Why Should Students Collaborate?
Hey all, I am cross posting this here. It is currently posted at the Cooperative Catalyst site where I occasionally write. I felt I needed to post it here as well because the Connectivism course has the rss feed to this site.
Introduction
So I just started taking the Connectivism and Connected Learning course – and I shall struggle to see how it differentiates itself as a ‘learning theory’. George Siemens is developing this theory along with Stephen Downes. George outlines it here in Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age.
The first analysis I wish to make is how it speaks to the construct of ‘collaboration’ – one of the essential elements of ‘social constructivism’ – and George and Stephen, in no uncertain terms, distinguish connectivism from constructivism. In fact, they, like others, suggest that constructivism is not a learning theory but is rather a philosophy. Two of the principles of ‘connectivism’ are:
- Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.
- Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.
…constructivism is not a learning theory…
Although these are explicitly stated, on quick glance through the course materials, the references I see to collaboration are more ‘quantitative’ in nature – such things as ‘social network analysis‘ and so on. The nature and quality of the collaboration doesn’t jump out at me at first blush. I may be wrong and will be interested in reading the rest of the articles, videos and presentations.
Let me take us on a somewhat retro look at some of the literature on collaboration in education.
Overwhelmed – A Maze of Cognitive Turbulence
Poster Designed for Logo Conference in Toronto 1986
I love learning. And I expect confusion. I thrive on dissonance. But, this morning, as I write this, I am curiously unsettled.
It has been the first week of the Connectivism course and I have not been able to attend to the readings and the webinars as deeply as I had hoped. One of those weeks, I guess.
I have generally described myself as a constructivist, indeed constructionist, over the years. However, I have always had a distinct distaste for packaged descriptions and formulae and indeed theories propagated and, often marketed by gurus as if there it is a ‘truth’ delivered from the heavens.
Image via Wikipedia
I have always found myself in discord with any proponent of any theory because there is often a rigidity in their thinking or a flippant dismissal of other aspects of self or other domains that may bring the chosen theory into question.
Now I see George Siemens and Stephen Downes differently because of the value systems I see inherent in their behaviours and actions. The openness and richness of diverse voice is welcomed, and indeed encouraged.
Now I don’t intend to get into hero worship here either. Also, not my style.
However, I am continuing my struggle to gain deeper understandings.
Canadian sociologist Derrick de Kerckhove - Image via Wikipedia
Right now, my brain is turbulent. This week’s readings and webinars have unleashed noises and visions that won’t settle – everything from my discussions with Derrick de Kerckhove and his work on connected intelligence in the 1990’s to the newer research into neuroplasticity to the nightmarish classifications of our western medical models which define, and advise on, ADHD and learning disabilities.
Ok, no really intelligent thoughts today.
I just need to become one with the messiness of my mind.
Related Articles
- Connectivism and Connective Knowledge 2011 (downes.ca)
