Responding to Connectivism

I found this theory confusing and filled with what I term as eduspeak. I spent hours in my efforts to comprehend all of this. Even when both groups distilled the information of the pro/con pages on the wiki, it was still confusing. I’m not sure what side of the fence I’m on, nor do I think this matters. What does matter is we know this theory exists if we don’t apply this. After reading the argument against connectivism, in the section “Are Parts of the Theory More Compelling…” I was intrigued with Barbara Ganley’s description of the classroom as a learning ecology; however, what I can’t easily imagine: students motivated by the opportunity to learn. Possibly I could see motivation by opportunity in a poor urban environment, a poor rural environment, or a third world country. In this case, teachers need to team with librarians about opportunity.  I realize that often students are motivated, but they soon become jaded with all the new bells and whistles. My comment: technology helps, but learning, sharing, creating, and participating need to come from within. I think they are all missing the proverbial boat.

As to confusing parts of the theory, yes I believe most of it is confusing. When I read the line about business scams, I thought this was just a bit over the top. What theorist doesn’t push their work? In George’s case, he has to explain because it’s so confusing. Yet, he replies to blog postings and isn’t charging a participatory fee.

I totally agree that one theory doesn’t explain everything. Each theory builds, a complex layering that leads to a new direction. Also, are all of these theories linear? If these learning theories try to explain a process, then why are the theorists so bogged down with linear thinking?

It’s just possible that we need to find a “hook” just by talking to a child and discovering his or her interests. If we initially teach to their interest, this may be our window of opportunity.