This week instead of presenting what the web its potentials are we are entering some controversy. I read the Connectivism article by George Siemens and was a bit taken aback by the theory that he proposed. Although I did not have a full grasp of the concept until we discussed it thoroughly in class I knew I did not like the introduction of a new theory.
Sidebar: Why does everyone have to propose a new theory? Almost every week I read of someone trying to tell me we need a new theory. We need to stay current and we need change but the models we have now can be worked with and made better. If you want to propose a new theory or model hook your hitch to constructivism, which has yet to be defined.
Anyway, as clarified in class Mr. Siemens proposes the theory of Connectivism. Now, after learning a bit more he is not the first to propose this theory but appears to be, currently, the loudest. The basics of the theory it is not the learner that learns but a “node.” A node can be a learner but it also can be a database, server, etc. any “thought” (thoughts being defined by Vyogotsy as “not a thought until it has been spoken,” Mr. Siemens referred to this often). We discussed this in class and most believed, as Dr. Bonk stated, that this stuff is nothing new that has not been presented before. However, it is intriguing that the network learns but Dr. Bonk brought up a great point by stating if the leaner does not learn then it is in all probability not a psychological theory but may be a sociological one. The idea is the network is there with the information if we need it. This sounds like JIT or cognitive assistance, not learning.
The other articles read were on the Pew Institute’s survey of bloggers. This was very interesting but I question the credibility with a low respondent rate (n = 422). The biggest things I got from this survey is it is mostly suburban kinds (<30), not necessarily white, that like to talk about themselves, and most likely do not get paid. This is a good segue into Steven Downes article on blogging. What caught me off guard was the introduction where every Fifth Grader had a blog and was checking and updating it at school. He is right, as well as everyone else I have read, this is the future and these kids will expect to learn in this way. Finally this also goes well with my tidbit this week from Will Richardson taking about blogging and RSS. He, again correctly, argues that blogs are now and should be used in education. In addition, by using RSS one can manage and benefit from a large amount of constantly refreshed content.
From the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication I read an article by Trena Paulus fm the University of Tennessee. She did a survey of 10 groups learning online. The one thing I found interesting is it was relayed that asynchronous discussions were not as valuable as synchronous. However, what was not as surprising is the groups that received the highest grade used email, asynchronous, and synchronous to complete the assigned tasks.
Siemens, George (2006, November 12). Connectivism: Learning theory of pastime for the self-amused? Retrieved July 11, 2007, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism_self-amused.htm
Lenhart, Amanda, & Fox, Susannah (2006, July 19). Bloggers: Portrait of America’s new storytellers. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Report. Retrieved on July 9, 2007, from: http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP%20Bloggers%20Report%20July%2019%202006.pdf
Special Issue on Blogging: Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 12(4), Retrieved July 30, 2007, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/ (16 articles to choose from).
Downes, Stephen (2004, September/October). Educational blogging, EDUCAUSE Review, 39(5), 14–26. Retrieved August 27, 2006, from http://www.educause.edu/pub/er/erm04/erm0450.asp?bhcp=1
Tidbit:
Richardson, W. (2004). Blogging and RSS — The "what's it?" and "how to" of powerful new web tools for educators. MultiMedia & Internet@Schools, 11(1). Retrieved Feb 8th, 2006 from http://www.infotoday.com/MMSchools/jan04/richardson.shtml
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"This week instead of presenting what the web its potentials are we are entering some controversy. I read the Connectivism article by George Siemens and was a bit taken aback by the theory that he proposed. Although I did not have a full grasp of the concept until we discussed it thoroughly in class I knew I did not like the introduction of a new theory."
That is why I brought in George through video and email--to whack people in the side of the head and rethink their ideas of their ideas (i.e., to reflect on their critiques of his theory). I think it has potential-read an article, reflect on it in blog, write on it more, watch him present or explain his ideas, reflect as a group in class, and then move to a small group to discuss, send to the author, and then share his feedback. I guess I should have passed around his feedback in class today as a final wrap up for final questions and comments.
By the way, Trena Paulus is a former IST student. She is great! Very smart. Came here I think from Mich State. Many former students work with her. Maybe I should share your blog post with her for comments.
This is Trena's reply about your post on her article:
From: trena paulus
tpaulus@utk.edu
Sent: Tue 9/18/2007 5:10 AM
To: Bonk, Curtis Jay
Subject: Re: your article in CMC
Hi Curt!
Wow, that's an interesting interpretation of the article - first, it
wasn't a survey (it was a discourse/content analysis of the discussions)
and I don't think I claimed that asynchronous discussions weren't
valuable. From the abstract, even "The findings reveal that the
discussion forum was used significantly more often for conceptual moves
and for later phases of the knowledge construction process." Meaning
that the forum is where the higher level discussions were taking place.
And from the conclusion - my main point of the paper is: "Groups should
be able to choose which CMC tools they prefer to use while completing
tasks together. Advice can be given to novice online learners about how
each tool may constrain or support particular parts of the learning
process, keeping in mind that successful groups are those most able to
be flexible in their use of CMC modes (Huysman et al., 2003)."
The point of the paper was more about how learners choose which tools to
use and how - not so much about achievement with those tools since I
didn't use a good measure of achievement (all I had was course grades,
not much variation there.)
Thanks for writing and keep in touch.
Trena
Bonk, Curtis Jay wrote:
> Hi Trena:
>
>
>
> I hear about you a lot. Hope you are doing well. Do you like
> Tennessee? I saw you blog article in CMC as I was on the board until a
> week ago. One of my students (Christopher Brunclik;
cbruncli@indiana.edu. posted a little note
> on it in his Week 3 blog. See http://cbruncli.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
> “From the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication I
> read an article by Trena Paulus fm the University of Tennessee. She did
> a survey of 10 groups learning online. The one thing I found interesting
> is it was relayed that asynchronous discussions were not as valuable as
> synchronous. However, what was not as surprising is the groups that
> received the highest grade used email, asynchronous, and synchronous to
> complete the assigned tasks.”
>
>
>
> Do you have any comments for him about this article? Anything that did
> not make it in the article?
>
>
>
> I did not assign your article, but listed the entire special issue as
> optional to read.
>
>
>
> Keep up the good work.
>
>
>
> Cheers.
>
>
>
> Curt
Post a Comment