Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Connectivism: social networked learning


Published on

Presentación elaborada y compartida por George Siemens en su conferencia en Buenos Aires, invitado por Fundación Telefónica de Argentina, el 12 de septiembre de 2012.

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

Connectivism: social networked learning

  1. 1. Connectivism:Social networked learning George Siemens, PhD September 12, 2012 Buenos Aires
  2. 2. “…the fundamental task of education is to enculturate youth into this knowledge- creating civilization and to help them find a place in it…traditional educational practices – with its emphasis on knowledge transmission – as well as newer constructivist methods both appear to be limited in scope if not entirely missing the point” Scardamalia and Bereiter (2006, Cambridge Handbook of Learning Sciences)
  3. 3. The growing influence of networks as a model for understanding the world…
  4. 4. Political blogosphere, 2004 Blue Brain 3D File ManagerHierarchy Edge Bundles
  5. 5. Recognition of complexity andnetworks as underpinning attributes of social, science, education
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
  9. 9. Making the world’s knowledge relatable
  10. 10.
  11. 11. Wellman (2002)
  12. 12.
  13. 13. Weak tiesEmpirical evidence that the stronger the tieconnecting two individuals, the more similar theyare, in various ways Mark Granovetter (1973)
  14. 14. Connectivism:1. Knowledge is networked and distributed2. The experience of learning is one of forming new neural, conceptual and external networks3. Occurs in complex, chaotic, shifting spaces4. Increasingly aided by technology
  15. 15. Participatory Pedagogies (Collis & Moonen, 2008) (Askins, 2008) (Harvard Law School, 2008)
  16. 16.
  17. 17. Externalization of thought and concepts
  18. 18. …so that it can be analyzed,interpreted, tested, evaluated
  19. 19. Knowledge relatedness and conceptual errorsare often not made explicit (tests don’t alwayssurface these errors)
  20. 20.
  21. 21. Blurring the physical and virtual worlds
  22. 22. All the world is data. And so are we. And all of our actions.
  23. 23. Breakups (via status changes)
  24. 24. “In today’s networked world, learners areplacing greater value on knowing where tofind information than on knowing theinformation themselves.” 2010 New Zealand, Australia Horizon Report
  25. 25. But, making the transition to a“connection” as the unit of analysis in learning is not easy
  26. 26. The existing model of education restricts change
  27. 27. Co-evolution of individual and related network Lazer, 2000
  28. 28. Networked informationdoesn’t have a centre
  29. 29. Fragmentation is a new reality. Our learning models experience Fragmentary need to embrace (reflect) it.• Conversations, content, context not (only) shaped by the school/educator• Learners are in control
  30. 30. So we (socially) create temporary centres:
  31. 31. So we (technologically) create temporary centres:
  32. 32. Temporary Centres
  33. 33. Technological sensemaking systemsVisualizationBig DataAnalyticsRecommender systemsAutomated discoveryPredictive models
  34. 34. Coherence is an orientation about the meaningand value of information elements based onhow they are connected, structured, and related Antonovsky 1993
  35. 35. “orientation about the meaning and value ofinformation elements based on how they areconnected, structured, and related” (Antonovsky 1993)
  36. 36. Agents in a system possess only partialinformation (Miller and Page 2007)…to make sense and act meaningfully requiresconnections to be formed between agents
  37. 37. In language and discourse, coherence relationsare “meaning relations that connect discoursesegments” (Kamalski et al. 2008)
  38. 38. Knowledge development, learning, is (shouldbe) concerned with learners understandingrelationships, not simply memorizing facts.i.e. naming nodes is “low level” knowledgeactivity, understanding node connectivity, andimplications of changes in network structure,consists of deeper, coherent, learning
  39. 39. Existing coherence forming systemsBooksNewspapersTV news programsMagazines(anything that is structured and that the enduser can’t speak into and alter)
  40. 40. Knowledge in pieces diSessa, 1993
  41. 41. As we become connected globally,new knowledge configurations will arise
  42. 42. Massive Open Online Courses
  43. 43. What does this mean to you as an educator?Importance of learners creating artifacts that reflect howthey view a concept/disciplineAssisting learners in thinking in networks (relationshipbetween concepts)Teaching and learning in networks…Opening the classroom: the global learnerExporting, not only importing, education
  44. 44. Content is fragmented (not confined to a course)Knowledge is generativeCoherence is learner-formed, instructor guidedDistributed, multi-spaced interactionsFoster autonomous, self-regulated learners
  45. 45. Complex tasks requiregreater engagement andfocus than what weak attention ties permit
  46. 46. Digital literacyInformation literacy21st century skillsHarvard curriculum Play, performance, networking, distributed cognition (Jenkins)
  47. 47. Depth...Slow Learning Geetha NarayananDeep smartsDeep understanding
  48. 48. Reflection Disciplines ofReview UnderstandingConnectionsSocializationExplicationSlow, deep, immersiveMulti-faceted
  49. 49. Starts September 10, 2012
  50. 50. October 8-November 16, 2012
  51. 51.
  52. 52. gsiemens @ gmail Twitter Skype FB