Comments on Connectivism

George Siemens paper "Connectivism: A Learning Theory for a Digital Age" took me quite some time (and more than one read) to digest. I wrote down a number of ideas over a number of days and am just finally getting around to publishing my reflections. I am not sure how I feel about learning theory in general. As I read this paper, the irony in the Gonzalez (2004) paper quote was not missed:
“One of the most persuasive factors is the shrinking half-life of knowledge. The “half-life of knowledge” is the time span from when knowledge is gained to when it becomes obsolete. Half of what is known today was not known 10 years ago. The amount of knowledge in the world has doubled in the past 10 years and is doubling every 18 months according to the American Society of Training and Documentation (ASTD). To combat the shrinking half-life of knowledge, organizations have been forced to develop new methods of deploying instruction.”

I say irony, because "connectivism" (which I guess is new enough not to pass the MS Word spell checker), is a learning theory and like other knowledge, has a half-life (according to Gonzalez and quoted by Siemens), so I do (with a wry grin on my face) ask myself if the this paper (also dated 2004) is already obsolete? That said, I found much of this paper relevant and thought provoking: Siemens quotes Karen Stephenson's question "How can we continue to stay current in a rapidly evolving information ecology". This is a great question and one that I (feeling somewhat ignorant and overwhelmed) have asked myself quietly a number of times in the last few weeks. I feel pressure to be at least in front half of the pack with regards to shifts in educational approaches that reflect applications of technology and information literacy but when I access the huge amount of information out there, I wonder how anyone keeps current and still teaches full time. The whole process seems to require proficiency in "bandwagon" jumping in the sense that the application du jour might be obsolete or replaced in less than a single year of teaching. I have other (and I feel more important) things to focus on: like how am I going to get my head around general relativity and present it to my students in ways they will understand?

"Sure", some would say, "use the internet, set up a blog or a wiki, do a podcast" - "sure", I say, as well as cover the syllabus objectives completely, ensuring students understand, in less than the allotted time, because the kids are writing a standard exam in May.

I don't really need another learning theory. What I need are time-saving resources and ideas, appropriately leveled for my IB students, that scaffold other classroom experiences in developing relevant skills that will help them (the students) see success, and secure employment in future (yikes - see last paragraph). Oh and don't forget, they still need to learn about relativity (or maybe they don't??). My connection here is that I don't have time for idealism (many full time classroom teachers don't).

I agree with the basic points of the article (to some extent - see paragraph below), I am trying to move with the times, but just when I feel I am current, something else crops up that (I am not trying to be funny here) makes me feel behind, ignorant, and an ineffective educator. Maybe I take it too personally?

Final point, the cynic strikes! The principles of connectivism have the subtle smell of the business model of education. In other words, working towards what a 21st century CEO wants in a graduate (see Alfie Kohn's excellent take on this) . I cringe at this thought wondering idealistically what happened to love of learning for the sake of just, well, learning.