RSA #2

     Connectivism is a proposed theory set out by Siemens in 2004.  In the article "Connectivism: Its Place in Theory-Informed Research and Innovation in Technology-Enabled Learning" put out by Frances Bell, connectivism is discussed put into a category of phenomenon rather than theory.  The article states that knowledge is a commodity and more and more is becoming a social activity itself with the sharing and refining of ideas over the internet.  The internet and social media is now changing education and knowledge because it is now residing in what is called a non-human appliance, where previously it was only held in networks of humans.  Goodyear and Castells, as discussed in Bell's article put forth the idea that past learning theories are not providing an adequate framework for us to think and act in this new digital and connected world.  That being said, there need to be additional theories to explain the changes, plan interventions, and develop policy.  This is where Siemens proposed connectivism.

     George Siemens claims that connectivism should be thought of as a successor to behaviorism, cognitivism, and contructivism.  He describes limitations of each being the intrapersonal view of learning, failure to address learning withing technology and organizations, and lack of contribution to the value judgments that need to be made in knowledge-rich environments.  Branching of the chaos theory, connectivism talks extensively about networks, defining them as connections between entities.  These entities can be people, groups, systems, fields, ideas, or communities.  Some principles of the theory include: learning residing in non-human appliances, learning being a process of connecting specialized entities, and accurate and up-to-date knowledge is the intent of all connectivist learning activities.  In this theory, he does not specifically address technology but does elude to it in the idea of non-human appliances.  Siemens theory was something widely spread when it was introduced, but has failed to make a significant impact in scholarly publishing.

     The author suggests then that connectivism is not a theory but a phenomenon that is making most of its impact at the level of curriculum.  There needs to be more research and elaboration to go beyond just that.  In the articles conclusion it presents a few different scenarios that could eventually lead to the development of more theories relating to this ever-expanding technology integration.

     I enjoyed the very scholarly article, but found myself wanting a better explanation of just what Siemens set out to say with his theory.  With the exception of the addition of non-human appliances, I feel that the theory was not bringing anything new to the educational "table".  My favorite part of the article was actually in one of the proposed scenarios of study.  Researches in the UK are trying to use social media for informal learning and describes innofusion and domestication with technology.  Innofusion is innovation that happens at the site of use, and domestication is where the consumer innovates by using the artifact in ways not anticipated by the designer.  With regards to what we were discussing today, I feel like the domestication is what we are striving for... this idea of presenting something to kids and having them create their own knowledge from it and create something totally unexpected while learning.  It was interesting to see that this infant theory was working towards that as well.

Bell, F. (2011). Connectivism: Its place in theory-informed research and innovation in technology-enabled learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 98-118.