Tilted Taxonomy

In this revitalized post, Siemens said

“I imagine instead of a taxonomy, I should create a networked view of how these elements interact. That’s a future task. For now, here is a connectivism taxonomy”

and Downes countered

“And a ‘connectivist taxonomy’, in particular, is at odds with a network-based theory of meaning.”

I also have my problems with the idea of a taxonomy which sounds like rock-solid, hierarchically arranged definitions of concepts, from #1 Awareness and Receptivity up to #6 Praxis. Like rock formations in Stratography.

I think the lower/ earlier levels are not hidden by the upper/ later levels, but they are still visible on the surface and they are still concurrently relevant. So to speak, the geological structure is tilted, like, for example, the Southwest German cuesta landscape.


Since I agree with Siemens that work on connectivist terminology and language is important, I started an attempt to put his “Connectivist Taxonomy” text on a Cmap. It became terribly messy, so I also made this more simplified version here:


One thing that already became apparent for me is that the concept cluster of learning network/ ecology/ space is too overburdened and deserves some dissection.

(Cmap and PPT sources also available ).

This entry was posted in CCK08. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s