As I reflected on that distinction (theoretic/pragmatic) more deeply this morning, I realized I ought to be speaking the language of Connectivism in lieu of speaking of or about it. Speaking the language could create a context that generates lots more meaningful associations in my conceptual and social networks. This approach could even get me to "learn how to learn" and "reform how I get my/our learning to happen". So I'm going to try out assuming that:
- connections, links and associations are synonymous with learning (noun)
- connecting, linking, associating, tying together are synonymous with learning (verb)
- when I'm strengthening a connection or forming a new connection, I'm learning more than before
- when I'm reforming a connection, I'm learning more ways that the learning is inherently functional or applicable to other endeavors
- when I'm dropping a connection, I'm unlearning something I wrongly assumed, concluded or tied together
- when I lose a previously reliable connection, I'm experiencing the consequences of not using that learning for any purpose
- when I've made a lot of connections, making lots more connections will happen more easily than before
Why didn't you say so sooner?
I was making lots of connections to the question"What is Connectivism?" without associating all those connections that I formed with the pattern of theorizing/neglecting pragmatism.
What difference can speaking the language make?
I associate that question with pragmatism and my fond pursuit of usefulness. Thanks! When I connect with anything deeply, I associate that with a world view or way of seeing everything. I come from there by connecting with it's premises, basis for conclusions and assumptions about it's value. Speaking the language represents all that pattern in an unspoken way so that listeners/readers can form their own connections to that deeper level.
What's a good place to begin "speaking of connections"?
Perhaps connecting what we already know with the possibility that it's retained and accessed as a network of connections. If we start from the experience that our knowledge is already structured as a web of connections, adding more connections is no change at all. We speak the same language as our knowledge and get the benefits of understanding how it functions easily.
Interesting set of assumptions:
ReplyDelete“connections, links and associations are synonymous with learning (noun)” I would call connections, links, and associations synonymous with knowledge or understandings.
“connecting, linking, associating, tying together are synonymous with learning (verb)” I agree.
“when I'm strengthening a connection or forming a new connection, I'm learning more than before” I think you’re learning when one is forming a new connection, strengthening a connection, and creating a weak connection.
“when I'm reforming a connection, I'm learning more ways that the learning is inherently functional or applicable to other endeavors” I´m not sure how to “reform” a connection. For me, if I have a connection, lose it, and gain it back again, it will never be the exact same connection. I would say one transforms a connection.
“when I'm dropping a connection, I'm unlearning something I wrongly assumed, concluded or tied together” Is dropping a connection really that deliberate? Certainly, one could drop a social node (i.e., a person or entity), but the knowledge that person or entity helped to create will remain for some time; that is, until new connections are formed and transformed until distant connections cease to exist.
“when I lose a previously reliable connection, I'm experiencing the consequences of not using that learning for any purpose” How does one “lose a connection”? If I find a website that is unreliable, that knowledge (i.e., the connection) will remain with me for a certain period of time. I will continue to rely on this knowledge to make similar decisions in the future as to what is a reliable internet source and what is not. I don’t think I “lose” a connection until it becomes so distant or far removed from my memory that it becomes basically non-existent. I don’t necessarily equate “losing a connection” to losing my wallet.
“when I've made a lot of connections, making lots more connections will happen more easily than before” I think this depends. I remember learning how to play the trombone in fifth grade, playing tennis in grade school, and a current statistics class I´m currently taking at the moment. All three of these learning experiences were fairly easy in the beginning. But after a period of time, making new connections (i.e., the learning) became harder and harder. Perhaps this knowledge helps making new connections in other disciplines, but I think it depends on what new connections are being pursued.
Thanks for sharing these assumptions as it has made me reflect on mine as well.
Benjamin, Thanks for connecting with so many of my connections! Here are some answers from my perspective to the intriguing questions you posed:
ReplyDelete> I´m not sure how to “reform” a connection. -- "forming and reforming connections" is a phrase George Siemens uses. I like your term "transforming" better too. In my post Possible Process Taxonomy, I proposed several ways to upgrade a connection without losing it and getting back in a different form. You had a previous connection to this blog by following it (thank you!) which you did not lose when you connected differently by adding this comment (thanks again!) which was not lost, but rather changed as I add this reply. One way to label this transformation is your/our link going from your reflecting to contributing to our reciprocating.
> Is dropping a connection really that deliberate? - I wasn't thinking "deliberate", I was suggesting "automatic". I've often recognized a pattern of "use it or lose it" when I cannot remember something I haven't not said, done or applied recently. It seems like neural connections might take activity to maintain themselves, just like social connections.
> How does one “lose a connection”? - When we adopt a paradigm like "the world is flat", "the planet was created in seven days" or "the sun revolves around earth"- we connect that premise to countless facts as convincing evidence. If we change paradigms, those connections no longer seem "factual" or "realistic". We're no longer convinced in the same way. I'm proposing we drop those connections to make connections to the replacement paradigm. The added and dropped connections are mutually exclusive. We cannot embrace both premises. One rules out the other and "forces the loss".
> making new connections (i.e., the learning) became harder and harder - Your argument is much stronger than mine. I'll drop the connection to mine and use yours. By saying "it depends", you're thinking is more complex and inclusive. Likewise for the combination of times it gets easer and times it gets harder. I had in mind outcomes of network development like sustainability and resilience which get easier with more and more connections. However when I also consider the greater challenges in deeper understandings, more refined practice and prolonged relationships, I associate much more with your pattern of connecting getting harder to accomplish.
Thanks for enriching this post and my cognitive network as well :-)
Thanks Tom for your reply as I am enjoying this discussion!
ReplyDelete> I´m not sure how to “reform” a connection. -- "forming and reforming connections" is a phrase George Siemens uses. I like your term "transforming" better too. In my post Possible Process Taxonomy, I proposed several ways to upgrade a connection without losing it and getting back in a different form. You had a previous connection to this blog by following it (thank you!) which you did not lose when you connected differently by adding this comment (thanks again!) which was not lost, but rather changed as I add this reply. One way to label this transformation is your/our link going from your reflecting to contributing to our reciprocating. – I´m still trying to get my head around the applicability and notion of cognitive and social connections, let alone creating a taxonomy for it. But I do appreciate the link and will mull it over (smile).
> How does one “lose a connection”? - When we adopt a paradigm like "the world is flat", "the planet was created in seven days" or "the sun revolves around earth"- we connect that premise to countless facts as convincing evidence (I AGREE.). If we change paradigms, those connections no longer seem "factual" or "realistic". We're no longer convinced in the same way (I AGREE.). I'm proposing we drop those connections to make connections to the replacement paradigm (I DISAGREE. We may replace the paradigm but we don’t replace the connection. I don’t think it’s possible to replace a connection. They either “die off” or grow like grass.). The added and dropped connections are mutually exclusive (I DISAGREE.). We cannot embrace both premises (Well, we may not “embrace” both premises, but we can understand both premises.). One rules out the other and "forces the loss". – MY RESPONSE: I would call this simply shifting from a strong to a weak connection. If I now believe that the world is round (strong connection), I still maintain a weak connection with the notion that the world is flat. If I “lost this connection”, I would no longer have this idea in my mind which might later lead to me questioning whether or not the world was really round. My main point is that even though I may disagree with someone or something, it is still part of how and what I learn, so it seems to me that these ideas and people I disagree with still must be connected to me in some way.
Hi Benjamin - I'm enjoying this too.
ReplyDeleteI also accept your idea that connections are maintained by disagreement. They might even by strong links if the disagreement fueled convictions.
"The world is flat" could also remain connected through concepts like "optical illusion", "pre-Copernican worldview", etc. My assertion imagines our cognitive networks to process signals through connections. Thus when asked a question: "Why did last week's maritime voyage from Lisbon to the West Indies fall off the edge of the world last night?" anyone who had changed to the Copernican worldview would challenge the question, no longer connecting to the realistic possibility deserving a logical explanation. The signals of logical explanations to reasonable questions could no longer flow to questions about "falling off the edge".
Thus maintaining connections seems right to me when it's concepetual or historical knowledge, but dropping connections seems right to me when knowledge is functioning as responsiveness to questions, problems, mysterious occurrences, etc.