George Siemens (2006) said that, whereas Downes (2008) seems to think that learning is not structured, and that the connectivist approach can pretty reliably lead to chaos.
However, in both cases, the term structure must surely be relative….. Mustn’t it?
I'm sure there is a degree of relativity in the perceived level of necessity of braces by a 13 year old, concerned with image and embarrassment compared to that 13 year old's 'hierarchy' who want to 'impose' mandible structure for the child's future. Why then wouldn't there be relativity in the perception of how much structure we each need in our own education? This should be our concern, not whether
Does my interpretation of structure reflect your interpretation?
Do I structure my learning in the same manner as you?
Does the structure I require match that which is longed for by other learners?
And what about the level, depth, breadth and constriction of that structure?
Is genuine learning structured?
What is genuine learning anyway?
Given the connectivist approach focusses on delivery, not assessment, Downes (2008) claims the criticisms of this model that are based on pragmatics and practicality, are not sound.
However, that lack of structure has drawn frequent theoretical and, in some cases personal, criticisms from industry scholars.
Genuine debate is the lifeblood of sound theoretical evolution. But are these relevant? ...... Or constructive? As Jenny Mackness states, Connectivism is a theory about pedagogy to describe how we can apply what we know about how networks learn to learning, and personal attacks detract from the credibility of genuine debate.
Mackness wonders whether losing focus on whether connectivism is a theory or not undermines the more important questions raised by Downes and Siemens, which are:
How is technology changing the way we think and learn?
How is technology changing the way we teach?
Do we need to challenge traditional ways of working in education?
So, that draws me back to the initial point. If connectivism has received such rabid discussion, which is varied in depth, breadth and constriction, are the ‘discussors’ focussing their energy on the important questions? For me, I’m wondering if the answer lies in us. That is, before we embark, or have our students embark on a networked and connected discovery, perhaps it’s a good idea to determine what structure means to us, so that we know what we’re dealing with. THEN, the theories of PKM and filtration may mean more from an earlier stage, resulting in more effective learning.
I don’t know. Thoughts?