The world of training has a long history of glossing over learning theories and models. Transmissive models, behaviourism, cognitivism, constructivism, socioconstructivism… All these approaches correspond to current learning practices, including those that incorporate ICT.
For some time now, a newcomer has been making the headlines: “connectivism”. As the latest arrival, it is working hard to assert its legitimacy. For its inventors, Canadians George Siemens and Stephen Downes, there can be no doubt: the “old” models of learning no longer reflect the realities of our digital, digitized societies. According to them, we are constantly developing new knowledge by tweeting, blogging, downloading, viewing, MOOCsing (Massive Open online Content)… In other words, by exchanging, reacting, commenting, suggesting, criticizing, annotating, increasingly in real time and whatever the medium, language, culture, media, interlocutor… This state of generalized connection would be a learning process in itself, which would have difficulty satisfying itself with linear paths, unilateral transmission of knowledge and memorization based on a limited, predetermined corpus of data.
What’s it all about?
Some connectivist principles
The five components of connectivism are communication, collaboration, motivation, creativity and integration. These components are themselves broken down into a number of principles. Here are a few extracts to give you an idea of the connectivist philosophy:
In concrete terms, how can we encourage connectivism in a group of learners?
Create blogs, use wikis, open up and share resources, diversify media, discover a personality directly from the source (videoconferencing, archives, podcasts…), provide complementary resources, have the authenticity of a source investigated, have a network of experts contribute, encourage transdisciplinarity, create a portal and so on. These are all practices that many teachers/trainers are already developing spontaneously, but more often as part of an experimental, ad hoc approach than a systematic one.
Impact on the knowing/learning relationship?
For a teacher/trainer, embracing connectivism means first and foremost rethinking his or her approach to training by optimizing the value of networks. Links between elements of knowledge build ever more integrated knowledge, provided the learner’s ability to objectify is valued. And this condition is important, because learning that is not named by the learner is less easily transferred and remains volatile.
By encouraging this “connection”, the teacher/trainer/moderator/mediator/parent helps the learner/trainee/contributor/blogger/child to organize their learning around what they already know. Any new subject is better integrated when the learner is allowed to activate what he or she knows, perceives or guesses a priori about the subject (better assimilation).
Another benefit of connectivism is that it enhances the learner’s commitment and involvement, while enabling ongoing monitoring and immediate feedback from the tutor.
A new theory or simply a pedagogical vision?
As every theory has its skeptics, some are cautious and prefer to speak of neo-socioconstructivism, or even a simple pedagogical vision, quoting visionaries such as Vygotsky who, long before digital technology, foresaw the importance of exchanges between learners, collaborative work, interactions with the environment and rhizomatic knowledge.
In any case, connectivism reminds us that learning changes when new tools are used, and that it no longer takes place in an individualistic way. It also offers an overview of the learning skills and tasks required for learners to flourish in the digital age.
So, a new learning model or not? While it’s difficult to come to a conclusion on this vast debate, it’s still possible to fuel it in a fine connectivist spirit: to your keyboards!
