I have to admit that the tittle was a little bit sensationalist, but this was my feeling when Stephen and George started to puntualize their postures about the role of the networks in Connectivism. Actually, these differences started, I think, at the beginning of the second week, when we were discussing about the essence of knowledge.
I have to say that I’m ver happy with this disagreement. When we started the course there were some misunderstandings about what were we managing with in the Connectivism, and I think that the reason is here. Yes, knowledge and learning, but… what to learn?, how?, and, the most important: WHO?
If I’m not wrong, I think that I heard Stephen saying, in one of our meetings in the course, that knowledge was a property of networks, not humans… The knowledge is something that emerges in the networks, defined in a rude way, as connections between those famous learning things. In this sense we can understand that the knowledge resides in the connection, not in the individuals, and that the knowledge is not related in any way with meaning, sense or other logical or semantic concepts. That’s the reason because of I think that whatever can be a learning thing (computers, for instance, and even humans ;)): the main instance is the network that links the learning thing, and not the learning thing… The question here is why Downes says that is important the knowledge to be recognised by the learner thing… this is something that it’s not clear for me yet…
George’s point of view is more sensible, I think… (I realized I intuitively agreed with him taking a look to my week 1 mindmap) He is not focused in networks, but in the individuals that become networks. Both Stephen and George (I will talk about George’s point of view later in another post) recognize and define the knowledge because of the networks (they are essential), but, as they said today at Ustream, while one is focused in the wood’s connections the othes pays attention to the trees and how they connect.
Of course, hundred of consecuences are derived from both models (in epistemology, ontology, ethics, politics,…). And most are not compatible… But, what do you think? Trees or wood? Individuals or networks? What was before, the egg or the kichen?
Recent Comments