A fellow QEP specialist gave me the angle I was looking for when considering the idea of connectivism. I would love to give you an awesome one-sentence definition of connectivism, but I can't, and I will conveniently blame it on the complexity of the concept. Instead, I will point you to some awesome articles and blogs, and let you figure it out on your own.
Anyway, one of the main premises of connectivism, at least the extent to which I grasped it, was the realization that with the advent of social media, one can no longer present learning as a top-down-process. Students, their learning styles, as well as their understanding of the world around them, and their never-ending usage of social media, needs to be taken into account when considering teaching any subject.
To phrase it in hippie-lingo, connectivism means we're all connected, all knowledge is both equal and connected, and therefore a teacher cannot place herself or her knowledge above that of others. Now let's go and hug a tree.
The problem with this premise is, as my fellow writing specialist pointed out, that if all knowledge is connected, where does that leave the need for citations? For giving credit? For setting boundaries of intellectual property?
And that is my bone with connectivism. At least I think it is.
You see, you should know that ever since arriving at my current institution, I have been on a one-woman's crusade for academic honesty. During my first semester, I was appalled at the number of plagiarism cases, and quickly started an academic honesty campaign with the aid of my colleagues. To me, knowing how to construct a literature overview is like knowing how to create a beautiful piece of bricolage. Each piece of knowledge, each brick, is lovingly positioned just right among all the other bricks, and plastered together using the right transitions, topic sentences, and conclusions so that a beautiful wall ensues.
One of my main concerns with connectivism is that it might not give proper dues to the idea that not every brick is equally beautiful, i.e., not every piece of knowledge is of the same quality. And when we find a piece of high-quality information, we can't just appropriate it under the guise of equality, brotherhood, and we are all entitled to knowledge, we need to give dues to whoever came up with it.
Just like those beautiful brick walls around our yard in France, knowledge can't just be slapped together haphazardly. It needs to be constructed. Carefully considered and evaluated. And I wonder, does connectivism acknowledge all of that?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree. The librarian in me still demands the "authoritative source." LOL
ReplyDeleteI think of source evaluation as a higher-level function than connectivism. In other words, don't "rise," literally too far above the rhizome model for connectivism. Networking and connectedness is at the ground level and below. It's that pipeline creating and multiplying itself in any variety of directions (led by our whim, our intuition, our curiosity). As we begin to evaluate what we have connected to, I think that's when we move away from simple connectivism into that next level of naming and discriminating to determine what's valuable.
ReplyDeleteHmm … saying that all ideas are equal (though I'm not certain that connectivism ever says that exactly) is not the same as saying all ideas are equal within this context. I like visual metaphors, so for me it's like this: All stars are equal. I should be able to look at any of those I can access and then pursue any and all stars I like, in both the literal and metaphorical sense. (hang with me, I'm starting to use metaphor within metaphor—I know, bad habit). Moreover, I should be free—within my own context—to make any image, or meaning, out of the arrangements of the stars that I like. For instance, if I see a bunny, I can name that group of stars the Bunny constellation.
ReplyDeleteHowever, once I enter the context of an astronomy or Greek literature class, then my Bunny constellation must be tempered with and measured against the Gemini and Sagittarius constellations, and it is appropriate within those contexts for the authority of that context to challenge my Bunny constellation.
However, just as I must shift my thinking as I shift from a myopic point of view to the wider point of view of the college classroom, the authorities in those classrooms must accept that their own meaning-making about the stars is context-bound. We see Sagittarius because of our particular position in the universe and in culture. If we were located in another galaxy or in another culture, then we would not see the same Signs in the stars. We would create different meanings under different authorities.
So I don't think that connectivism challenges authority; rather, it challenges authority that is blind to its own context. I think connectivism will say that authority must constantly monitor its context to see if its structures are holding and serving a useful function and that authority must be willing to give up its privilege and position when the context changes. Because when the context changes, the meaning changes, and an authority that has lost its meaning is … well … horrible.
But I also love your "beautiful brick walls around [y]our yard in France." What a wonderful image, and just as true as my stars. Walls or stars? I like them both. One so high and ethereal, one so here and grounded. As Wallace Stevens once wrote:
ReplyDeleteI do not know which to prefer,
the beauty of inflections
or the beauty of innuendoes,
the blackbird whistling,
or just after.
May I have them both?