#strongties

In this more individual-centric structure, connections are key because each individual relies strongly on their connections to help them learn. Many of these connections happen through what Siemens terms “weak ties.” (Siemens, 2005) Weak ties are the relationships that occur in short bursts throughout the day and result in shared information transfer. Though the two participants have very little in common, the information exchanged can be pivotal in either individual’s story and thus become a new connection in both of their networks. For example, a weak tie between two patrons at a local coffee shop could lead to passed knowledge about a new business venture, which could lead to a new job for another weak tie of one of the patrons. The web of connection and the potential for impact through very loose, very thin networks is staggering. When the even more vast link of loose ties created via social networks and technology-mediated communication is added into the equation, the potential for connection, impact, and transformation compounds exponentially. Individuals who are seen as influential are no longer those with the most traditional learning experiences; rather, influential individuals are those with the greatest level of connection, often shown through an abundance of weak ties.   With its reliance on weak ties, and short bursts of information exchanged between changeable humans, Connectivism delights in seeing deeper patterns and distilling meaning from chaos. With Connectivism the question is not, “does meaning exist?” but rather is, “how do these random incidents connect together to form a larger narrative?” The exploration is yet another venue in which learning can occur as a whole new level of cross-discipline engagement ensues. Rather than siloing information and experts, Connectivism is about connecting disciplines and formats. When everything becomes part of a larger web, it imbues the very act of learning with unbeknownst importance. Individuals must now learn not only for their own betterment but also because the rest of the world needs their own bit of input and their own unique set of connections to continue the production of knowledge. As someone who has grown up heavily influenced by technology, I have no trouble believing that my mind, like my peers, has been re-wired with a proclivity toward forming significance through non-linear channels and cross-discipline means. That said, I do have questions about Connectivism’s overarching applicability. How would the ideas of Connectivism play out in a culture or society [or individuals] that doesn’t have as much access to internet, technology, etc? Is Connectivism a learning theory just for those who live daily with technology or can it translate to remote cultures and people groups? Or, perhaps Connectivism only become limited when you tie it to the formal idea of technology? Perhaps people in remote cultures or people groups do indeed already have their weak ties, nodes, etc. but they are entities unique to their context and are technology agnostic? Connectivism also heavily emphasizes the context in which connections occur. In Connectivist theory, changing the context in which a decision is framed can lead to a shift in the “correct” decision. Is this context representative of the mental or physical context of the learner? If the context is indeed physical, I wonder how this plays out in distance education learners for whom instructors really have no control over the physical context in which learning occurs. Do we as instructors have to be even more nimble and anticipate a myriad of contextual settings including the history, realities, and present conditions of individuals? Do we intentionally abstract our information, and trust that through reflective learning our learners will engage in appropriate ways? If the context is mental, how can we as instructors bring each of our very diverse students into the optimal personal mental space so that they are open to optimal learning connections? Connectivism heavily emphasizes the delivery of the content over the meaning of the content and this too gives me pause. Because there is so much focus on the “pipeline of information” over the content of information itself, is there a danger that presentation charisma can trump actual knowledge acquisition? Can instructors leave students with a wealth of meaningless connections? And if presentation is key to knowledge acquisition, are instructors who are trained to be expert orators going to be inherently more successful than instructors who are only trained as knowledge experts? Finally, while I fully support the greater decentralization of learning away from a more formalized organization-oriented structure to an individually constructed structure, I have concerns about the purity of information that gets disseminated. When knowledge is passed along a network chain, how does it avoid turning into a world-wide game of telephone where everyone puts their own spin on the message and the purity gets diluted through each participant? Or, is the dilution actually a survival of the fittest mechanism and ensures that the knowledge being passed really is as robust as possible? Questions aside, overall I do see Connectivism is a relevant and much needed addition to the learning landscape. In today’s increasingly networked society, the transformative power of connections as a means of knowledge acquisition must be acknowledged and I believe that students in an educational structure that exploits these connections will indeed thrive.