Comments on: Constructivism vs. Connectivism

By: Looking backward to look forward « explorations in the ed tech world

Looking backward to look forward « explorations in the ed tech world — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 06:27:03 +0000

[...] in third-generation activity theory. I’ve made this point in the past (posted on George’s blog back in 2006 under ‘tanbob’) but as noted by Bill Kerr’s critique back in ‘07the point was never really addressed. [...]

By: ruthqing

ruthqing — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 22:06:41 +0000

Yes, we may say that we don’t always construct, but we use other people’s knowledge that has been constructed. In fact, when we search and select information, when we deconstruct the complexity of a set of information and rebuild it as our own knowledge, or apply it in context, that is constructivism. Can we say that we do not construct? Are we really passive in learning? In this information age, constructivism has been developed to communal constructivism (Holmes et al., 2006). As process of learning is enlarged, from school into the public sphere or into corporate environments, such as e-learning environment, communal constructivism is formed. It is “an approach to learning in which students construct their own knowledge as a result of their experiences and interactions with others, and are afforded the opportunity to contribute this knowledge to a communal knowledge base for the benefit of existing and new learners.” More information about communal constructivism can be found in:
Holmes, B. & Gardner, J. (2006). e-learning: Concepts and Practice. London: Sage Publications.
And http://www.sagepub.co.uk/booksProdDesc.nav?prodId=Book227967

By: Bill Kerr

Bill Kerr — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 07:42:06 +0000

I written a critique of this post, the latest version is , the network is not god

By: tanbob

tanbob — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:30:52 +0000

“We must begin to conceive learning as socially networked and enhanced by technology (it’s a symbiosis of people and technology that forms our learning networks). We need to acknowledge our learning context not only as an enabler of learning, but as a participant of the learning itself. ”
Don’t you think that post-Vygotskian frameworks address this? The way I understand it, cultural historical activity theory(Eg. Engestrom 1987, 1999, 2001) provides a framework for looking at this dialectic, and addresses your concerns with constructivism, such as: “Constructivism, for me, fails on two levels: 1) it is not capable of functioning in rapid knowledge growth environments, as it doesn’t account for learning that happens in networks and 2) constructivism is a “sometimes” learning habit (we are always connecting, but we only construct in certain situations).” Engestrom puts forward the notion of “knotworking” which essentially describes networks, and the activity system itself (the unit of analysis)provides a means for describing the mediation of activity (by technology, people, rules, resources) at any given time. In this view, the unit of analysis is never the individual and the construction of learning by that individual in the social context, but the system itself, which is dyanamic and full of transformative potential. Perhaps some of the ideas of connectivism could advance current understandings of activity theory.

By: Richard Giroday

Richard Giroday — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:26:44 +0000

The problem with learning theories is that we approach them seeking the magic bullet… the end all and be all learning theory that somehow will apply in/to all contexts, subjects, and learners. Within our own philsophical approaches we often grasp rigidly to one or another and contrast and compare them, debating their merits or short comings. We seek a cookie cutter solution to learning.
However, there is a time and place for each. Behavourism, Constructivism, Connectivism, each underline important ways of learning at different ages, in different subjects, in different contexts. To lose site of that is unfortunate. The claim is made that “knowing where to find” is more important than “knowing”…. perhaps that is true in certain situations or under certain conditions. However, if your 6 year old only “knows where to find” what 2 times 3 is… and doesn’t “know what” it is… I would suggest they will be handicapped in their future learning. It is amazing to see so many senior math students in highschool who are still using their calculators to “find” what they need to know… 5+17, 4X5 … they know where to find it, and have continued handicapping themselves in their learning by “finding it for years”… they just don’t know it. Extrapolate that to brain surgery or (place what you want here). Knowing where to find is not sufficient for much learning.
Connectivism is an integral part of learning, constructivism is as well, and often behavourism produces the beginning of a foundation of knowledge. To exhort that one is superior to the other, to the exclusion of all else, is the common trap.

By: Christian Spannagel

Christian Spannagel — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 16:00:10 +0000

Are “constructing” and “forming connections” really different processes? In a constructivist view, people construct meaning by relating the input to prior knowledge. That means, they form connections between input and knowledge. Whenever input arrives working memory, people (or: their brains) interpret this information on the basis of prior knowlege. Thus, construction is implemented by forming connections.
The other way around, connecting a thing to other things results in the construction of a richer network. Thus, connecting things means constructing a net.
Thinking in neural terms, connecting and constructing are not separate processes. Connecting is the central process in brain, and the human mind constructs an image of the world based on this connectivity.
In my opinion, it does not make sense to distinguish between constructing and connecting when talking about human cognition.

By: Lanny Arvan

Lanny Arvan — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 01:06:01 +0000

It seems to me helpful to cast this discussion in terms of learners through the life cycle and ask questions of the sort:
(1) What does it take to come to believe that something is true?
(2) What evidence/experience is needed to make the individual change his mind on a position?
(3) How fungible is the individual’s sense of taste?
My belief is that when younger construction of the idea is crucial to come to believe it is true but when more mature and if there are ideas/experience that seem to have bearing then one might base truth of a particular idea or piece of infomration on a much more cursory look and indeed that ability to make quick judgements on the truth of a proposition is critical in operating in a network.
I would also argue that when more mature much of what we hold to be true is done in a contingent way and evidence to the contrary can more quickly reverse the the point of view, but when younger there is a tendency towards absolutes which makes change of view more dramatic.
In contrast, I would argue our sense of taste is less well formed when younger and is more likely to change subject to external forces, e.g., peer pressure, but when older the sense of taste is less mutable.
If this makes sense the conclusion is that the consructivist approach as you’ve characterized it pertains to learning earlier on in the life cycle while one will come to your notion of connectivism as one matures.
And even if you don’t buy all of that, I hope we can agree that a good teacher should modify her approach depending on the audience and that more mature learners do learn differently from their more junior counterparts.

By: Rick

Rick — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 19:59:49 +0000

I agree with your thoughts on deconstructionism. After all, I deconstructed the meaning or your ideas to understand them. I also agree with your assertion that connectivism is the key to gaining kowledge. I actively sought out this information. But, aren’t I taking the deconstructed ideas, gained from being connected and, having a purpose and goal in mind, reconstructing them to meet that goal? I contend that deconstructivism and connectivism are means to an end — constructivism.