Connnnnnectivism - aka Laura Likes to Talk

Sitting down to watch George Siemens' presentation on connectivism and Web 2.0 in the context of education was initially off-putting in large part because both terms are foreign to me and represent the very challenge which Siemens addresses in his first slide: envisioning the new or original for the first time.

As a first year teacher, I come to the table with none of the predisposed theories on "what works" in my classroom, assuming that most of the things that were done unto me as child were successful as much out of luck as good instructional planning and implementation. I am not afraid to approach educational technology or Web 2.0 because of its newness or its potential for radicalizing the classroom as we know it, but rather because I am terrified that any failure or shortcomings in my first steps as a teacher will be irreparably coupled with my ventures into the "unknown world of computers," and thus will damage my students fragile relationships with technology and validate my schools trepidation.

Back to the presentation... Siemens first defines knowledge as an objective form that exists outside of ourselves and our own conceptions. He then proceeds to describe the ways in which we as people, as a community, act together (in this interactive internet society) to construct meaning for ourselves, bouncing the ball back and forth to allow it to take shape for each of us in our subjective minds. I agree with Siemens that knowledge is not a linear "framework" or "schema," and that using verbs and vocabulary that encourage this perception of knowledge as a kind of bordered country in which we all stake claim only lessens our grasp on what knowledge really is and can be. "Knowledge," if we can even define it for every person, should be fluid and dynamic, a storm cloud or a fizzy and effervescent explosion that changes shape as our minds expand to accommodate new ideas and reject old ways of thinking.

The transforming context of education, which Siemens attributes to the rapid growth of information, the changing ways we consume that information, and the shifting societal needs, has , in his opinion, shifted learning from an insular, isolationist model where students were able to read from books, absorb and experiment with new information in an independent way (or at least within the confines of a classroom) to a model of distributed cognition, where people (not just students) take on information at a greater rate than they are prepared to accommodate it, and thus offload it to a central place where meaning can be made by a group. As students and as members of a highly connected society, we are learning on the fly rather than learning in advance. 

In order to address my primary points of reflection, I'll limit myself to four ideas that Siemens outlined that I felt pertained directly to my own experiences in the classroom or spoke to my sensibilities about the shifting demands of technology in children's lives.

On slide five, Siemens spoke of the futility (and limitations) of attempting to use new technology to do old tricks. Much in the same way that Peggy McIntosh's theory of Interactive Phases of Curricular and Personal Re-Vision corresponds to the process by which we come to integrate underrepresented peoples into an authentic interpretation of a social curriculum, I feel that new technologies and scientific developments require a period of thoughtful integration and purposeful education. It is far too easy to buy a fancy computer and an LCD projector and use the combo as a glorified typewriter. What a disservice this would be to students, however, not just in the setting and scope of that classroom, but as they begin to utilize technology independently and have seen such underutilization modeled by teachers, who are supposed to forge the way in intellectual curiosity. 

If teachers are afraid to take risks, to put great time into our endeavors and have them turn out poorly or not at all, how can we expect to foster courage in our students? How can we ask them to look for the happy accidents and to try and try again, to go back and erase, and show their thinking, when we as teachers are so reluctant to budge from the tried and true, the precut bulletin board patterns and ten-year old lesson plans? 

Second point: I very much appreciated Siemens analysis of the end-user control model that is prevalent in Web 2.0 programs and applications. This is not to say I think it's particularly successful, but just that I've come to recognize it as the MO for most of the internet content I use on a regular basis, be that myspace, wikipedia, and even major corporate news sites that rely on affiliate stations and blog columnists to weigh in on stories. In today's acquisition model, we are all participants in the making of meaning and the production of meaning. We generate our ideas and throw the ball back (to reiterate the previous metaphor) into the mix, creating what Siemens calls an "aggregate perspective," and it is only by examining this potentially diverse mix that we can see an accurate image of what's really going on. He did, however, point out that one of the challenges he faces is the homogenized voice of the "echo-chamber" effect, where the people who frequent these types of outlets and respond to particular sites are often of similar mindsets and therefore serve only to regurgitate redundant ideas rather than challenging the status quo.

Nonetheless, the potential exists to be a PART of the making of a larger whole, which is a great reason for students to be involved in their education in ways that have never been really possible until this moment in time. Creating a dialogue and being not only a participant but truly a moderator gives students tremendous power to shape their own education and the path of their learning.

It brings to light the third point I wanted to address, which was another of the challenges that Siemens pointed out: that of quality control. When the end user retains significant power, as he/she does in the Web 2.0 model, the quality of information on sites like wikipedia, livejournal, yahoo groups, and even webmd can be compromised. While Siemens admitted to knowing (and observing) his different "levels of participation" at different sites depending on his comfort and level of expertise, many people do not exercise this discretion. To see examples of this, one need look no further than youtube. Giving voice to the individual to interact with, respond to, and create formal content changes that quality and the scope of that content. 

Lastly, re-envisioning the journey and the purpose of my role as an educator not as a purveyor of content or a herder of sheep allows me to back the contention that content can and very often should be the by-product of a path towards understanding. The greatest discoveries, as far as I can decipher, were seldom realized wielding a instructional manual, a Foss Kit, or a textbook. Students arrive at conclusions, synthesize ideas, and summarize themes in content because of educational experiences we as teachers provide and expose. As Siemens attests, knowledge doesn't lie within *us* alone, nor within our students as vessels. We cannot hope to possess or quantify it, to capture its very essence or map its borders. Knowledge and its value to us lies in the networking of individuals who form a community, from the smallest communities of our classrooms to the great edges of our world.