Connectivism vs Traditional Theories of Learning

Michael Gr. Voskoglou^1,

¹Department of Mathematical Sciences, Graduate Technological Educational Institute of Western Greece, Patras, Greece

Cite this paper:
Michael Gr. Voskoglou. Connectivism vs Traditional Theories of Learning. American Journal of Educational Research. 2022; 10(4):257-261. doi: 10.12691/education-10-4-15

Abstract

A common principle of all the traditional theories of learning, which developed in a time when learning was not taking place through technology, is that learning occurs inside a person. In today’s digital environment, however, we frequently need to act by drawing information which is stored within a database or an organization and is manipulated by technology. The traditional learning theories do not address this kind of learning, defined as actionable knowledge and occurring outside of people. The need to bridge this gap led to the development of connectivism, a new theory for understanding learning in our digital era. The paper outlines the headlines of connectivism, which is based on an integration of principles related to chaos, networks, and self-organization theories, and exposes briefly the reported criticisms for it and the recently developed teaching approaches related to it. The paper presents also a framework due to Siemens for organizing the primary learning theories. From the analysis performed, our conclusion is that none of the existing theories can stand alone as a complete theory for learning. The combination of them, however, seems to provide an adequate framework to study and understand the process of learning.

Keywords:
traditional learning theories teaching methods artificial learning connectivism

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Voskoglou, M.G., “Thoughts for the Future Education in the Era of the Fourth Industrial revolution”, American Journal of Educational Research, 8(4), 214-220, 2020.
[2]	Rifkin, J., The Third Industrial Revolution: How Lateral Power is Transforming Energy, the Economy and the World; Palgrave McMillan: London, UK, 2011.
[3]	Schwab, K., The Fourth Industrial Revolution; Crown Publishing Group: New York, NY, USA, 2016.
[4]	Cherry, K. “History and Key Concepts of Behavioral Psychology”, 2019, available online https://www.verywellmind.com/behavioral-psychology-4157183.
[5]	Wallace, B., Ross, A., Davies, J.B., Anderson, T., The Mind, the Body and the World: Psychology after Cognitivism, Imprint Academic: Upton Pyne, UK, 2007.
[6]	Taber, K.S., “Constructivism as educational theory: Contingency in learning, and optimally guided instruction”, in Educational Theory; Hassaskhah, J., Ed., Nova Science Publishers: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2011, Chapter 2, pp. 39-61.
[7]	Crawford, K., “Vygotskian approaches in human development in the information era”, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31, 43-62, 1996.
[8]	McKinley, J., “Critical argument and writer identity: Social constructivism as a theoretical framework for EFL academic writing”, Crit. Inq. Lang. Stud., 12, 184-207, 2015.
[9]	Wenger, E., Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, UK, 1998.
[10]	Fairbanks, B., “5 educational learning theories and how to apply them”, 2021 retrieved from https://www.phoenix.edu/blog/ educational-learning-theories.html.
[11]	Doabler, T., Fien, H., “Explicit mathematics instruction: What teachers can do for teaching students with mathematics difficulties”, Interv. Sch. Clin.,, 48, 276-285, 2013.
[12]	Smith, J.L.M., Saez, L., Doabler, C.T., “Using explicit and systematic instruction to support working memory”, Teach. Except. Child., 48, 275-281, 2016.
[13]	Kinard, J.T., Rigorous Mathematical Thinking: Conceptual Formation in the Mathematics Classroom; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2008.
[14]	Voskoglou, M.Gr., “A Markov chain representation of the “5 E’s” instructional treatmen”,. Physical and Mathematical Education, 3, 7-11, 2019.
[15]	Voskoglou, M.Gr., Salem, A.-B.,M., “Benefits and Limitations of the Artificial with Respect to the Traditional Learning of Mathematics”, Mathematics, 8, article 611, 2020.
[16]	Siemens, G., “Connectivism: A learning theory for a digital age”, International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 1-9, 2005.
[17]	Dowens, S., “An Introduction to Connective Knowledge”, 2005, available at www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=33034.
[18]	Siemens, G., Downes, S., “Connectivism and Connective Knowledge”, 2008, available at https://archive.today/ 20100131054352/http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/connectivism.
[19]	Gleick, J., Chaos: The Making of a New Science. New York, Penguin Books, 1987.
[20]	Rocha, L. M., “Selected Self-Organization and the Semiotics of Evolutionary Systems”, 1998, available at http://informatics.indiana.edu/rocha/ises.html.
[21]	Verhagen, P., “Connectivism: A new learning theory?”, available at http://elearning.surf.nl/e‐learning/english/3793.
[22]	Kerr, B., “A challenge to connectivism”, 2007, available at https://sas.elluminate.com/site/external/jwsdetect/playback.jnlp?psid=2007‐02‐07.1107.M.1CB9A5466ACA919ADF B409D4128ABC.vcr.
[23]	Kop, R., Adrian Hill, A., “Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past?”, The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3), 1-13, 2008.
[24]	Ally, M., “Foundations of Educational Theory in Online Learning”, in Anderson, T. (Ed.), The Theory and Practice of Online Learning, 2008, http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/book s/120146.
[25]	Chatti, M.A., “The LaaN Theory”, in Personalization in Technology Enhanced Learning: A Social Software Perspective, Aachen, Germany: Shaker Verlag, pp. 19-42, 2010.
[26]	Al Dahdouh, A., “Does Artificial Neural Network Support Connectivism's Assumptions?”, International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 14(3), 3-26, 2017.
[27]	Seely Brown, J., “Learning in the digital age (21st century)’, Ohio Digital Commons for Education (ODCE), 2006. http://www.oln.org/conferences/ODCE2006/papers/jsb‐2006ODCE.pdf.
[28]	Bonk, C., “USA today leads to tomorrow: Teachers as online concierges and can Facebook pioneer save face?”, 2007. http://travelinedman.blogspot.com/2007/10/usa‐today‐leads‐to‐tomorrow‐teachers‐as.html.
[29]	Fisher, C. , “Teacher as network administrator”, 2007, available at http://remoteaccess.typepad.com/remote_access/files/teacher_as_network_admin.pdf.
[30]	Siemens, G., “Learning and Knowledge in Networks: Changing Roles for Educators and Designers”, presented in ITFORUM for Discussion, 2008, available at https://www.semanticscholar.org.
[31]	Mergel, B., “Instructional design and learning theories”, 1998, at http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/mergel/brenda.htm.