Module Six Discussion Summary

Blogological Discussion summary for Module 6
Most of the comments to the initial post were in agreement to one extent or another. There seemed to be consensus on the consideration the Siemens is not very clear on what Connectivism is and how it differs from other approaches to learning. On particularly virulent response stated, “I read Siemens twice and I still think it's a bunch of jargon and half-baked ideas stitched together without any coherent thinking.” In addition, the same reply by Robert McCord noted, I think very significantly, “He doesn't provide one concrete example of connectivism. Nodes and links are all very visual and read like schematics or maps -- yet he provides no diagrams to illustrate his theory.” This is a very significant point in that visual explanations are lacking in Siemens’ work, and yet the web is geared primarily to visual representations of knowledge. Joel Filling further noted in his response, “It seems like connectivism gets too focused on the means of learning instead of the end of the learning, the acquisition and eventual application of agreed-upon, valid content.”
Coming counter to my position was Mrs. Shirley, who asserted “Connectivism is something that should be focused upon and taught. Technology, socialization and information overload is not going away anytime soon. As we begin working with the 21st Century Student, the ability for them to create connections and process information faster will be key to success” I agree with this point. The concern that I raise is more along the lines that we need to be careful in how we teach this skill to our students.
Finally, Holly Lieb summarized clearly a key idea that I had hoped to communicate in my initial post when she wrote, “I really think this technological swing could be a useful instrument in moderation and slowly incorporated in specific lessons, activities, learning points, research, etc., but it cannot be everything!”
Clearly, the academic debate that has raged around connectivism will likely continue for the time being. Likewise, it seems from the response to the initial post, that many of us accept that technology has, is, and will continue to affect the manner in which we both transmit and receive content. The real issue is the degree to which we focus our attentions on the technical aspects of data transmittal and reception. Likewise, it seems that the majority of opinions expressed in the response take a guarded view to the focus on technology as proposed by George Siemens.
Thank you all for your comments and ideas!
Jim Mc Intyre