Siemens idea that learning is a continual and life long process fits with the principles of Experiential Learning Theory as presented in Knolb’s article: “When learning is conceived as a holistic adaptive process, it provides conceptual bridges across life situations such as school and work, portraying learning as continuous, lifelong process” (33).
Both authors also share the idea that learning occurs continually in formal and informal situations. For Siemens “Informal learning is a significant aspect of our learning experience. Formal education no longer comprises the majority of our learning. Learning now occurs in a variety of ways – through communities of practice, personal networks, and through completion of work-related tasks.”
Siemen’s description of how networks and knowledge work in the digital age lead to a better understanding of our roles, opportunities, and challenges as learners and educators in the 21st century. However, instead of understanding Connectivism as a new and independent learning theory, his ideas seemed to provide a new perspective within the debate between the traditional learning theories (cognitivism, behaviorism or contructivism).
I think that Connectivism describes a process that existed in the past but was only available to a small number of intellectual or scientific communities. Connectivism sounds more like a description of the democratization of information through digital mediums and a set of principles to reflect on its consequences. After doing a quick internet search (thanks to the advantages of the interconnected digital world described by Siemens!) I find that there is an entire discussion about why Connectivism is or is not a learning theory.
If we take Connectivism as a learning theory we can run the risk of placing more importance on the technological changes than on the instructional methods. We might also celebrate participation as learning without considering a more critical approach to public discussion. Hammond states that “Habermas offers a corrective to the overly literal accounts of knowledge building in the educational technology literature. A Habermasian perspective asks us to view participation critically and not to reduce learning to participation” (234).
As Major points out: “instructional methods are more important than technological aspects (253). In the digital age we can favor constructivist approaches to learning –cMOOcs–, but we can also provide behaviorist approaches as Coursera did in their first courses –xMOOCs (Daniel).
I can see this phenomenon happening in my school. We are currently experiencing the digital transformations that first world countries had two or three decades ago. In short, our school administrators are excited about digital transformations as technology that will save them money while making our courses massive. Our first attempts at online courses are using a classic behaviorist approach.
Siemens ideas on Connectivism and Knolb’s descriptions of Experiential Learning are valuable in these discussions currently happening in my own context.
Camilo's Blog 