Thanks for passing this along. I enjoyed reading and thinking about this. I really like the ideas that contribute to this concept of connectivism.

Upon reflection…

I wonder whether this isn’t more of a worldview than a learning theory per se. The article seems to beg the question quite a bit, and Mr. Siemens’ bio at the bottom does nothing to dissuade me from this opinion. I’m probably judging from a position of ignorance, because this is the only thing I’ve read. I’ve not dug into any of the actual scholarship on the subject. A lot of it seems to be extant organizational theory (I would recommend Herbert Simon as THE best of the best in this arena) repackaged with some cheerleading of contemporary trends (or barely contemporary, I swear I recall a good part of this article voiced by Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park). Rather than challenging fundamental assumptions about the nature of learning, Siemens seems to conflate learning with the application of a particular set of skills.

I don’t doubt the value of these skills, nor do I think Siemens over-emphasizes the market value of these skills in the modern, so-called knowledge economy. I use these every day in my job. I am skilled in the arts of pattern recognition and transposing leveragible order from the”cryptic order” of chaos (even if if I do say so myself). However, applying these skills, even in a group setting, is not the same thing as diversity or learning. Such application can in fact undermine group diversity and active learning in favor of specific kind of scanning method.

I acknowledge the persuasivness of the half-life of knowledge argument. I also note that the worldview Siemens describes is more ubiquitous every moment. The future of education likely depends on an ability to utilize the technological levers of the knowledge economy in order maintain its integrity as a discipline, field of study, and as a profession. But this is more a function of capitalism than education or learning.

The ideas in this article speak to group efficiencies more than group dynamics. Some of what’s being described as learning here is not new, it’s ancient. The conveniences of technology are exactly that. It’s now easier than ever to get more folks and different kinds of folks in on the conversation, and this is certainly good; however, this is not going on in a vacuum. A lot of this is about “cheaper, faster, more convenient, and,” yes, “more profitable.” Deliberation and inquiry are streamlined (and I’ll allow that both the scale the scope of deliberation/inquiry can be simultaeously broadened), but this comes at the cost of a particular kind of commoditization of education. Wrapped up in this whole thing is a sneaky confirmation bias that at its root questions the very legitmacy of teaching as a professional practice.

“Media, news, information. This trend is well under way,” writes Siemens. Boy howdy, is it ever.

I was trained as a journalist, but you don’t need me to point out how these ideas have impacted my professional discipline and the vast majority of its practitioners (million-dollar media stars notwithstanding). This is no joke. This worldview is dangerous to the quality of “the professions” and should be understood as such. Technology IS NOT a threat, but our habit of misunderstanding it is. Our collective knowledge far outpaces our collective wisdom, and ignoring this fact has been demonstrably destructive to society in general and to our educational system in particular.

I wonder why we don’t question our fundamental ideas concerning what learning is. Is analysis learning? Siemens seems to think so. Is learning really a cumulative process? Is the acquisition of knowledge learning? I question all of these assertions.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot to agree with in here. I rely on these skills every day; however, I question whether they constitute learning in and of themselves. To some extent I question whether the skills described are “learnable.” I think it’s somewhat unfair to assume that they are. I don’t know if there’s empirical evidence to support the assertion, and Mr. Siemens presents none.

Again, I like this concept of connectivism.

Nevertheless, there are some rather large turds in this punchbowl…

“Decision-making itself is a learning process.” – No, no, no, no it is not.

“Behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism do not attempt to address the challenges of organizational knowledge and transference.” Seriously? I mean, really? Says who? Mr. Siemens needs to study Mr. Simon. Even Woodrow Wilson had some scholarly insights on this subject (Yes, THAT Woodrow Wilson).

“Objectivism (similar to behaviorism)” – this is comparing tootsie rolls and oranges. Though a “connectivist” might plausibly posit a relationship between these two concepts (and I appreciate that, I really do), I can tell Mr. Siemens was not beholden to a professional editor with professional training. Such professionals care about facts, and this is just wrong. Witness the knowledge economy’s real impact on my profession. Anyone can be an editor. Hell, be your own editor. It’s not really a profession anymore. It’s just a skill set.

But the real stinker is…

“The pipe is more important than the content within the pipe.” – Where’s the learning here? What kind of metaphor is this? What’s the teaching profession, a pipe? You could say that I’m just hatin’ on Siemens for being an awkward writer, but he’s really giving away the game here. Further evidence comes in the last sentence of the piece.

“Connectivism provides insight into learning skills and tasks needed for learners to flourish in the digital era.” Notice one could replace the word “learning” with “acquire” and the word “learner” with just about any noun meant to signify an organism that can muster a brain wave and the meaning of the sentence hasn’t changed at all. In fact, there little attention paid to any sort of pedagogical relationship. Mr. Siemens is literally dismissive of it. One might infer some sort of crowd-sourcing-as-pedagogy here, but isn’t that the 800-pound gorilla in the room? Is the mentor-mentee relationship dead? One is left to imagine that this is axiomatic to Mr. Siemens.

This is where Mr. Siemens’ knowledge has outpaced his wisdom, and where I question the overall merit of his thinking. Though his look to the future admirable, his inability to examine the present beyond a sort of educators-better-get-with-the-program attitude betrays the fact that he misunderstands learning to be an acquisitive process.

There is not a one-to-one relationship between knowledge and learning. Mr. Siemens takes for granted that there is. He uses the terms somewhat interchangeably. There is, in fact, a tension between knowledge and learning. This seems to have never occured to him.

I hope you read these criticisms as constructive. I am “debate-oriented,” and skepticism is part of both my nature and my professional training. I am, perhaps, confusing bad writing with bad ideas (though I think a mouse would starve on the difference). My point is that we need a little more revolution in our thinking, not a modification or reaction to the status quo.

I also recognize that my criticisms (turds and all) are subject to debate, so sing it with me…

I wear this cap just to doff it,
I make this point so you can scoff it,
I’m on the soapbox, come knock me down off it,
Cuz, I wear this cap just to doff it.

Given the right instructional design and accompanying interactivity, an online program could work for almost any program, not just teacher prep.

But then again, I am biased.

Also, the linked article on online education ends with the quote: “It doesn’t work for everybody. But it does work.” Looking at the lousy job both K-12 and job higher education do in general in retaining and graduating students, one wonders if this same quote could be applied to face-to-face instruction?