Connectivism MindMap by George Siemens (2004)

In response to shifts in education media and the limitations of behaviorist, cognitivist and constructivist learning environments, George Siemens and Stephen Downes have developed an alternative model – connectivism. Referred to as “a learning theory for the digital age” it aims to understand the effects of technology on human life, communications and learning:

‘…connectivism is the integration of principles explored by chaos, network, and complexity and self-organization theories. Learning is a process that occurs within nebulous environments of shifting core elements – not entirely under the control of the individual. Learning (defined as actionable knowledge) can reside outside of ourselves (within an organization or a database), is focused on connecting specialized information sets, and the connections that enable us to learn more are more important than our current state of knowing. Connectivism is driven by the understanding that decisions are based on rapidly altering foundations.‘¹

As Siemens himself notes, the idea for connectivism is drawn from earlier texts on distributed congition Hutchins, media theory McLuhan and social development Vygotsky. In this respect it seems difficult to claim the theory as revolutionary, indeed as a review of the epistemology of design highlights, the majority of learning theories have evolved from three fundamental positions – innatism, empiricalism and constructivism. However, despite recent critics who claim it can not be defined as a theory (Verhagen, 2006), Siemens argument for revising the fundamental precepts of learning from ‘skill acquisition’ to ‘actionable knowledge’ seems well justified on many levels, not least of which is the growing evidence base supporting educational software.

Contrary to assumptions that networks ‘haven’t changed learning so much that we need to throw away all of the established learning theories and replace them with a new one’ (Kerr, 2006), distributed co-creation radically confronts the inadequacies of traditional learning models (Kolb, Riding, Gregorc, Myers-Brigg, Entwistle) which are predominantly based on inadequately validated concepts of genetic inheritance, archetypal psychology and instrinsic motivation. Many of Siemens’ critics fail to grasp this salient point – connectivism does not transfer cognitive power from the individual to the smartmob (digital Maoism) as proposed by media moralists like Jaron Lanier.

Rather, it responds to the urgent need for educational professionals to begin sharing and building a knowledge base to address fundamental change, instead of wasting time agressively defending opposing theoretical positions which bear little or no relevance to how digital natives (screenagers) acquire knowledge in the C21.

1. George Siemens, (2005) Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age, Retrieved 17/01/11 http://www.itdl.org/journal/jan_05/article01.htm