Comments on: Connectivism as Learning Theory

By: Learning 2.0 is Dumb: Use ‘Connected Learning’ Instead | trainingwreck

Mon, 23 May 2011 16:06:24 +0000

[...] Siemens’ work entitled “What is the unique idea in Connectivism?”, Eyal Sivan describing “Connectivism as Learning Theory” and Stephen Downes’ piece entitled “Learning Networks and Connective [...]

By: Eyal Sivan

Eyal Sivan — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 03:34:14 +0000

deadvocate, thanks for the complements.

I have to say, now that the course is over, that I feel Siemens & Downes accomplished a lot. Many teachers who were new to e-learning walked away with a very strong foundation for understanding current technological shifts. I agree with you that the theory itself is still incomplete, but I don’t think its founders would refute that. I’m also sure they would welcome your doubts (especially Stephen).

By: deadvocate

deadvocate — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:05:15 +0000

Thanks Eyal. You have very clearly enunciated some of the apprehensions I have about this concept. I think that your observations may help me along the path of both understanding it and being able to refute it, as that is what my intuition suggests is appropriate.

I am thinking that positioning it as less than a learning theory may clear up the ambiguities. I think its assertions are too strong, and it is not suited for the task that its proponents are forwarding, yet I am unable to substantiate my view nor offer my refutation yet. And then again, I may be totally in error and my doubts will prove both irreleveant and unfounded.

But thanks for your clarity of communication; the circular talk in some blogs like Georges is difficult to sort. You have clarified much.