Abstract p. 1

Learning never was confined to classrooms. We all learn in, out of, before, during and after episodes of formal education. The changing sociotechnical context offers a promise of new opportunities, and the sense that somehow things may be different. Use of the Internet and other emerging technologies is spreading in frequency, time and space. People and organizations wish to use technology to support learning seek theories to frame their understanding and their innovations. In this article we explore Connectivism, that is positioned as a theory for the digital age, in use on a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC), Connectivism and Connective Knowledge, in 2008. We then compare Connectivism with another network theory, Actor Network Theory, to explore possible synergies. We found that Connectivism enables educators and learners to legitimise their use of technology to support teaching and learning. Connectivism, a relatively new theory, can benefit from a richer empirical base as it develops. Since the scope of educational change can vary from a specific learning setting through organisational and societal settings, we can develop theories through empirical exploration of cases across the range of settings to support our understanding and actions. p. 1

Siemens (2006) recommends that a practical discussion of knowledge can be held if it is seen as: something that a) describes some aspect of the world, and b) something on which we can act (Siemens, 2006, p. 150) p. 2

Behaviourism offers laws to govern behaviour that can inform a teacher’s manipulation of the learning environment (including texts and activities) to promote learning, for example Gagne’s nine events of instruction. Cognitivism opens up the black box of the mind regarding the learner as information processor. Social constructivism is an interpretivist approach, based on phenomenology, that has an “ontology in which reality is subjective, a social product constructed and interpreted by humans as social actors according to their beliefs and value systems”, (Darke, Shanks, & Broadbent, 1998). Hence social constructivism places a greater emphasis on the importance of social interactions in affecting the individual's generation of knowledge or facts about the world. p. 2

Networked theories of learning (Goodyear, 2001) and of society (Castells, 2000) have been elaborated to explain the impact of ICTs across education, commerce and society in general. p. 2

The setting for this study was Connectivism and Connective Knowledge (CCK08), a MOOC run by Downes and Siemens through the University of Manitoba. Since global participants were exploring ideas related to Connectivism and Connective Knowledge through multiple channels, technologies and web services, this course can legitimately be seen as a reflexive enactment of the theory of Connectivism1. This paper explores two questions: p. 2

• How does Connectivism behave as a knowledge network (in the CCK08 course and beyond)?
• Can Actor Network Theory (and Social Shaping Theories in general) inform the development of Connectivism as a knowledge network? p. 2

The primary data for this research is obtained from three main sources: time-segmented google searches of blogs and Google Scholar; the author’s participation (including observation) in CK08 (supplemented by searches of the CCK08 Moodle forums at http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/moodle/course/view.php?id=20 ); and subsequent study of the archive of the CCK08 network resources. The analysis was done by the author on an p. 2

incremental basis, based on reading of the literature and CCK08 course interactions (punctuated and partially recorded by the reflective blog posts, and enriched by responses to these). The investigation of the Internet links between Actor-Network (Theory) (ANT) and Connectivism was done by Google blog and other searches, on successive occasions during and after the course. This data has been summarized and presented retrospectively, using MS Excel. p. 3

Activity Theory has been developed over three ‘generations’ and is now widely used in the interpretation of the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in education and other domains. Its inclusion of cultural artifacts is an asset in the analysis of the development and use of technology, viewing human activity as being mediated by artifacts over time. Huamns engage in this mediated activity in networks, which can themselves be reconfigured through expansive transformation. However the primary focus remains on human activity, whereas Actor Network Theory (ANT) includes human and non-human material objects in its symmetric analysis,2 that is also reflected in Connectivism’s assertion that learning resides in non-human appliances, see p. 3

Principles of connectivism

• Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.
• Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.
• Learning may reside in non-human appliances.
• Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known
• Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.
• Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.
• Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities.
• Decision-making is itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the decision . p. 3

Figure 1 - Principles of Connectivism (Siemens, 2004) p. 3

George Siemens identifies as limitations of behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism: their intrapersonal view of learning; their failure to address the learning that is located within technology and organizations; and their lack of contribution to the value judgments that need to be made in knowledge-rich environments (Siemens, 2004). p. 3

Connectivism draws on Snowden’s 4 ontologies of knowledge (simple, complicated, complex and chaotic) (Siemens, 2006, p. 97). and on ‘rhizomatic’ knowledge - negotiable community-based (Cormier, 2008). p. 4

Connectivism appears to be based on a pluralist epistemology (acknowledging diversity of ‘opinions’) as in social constructivism, but a valid goal of a connectivist learning activity is to achieve accurate and up-to-date knowledge. Accuracy must then be determined within specific contexts. In 2006 Downes outlined a controversial distinction between groups and networks in a moving blog post http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2006/10/that-group-feeling.html , and presented this in a more formal way in this presentation in New Zealand http://www.downes.ca/post/42521 . Downes characterises networks, in comparison with groups as emphasising diversity, autonomy, openness and emergent knowledge. p. 4

Under the general umbrella of Social Shaping Theories (SST), various theories have emerged, including Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) (Mackenzie & Wacjman, 1999), and Actor-Network Theory (J. Law & Hassard, 1999). These theories emerged from Science and Technology Studies as a response to the then prevailing view, technological determinism, characterised as the belief that Technologies change, either because of scientific advance or following a logic of their own; and then they have effects on society. (Mackenzie & Wacjman, 1999) Fox (2005) identifies three key aspects of Actor Network Theory: symmetrical analysis whereby material and non-human elements are treated the same as social and human elements; ANT analyses are intended to illuminate how a network grows and decays rather than explain outcomes; and third that the process of growth/decay is one of translation (Fox, 2005). Law (2007) tells us that ANT is not a theory but rather it is descriptive, telling us stories of how things do or do not assemble, a sociology of translation, emphasizing the work of human and non-human actors in building a network, as they form alliances. p. 4

Points of contact between Connectivism and ANT p. 5

Both Connectivism and ANT employ symmetrical analysis that includes human and non-human elements. Connectivism characterizes learning as occurring within the network, whilst ANT concerns itself with how the network forms and decays over time: both learning and network formation are dynamic processes. On the other hand, I observed that many of the CCK08 participants, whilst recognising the importance of resources and technologies, adopted a much more people-centric approach to networks in their dialogue. Siemen’s contention that the pipe is more important than the content within the pipe suggests a material semiotic approach, also reflected in rhizomatic knowledge. p. 5

From this, we can infer that ANT had not been a significant influence on the development of Connectivism. ANT was taken up by a small minority of participants on CCK08, who recognized the points of contact and tried to bring the ideas together. p. 5

A significant difference between ANT and Connectivism is in the latter’s connection with the transformational potential of learning technologies in education, which transformation may be considered to be a social action. ANT is concerned with social action but adopts a descriptive rather than a normative or even an emancipatory stance. The stories told in ANT accounts of some part of the world may help imagine, and even effect, a changed future but the nature of that changed future is not embedded within ANT. Connectivism is clearly ‘different’ from ANT in its concern with learning, and the role of technology in changing how people learn and how knowledge is shared. These differences are most clearly evident in Downes’ writing on the differences between groups and networks that he sees as an important element of Connectivism, though one on which Siemens places less emphasis, seeing groups as type of network http://elearnspace.org/media/CCK08_Wk5/player.html. Downes’ clear articulation of the difference between networks and groups is normative and provoked much debate on the Moodle forums in CCK08. Particularly controversial were his claims that “groups are based on passion while networks are based on reason” http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2006/10/that-group-feeling.html, and that socialization should not be a goal of education http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=956. p. 6

We find ourselves asking what does it mean for a network to know, when it may be more useful to think of how the network came to be at a moment in time. Another difference between ANT and Connectivism is that ANT is presented through rich empirical stories of networks and alliances building and fragmenting, whereas Connectivism is argued from referent work, and in distinction to previous theories. It may be that such rich Connectivism case studies are in progress but not yet evident. p. 6

Evidenced by the quantity and quality of participation on CCK08, Connectivism is clearly an attractive theory for practitioners wishing to change their practice to take advantages of the affordances of digital media and open publishing. What remains to be explored is its relevance and sustainability over time. One way to do that is to examine whether Connectivism constitutes a knowledge network in its own terms (within CCK08 and beyond). Connectivism comprises a network of people (such as George Siemens, Stephen Downes and those who have blogged about it – see Figure 3), things such as published papers, the blog posts themselves, and events such as the CCK08 course and the 2007 Connectivism Conference. We can evaluate Connectivism against the principles identified in Figure 1. p. 6

Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning. The high number of CCK08 participants and their interactions suggests that they have increased connections but as many students dropped out not all will have learned to maintain them (in a CCK08 context at least). There is a tension between extending the network and nurturing connections. In a large scale network such as Connectivism, the legitimate practice of filtering to manage information overload can militate against finding new connections, and the nurturing of fragile connections. Haythornthwaite (2002) identifies the value of weak and latent ties in sustaining and strengthening networks. In the case of Connectivism as a knowledge network, this will enable knowledge propagation into and out of the network. p. 7

Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities Connectivism espouses this as a principle but in practice may experience it as a weakness. Both sources used (open access materials) and means of dissemination (blog posts and web links) are focused on the Open Web. In the interregnum before research and writing is universally open, this tends to exclude a significant amount of traditional scholarly publishing. However, services such as Google books and scholarly open access initiatives are beginning to address this gulf that is evident in the inverse relationships between Figure 2 and Figure 3. p. 7

References p. 8

Cormier, D. (2008). Rhizomatic education: Community as curriculum. Innovate, 4(5). p. 8

Goodyear, P. (2001). Effective networked learning in higher education: notes and guidelines: Centre for Studies in Advanced Learning Technology, Lancaster University. p. 8