Get Started for FREE
Sign up with Facebook Sign up with X
I don't have a Facebook or a X account
 Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scoop.it!
Connect Collaborate Create visual note by Nicki Hambleton made on iPad using Adobe Ideas “Alone we can do so little but together we can do so much” Helen Keller All I have ever wanted as a teacher is for students to be happy and relaxed in my... Via Yashy Tohsaku, Miloš Bajčetić 
No comment yet.
Sign up to comment
Scoop.it!
Raquel Oliveira's curator insight,
April 8, 2015 4:51 PM
um achado esse infografico que consolida os 8 principios do conectivismo. Para quem "ensina" alguem em algum momento, é uma rapida visão de como funcionamos.
Scoop.it!
George Siemens and Stephen Downes developed a theory for the digital age, called connectivism, denouncing boundaries of behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. Their proposed learning theory has issued a debate over whether it is a learning theory or instructional theory or merely a pedagogical view. Via Nik Peachey
Eva Ramos's curator insight,
September 28, 2013 7:45 PM
I will have to include this in my Learning theories module, perhaps. 
Lara N. Madden's curator insight,
November 18, 2013 12:43 PM
This might be my new research topic. Very interesting. 
Paige Paul's curator insight,
September 15, 2015 7:52 PM
Topic 2- This is an interesting piece that explores how connectivism should be categorized. Sometimes I think people in the education world can get too caught up in labels and buzzwords, and forget that ultimately what you call it doesn't matter as much as whether or not it promotes student learning.
Scoop.it!
I ran a short workshop for colleagues on the topics of connectivism and the rise of MOOCs earlier this week .
Comment: useful diagram, Mark invites people to improve it (peter sloep, @pbsloep) Via Mark Smithers, Peter B. Sloep
|
Scoop.it!
This presentation explores the move from pedagogy to andragogy to heutagogy and from instructivism to constructivism to connectivism – all within the context o… Via Mark E. Deschaine, PhD, diane gusa
Lúcio Botelho's curator insight,
January 10, 2015 5:02 AM
Temos de evoluir no ensino e integrar as novas tecnologias com a pedagogia 
Margarita Saucedo's curator insight,
March 14, 2017 10:05 PM
Los programas denominados "ejecutivos" requieren de estrategias didácticas idóneas
#Andragogía #MobileLearning
Scoop.it!
luiy's curator insight,
May 6, 2014 5:04 PM
What is needed in education is something like a Personal Learner Knowledge Graph (PLKG): a clear profile of what a learner knows. It doesn’t matter where the learner learned things – work, volunteering, hobbies, personal interest, formal schooling, etc. What matters is that learners are aware of what they know and how this is related to the course content/curriculum. In a sense, PLKG is like the semantic web or Google Knowledge Graph: a connected model of learner knowledge that can be navigated and assessed and ultimately “verified” by some organization in order to give a degree or designation (or something like it).
If the education system can make the transition to learner knowledge graphs, instead of mainly content, the system can start to be far more intelligent than it currently is. For example, if I’m a student who spends summer months idly consuming beverages, I will develop a different skill set than someone who spent their summer volunteering and working (see video below for a discussion I had with Steve Paikin on the Agenda). Yet when the two of us start university in fall, the system normalizes our knowledge to the curriculum. We get the same content even though we are different people with completely different skills and knowledge. 
Fàtima Galan's curator insight,
May 8, 2014 5:08 AM
"What is needed in education is something like a Personal Learner Knowledge Graph (PLKG): a clear profile of what a learner knows."
Scoop.it!
"While the assertion that the world is more "connected" now than ever before is beyond dispute, George Siemens' connectivist learning theory is anything but. Siemens' theory argues that learning exists in a networked system, the more nodes and bigger the pipes of the network, the more learning has taken place. Siemens puts forth this theory because he found the older learning theory models inadequate in the age of technology. However, critics have described the theory as being internally confusing, more pedagogical in approach than actual learning theory, and too reliant on an idea that learning exists in non-human structures." Via Peter B. Sloep
Peter B. Sloep's curator insight,
January 30, 2013 3:52 AM
What follows is a page of summarised criticisms by Pløn Verhagen, Bill Kerr and others. The summary is useful to point out to the converted that Connectivism is not a theory beyond dispute, that criticisms may be leveled against it. However, it is not useful in that it fails to be generous. Perhaps Downes and Siemens should have been more modest in their claim to have a developed a new theory, but they undoubtedly have struck a chord with many people. Critique of the theoretical nature of Connectivism which fails to explain why so many people find Connectivism a useful idea, may be formally right, but fails to convince. And that is precisely what this page does, it is not convincing in its critique. (@pbsloep)
suifaijohnmak's comment,
January 30, 2013 6:20 PM
Interesting points. I have shared my views here on learning may reside on non-human appliances http://suifaijohnmak.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/cck11-learning-with-connectivism-and-ant/ Whilst some of the principles may need further clarification, I think some of the "statements" made in the wiki post wasn't exactly what George has postulated, and thus just an interpretation of his paper. Besides, I would suggest the critique based on solid evidence, with arguments using practical examples, rather than assertion. Would there be issues in judging a theory (like connectivism) using an existing learning theory? This is like measuring a round hole with a square block, when the questions raised might have matched with the existing theorists (Behaviorist, Cognitivist, or Constructivist) creators or Supporters, but not necessary shifting a frame of reference in looking at the principles involved in the theory. There are also assumptions made based on experience of individuals or past researches may have over-shadow some of the important concepts underlying the theory. For instance, when we relate learning merely as experience, then we might have difficulties in explaining why some people who have very little experience could master certain skills and literacies even without much experience. I don't think every one would need to have such experience before they could learn. A typical example is in the MOOC, where most professors have little or even no experience in the past in teaching or facilitating in vast networks (of tens or hundreds of thousands students). This doesn't mean that these professors are not capable of teaching in such an environment, but that in reality, it is the technology which has afforded them to provide those "teaching moment" and thus one could claim to teach in a MOOC. Besides, who knows who have learnt and who haven't in a MOOC if the assessment is based solely on tests, quizzes, where students might only need to regurgitate, or repeat answering the questions until they remember the right answers. I used the above examples to illustrate how Connectivism might be used to explain the learning in such networks, in that experience is not the sole means of "gaining learning" as is mentioned in other learning theories. Rather, learning could be viewed as one of the networking experience, though it is not totally dependent on past experience, but could be those which relates to unknown pathways. Having more connections do not always lead to better learning, and so I don't think what was quoted in the paper is correct. Modesty in important as an attitude in education and sharing, though I would suggest to separate such attitude from discourse based on evidence, in our arguments. This is like presenting a research paper, whereas the main points might be based on the empirical findings. I would also argue that there needs to be changes for both parties to share and debate on each others' views. Finally, may I relate to my posts about Connectivism here?
Here is my post http://suifaijohnmak.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/my-reflection-on-connectivism-as-a-new-learning-theory-to-date/;
Scoop.it!
Marc Bousquet on what has become known as xMOOCs (bad) and cMOOCs (good) and on how xMOOCs may make their money, for somehow they need to come up with a return on the investments made by venture capitalists. Candidates are: charging for assessment, vending tutorial services, direct tuition for certain courses, advertising. The upshot is, although not put in that way, beware!, what looks like a good deal may turn sour in the end. Administrators shlould realize this but don't: "If institutions really wanted to sustain participatory learning [in cMOOCs], they would already be doing so, for instance, by reducing lectures and high-stakes testing, investing in teaching-intensive faculty and the like. Instead, driven less by cost concerns than a desire to standardize and control both faculty and curriculum, administrations rely more than ever on lectures and tests [xMOOCs]". (peter sloep) Via Peter B. Sloep
Peter B. Sloep's curator insight,
February 7, 2013 4:29 PM
Marc Bousquet on what has become known as xMOOCs (bad) and cMOOCs (good) and on how xMOOCs may make their money, for somehow they need to come up with a return on the investments made by venture capitalists. Candidates are: charging for assessment, vending tutorial services, direct tuition for certain courses, advertising. The upshot is, although not put in that way, beware!, what looks like a good deal may turn sour in the end. Administrators shlould realize this but don't: "If institutions really wanted to sustain participatory learning [in cMOOCs], they would already be doing so, for instance, by reducing lectures and high-stakes testing, investing in teaching-intensive faculty and the like. Instead, driven less by cost concerns than a desire to standardize and control both faculty and curriculum, administrations rely more than ever on lectures and tests [xMOOCs]". (@pbsloep) |
