(You’ll see why!)

When I first read the “theory” posed by Siemens I pretty much thought it was nonsense.  I still do.  That means I agree with the “con” point of view of my colleagues who posed their ideas at:

http://bcegradspace08.wikispaces.com/Con+Connectivism

I agree with the critics that say it is a pedagogical point of view.  It seems to be much more of a way that learning takes place. I think Pløn Verhagen is correct in saying that Siemens’ so called theory is better suited as a view of curriculum or a teaching method.   As he said:

Modern cognitive tools are nothing but an extension of the toolkit.  (1)

A theory is a “proposed explanation” of something whose status is conjecture. (2) My research students have to come up with a hypothesis of their research and at best, connectivism might be a grand hypothesis of something that is a construct.  Siemens’ idea is terribly speculative and can only be hypothesized just as any philosophical idea is merely a hypothesis of something that is observed or believed. Theories attempt to explain certain things that occur (phenomena). We can test Multiple Intelligence^© learning theory, but only if we implement an activity for one of the “intelligences”.  RTI works to increase achievement once we develop a particular intervention plan for a specific learning difficulty.  As such, it is a theory / method of presenting knowledge to students.  And that’s just what technology (those little pipes!!) does for students too.  It “connects” them to the knowledge that others have no matter where those others might be. Someone had to put the knowledge in the technology.  I’d call those “someones” people and not non-human appliances!

Intelligence is a construct and to define it, we have to assign some number or letter to a response to something in particular.  That number or letter gives us a means by which we can “see” intelligence.  Without it, intelligence is nebulous. The result of intelligence might be an “A” grade or getting all the answers right on a test, but you still cannot see it. 

Connectivism might be better placed, if indeed it must be placed, into the constructivist’s philosophy.  Students can make whatever meaning they need using technology and “nodes” in their network.  Whatever they learn is knowledge that had to start somewhere.  It’s still a matter of constructs. I think Siemens doesn’t really understand “existing learning theories”.  If he did, he certainly would get that they all attempt to explain what or how one internalizes learning, knowledge or whatnot.  : )  I do not think he truly understands what he calls “forms of knowledge”.  If he did, he certainly would not attach the word “Interpretivism” to Piaget, Bruner, or Dewey.  He also would not use the word “Objectivism” for the work of Skinner, Pavlov, or Watson. (I wonder if any of those philosophers are about ready to rise up and go after Siemens!!??)  YIKES!  I also think it is naïve to think that the aim of learning is social.

Siemens’ first three principles bother me actually.  I do not understand how he can believe that learning and knowledge are “opinions”.  Let’s see, a tree losing its leaves in the winter is an opinion?  His second principle is better, but that third one is just plain ridiculous.  

A toaster can provide knowledge?  No, it can’t.  You can learn about a toaster by taking it apart and putting it back together, but it’s still a toaster!  I think I’ll go stand in my garage and see how long it takes me to become a car! Sue

Resources:

1. Pløn Verhagen. BCE readings.
2. Webster’s College Dictionary. (1992) Random House, Inc. New York
3. http://www.hellasmultimedia.com/webimages/images-htm/food/Food-Cook05.jpg

 Retrieved April 16, 2008