This week’s topic is the uniqueness of Connectivism , and its status as a theory was vehemently challenged. For me, it is not very important whether Connectivism is already a theory or not, because it is much more: I guess it is a fertile soil for multiple future theories.
The central metaphor is so powerful (and I am glad that the edit war on wikipedia did not destroy this central passage):
“Not all connections are of equal strength in this metaphor” (Wikipedia)
This enables a whole new view, and in particular, it draws our attention to a type of knowledge that had been overlooked in favor of simple propositional and snap-in knowledge: Knowledge that can not be represented by connections of binary (1 or 0) strength, no matter if they are “complicated” hierarchical connections or complex cross references and interrelationships.
I think there is still a lot of unleveraged potential buried in the connectivist metaphor, in particular, on its layer #2 (conceptual, above #1 neuronal and below #3 social/ external). Currently, discussions often diverge into the more spectacular #3, or into philosophical issues and connectionism and #1.
IMHO, the unique “selling point” of the metaphor is that it applies to all three layers. So I am looking forward to a promising future of connectivism.
Hi Matthias,
Thanks for your insights.
I have written a post http://bit.ly/gZTCqS in response. Like to see the promising future of connectivism too.
John
LikeLike
IMHO the dealing with “knowledge that can NOT be represented by connections of binary (1 or 0) strength” is a crucial issue. Simply drawing lines will no longer suffice.
LikeLike