Responding to Connectivism: Theories of Learning in a Digitally Mediated Age

 

How do theories of learning address or answer key questions of the digital age?

1. How are learning theories impacted when knowledge is no longer acquired in the linear manner?
2. What adjustments need to made with learning theories when technology performs many of the cognitive operations previously performed by learners (information storage and retrieval).
3. How can we continue to stay current in a rapidly evolving information ecology?
4. How do learning theories address moments where performance is needed in the absence of complete understanding?
5. What is the impact of networks and complexity theories on learning?
6. What is the impact of chaos as a complex pattern recognition process on learning?
7. With increased recognition of interconnections in differing fields of knowledge, how are systems and ecology theories perceived in light of learning tasks?

George Seimens, in his 2004 article Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age, proposes a theory of learning which acknowledges and incorporates the realities of a deeply mediated and digitally networked culture. 

In it, he states that the existing theories of learning, including Behaviorism, Cognitivism, & Constructivism are all ill equiped to address the changed learning landscape.

The natural attempt of theorists is to continue to revise and evolve theories as conditions change. At some point, however, the underlying conditions have altered so significantly, that further modification is no longer sensible. An entirely new approach is needed.1

There are many interesting and engaging elements to his theory, but the one I'd like to reflect briefly on here is his premise that learning now sometimes resides outside of human beings; for instance, computers frequently do the work of information storage and retrieval, tasks formerly only possible by a human learner.
There is a counterargument that this type of learning and data storage is nothing new, indeed, it's been true for as long as books and the wirtten word have been part of the human toolkit.

But it is interesting to explore the idea that the vehicle of data storage may not simply hold the data, nor retreive it on command, but perform a rudimentary type of learning itself.  This begins to enter the realm of artificial intelligence.  It is as if a book didn't just hold data, but held it and learned it.  Itself. 

I agree with my colleagues that Connectivism is in fact a leaning theory, and not a pedagogy.  Non-human learning is a thrilling topic to explore, and I'm grateful for Seimens' insights into these areas.