Connectivism

Just a couple decades ago, education was about students learning from a teacher and the students needed the teacher/expert to learn.  (Otherwise a library was a resource but knowledge of how to use the library was an obstacle.)  With the advent of the internet and the acceleration of the power of the personal computer, the gap was closed between learner and the information.  These resources also opened up more connections to these learners than was offered traditionally.  This transition is aligned with Dr. Siemens theory of Connectivism. 

"In connectivism, the starting point for learning occurs when knowledge is actuated through the process of a learner connecting to and feeding information into a learning community.  Siemens (2004) states, "A community is the clustering of similar areas of interest that allows for  interaction, sharing, dialoguing, and thinking together." (Kop & Hill, 2008).

With this in mind I have now recognized that I have learned more in my online learning than any other learning experience.  I have collected resources for future use, understand how learning experiences can start and continue into the future through blogging and utilizing social networks.  And even find value in resources as simple as emails from credible resources such as NSTA, ISTE, NEA, and more.

Kop & Hill talk about whether this theory is even a theory, "...or vestige of the past?"  Whether it meets the qualifications of a learning theory, the idea needs to be looked at.  From the beginning of time, technology has been about bringing us closer and being able to go further, faster.  Weapons and fire helped us have the ability to travel further because we had more energy and over time it helped develop our brains.  Skipping forward thousands of years, laungae and the printing press helped spread knowlege to more people and just those who had access and the money.  Transportation connected us to other parts of the world and did it at ever increasing rates to make it possible to make round trips to just about anywhere in a reasonable amount of time.

Eventually electronic technology helped us complete various tasks in a way that better, faster, and cheaper.  But it wasn't until the internet when this power was connected.  Now people are connected, information is at our beck and call, and these machines can do things together by being connected to each other.

With changing times, we are connected to each other in different means.  Our needs change with time too.  This necessitates an evolving understanding of education, because school is supposed to prepare your to work in the future.  We have to realize that the jobs of the future are no longer the jobs of the past or even present.

What this means to me is that I do not necessarily have to know everything about everything, but I do need to know where to go or what to do if I do not know something.  This is connectivism and being connected to the best resources and have them at your fingertips is what is needed in today's society, and is becoming the foundation of commerce.

Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3), 1–13.

Module 3 - Collaboration

"Do you believe that humans have a basic instinct to “interact and work as a group,” as Rheingold proposed in his discussion of the evolution of Wikipedia as a collectively developed encyclopedia? How can technology facilitate collaboration among learners based on constructivist principles?"


“Howard Rheingold: Way-New Collaboration”
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html


As a science person, I believe the basic nature of most organisms is to fend for oneself and survival of the fittest.  However, after time goes by, some organisms can find ways that collaborating and cooperating is better in the end.  As humans, we have not seen to many examples where collaboration has a better benefit than doing what is best for  oneself.  Howard Rheingold makes mention of the "Split Game" where two individuals who do not know each other are in different rooms and are given a problem.  They are given $100 and one individual decides how to split the money.  The other individual has the choice to either accept the offer, or if it is denied, no one gets the money.  The only time the offer was accepted was when the offer was as close to 50/50 as possible.  Howard Rheingold mentioned that it is to no benefit to deny even the $1 against getting $0 but this is what happens.

 Fortunately, we are now finding that we have the ability to truly collaborate and see the advantages of those working together for a single final result.  One great example is Wikipedia.  This site has multiple collaborators bringing information together for the good of all users, and there is no specific benefit to the individual.  But the one problem is that the people who offer to participate are individuals who are willing to volunteer, and these people are the minority.  If we can find a way to reward the individuals in some way or have the community receive a benefit that the individual would be proud of, then there will be a drive to collaborate.  But until then, I feel that the average human, especially Americans, are more willing to do for oneself rather than the greater good of the group.