Re: [learningfromeachother] Connectivism Online Course - starts monday 8 september
- thank you for this information.
I have signed up
Sorry to say it requires access to sound and all the things we needed for webinars with Asif last year.
However - you can read about it. If you want to participate but cannot because of connectivity problems, then I encourage you to email the course organisers to let them know. I am sure they will appreciate the feedback about obstacles preventing potenail students from joining in.
Pam2008/9/5 Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante.monson@...>open online course on Connectivism. The course begins on Monday and is freely available to anyone with an interest in learning more about the topic. You can sign up for free here.
http://elearnspace.org/media/GettingStarted/player.html---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: George Siemens <gsiemens@...>
Date: Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 8:25 PM
Connectivism Learning for today's learner
Questions or Comments? Contact Me
September 5, 2008
As mentioned in June, we are offering an open online course on Connectivism. The course begins on Monday and is freely available to anyone with an interest in learning more about the topic. You can sign up for free here. The course outline is also available. And, for a bit more information, I've put together a short introductory presentation on how the course operates.
For learners wishing formal credit through University of Manitoba, a paid enrollment option is also available.
As posted on my elearnspace site, I have an article available on New spaces and structures of learning: the systemic impact of connective knowledge, connectivism, and networked learning (MS Word file). The concepts explored in the article are reflective of a previous discussion on this site about "a world without courses". How long, after all, can we flirt at the edges of change before we seek a full embrace?
I had a nice chat with Richard Schwier on connectivism. He has posted the video on his site: Interview on Connectivism. As I mentioned during the discussion, at a recent conference, Stephen Downes and I were chatting about research basis for learning theories. The notion of connectivism - pick another term like networked learning if that works better for you - is better supported through research than existing theories of learning. The concepts from AI, connectionism, cognitive neuroscience, conceptual learning, and social network analysis - all of which form key foundations of connectivism - all contribute to validating learning in networks.
...and, I was recently also interview by Robin Good. We chatted about learning, connectivism, and social media.
Matthias Melcher (I think that's his name - had to dig around his x28 blog for a bit) provides an interesting commentary on why he feels connectivism should not be seen as a learning theory. I'll quote it at length:
IMO, a definition or description would be more appropriate for simpler things that do not suffer when they are isolated and formalized. I think, a complex, emerging concept like connectivism is better understood by its relationships. So, rather than "What is…", I would prefer something like "How is it related", or connected, to other ideas, or even, to the world.Late last week, I threw out a question to Gary Stager on Twitter: "when a constructivist constructs knowledge, where does it reside physically/biologically?". Gary replied with something along the lines of "we don't know and I don't care. I can teach well without knowing the details of how the mind works". Fair enough. Different educators adopt different approaches in order to makesense of the teaching and learning process. I'm trying to define it from the perspective of how our mind works. Gary is - in true constructionist form (and I don't mean that negatively!) - is focused more on the practical results and activities.
Connectivism would, IMO, suffer from restricting definitions such as being a learning theory, which has to obey traditional criteria of an empirically provable but very narrow scope of application. Even though the theory is addressing extensive changes and emancipation, this will not increase the perceived scope of what the theory explains but, instead, the prevailing resistance against such changes will further diminish and restrict the conceded scope.
The whole new view, however, that is enabled by connectivism, extends to much more than learning and schools. Downes' and Siemens' discussions shed new light on fundamental concepts, such as rules versus patterns, complicated vs. complex, equivalence vs. similarity, and coping with ambiguity and uncertainty. And these consideration render many entrenched practices of the entire knowledge industry questionable.
Gary then asked a critical question: what is the unique idea in connectivism? The response takes a bit longer than the 140 characters allowed by Twitter, so I'll tackle it here. Read More
Parmenides held to a view that nothing changes. Everything is permanent and unchangeable. While we have only fragments of his writing, his ideas are prominent in Plato, which in turn gives Parmenides a weight in philosophy that is often not explicitly acknowledged. Heraclitus, on the other hand, felt everything was in a state of flux and change. He is credited with some variation of the common statement: you can't step into the same river twice (or, more precisely, you can't step into the same water twice, even if the river itself remains largely unchanged). While Parmenides thoughts found some resonance with ancient atomists, and occur in the ongoing quest of physics to find the one base element of all things (currently this has been reduced to such a level that it has become nonsensical to most human beings - note string theory), most people today would likely find Heraclitus' view of change to be more reflective of reality. Read more