Learning Theories and the Assumptions behind them

Thanks Peter for a thorough review of General System’s theory.  Here is my post relating to a critique on whether Connectivism is a new learning theory or not https://suifaijohnmak.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/my-reflection-on-connectivism-as-a-new-learning-theory-to-date/ I have been participating in the discourse about Connectivism since 2008, and since then I “believe” that it is a new learning theory.  However, I have raised many critical questions since then, in particular the notion of learning, as you have also mentioned in your comments – the social learning, at the level of learner behavior, and psychological ideas about motivation, rational choice behavior etc.

What I think is important is that connections in network is necessary but not sufficient in learning, and the principles that are postulated under Connectivism could also be emerging and are not prescriptive in nature.

Indeed, even the theory of emergence and the principles of Complexity Theory are very difficult to be applied in education.  We might however, be best to have some principles and a theory that approximates what actually happened, based on empirical research findings, rather than waiting for a complete learning theory that would soon prove to show that whole is greater than the sums of their parts, and that reductionism doesn’t reflect the reality of the truth.

I suppose that there are so many variables and strange attractors in an open system that any significant changes in parts of the system could create a totally different pathway (of learning) that may hardly be explained with conventional learning theories.  Even with the tens of thousands of research papers proving certain points of learning, we could challenge the assumptions behind each of the theory by critically examining the evidences presented, and the conclusions are: it is only valid if the assumed conditions are satisfied, based on certain context, certain people with certain behaviors (rational behaviors in general, and certain motivation patterns etc.) and certain professors and students etc.  That might be some light based on the arguments and evidences presented, using the scientific and empirical approaches towards research into those learning theories.

Nevertheless, I reckon there are still differences in perceptions and interpretations of any theory of learning presented, due to our differences in each of our learning experiences.

Connectivism and PLN

Peter Sloep said in Google + “Where I definitely do disagree with her is that PLNs are founded in the theory of Connectivism. Connectivism still has to prove its worth as a learning theory and I would not want to have the useful notion of a PLN depend on the fate of Connectivism as a theory. That said, PLNs are all about social learning, as is Connectivism, so the two are definitely connected.”

Are PLNs founded in the theory of Connectivism?  Connectivism is based on the notion that learning is the result of connections of nodes in networks – as the capacity to build, construct and navigate across networks (including social and personal learning networks, and the neuronetworks).

In this connection, PLNs relate to Connectivism but it is more than the social learning, mainly because it covers the neuro, conceptual (cognitive & across different domains) and social level.  I understand that when Connectivism was first postulated in George’s paper, there seemed to be a stronger focus on social learning, which then led to a debate whether it is just a re-coining of social constructivism with technology as basis of  connections and mediation.

I have shared the similarities and differences between Connectivism and Constructivism (and Social Constructivism) in my posts. Stephen has proposed the elements of diversity, autonomy, openness and interactivity and connectivity as properties of networks, which seem also focus more on the social learning.  However, these social learning would need to relate back to the learner at the three levels, in particular the perception and interpretation of learning based on individual’s experience, in order to make sense (i.e. the sensemaking).

It seems that most of the evidences collected in research relates to the social learning, at a collective level, rather than the individual learning, based on the those tacit and explicit knowledge developed as a result of “connections” at a neural and conceptual level (and these are very hard to be evidenced and quantified, but could be revealed through more narratives and discourse analysis and checking of the connections using brain scanning).
John

My reflection on Connectivism as a new learning theory – to date

Here is my response to a post on FB relating to the question of whether Connectivism is a new learning theory or not.  (See http://redesabiertas.blogspot.com.es/2012/10/del-conectivismo-al-aprendizaje.html and the series of post http://blogcued.blogspot.com.es/2011/09/es-el-conectivismo-una-teoria-lo-es-del.html).

Refer to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift “The language and theories of different paradigms cannot be translated into one another or rationally evaluated against one another – they are incommensurable.” Interesting to relate to George Siemens‘ paper on connectivism. It has been examined and evaluated based on many “different schools of thoughts”.

However, as we also noted, there have been some substantial development in those application of principles, where some seemed to be validated by the Connectivism MOOCs in ccks, whilst other principles on the theory of emergence, Chaos and Complexity Theories are revealed through various further evidences. See Roy and Jenny’s papers on emergence – emergent learning which provide an extended understanding about those learning.

As it seems to be the case, to debate on a theory such as Connectivism based on one paper only may not be sufficient, as it won’t help in providing enough “helpful questions”, especially when they relate to Chaos, Complexity Theory and Neuroscience. The various principles proposed by George Siemens have since been challenged too, through various discourses. It is worthwhile to retrieve some of the arguments based on the digital artifacts, to help in seeing which questions are helpful in providing an understanding of learning in this digital era.

In summary, as Connectivism relates to learning at this digital age, it may not be easily critiqued based on the past learning theories and principles where technology affordance is not readily available. To critically analyse and dispute each of the principles proposed by George Siemens may be helpful, though I don’t think that is the only means to critique on Connectivism. Stephen Downes has also contributed significantly in this theory, and it could be interesting to examine the theory based on these few years of development on Connectivism. I could share some of our findings in coming posts, if that is okay.

I don’t think one could come up with a conclusion just by a blog post, with the theory part only. As proposed, there must be application examples and empirical evidences to “prove” and “dis-prove” the principles, and counter examples where learning is appropriated.

Refer to my posts Part 1 and Part 2 on the similarities and differences between Connectivism and Constructivism (and Social Constructivism).

Also refer to

Rita Kop and Adrian Hill on Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past?

Terry Anderson and Jon Dron on Three Generations of Distance Education Pedagogy