My New Learning in Connectivism – Conversation Part 1

Many thanks for Ulop’s stimulating and interesting questions posted in his My theory.
My explanation herehttps://suifaijohnmak.wordpress.com/2010/06/26/critlit2010-on-conversation/may 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


John

Postscript: In this http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/papers/Review_Complexity.pdf

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?

5 thoughts on “My New Learning in Connectivism – Conversation Part 1

  1. In this post:
    “In reality, we often base our opinions on our beliefs, which can have an uneasy relationship with facts. And rather than facts driving beliefs, our beliefs can dictate the facts we chose to accept. They can cause us to twist facts so they fit better with our preconceived notions. Worst of all, they can lead us to uncritically accept bad information just because it reinforces our beliefs. This reinforcement makes us more confident we’re right, and even less likely to listen to any new information. ” So, how would “we” be able to listen to any new information? By belief? By argument? By reasoning based on new information? Or by listening to the “experts” only?
    John

  2. Pingback: Tweets that mention My New Learning in Connectivism – Conversation Part 1 « Suifaijohnmak's Weblog -- Topsy.com

  3. >In reality, we often base our opinions on our beliefs, which can have an uneasy relationship with facts.

    I like this statement. I don’t think Stephen would agree that he chooses facts to support his beliefs. However, his having reasons blog admits as much.

    To develop connectivism further, I would suggest dump the hype, the name and the religiousity . Jargon, hype and dogma are nauseating to me.

    >“So connectivism, in using a different language, provides a different perspective.” Did you come to this conclusion base on evidence, claim or belief?

    Does it matter how the conclusion is reached? Is this conclusion, trivial perhaps, nonetheless accurate?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s