Exploring Connectivism with Industrial Eyes
Cross posted at The Bloggers’ Cafe
In my effort to explore connectivism as a learning theory (see Conduit is King) I immediately find myself wondering, what is the most difficult part in shifting practice. I am a child of the 20th century. I can’t help organizing and structuring information. I shop with a grocery list for crying out loud. I personally begin with the most difficult, leaving items or ideas that I consider easy(er) for last. In the case of redefining knowledge and the learning process I am drawn to the idea of recombination. Recombination is the act of taking anything (information, web pages, videos, ect.) and manipulating it to fit you and your specific need. Personalization causes concern for us “industrial learners.” (I am using industrial learner in the context of 20th century folks who experienced a linear education from “the experts.”)
To us, recombination is frightening, recombination is letting go of ownership. Industrial education had/has a structure. We were taught there was a beginning and an end to things and that there is a specific place to go to receive information. Set information was/is chunked up in to periods of time only to be reviled when you are ready. It had nothing to do with you as individual it was/is a function of time. Unfortunately for those of us with one foot in the past and one in the present, a flood of information and tools made personalization both an option and a necessity. Teachers and schools have become white noise in the competition for a child’s attention largely because a child still has no ownership. I believe that getting teachers to let go of content and to encourage exploration could be hurdle number one on the path to education reform. Siemens says, the ability to connect, recombine, and recreate have become hallmarks of knowledge today (p. 82, Knowing Knowledge) For educators to foster those abilities they will need to offer up information (possible unfamiliar information) and ideas that are intended to spark connection, individual recombination, and unique creation.
But what will they talk about, what will they learn, and what will they create? Predictably followed by, how will I assess it? Those questions are indicative of a person concerned with their perceived authority. My questions are, how do you tell a person that has been teaching a subject for any length of time that content is secondary, if not completely irrelevant to process? Content and its mastery is the measuring stick of our profession. I could not be considered a practicing professional until I passes a multiple choice test on communication models. (Those have come in real handy) Also, do they know how they themselves learn let alone how 150 students learn? Finally, is it the responsibility of professional development to take on such an undertaking or must it be an individual choice?
Inbox (1) PD Opportunity: from kpruitt
You are cordially invited to a professional development workshop that will explore the process of learning.
Re: From: teacherx
Are you kidding? I have been teaching for 10 years! What are you going to tell me about learning? My kids learn, look at the scores! PS. Quit spamming my inbox, I am busy making sure kids know about the Fertile Crescent!
Even now, knowing what I know, it is a little unnerving to let this post go. I know that others are much farther along in this line of thinking and to them this is just the 1000th definition of the same problem. What causes even more trepidation is that this information will be posted where anyone can accept it, reject it, mix it, mash it and recreate it as they see fit. I can only imagine what it must be like for educators who spent decades achieving the goal of content mastery.
To accept recombination, you have to let go of ego. Who among us is willing to do that?
On a personal note I want to thank Jen, Ryan, and Darren for their efforts. I look forward to participating in a growing network of change.
Ken Pruitt/DuBois, PA/Tech Integration Specialist
