Tuesday, July 16, 2019

A Critique of Connectivism

Let me begin by saying there is a good chance that I misunderstood what George Siemens was trying to say in his theory of learning; and if this is the case, this critique will merely serve to expose my lack of reading comprehension. By biggest critique of this theory is that he seems to interchange the words learning, knowledge, and information as if they are synonymous. He also says that learning takes place in non-human appliances, which I also disagree with. To me, there is an important distinction to be made between information, knowledge and learning. Information without comprehension is nothing more than data. The process of interpreting data to make sense of the world around us is called learning and the result of learning is knowledge. Machines are programmed by humans to store and retrieve information and perform tasks. They are not self aware, do not place value on information, nor do they of themselves attach meaning to information. These functions are unique to the human mind and to a lesser extent, animals. It is true that no one individual can know everything there is to know, and that is why we store and organize information in books, electronically, and other various locations and formats. Learning and knowledge, however, still reside within the human mind. Learning hasn't change, but the way we store and access information has.

I do like how he points out the importance of time within his learning theory. The ability to access current information in a timely manner impacts our knowledge and application of it. I also agree with his statement that the capacity to know more is more important than what is known. Learning is a lifelong process and our ability to acquire new knowledge throughout our lifetime is a fundamental component of growth. Finally, I like that he highlighted the importance of decision making in the learning process. What we choose to study will impact the knowledge that we gain. Therefore, it is important that we choose wisely. 

All I will say about the Washington State Technology Standards is that it is a really good thing that we now have them. Technology has fundamentally changed the way we access information and apply knowledge. Therefore, it is critical that we not only incorporate technology into our classrooms, but that we create expectations for how to use it in a way that will enhance learning and the development of skills. These standards seem well designed to do that.

1 comment:

  1. I agree with you that learning, knowledge, and information are not synonymous. You can never really replace the human part of learning: that of making meaning and importance out of information. The way I understood connectivism was that true learning happens when we make connections between different information. It is sort of a synthesis of perspectives that results in knowledge. Technology plays a role in that it gives us access to other perspectives that we otherwise would not have access to. You make a good point about learning, knowledge, and information being different. Also I wasn't totally sure I understood the reading either.

    ReplyDelete