfavourable learning conditions the effects of individual differences will be greatly exaggerated
3. Individual learning needs vary greatly
4. Uncorrected learning errors are responsible for most learning difficulties

Under Bloom’s model, instead of trying to bend the learner to suit the method of teaching, Bloom’s approach sees the task of educators being to tailor the teaching process to suit the learning needs of the individual.

Since I learnt the above model in 1985, I witnessed great changes in the learning approaches, and that most of the hypothesis set out by Bloom needed modification if we are to consider a similar behavioural approach in teaching in this digital age.

For instance, hypothesis 1 doesn’t fit the on-line learner, as any normal person can learn anything even without the teachers. In hypothesis 2, Bloom contends that the most important factors influencing learning in the individual child are the interactions that occur between the child and its parents on the one hand and between the child and the teaching process on the other. Again, such hypothesis is no longer true in an on-line environment where the emphasis is no other just on the teaching process, and that the learner is not merely relying on the teaching process, rather the learner will consider his/her learning style in his learning(David Kobb’s learning style seems to be more useful in an on-line or connectivism approach).

Also an experiential approach is often preferred amongst adults in an on-line environment.

In your connectivism taxonomy – you have proposed a staged view of how learners encounter and explore learning in a networked/ecological manner (the taxonomy begins with the basic and moves to the more complex).

My comments are: As connectivism is operating in an open system model, would such a simple taxonomy approach be good enough? I am doubtful if learning could be viewed in a linear manner in a connective environment, and am unsure if one could describe a staged view of how learners and explore learning in a networked/ecological manner that reflects the reality?

Once we define such staged views of learners, we may have assumed that a learner is learning in distinct stages, and that we can measure competency in a discrete manner – i.e. there are units of competency, elements and performance criteria clearly articulated.

But if I reflect on the chaos and fuzzy dynamic environment any learner is facing nowadays, the reality is that competency of an on-line learner can no learner be based on those defined units of competency. It must include a fuzzy set of continuum variables which are attributes transcending beyond the semantics, or linguistics – this includes emotional elements (i.e. EQ – emotional control, self awareness, self confidence, motivation, social skills and interpersonal skills, social elements (social awareness, ethics, intellectual property awareness etc.) which are very difficult to define in terms of competency. Even if can define all these emotional, social elements, there would be difficulties in drawing a map between all these dynamic factors or competencies, which could all change due to other factors such as culture, equity and learner’s access to technology.

In this respect, it would be imperative to develop hypothesis that are robust enough to take all those factors into consideration.

1. So what are the hypothesis behind this connectivism taxonomy?
2. Will such hypothesis be fluid or static? I would be interested to know if a further change in some of the technologies or learning environment would change the hypothesis.
3. Is a taxonomy good enough reflection of the staged views of learner.
4. Is such a taxonomy able to generalise under different learning circumstances?

In conclusion,

I am uncertain if a rigid taxonomy would be appropriate in building up a model on connectivism.

My suggestion:

I think a dynamic n-dimensional (or mxn matrix) model of taxonomy would be more appropriate and reflective of the reality. An adaptation of a Quality Function Deployment approach may be useful (ie. the voice of the learners on the left columnn and and the enablers and process of learning on the row of a matrix): i.e. With a matrix of What versus How in the the learning hierarchy/taxonomy. The “what” aspects would include What the learner’s needs are in a hierachical form and the How’s aspects would include the teaching/learning process, the enablers such as the technologies (Web 2.0 etc.)the networks,and other important enablers of learning such as support, mentoring, etc.
3. This might also take the form of a network, though such network may be in the form of a mind map superimposed by the what and how aspects of learning.

I would be interested in conducting research in this area to further explore about the theory of connectivism. Please contact me if you think such an approach might be useful to you.

I could be contacted via:
suifaijohnmak@yahoo.com.au
http://suifaijohnmak.wordpress.com

Looking forward to learn your views.

Posted by Sui Fai John Mak | September 27, 2008 10:23 AM

Posted on September 27, 2008 10:23

As I have now completed the course, I have learned that there is a folksonomy developed versus taxonomy.

I also learned the Chaos and Complexity Theories applied in learning situations, and so a linear taxonomy approach may not provide the answer.  But, I think this is an important area for research

I am still reflecting on my original suggestions to George Connectivism Taxonomy, but would like to explore such framework based on the survey (both qualitative and quantitative findings), and analysis.

I greatly appreciate George’s initiative in creating the model.  And would like to learn from our colleagues in CCK08 on how George’s model could be further built upon, based on our experience in CCK08. 

George: What do you think about this research?

For our colleagues in CCK08:

Are you interested in this further research? 

If yes, what approach would be appropriate?  A network approach? Individual research? Or a survey research?

 Can we explore this based on the survey results of CCK08?  How about the inclusion of hypothesis in the research questions of the end of course survey?  Is it appropriate?

Connectivism as a learning theory – a revisit

I noted that some of our co-learners have new insights into connectivism. You are welcome to share them here.

For me, whether connectivism is a new learning theory is now of secondary importance.  I don’t think it’s necessary to prove to anyone why it is a new learning theory, as this had already been done by George, Stephen and others on various occasions.  And I think it is unwise to debate on the principles which are emergent, as have been said by George and Stephen, what is “correct” today may not be “correct” by tomorrow, due to changes in context, ecology and technology, and the chaotic and complexity nature of knowledge and learning.

And I think it’s equally not necessary to write another set of convincing papers to defend connectivism, because connectivism is about emergent knowledge, process and people’s thoughts. 

If people still believe it, it’s their choice.  If people don’t like it, it’s still their choice.  So, if you like it, great to have a try! And see if it works

What’s most important I think, is rather to

(a) practise and reflect (as a learner) and model and demonstrate (as a teacher) (as shared by Stephen), and then share our findings, observations and understanding, as a feedback to this theory and its application

(b) share our distributed knowledge and experience amongst participants (Stephen and George, and various bloggers, forum participants), and continue with this journey on network learning (as shared by George and Stephen throughout their presentations)

(c) try the skills at local level (Stephen), with pilots if you want to (views shared by various bloggers), and remember the butterfly effect (Stephen and George), everyone’s contribution throughout the network could make a big difference (everyone – networkers, lurkers, not only those in this course)

(d) connect, connect and connect, grow and develop the networks and ecology (at neural, conceptual and external – social levels) and find your ways – patterning, wayfinding and sensemaking (George, Stephen, and you)

Finally, this theory on connectivism is different from all other theories in that everyones’ voices and connections are welcome, because it is all emergent (what I think).  Though I think there are still a lot of refinements needed - such as the pschological aspects, the social, economical and educational implications. Overall, I still think it’s a very useful theory to base on.

How about your ideas and views?

Role of learners – A response to Mike

Hi Mike, http://techticker.net/2008/10/22/the-role-of-the-educator-and-institution-in-a-changing-educational-landscape/
Thanks for your valuable insights.  I agree with you that educators are still students and still learners.  I have posted my full response on the role of learners on my blog:http://suifaijohnmak.wordpress.com 
My concern is that due to occasional confusion and conflicts of roles for learners, co-learners or even the teachers, there could be “internal friction” generated amongst network learners upon interaction or connection.  Such practice is apparent in our CCK08 course, especially in the forum.  If we are to adopt this practice in our classroom situation, I am not sure if such role conflicts or confusion would appear or not.  And I am interested in knowing how that could be resolved.
Also, I think this is one of the major areas of concerns in the practice of connectivism, when each of us defines our own boundary based on our needs and interest.  Also, not everyone is sharing the same or similar “values” in the interaction or connection, mainly due to the autonomy and diversity of perspectives and opinions as promoted or inherent in networking. At times, I could see people arguing in those cases or posts in the forum, and not valuing each others’ opinions.  And I wonder if this is viewed as a “best practice” when students in Universities or Colleges, or even K-12 classes are employing such practice.  One could claim that debates are important, but I am really concerned about the emotional outbursts (or the passions) which could impact the learning and the ecology.
Do you see this an issue?
You are welcome to visit and comment on my blog.
Cheers.
John

Some websites for you- on education, learning and connectivism

Here are some websites that you may find interest:

On-line education database

http://oedb.org/library/features/top-100-education-blogs

Wiki

http://t4tl.wikispaces.com/

On Connectivism

http://t4tl.wikispaces.com/Connectivism+

 On Web 2.0

Videos from Classroom 2.0: Koofers.com Demo Video (~4 minutes)

http://www.new.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=617683525163&oid=2259602350

Enjoy your favourite websites.  Have you found something that interest you?  You are welcome to share them with me.

If everyone is learning on their own, or with their network, what is the role of the teacher?

In response to Mike’s comments on:

http://techticker.net/2008/10/22/the-role-of-the-educator-and-institution-in-a-changing-educational-landscape/

Thanks for your response.  I agree with your views that such change will only happen slowly.  I have been a teacher since 1985, and have experienced a lot of changes in teaching and learning practices during the last 23 years.  Since 2000, I have been doing on-the-job training whereas there are practically no physical classes as such as the Universities.  I started with zero student (trainee) in 2000 to a few hundreds for the past years.  What I found was a fundamental shift in the learning paradigm, where learning is the key to education, rather than teaching.  I know my idealogy will be vehemently opposed by other instructivists, as well as other professional teachers, where they would feel threatened or might worry that they would lose their jobs.  Imagine, if everyone is learning on their own, what is the role of the teacher?  I shared such feelings in 2000, but has now been totally convinced that such thing would only happen if teachers are unwilling to accept and adapt to changes.  That is there is still an important role for every teacher to play, only that teachers must be flexible and proactive in meeting the learner’s needs.  In other words, I think best practice in teaching is based on a learner centred approach, where learner’s needs must come first.  Without learners, why employ teachers?  And without teachers, who would be guiding the learners (especially the kids and teenagers) the “right” values?  So, in summary, teachers must share their experience and knowledge with learners by putting learners first.  Remember, at some time, we were the learners, did we learn from our teachers?  For me, I must admit that I learn best from those teachers who are empathetic, and willing to understand my needs.  These are just my personal reflections, but I hope other teachers could understand why we are moving in such directions – towards a learner centred model of teaching and learning.  Is teaching still a noble profession?  What do you see will be the future of teachers?