A constructionist in a connectionist world

Warning: this article starts on the wrong premise that connectivism would be the same as connectionism. It is not. See the comment section. Frederik Questier.

I recently blogged about connectivism - or connectionism as it is now called - and how it was hailed as 'a learning theory for the digital age". And I was not convinced when I read the article. Is it my age, or the fact that I jumped somewhat reluctantly on the social media bandwagon or just because I believe in good old-fashioned 'real contact' between people? 

I can already hear some thinking that the two latter reasons are a consequence of the first one, but would 'being old' disqualify someone from embracing new technologies? I don't think so. Most of the world's great inventions and discoveries were made by people that were older than I am now; even the internet was invented by a guy in his forties ... so I believe that there needs to be more at work here.

There is quite some debate on this 'new' theory and in some form or shape, the discussions are almost as old as, well, the computer... when thinking about cognitive processes became likened to the processes taking place in machines...

I first of all want to expand a bit on the paper of prof. Plon Verhagen from the University of Twente that I cited in the previous blogpost. He provides an early definition of connectives learning, as proffered by Siemens, one of the earliest writers on the subject as a 'theory':

"In connectivism, the starting point for learning occurs when knowledge is actuated through the process of a learner connecting to and feeding information into a learning community. Siemens (2004) states, “A community is the clustering of similar areas of interest that allows for interaction, sharing, dialoguing, and thinking together.”

Verhagen's article offers a review multitude of views on learning, learning theories and development theory, to conclude that:

"A paradigm shift, indeed, may be occurring in educational theory, and a new epistemology may be emerging, but it does not seem that connectivism’s contributions to the new paradigm warrant it being treated as a separate learning theory in and of its own right."

He concedes however that:

"Connectivism, however, continues to play an important role in the development and emergence of new pedagogies, where control is shifting from the tutor to an increasingly more autonomous learner."

In his paper "Some myths of connectionism' (1997), philosopher István S. N. Berkeley of the University of Southwestern Louisiana tries to contextualise some of the myths and claims that proponents of connectionism put forward:

"These myths are often repeated claims that have been made about connectionist systems, which when closely scrutinized, fail to be adequately justified, or properly qualified. In some instances, such claims are simply false"

Berkley is fair enough however to say that this criticism does not address "...active connectionist researchers... [because] members of the technical community are usually acutely aware of the limitations and shortcomings of their systems". Although the arguments put forward are of a philosophical nature, the conclusions are interesting:

1. A number of the claims which have been made about connectionist systems in the philosophical literature, and elsewhere, are not as straightforward as they may initially appear. Without appropriate qualification, the claims which have been termed 'myths' here have a great potential to mislead. 
2. Whilst some of the mythical claims have a basis in fact, the uncritical deployment of these claims... is not sound. ... it is important that [people] who think about the issues raised by connectionism, do so in a manner which is more careful than has been the common practice previously. 
3. There are ... interesting and important conclusions which can be drawn on the basis of connectionist research (see for example, Dawson, Medler and Berkeley 1997). However, for those conclusions to become apparent, it is necessary to clear away the connectionist mythology, in order to get to the connectionist facts.

And I am still wondering whether I can find myself in this new theory. My gut-feeling even goes both ways. In some sense, I can see merit in what Siemens says, but I also tend to have an affinity towards good old-fashioned constructivism and (social) cognitivism. 

This whole debate brings me back to an (imaginary) conversation in the handbook (Learning theories : an educational perspective / Dale H. Schunk.—6th ed. Pearsons 2011) that we use in the course of prof. Lombaerts, where three students approach their professor at the end of the semester because they are confused. They can not find a 'unified' theory yet they see an overlap between the different theories on learning and knowledge acquisition.

One of the students asks: "So then what are we to do? Am I supposed to be something like an information processing theorist, a social cognitive theorist, a constructivist? That’s what I’m confused about.", to which the professor answers: "you don’t have to be one or the other. There may be one theory that you like better than the others, but maybe that theory doesn’t address everything you want it to. So then you can borrow from other theories."

Maybe I will just do that - use what I can believe in, as long as I can underpin it with scientific evidence.