home

=Welcome!=

This Wikispace is dedicated to the exploration of postmodernism and its impacts on education.

media type="googlecalendar" key="2bpksl1o0mu3f04aht96mjmac0%40group.calendar.google.com" ARG0="&ctz=America/Chicago" height="300" width="400" align="center"

= __//** Notes on Readings **//__ = __** Scott's Notes: **__ Postmodernism: (Info taken from Gutek, Gerald L. //Philosophical and Ideological Voices in Education//. 2004. Pearson Education. Boston. Pg. 121-

According to Postmodernists: The Enlightenment did not promote “Life, Liberty, & Fraternity”…instead, it created (or justified) a rationale for a new capitalist ruling class, an exploitative class system, and racist imperialism. (122)

Industrial revolution set in motion ways to exploit natural resources and mass-produce goods; postmodernism touts that we are now in a post-industrial age- information is the “product”

Modernism (Industrialism) even in its contemporary form of globalization, exploits and marginalizes those deemed to be “less modern” Two categories of people emerge: forward thinking and not. One is “progressive” or forward-thinking, while the other is primitive and “backward”

Postmodernism(here out abbreviated to P.M.) rejects: (p 123) 1. Metaphysical philosophies’ claims that there are universal and eternal truths and values 2. Enlightenment ideology’s claims that there is one method and approach to rationality 3. Modernization’s claims that it is the irresistible social and economic force of the future

Canons: Used as the benchmark, or gold standard of a discipline, P.M. asks the following: 1. What events/situations gave rise to the canon? 2. Who gives a canon a privileged place, or status, in a society? 3. Who benefits from the existence and acceptance of the canon? 4. Why do canons in a particular culture and society exclude underrepresented and marginalized people?

“Othering”: Subordinating, marginalizing: For P.M, it is a dichotomy between the “Have’s” and the “Have Not’s” Terminology such as “Other”, “primitive”, “Less technologically advanced” “Non-Western”…slant suggests favoring, or accepting the “Have’s” as the standard, or being higher & better than those that are the “have not’s”

Nietzsche

Martin Heidegger (1899-1976) leading developer of Existentialist Phenomenology: The authentic person: self-defined, lives with “…the ever-present feelings of dread, disappearance, and the awareness of death as a consciously known inevitability.” (125). “What is true for us is not found in some universal category, such as Plato’s Form of the Good. Rather, we make our own truths based on our intuitions, perceptions, and reflections that arise in our experience. Free from metaphysical antecedents, we are not placed in an existing reality, but construct our own reality as it comes from our intuition and experiences.”

Derrida & Deconstruction: Jacques Derrida (1930- ) known for Poststructuralism Contribution to P.M.: **Deconstruction** Ancient Greeks believed one could find //logi or logos// (the rational principles of what makes things tick) because humans possessed a reasoning brain. According to Derrida, however, “what is assumed to be the principle of rationality in the universe…is not an objective reality but rather how philosophers represent it in their writings or texts.” (p 126) Deconstruction, then, tries to different shades of meaning in addition to those in the canon by: 1. identifying the logo-centric principles that it embodies 2. tracing the origin and development of the meanings conveyed, with special sensitivity to justification by appealing to the logi 3. determining how the knowledge claims, meanings, and interpretations in a text affect our ideas, beliefs, and interpretations. “The aim of deconstruction is not simply to engage in language analysis but to understand how texts, rather than reflecting metaphysical principles, are historically and culturally specific constructions that involve political power relationships.”

Foucault:

“…all persons and groups have some version of truth, or a clearer version of truth that gives them power in their relationships with others.” Truth-Power relationships will favor some groups over others- “regimes of truth” are created: ideologies, institutions, and practices evolve that allow some to control, govern, regulate, and even define others. Truth-Power Relationship & Education: Our known discourse currently: 1. all children have a right to an education that is excellent and no child should be left behind 2. an excellent education is one in which students achieve academically 3. academic achievement can be measured fairly and objectively through the use of standardized tests 4. these tests will identify the students who are achieving and those that are left behind 5. the tests will identify the schools that have a high record of academic success as well as those students who fail; schools with high failure rates can be remediated 6. if the remediation is not successful, students in these schools can transfer to successful ones.

What does that tell us about the “power” of standardized tests?

Who is mandating the tests? Who creates the test? Who interprets the results? How will results data be used? For what purpose? What are the roles of politicians, parents, teachers, & students in the process of creating benchmarks, standards, and tests? What are the roles of those same people in the analysis of the tests?

P.M. in Education: Axiology: “Dominant groups seek to instill what they define as the rules of ethical standards into the general society through the agencies of informal education and through schooling. Often these rules are justification for the exploitation of less economically and socially favored groups.” (p 132)

Aesthetically speaking, P.M. also rejects “Norms” of “classical beauty” or “universal expression”: Those works of art or music are, essentially, historical constructs. What is beautiful is dependent upon a group’s experience. Dominant groups tend to control museums, art galleries, orchestra halls, etc- P.M>. holds there are many ways to decide what is beautiful, worthwhile, and so on. What is more important, according to P.M., is considering the experiences of those being educated

P.M. does not dismiss the principles of logic, but does call into question the position, authority, and power of those that would commend some actions as logical but condemn others as illogical or irrational.

Schools: P.M. contends that “…public schools, like other institutions, are used to reproduce a social order that is patriarchal in that they favor men over women; Eurocentric in that what is said to be knowledge is a construction of white people of European ancestry; and capitalist in that private property and the corporate attitude are enshrined in the free market ideology.” (p 134)

Curriculum & Instruction:

P.M. refers to instruction as “representation”- a cultural expression or discussion. “representation” refers to the processes that individuals and groups “use to interpret and give meaning” to their experience, through language, stories, images, music, and other cultural constructs. “Teaching, especially in the transmission of the official curriculum, involves making representations to students through language to provide students with descriptions of reality. However, the official curriculum- the approved representations- is only one version of reality, usually that of a society’s dominant and controlling group.” ( p 136) “The official curriculum either neglects or gives an officially sanctioned “spin” to how the experience of marginalized groups, especially African, Hispanic, and Native Americans; women; and gays and lesbians is represented.” “A Postmodern curriculum should not be organized into discrete subject matter disciplines, separated by impermeable boundaries and guarded by experts. Arising in its local context, it should offer a fluid and flexible means of examining issues of personal and group identity, and social, political, and economic problems. It should encourage dialogues that question existing assumptions, particularly those contained in the officially approved curriculum. Recognizing that all societies and their institutions are made up of forces contending for power and control, the curriculum should make students aware that they live in an ideologically charged environment that requires them to become social critics and critical actors. The curriculum, like the school, should be transformed into an agency that empowers individuals, especially those who have been marginalized by the existing power structure.” (p 136)

__**Laura's Notes**__:
**Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). Web Center for Social Research Methods (2000). Research methods knowledge base: Foundations; Philosophy of research; Positivism & Post-Positivism. Retrieved** **from** [] Fundamentals of Research How teaching, learning, and knowing has changed from modernism (using positism) to postmodern (using post-positivism) societies To understand ** Post-positivism **, one must first understand ** positivism **. ** Positivism: ** In its broadest sense, positivism is a rejection of metaphysics. The goal of knowledge is simply to describe the phenomena that we experience. The purpose of science is to stick to what can be directly observed and measured. Knowledge of anything beyond that (emotions, thoughts, etc.) is impossible because they cannot be observed. ** Positivists ** B.F. Skinner argued that psychology needed to concentrate only on the positive and negative reinforcers of behavior in order to predict how people will behave -- everything else in between (like what the person is thinking) is irrelevant because it can't be measured. ** Positivists ** see science as the way to get at truth, so that one might predict and control it. The world and the universe operate by laws of cause and effect that we could discern if scientific method is applied. ** Positivists ** believe in // empiricism // -- the idea that observation and measurement was the core of the scientific endeavor. The key approach of the scientific method is the experiment, the attempt to discern natural laws through direct manipulation and observation. Post-positivism
 * Positivism ** and ** Post-Positivism **

** Post-positivism ** is a wholesale rejection of the central tenets of ** positivism **. ** Post-positivists ** might begin by recognizing that the __way scientists think__ and work and the __way we think in our__ __everyday life__ are //__not__// distinctly //different//. “Scientific reasoning” and “everyone else’s common sense reasoning” are essentially the same process. One of ** post-positivism’s **most common forms is ** critical realism **. A critical realist believes that there is a reality independent of our thinking about it that science can study. This is in contrast with ** another common form of **** post-positivism ****, the ** ** subjectivist **** , ** who would hold that there is no external reality -- we're each making this all up!. ** Post-positivist ** **critical-realist** recognizes that: · All observation is fallible and has error. · All theory is revisable. · The critical realist is // critical // of our ability to know reality with certainty. · // The goal of science is to hold steadfastly to the goal of getting it right about reality, even though we can never achieve that goal // ! ** Post-positivism ** __rejects__ the ** relativist ** idea of the ** incommensurability ** (the idea that we can never understand each other because we come from different experiences and cultures). ** Post-positivists ** __reject__ the idea that any individual can see the world perfectly as it really is. ** Post-positivists **** believe that: ** · ** B ** ecause all measurement is fallible, one must emphasizes the importance of compare and contrast of multiple measures and observations, each of which may possess different types of error, to arrive at the most objective conclusion that is possible for humans. · Scientists (and everyone else, for that matter) are inherently biased by their cultural experiences, world views, and so on. · We are all biased and all of our observations are affected (theory-laden). ·  Most ** post-positivists ** are ** constructivists ** who believe that we each construct our view of the world based on our perceptions of it. Because perception and observation is fallible, our constructions must be imperfect. So what is meant by objectivity in a post-positivist world? For contrast, remember that ** positivists ** believe that objectivity is a characteristic that resides in the individual scientist. Scientists are responsible for putting aside their biases and beliefs and seeing the world as it 'really' is. ** Post-positivists ** accept that: · Objectivity is not the characteristic of an individual; it is inherently a social phenomenon. · Objectivity is what multiple individuals are trying to achieve when they criticize each other's work. · Objectivity is never perfectly achieved, but we can approach it. · Our best hope for achieving objectivity is to “triangulate” across multiple fallible perspectives! · Objectivity is best achieved within the context of a broader contentious community of truth-seekers, including other scientists, who criticize each other's work (the concept of triangulation). · Objective theories are most closely is approached through triangulation. The theories that survive such intense scrutiny have adaptive value and are probably as close as our species can come to being objective and understanding reality. · Theories that survive triangulation are like the species that survive in the evolutionary struggle. Sometimes called the ** natural selection theory of knowledge, **** is ** the idea is that theories have 'survival value' and that knowledge evolves through a process of variation, selection and retention.

=** Wonders of the Postmodern World **= **Anderson, W.T. (1990). Reality isn’t what it used to be: Theatrical politics, ready-to-wear religions, global myths, primitive chic, and other wonders of the postmodern world. San Francisco: Harper & Row.** **Chapter 1 : Welcome to the postmodern world** **Three major processes are shaping the transition from the modern to the post modern world** I. __ The Breakdown of Old Beliefs __ A. Premodern societies: where construction of reality occurred slowly and invisibly. People in authority were to maintain the official world view, and everyone else was to follow it. Premodern societies did not think about there being a possibility of a gulf between objective reality and social belief systems. “What is true and real for me is true and real for everyone else in the world.” B. Modern societies: born out of social and physical mobility. They understood that people in other places might have different realities. This brought forth dramas: inquisition, revolutions, and new ideas of human rights and separation of church and state. As the modern society began to wane, people realized they had freedom to decide they had choices about what they accept as real. C. Postmodern society: in its infancy, compromised of tragedy as well as the promise of the liberation from premodern and modern social construction of reality. It’s a new climate of freedom and stress. We are all required to make choices about our realities, and the range of choice is enormous. A new social consciousness is emerging. Individuals are constantly reminded that different people have entirely different concepts of what the world is like. Even the work of science is a social construct. Most people now are not so much “believers” as possessors of belief. They become consumers of reality. Individuals feel free to create new identities. Entrepreneurs of reality create new history, new science, new religion, and new politics. This opens the door for brainwashing (potential for tragedy) II. __ The New Polarization __ A. Traditional polarization: In modern society people saw politics along a left-to-right spectrum. This polarization tended to emerge in all countries. It expresses deep psychological differences in human beings. (e.g., the capitalist-communist deadlock, a government in power and those whose goal was to overthrow it, east-west, north-south) B. A New Polarization: is becoming visible. It does not replace traditional polarization, and it does render them obsolete. It transforms them, giving them new meaning and depth and emotional urgency. On one extreme are those who hold firmly to a set of truths that they declare to be //__the__// cosmic reality. They can be of any faith, liberal or conservative, hard-nosed scientists, or believers in Gaia. At the other extreme are the relativists and constructivist who whole all truth to be human invention. Whatever is out there, all beliefs are just stories that they tell themselves about something that remains essentially unknowable. C. Worldview: even more radical than that of the constructivist. They view that what is out there is only what they //__put__// out there; more specifically, what I put out there, little me, creating my own universe. This used to be called solipsism; now we call it New Age Spirituality. D. Effect of Polarization on Education: The people who now exist are either a little objectivist or else a little constructivist, and both find themselves totally unable to agree on educational policy: what beliefs and values we should teach in public school. E. The new polarization is a split between different //kinds// of belief, not between different beliefs. It pits fundamentalists (e.g., of religion, science, ideology, or cultural tradition) against relativists (a.k.a. secular humanists, religious liberals.  III. __ Global Memes __  A. Global cultures and world views: We all know that some kind of global civilization is coming into being. It may be a turning point in human evolution. A new superculture comes into being and wraps itself around the globe. It is a thin, fragile, and ever shifting web of common ideas and values, and within that incredible diversity like the world has never know.  B. Memes: describe replicating mental patterns – the cultural equivalent of genes. (e.g., songs, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashion, the making of pots, building arches)  C. No team of social scientists has yet gone forth to do the global opinion survey that would tell us what knowledge and values the world’s 5.2 billion people share in common. These would be global memes. The idea of the earth as a planet (as seen in picture taken from outer space) is a relatively new meme. D. New Patterns of International Society: the growing number of international societies. Money is culture: an international symbolic system of value and belief – a pocketful of memes. Other ideas most hold: 1. There is a human species and all of its members are biologically capable of interbreeding with all others, but not with members of a different species 2. The world is divided up into nation-states. 3. There are atomic weapons capable of destroying the world, and a global atomic war is possible. 4. There are many different religions, and some people do not take them very seriously. 5. Societies change and keep changing. E. Globalization: requires us to renegotiate our relationship with familiar cultural forms. Some look at it as the Westernization of the world, which in part is true: junk food, junk bonds, and democracy and human rights. Easternization has also occurred: tea, Zen, feng shui, Japanese business management, Chairman Mao. A global superculture pours together bits of many different cultures. It will not be homogenous. The human mind has an amazing repertoire of ways to accept and honor social constructions of reality without swallowing them whole.
 * Postmodern world __rejects__ that there is a fixed truth, beyond mere human conjecture.
 * A postmodern world view is present among us, yet uninformed: it knows neither its own strengths nor its own weakness.
 * In the increasing theatrics of politics, a lot of people are begin to understand that reality is a social construction.
 * As people gain this understanding, “Reality making” becomes a new art and business.
 * Postmodernism has no real or formal definition –The postmodern world does not know how to define itself by what it is, but mostly defined by what it has just now ceased to be. (paraphrase of philosopher of science Stephen Toulmin)
 * Another feature of the postmodern world is the development of a global society. Because every society now operates within the global society, one that is slowly but inexorably developing its own culture, the task of enforcing a single official reality structure is extremely difficult.
 * Religious tolerance has some validity as a global norm.
 * Three major processes are shaping the transition from the modern to the postmodern world.

Globalization and a postmodern world view pose both threat and promise. In a way the fearful fundamentalists are right: globalism does undermine systems of absolute value and belief. But in a way they are wrong: the systems of value and belief do not immediately disappear- people simply inhabit them in a different fashion. Sometimes the old ways have a surprising amount of life left in them. Whenever ways of belief change, structures of power change also. Globalization and postmodern worldview are the keys to all political power. With them come prospects for pluralist democracy. A new world view threatens all existing constructions of reality and all power structures attached to them. This is one of the most psychologically and politically threatening events in all of human history. Even those who are most oppressed by a belief system often fear the loss of it. People can literally cease to know who they are. “You don’t have to leave home to become a refugee.” These problems require a postmodern worldview that is aware of the tragedy as well as the promise of the liberation – for that is what it is – from premodern and modern social constructions of reality. Postmodern world will be anything but dull, and everything but monolithic. Humans tend to believe that which they sense is real. We use sight, sound, touch, smell, taste, and intuition. Now just maybe we will question what we sense.

What is Connectivism? ** Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age ** December 12, 2004 credited and authored by: George Siemens **Introduction** Behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism are the three broad learning theories most often utilized in the creation of instructional environments. These theories, however, were developed in a time when learning was not impacted through technology. Over the last twenty years, technology has reorganized how we live, how we communicate, and how we learn. Learning needs and theories that describe learning principles and processes, should be reflective of underlying social environments. Vaill emphasizes that “learning must be a way of being – an ongoing set of attitudes and actions by individuals and groups that they employ to try to keep abreast o the surprising, novel, messy, obtrusive, recurring events…” (1996, p.42). Learners as little as forty years ago would complete the required schooling and enter a career that would often last a lifetime. Information development was slow. The life of knowledge was measured in decades. Today, these foundational principles have been altered. Knowledge is growing exponentially. In many fields the life of knowledge is now measured in months and years. Gonzalez (2004) describes the challenges of rapidly diminishing knowledge life: “One of the most persuasive factors is the shrinking half-life of knowledge. The “half-life of knowledge” is the time span from when knowledge is gained to when it becomes obsolete. Half of what is known today was not known 10 years ago. The amount of knowledge in the world has doubled in the past 10 years and is doubling every 18 months according to the American Society of Training and Documentation (ASTD). To combat the shrinking half-life of knowledge, organizations have been forced to develop new methods of deploying instruction.” __Some significant trends in learning__: **Background** Driscoll (2000) defines learning as “a persisting change in human performance or performance potential…[which] must come about as a result of the learner’s experience and interaction with the world” (p.11). This definition encompasses many of the attributes commonly associated with behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism – namely, learning as a lasting changed state (emotional, mental, physiological (i.e. skills)) brought about as a result of experiences and interactions with content or other people.
 * Many learners will move into a variety of different, possibly unrelated fields over the course of their lifetime.
 * Informal learning is a significant aspect of our learning experience. Formal education no longer comprises the majority of our learning. Learning now occurs in a variety of ways – through communities of practice, personal networks, and through completion of work-related tasks.
 * Learning is a continual process, lasting for a lifetime. Learning and work related activities are no longer separate. In many situations, they are the same.
 * Technology is altering (rewiring) our brains. The tools we use define and shape our thinking.
 * The organization and the individual are both learning organisms. Increased attention to knowledge management highlights the need for a theory that attempts to explain the link between individual and organizational learning.
 * Many of the processes previously handled by learning theories (especially in cognitive information processing) can now be off-loaded to, or supported by, technology.
 * Know-how and know-what is being supplemented with know-where (the understanding of where to find knowledge needed).

Driscoll (2000, p14-17) explores some of the complexities of defining learning. Debate centers on: · Valid sources of knowledge - Do we gain knowledge through experiences? Is it innate (present at birth)? Do we acquire it through thinking and reasoning? · Content of knowledge – Is knowledge actually knowable? Is it directly knowable through human experience? · The final consideration focuses on three epistemological traditions in relation to learning: Objectivism, Pragmatism, and Interpretivism o Objectivism (similar to behaviorism) states that reality is external and is objective, and knowledge is gained through experiences. o Pragmatism (similar to cognitivism) states that reality is interpreted, and knowledge is negotiated through experience and thinking. o Interpretivism (similar to constructivism) states that reality is internal, and knowledge is constructed.

All of these learning theories hold the notion that knowledge is an objective (or a state) that is attainable (if not already innate) through either reasoning or experiences. Behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism (built on the epistemological traditions) attempt to address how it is that a person learns. Behaviorism states that learning is largely unknowable, that is, we can’t possibly understand what goes on inside a person (the “black box theory”). Gredler (2001) expresses behaviorism as being comprised of several theories that make three assumptions about learning: 1. Observable behaviour is more important than understanding internal activities 2. Behaviour should be focused on simple elements: specific stimuli and responses 3. Learning is about behaviour change

Cognitivism often takes a computer information processing model. Learning is viewed as a process of inputs, managed in short term memory, and coded for long-term recall. Cindy Buell details this process: “In cognitive theories, knowledge is viewed as symbolic mental constructs in the learner's mind, and the learning process is the means by which these symbolic representations are committed to memory.” Constructivism suggests that learners create knowledge as they attempt to understand their experiences (Driscoll, 2000, p. 376). Behaviorism and cognitivism view knowledge as external to the learner and the learning process as the act of internalizing knowledge. Constructivism assumes that learners are not empty vessels to be filled with knowledge. Instead, learners are actively attempting to create meaning. Learners often select and pursue their own learning. Constructivist principles acknowledge that real-life learning is messy and complex. Classrooms which emulate the “fuzziness” of this learning will be more effective in preparing learners for life-long learning.

**Limitations of Behaviorism, Cognitivism, and Constructivism** A central tenet of most learning theories is that learning occurs inside a person. Even social constructivist views, which hold that learning is a socially enacted process, promotes the principality of the individual (and her/his physical presence – i.e. brain-based) in learning. These theories do not address learning that occurs outside of people (i.e. learning that is stored and manipulated by technology). They also fail to describe how learning happens within organizations.

Learning theories are concerned with the actual process of learning, not with the value of what is being learned. In a networked world, the very manner of information that we acquire is worth exploring. The need to evaluate the worthiness of learning something is a meta-skill that is applied before learning itself begins. When knowledge is subject to low quantity, the process of assessing worthiness is assumed to be intrinsic to learning. When knowledge is abundant, the rapid evaluation of knowledge is important. Additional concerns arise from the rapid increase in information. The ability to synthesize and recognize connections and patterns is a valuable skill.

=
Many important questions are raised when established learning theories are seen through technology. 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//.======

Some questions to explore in relation to learning theories and the impact of technology and new sciences (chaos and networks) on learning:
 * 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?

**An Alternative Theory** Including technology and connection making as learning activities begins to move learning theories into a digital age. We can no longer personally experience and acquire learning that we need to act. We derive our competence from forming connections. Karen Stephenson states: “Experience has long been considered the best teacher of knowledge. Since we cannot experience everything, other people’s experiences, and hence other people, become the surrogate for knowledge. ‘I store my knowledge in my friends’ is an axiom for collecting knowledge through collecting people (undated).” Chaos is a new reality for knowledge workers. Chaos is the breakdown of predictability, evidenced in complicated arrangements that initially defy order. Unlike constructivism, which states that learners attempt to foster understanding by meaning making tasks, chaos states that the meaning exists – the learner's challenge is to recognize the patterns which appear to be hidden. Meaning-making and forming connections between specialized communities are important activities.

Self-organization on a personal level is a micro-process of the larger self-organizing knowledge constructs created within corporate or institutional environments. The capacity to form connections between sources of information, and thereby create useful information patterns, is required to learn in our knowledge economy.

**Networks, Small Worlds, Weak Ties** A network can simply be defined as connections between entities. Computer networks, power grids, and social networks all function on the simple principle that people, groups, systems, nodes, entities can be connected to create an integrated whole. Alterations within the network have ripple effects on the whole. Albert-László Barabási states that “nodes always compete for connections because links represent survival in an interconnected world” (2002, p.106). This competition is largely dulled within a personal learning network, but the placing of value on certain nodes over others is a reality. Nodes that successfully acquire greater profile will be more successful at acquiring additional connections. In a learning sense, the likelihood that a concept of learning will be linked depends on how well it is currently linked. Nodes (can be fields, ideas, communities) that specialize and gain recognition for their expertise have greater chances of recognition, thus resulting in cross-pollination of learning communities.

Weak ties are links or bridges that allow short connections between information. Our small world networks are generally populated with people whose interests and knowledge are similar to ours. Finding a new job, as an example, often occurs through weak ties. This principle has great merit in the notion of serendipity, innovation, and creativity. Connections between disparate ideas and fields can create new innovations.

Connectivism is the integration of principles explored by chaos, network, and complexity and self-organization theories. Learning is a process that occurs within nebulous environments of shifting core elements – not entirely under the control of the individual. Learning (defined as actionable knowledge) can reside outside of ourselves (within an organization or a database), is focused on connecting specialized information sets, and the connections that enable us to learn more are more important than our current state of knowing.
 * Connectivism**

Connectivism is driven by the understanding that decisions are based on rapidly altering foundations. New information is continually being acquired. The ability to draw distinctions between important and unimportant information is vital. The ability to recognize when new information alters the landscape based on decisions made yesterday is also critical.

· 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.
 * Principles of connectivism:**

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. Connectivism also addresses the challenges that many corporations face in knowledge management activities. Knowledge that resides in a database needs to be connected with the right people in the right context in order to be classified as learning. Behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism do not attempt to address the challenges of organizational knowledge and transference.

Information flow within an organization is an important element in organizational effectiveness. In a knowledge economy, the flow of information is the equivalent of the oil pipe in an industrial economy. Creating, preserving, and utilizing information flow should be a key organizational activity. Knowledge flow can be likened to a river that meanders through the ecology of an organization. In certain areas, the river pools and in other areas it ebbs. The health of the learning ecology of the organization depends on effective nurturing of information flow.

Social network analysis is an additional element in understanding learning models in a digital era. Art Kleiner (2002) explores Karen Stephenson’s “quantum theory of trust” which “explains not just how to recognize the collective cognitive capability of an organization, but how to cultivate and increase it”. Within social networks, hubs are well connected people who are able to foster and maintain knowledge flow. Their interdependence results in effective knowledge flow, enabling the personal understanding of the state of activities organizationally.

The starting point of connectivism is the individual. Personal knowledge is comprised of a network, which feeds into organizations and institutions, which in turn feed back into the network, and then continue to provide learning to individual. This cycle of knowledge development (personal to network to organization) allows learners to remain current in their field through the connections they have formed. Landauer and Dumais (1997) explore the phenomenon that “people have much more knowledge than appears to be present in the information to which they have been exposed”. They provide a connectivist focus in stating “the simple notion that some domains of knowledge contain vast numbers of weak interrelations that, if properly exploited, can greatly amplify learning by a process of inference”. The value of pattern recognition and connecting our own “small worlds of knowledge” are apparent in the exponential impact provided to our personal learning.

John Seely Brown presents an interesting notion that the internet leverages the small efforts of many with the large efforts of few. The central premise is that connections created with unusual nodes supports and intensifies existing large effort activities. Brown provides the example of a Maricopa County Community College system project that links senior citizens with elementary school students in a mentor program. The children “listen to these “grandparents” better than they do their own parents, the mentoring really helps the teachers…the small efforts of the many- the seniors – complement the large efforts of the few – the teachers.” (2002). This amplification of learning, knowledge and understanding through the extension of a personal network is the epitome of connectivism.

The notion of connectivism has implications in all aspects of life. This paper largely focuses on its impact on learning, but the following aspects are also impacted: · Management and leadership. The management and marshalling of resources to achieve desired outcomes is a significant challenge. Realizing that complete knowledge cannot exist in the mind of one person requires a different approach to creating an overview of the situation. Diverse teams of varying viewpoints are a critical structure for completely exploring ideas. Innovation is also an additional challenge. Most of the revolutionary ideas of today at one time existed as a fringe element. An organizations ability to foster, nurture, and synthesize the impacts of varying views of information is critical to knowledge economy survival. Speed of “idea to implementation” is also improved in a systems view of learning. · Media, news, information. This trend is well under way. Mainstream media organizations are being challenged by the open, real-time, two-way information flow of blogging. · Personal knowledge management in relation to organizational knowledge management · Design of learning environments
 * Implications**

The pipe is more important than the content within the pipe. Our ability to learn what we need for tomorrow is more important than what we know today. A real challenge for any learning theory is to actuate known knowledge at the point of application. When knowledge, however, is needed, but not known, the ability to plug into sources to meet the requirements becomes a vital skill. As knowledge continues to grow and evolve, access to what is needed is more important than what the learner currently possesses.
 * Conclusion:**

Connectivism presents a model of learning that acknowledges the tectonic shifts in society where learning is no longer an internal, individualistic activity. How people work and function is altered when new tools are utilized. The field of education has been slow to recognize both the impact of new learning tools and the environmental changes in what it means to learn. Connectivism provides insight into learning skills and tasks needed for learners to flourish in a digital era.

Connectivist Learning Theory – George Siemens 

Introduction
"A central tenet of most learning theories is that learning occurs inside a person. Even social constructivist views, which hold that learning is a socially enacted process, promotes the principality of the individual (and her/his physical presence – i.e. brain-based) in learning. These theories do not address learning that occurs outside of people (i.e. learning that is stored and manipulated by technology)… In a networked world, the very manner of information that we acquire is worth exploring. The need to evaluate the worthiness of learning something is a meta-skill that is applied before learning itself begins. When knowledge is subject to paucity, the process of assessing worthiness is assumed to be intrinsic to learning. When knowledge is abundant, the rapid evaluation of knowledge is important. The ability to synthesize and recognize connections and patterns is a valuable skill. Including technology and connection making as learning activities begins to move learning theories into a digital age. We can no longer personally experience and acquire learning that we need to act. We derive our competence from forming connections. Karen Stephenson states: “Experience has long been considered the best teacher of knowledge. Since we cannot experience everything, other people’s experiences, and hence other people, become the surrogate for knowledge. ‘I store my knowledge in my friends’ is an axiom for collecting knowledge through collecting people. Connectivism is the integration of principles explored by chaos, network, and complexity and self-organization theories…

Description **__"what is it that's unique about connectivism__**. As a starter to the discussion, and one that will be a critical focus in our fall course, I'll suggest the following: 1. Connectivism is the application of network principles to define both knowledge and the process of learning. Knowledge is defined as a particular pattern of relationships and learning is defined as the creation of new connections and patterns as well as the ability to maneuver around existing networks/patterns. 2. Connectivism addresses the principles of learning at numerous levels - biological/neural, conceptual, and social/external. This is a key concept that I'll be writing about more during the online course. What I'm saying with connectivism (and I think Stephen would share this) is that the same structure of learning that creates neural connections can be found in how we link ideas and in how we connect to people and information sources. One scepter to rule them all. 3. Connectivism focuses on the inclusion of technology as part of our distribution of cognition and knowledge. Our knowledge resides in the connections we form - where to other people or to information sources such as databases. Additionally, technology plays a key role of 1) cognitive grunt work in creating and displaying patterns, 2) extending and enhancing our cognitive ability, 3) holding information in ready access form (for example, search engines, semantic structures, etc). We see the beginning of this concept in tool-based discussions of Activity Theory. Connectivism acknowledges the prominence of tools as a mediating object in our activity system, but then extends it by suggesting that technology plays a central role in our distribution of identity, cognition, and thereby, knowledge. 4. Context. While other theories pay partial attention to context, connectivism recognizes the fluid nature of knowledge and connections based on context. As such, it becomes increasingly vital that we focus not on pre-made or pre-defined knowledge, but on our interactions with each other, and the context in which those interactions arise. The context brings as much to a space of knowledge connection/exchange as do the parties involved in the exchange. 5. Understanding. Coherence. Sensemaking. Meaning. These elements are prominent in constructivism, to a lessor extent cognitivism, and not at all in behaviourism. But in connectivism, we argue that the rapid flow and abundance of information raises these elements to critical importance. As stated at the start of this post, constructivism found it's roots of growth in the social reform-based climate and post-modern era. Connectivism finds its roots in the climate of abundance, rapid change, diverse information sources and perspectives, and the critical need to find a way to filter and make sense of the chaos. As such, the networked centrality of connectivism permits a scaling of both abundance and diversity. The information climate of continual and ongoing change raises the importance of being continually current. As Anderson has stated, "more is different". The "more" of information and technology today, and the need to stay current, forms the climate that gives roots to connectivism." ( [] )



Principles of Connectivism
**- Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions. ** - Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources. <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;">- Learning may reside in non-human appliances. <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;">- Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;">- Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning. <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;">- Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill. <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;">- Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities. <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">( <span style="color: #3366bb; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: none;">[] <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">)

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">"here's my understanding of what it's all about, and key definitions: <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">1. Connectivism is a theory of learning that asserts that knowledge and learning are not (about) content, but connection. Hence: <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;">2. Knowledge = patterns of connections, of three types:  § <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">1. neural = know-what,    § <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">2. conceptual = know-how, and    § <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">3. social = know-who)  <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;">3. Networks = loci of knowledge. <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;">4. Learning = making new connections (of the above types). <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;">5. Understanding / coherence / sensemaking = forms of pattern recognition. <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;">6. Community = those with shared knowledge and shared learning interests. <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;">7. Workarounds = the mechanism by which individuals make sense of and apply their own learning, regardless of mandated knowledge (instruction) or accepted knowledge ('conventional' wisdom). <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;">8. Accepted knowledge (wisdom) = what evolves as power shifts, people die and the make-up of communities changes; wisdom is inherently 'conventional' and tyrannical. <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">9. The 'wisdom of crowds' is not 'wisdom' at all, but rather collective knowledge = the aggregation and appreciation of patterns of knowledge of large numbers of independent people, shared; this is much better than wisdom!" ( <span style="color: #3366bb; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: none;">[] <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">)

<span style="display: block; padding-bottom: 2pt; padding-left: 0in; padding-right: 0in; padding-top: 0in;">

Characteristics of Connective Knowledge Networks
<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">"You probably grew up learning that there are two major types of knowledge: qualitative and quantitative. Distributed knowledge adds a third major category to this domain, knowledge that could be described as connective. A property of one entity must lead to or become a property of another entity in order for them to be considered connected; the knowledge that results from such connections is connective knowledge. <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;">According to Downes (2005), connective knowledge networks possess four traits:

<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;"> **Diversity** <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;">Is the widest possible spectrum of points of view revealed?

<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;"> **Autonomy** <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;">Were the individual knowers contributing to the interaction of their own accord, according to their own knowledge, values and decisions, or were they acting at the behest of some external agency seeking to magnify a certain point of view through quantity rather than reason and reflection?

<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;"> **Interactivity** <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;">Is the knowledge being produced the product of an interaction between the members, or is it a (mere) aggregation of the members' perspectives?

<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;"> **Openness** <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Is there a mechanism that allows a given perspective to be entered into the system, to be heard and interacted with by others?" ( <span style="color: #3366bb; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: none;">[] <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">)

<span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-size: 14pt; padding-bottom: 2pt; padding-left: 0in; padding-right: 0in; padding-top: 0in;">History <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">George Siemens: From whence does connectivism originate? <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;">All ideas have a heritage. All concepts have roots. A few related to connectivism: <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;">1. Tools augment our ability to interact with each other and to act. Tools are extensions of humanity, increasing our ability to externalize our thinking into forms that we can share with others. Language is an example. Activity theory provides a basis in this regard. So does the socio-cultural work of Vygotsky. Gibson's notion of affordances of tools, while based in his research on perception, also serves a role in validating tool use. And how could we leave Wittgenstein's notion of negotiated understanding out of a language discussion? Similarly, tools are "carriers of patterns of previous reasoning" (Pea) and reflect some type of ideology. This view is also prominent in Postman's assertion that all technology carries an ideology. <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;">2. Contextual/situated nature of learning. Situated learning draws from the work of Lave and Wenger, though, it's not too much of a stretch to say that Papert's emphasis on active doing fits this at least partly. <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;">3. Social learning theory. Here we can draw from Bandura's emphasis on self-efficacy, Bruner, Vygotsky, and others. <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;">4. Epistemological views: all learning theory is rooted in epistemology (even though von Glaserfeld declares we are in a post-epistemological era, suggesting that providing a theory of knowledge is exactly what constructivism cannot do). As an epistemological basis for connectivism, I've found Stephen Downes' work on connective knowledge valuable. More recently, Dave Cormier has been advancing the concept of rhizomatic knowledge and community as curriculum. <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;">5. Concept of mind. The notion of mind is enormously complex. We encounter a unique blend of philosophers, neuroscientists, and artificial intelligence in this area such as Churchlands, Papert & Minsky, McClelland & Rumelhart, Clark (embodied cognition), Spivey, and more. Mind is seen - too varying degrees - as embodied and distributed across numerous devices, relationships and artifacts. Hutchins popularized the notion in his text on Distributed Cognition. These concepts are also reflected in Weicks' papers on heedful interrelating. Salomon's edited text on Distributed Cognitions extends these ideas into an educational context. <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;">6. We also find a compatible view of connectivism in the work of new media theorists such as McLuhan, exploring the impact of technology on what it means to be a human. The impact of technology on humanity will continue to grow in greater prominence as we are increasingly able to augment human cognitive functioning through pharmaceuticals and the future promise of embedded chips. <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;">7. We also find support for connectivism in the more nebulous theories of complextiy and systems-based thinking. For example, Mason, Davis, and others, recently published a series of articles on the impact of complexity theory on the enterprise of education. Individuals like Barnnett suggest it should more accurately be called "supercomplexity" as we are not able to even begin to understand the directions things will take in the future. <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">8. Network theory. Sociologists, mathematicians, and physicists have spent several decades defining networks and network attributes. We are able to define key network structures, manner of behaviour, and flow of information. Concepts like small worlds, power laws, hubs, structural holes, and weak/strong ties are common in literature. Educational focus of networks comes from work by Starr-Roxanne Hiltz, Chris Jones, Martin de Laat, and others. Networks are prominent in all aspects of society, not just education. This prominence is partly due to the recognizable metaphor of the internet...but networks have always existed. As Barabasi states, networks are everywhere. We just need an eye for them."( <span style="color: #3366bb; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: none;">[] <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">)

__<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 18pt;">Discussion __ <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 19px; line-height: 29px;">What is the Unique Idea of Connectivism <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">George Siemens <span style="color: #3366bb; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: none;">[|[1]] <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">: First, a new idea is often an old idea in today’s context. For example, what is the new idea in constructivism? That people construct their own knowledge? Or the social, situated nature of learning? Or that knowledge is not something that exists outside of a knower? (i.e. there is no “there” out there). Obviously each of those concepts can easily be traced to numerous philosophers. The ideas have existed in various forms over 2000 years ago. What is new with constructivism today is that these principles are being (have been) coupled with existing calls for educational reform by individuals such as Spencer, Dewey, and Piaget. See Kieran Eagan’s book Getting it Wrong from the Beginning for a more detailed exploration. But it is more than just the shift in policy and calls for increased learner control. Constructivism made sense in that it rode on the cultural trends and philosophical viewpoints of the day. As authority in society shifted, Truth was questioned, post-modernism flourished, and our understanding of diverse cultures and ways of knowing increased, it only seemed natural that cognitivism and behaviourism took a back seat. What is new in constructivism, and please provide commentary if you disagree, is that it combined existing ideas into a framework that resonated with the needs and trends of the current era. In this regard, connectivism also shares in bringing to the forefront ideas of philosophers and theorists from previous generations. Much of what is unique is the particular combination and integration of ideas that reflect the broader societal and information-based trends. But I do think there are unique ideas in connectivism. Before I get into those, however, I’ll address some of the existing theory that serves as the fertile soil of connectivism (and, I think, to a large degree constructivism).

<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;"> **From whence does connectivism originate?** - <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">All ideas have a heritage. All concepts have roots. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">- A few related to connectivism: <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;">1. Tools augment our ability to interact with each other and to act. Tools are extensions of humanity, increasing our ability to externalize our thinking into forms that we can share with others. Language is an example. Activity theory provides a basis in this regard. So does the socio-cultural work of Vygotsky. Gibson’s notion of affordances of tools, while based in his research on perception, also serves a role in validating tool use. And how could we leave Wittgenstein’s notion of negotiated understanding out of a language discussion? Similarly, tools are “carriers of patterns of previous reasoning” (Pea) and reflect some type of ideology. This view is also prominent in Postman’s assertion that all technology carries an ideology. <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;">2. Contextual/situated nature of learning. Situated learning draws from the work of Lave and Wenger, though, it’s not too much of a stretch to say that Papert’s emphasis on active doing fits this at least partly. <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;">3. Social learning theory. Here we can draw from Bandura’s emphasis on self-efficacy, Bruner, Vygotsky, and others. <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;">4. Epistemological views: all learning theory is rooted in epistemology (even though von Glaserfeld declares we are in a post-epistemological era, suggesting that providing a theory of knowledge is exactly what constructivism cannot do). As an epistemological basis for connectivism, I’ve found Stephen Downes’ work on connective knowledge valuable. More recently, Dave Cormier has been advancing the concept of rhizomatic knowledge and community as curriculum. <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;">5. Concept of mind. The notion of mind is enormously complex. We encounter a unique blend of philosophers, neuroscientists, and artificial intelligence in this area such as Churchlands, Papert & Minsky, McClelland & Rumelhart, Clark (embodied cognition), Spivey, and more. Mind is seen – too varying degrees – as embodied and distributed across numerous devices, relationships and artifacts. Hutchins popularized the notion in his text on Distributed Cognition. These concepts are also reflected in Weicks’ papers on heedful interrelating. Salomon’s edited text on Distributed Cognitions extends these ideas into an educational context. <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;">6. We also find a compatible view of connectivism in the work of new media theorists such as McLuhan, exploring the impact of technology on what it means to be a human. The impact of technology on humanity will continue to grow in greater prominence as we are increasingly able to augment human cognitive functioning through pharmaceuticals and the future promise of embedded chips. <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 18pt; margin: 4.8pt 0in 6pt;">7. We also find support for connectivism in the more nebulous theories of complextiy and systems-based thinking. For example, Mason, Davis, and others, recently published a series of articles on the impact of complexity theory on the enterprise of education. Individuals like Barnnett suggest it should more accurately be called “supercomplexity” as we are not able to even begin to understand the directions things will take in the future. <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">8. Network theory. Sociologists, mathematicians, and physicists have spent several decades defining networks and network attributes. We are able to define key network structures, manner of behaviour, and flow of information. Concepts like small worlds, power laws, hubs, structural holes, and weak/strong ties are common in literature. Educational focus of networks comes from work by Starr-Roxanne Hiltz, Chris Jones, Martin de Laat, and others. Networks are prominent in all aspects of society, not just education. This prominence is partly due to the recognizable metaphor of the internet…but networks have always existed. As Barabasi states, networks are everywhere. We just need an eye for them. ( <span style="color: #3366bb; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: none;">[] <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">)

<span style="display: block; padding-bottom: 2pt; padding-left: 0in; padding-right: 0in; padding-top: 0in;"> More Information <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">1. George Siemens maintains a blog and a wiki at <span style="color: #3366bb; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: none;">[] <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">2. A response to some critical reviews about connectivism, at <span style="color: #3366bb; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: none;">[] <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">3. <span style="color: #3366bb; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: none;">[|Connectivism] <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">: a theory for learning in a world of growing complexity. By Kay Strong, Holly Hutchins. mpact: Journal of Applied Research in Workplace E-learning, Vol 1, No 1 (2009)

= Activities for Cohort That demonstrate postmodernism and its effects on education  =

=**<span style="color: #151316; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 43.2px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 18px;">1. ** Betzaida's Video:"Torn" by Natalie Imbruglia = =**<span style="color: #7030a0; font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 0px; overflow: hidden;">﻿ **= media type="youtube" key="VV1XWJN3nJo?fs=1" height="344" width="425"
 * <span style="color: #7030a0; font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 0px; overflow: hidden;">﻿ **

=** ﻿2 **. Can you really believe what you see with your own eyes? If you want to trip out for a short while, this is an exercise that shows you that we can’t believe what our brains interpret that we see. (The entire thing will take 60-90 seconds) Click on the link and follow the directions. =

= http://www.neave.com/strobe/ =

= 3 . ** Valarie's idea of passing out sample doctoral dissertations which use post-modernism to conduct research. Most of us have never looked closely at a dissertation. I believe it will be a high interest activity which demonstrated how to use post-modernism in research toward a dissertation. **=