I had the rare privilege of having my burning question about connectivism being deemed, in an unguarded moment, “boring” by one of today’s Ustream hosts. I felt so honored by this distinction that I am inspired to put together a post. So, here I am, Ustreamer 87268 (or some such number), reporting in.
My question was whether technology is an inherent aspect of connectivism. The answers from George and Stephen, as I understood them, suggested that this might be an Unresolved Issue in their relationship. Very roughly parsed, George seemed to make a distinction between personal relationships and connectivist activity, while Stephen’s view suggests… not? I also gleaned that connectivism implies a network overview on the part of the learner, whereas just “connecting” with individuals does necessarily qualify as connectivist activity, and that, potentially, the multiplier effect of technology (greater number, broader scope, and the global nature of the conversations) might play into the definition of connectivism.
Shortly thereafter, my question got voted off the island.
Ironically, the unstated question behind my question was addressed at the end of the conversation: how does one “practice” connectivism, especially with kids? George suggested international classroom connections as one example, but Stephen’s answer really contained nuggets of where I’ve been going with this personally: kids should be learning and doing and interacting in their broader communities… which I see as a parallel/convergent/developmental/evolutional aspect of connectivist learning, whether on or off line. (I won’t dare claim that Stephen would agree with this conclusion, though.)
Peeking into the abyss
In order to negotiate within connectivist learning, kids will have to learn to anticipate their own needs, and to understand the concept of emergence within the frames of their own goals and directions. These are not new thoughts for some parts of the education world, and it’s here that I would agree that technology, whether or not it is inherent to connectivism, has made these approaches both more feasible and more scalable. Among the major bugaboos for implementation, of course, are the entrenched adult visions of learning and the (related) assessment monster.
Dave Cormier already thought of this, though, and I’ll be using his response whenever I can: “The rhizomatic model dispenses with the need for external validation of knowledge, either by an expert or by a constructed curriculum.”
Whew. Glad to have that problem solved. 
Of course, the idea of “radically” open learning bothers the pants off of a bunch of people, including many of the “vested stakeholders in K-12.” And institutions conferring degrees and pocketing tuition have to HATE this; it really screws up their billing system.
I know more conversation about this is scheduled later in the course; just thought I’d peek into the abyss. But more thoughts about connectivism and its relationship to technology may be coming soon to this space… where dealing with the boring is entirely optional.
I think i’m responsible for this misunderstanding… i didn’t mean to say that your question was boring, but, rather, that the specific complexity of the response can’t really fit into the 15 minutes that we had left. I wasn’t really on the top of my game on Friday… but as i see from this post, you kept your sense of humour
My feeling is that technology is an inherent aspect of the rhizomatic flavour that I’m talking about. An essential change has happened and my paper was an attempt to track something i’ve been watching for five years or so… but i dont’ claim to speak for G and S… nor for connectivism… while the two theories do seem to be related, connectivism is far better researched and substantiated whereas what i’m talking about has the voice in the dark kinda quality to it.
Dave,
I’m honored at the response! No worries—I really did think this was funny. And the alternative was to interpret that you meant G’s and S’s answers were boring, and that, of course, simply wouldn’t do.
My interest in this question is just another reflection of the diversity of participants, and it makes sense to keep the air time in these live sessions focused on the weekly topics.
As far as connectivism and rhizomatic learning are concerned, they make intuitive and experiential sense to me (it’s the only way to explain how I came to this course!); I’m more in the process of acquiring the technical vocab and trying to ground this in practice — which I use in both senses of the word (repetition for improvement and application). I’m poking at the technology aspect a bit in terms of how these theories are culturally situated, but I don’t think questions of this nature diminish the significance of the phenomona we are seeing. And, as far being a voice in the dark is concerned, well, talking about these kinds of alternative education theories/models in the suburban Starbucks of Middle America doesn’t get knowing nods, so I hear you there. Guess I should be seeking caffeine under independent ownership.
Looking forward to more of your work.
Carmen