My New Learning in Connectivism – Conversation Part 1

Many thanks for Ulop’s stimulating and interesting questions posted in his My theory.
My explanation here help in clarifying my points.
Am I happier in sharing? Yes. I think I have been looking for sharing, based on my posting of my views and perspectives.
So “Relating to inadequacies in the theory of connectivism, I have been demonstrating that for a long time with my questions and probing of the proponents and self-professed creators? promoters? of connectivism.” Have you considered what those inadequacies are? Why would they be directed “only” to the creators? Or promoters of Connectivism?
“Connectivism is inadequate as it no more explains learning than behaviourism does.” How and why did you arrive to this conclusion?
“So connectivism, in using a different language, provides a different perspective.” Did you come to this conclusion base on evidence, claim or belief? What are the different language used? If connectivism provides a different perspective, what does it mean to you? I have explained what is new in my blog post, and it provides just my perspective. So you may consider your perspective, and if you think that is providing you with a new level of understanding of “learning in the networks, especially at this digital age”, what does it mean?
“So connectivism, in using a different language, provides a different perspective.” Would different language give rise or shape a different culture? Why would you think it is just a different language? Have you considered the differences between how and what you learnt and compared to those with how and what others (like me) learnt? Do these make sense when learning “together” through interaction and connection in this digital or virtual network, with space and media as affordance, rather than that in the classroom?

What would you suggest to develop Connectivism further?

Why would you think that Connectivism is not helping you to learn?  Are you (we) learning through this conversation?  If not, how would you (we) learn instead?  Have we understood about each other through such conversation?  Are there any changes in perspectives?  May be it depend on you and me…on Our reasons


Postscript: In this

In spite of these difficulties, some of the results are truly impressive, and there is enough similarity in the different conceptual frameworks to express the hope that cross-fertilization may lead to an integrated theory in a not too far-away future.
A first step towards constructing such a theory might be for the different researchers in this domain to simply study each others’ work, instead of continuing to work in virtual isolation.
What could we learnt from this paper on Complexity Theory? Could we apply similar concepts – by studying each others’ research on Connectivism?