I just finished reading Stephen Downes’ Learning Networks and Connective Knowledge; it’s part of the home work for this week’s episode of the twelve-week online course on Connectivism and Connective Knowledge I’m participating in (along with 1,900 others). (Join the party!)
Stephen’s paper covers a lot of ground. Too much, in fact. His well-reasoned arguments would have a better chance of changing the world were they stated in five articles rather than one. I just barely made it to the end! A minor quibble.
There are important lessons here: debunking folderol and junk science that once passed for learning theory, and the nature of networks and why they matter. Save yourself the time and effort of reading dozens of books on learning, pedagogy, network theory, philosophy of mind, making meaning, and so on by spending an hour reading Stephen’s astute analysis and opinion.
His take on learning as a platform is a dead ringer for what I’m calling Learnscaping:
“What happens,” I asked, “when online learning ceases to be like a medium, and becomes more like a platform? What happens when online learning software ceases to be a type of content-consumption tool, where learning is “delivered,” and becomes more like a content-authoring tool, where learning is created?”
The answer turns out to be a lot like Web 2.0: “The model of e-learning as being a type of content, produced by publishers, organized and structured into courses, and consumed by students, is turned on its head. Insofar as there is content, it is used rather than read— and is, in any case, more likely to be produced by students than courseware authors. And insofar as there is structure, it is more likely to resemble a language or a conversation rather than a book or a manual.”
After plodding through many heady arguments and unfamiliar references, it was a delight to come upon this heart-felt synopsis:
|
Downes Educational Theory |
| A good student learns by practice, practice and reflection. A good teacher teaches by demonstration and modeling. The essence of being a good teacher is to be the sort of person you want your students to become. The most important learning outcome is a good and happy life. |
Stephen wrote this in 2006. Those of us who have been following his thinking will recognize many conepts from earlier times. His conclusion, though, is a fitting way to think about what’s going on with this course:
Learning theorists will no longer be able to study learning from the detached pose of the empirical scientist. The days of the controlled study involving 24 students ought to end. Theorists will have to, like students, immerse themselves in their field, to encounter and engage in a myriad of connections, to immerse themselves, as McLuhan would say, as though in a warm bath. But it’s a new world in here, and the water’s fine.
A couple of years from now, we’ll look back at this gathering of more than a thousand educators as the occasion when the sewers filled their sacks with the seeds of educational revolution.
Flickr/jaycross
Facebook/Jay Cross
Linkedin/jaycross
Twitter/jaycross
YouTube/jakeross1
Del.icio.us/jaycross
Friendfeed/jaycross
1 comment so far ↓
Yes, I agree, it was funny to find that homey Readers’ Digest stuff at the end, with even a very moralistic “be what you want your students to become” — which shouldn’t be a goal for a Connectivist, if he were consistent.
I only skimmed this paper, as it is too filled with names and jargon I’d have to look up — perhaps I’ll get to it. I had read the summaries of George Siemen’s theses elsewhere, and I question each one of them.
The example of Paris seems silly, however. Downes seems to be saying that no one understands the same thing by the concept “Paris” — it is ruthlessly subjective to the point of incoherence (as deconstructivism tends to be). But…in fact everyone does have the same *connection* (how’s that for Connectivism!) to the two items: “Paris” and “Capital of France” and many would also then summon up “Eiffel Tower”. So many will have that same set of *connected* elements or facts and those make up knowledge units. (I noticed these guys never use the word “facts”; they may not believe they exist.)
So it isn’t the impossible task you might think, getting people on the same page, so to speak, whatever their personal take on the real Paris is. It also seems to me it’s no good that it is “discoverable out on the network somewhere” that “Paris is the capital of France”; it seems a reasonable objective that education should have you emerge with your own connection and establishment of those facts internally for yourself. You might be entitled to go look up the capital of Burkino Fasa; but that Paris is the capital of France, you should know. And I see nothing wrong with asking for outcomes and objectives.
Leave a Comment