Talk:Connectivism

wikipedia as a battlefield of views and beliefs?

Of course everyone is entittled to a view on any subject. But describing a subject as an item in an encyclopedia is something different from discussing the content of an item and the validity of a --ism. Not agreeing on connectivism is not a reason for deleting an item on connectivism. 16:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaapB (talk • contribs)

Jaap, I am not so sure. See my comments at the bottom of this page. I think the threshold requirements for a statement "x is a theory of ..." need to be stringent enough to exclude 'connectivism' from being a valid entry on wikipedia. On the other hand, I can see no reason why 'connectivism' should not be a valid entry as a framework, concept, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustcube (talk • contribs) 19:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Theory is a system of ideas intended to explain something, such as a single or collection of fact(s), event(s), or phenomen(a)(on). Typically, a theory is developed through the use of contemplative and rational forms of abstract and generalized thinking. Furthermore, a theory is often based on general principles that are independent of the thing being explained. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several different related meanings. A theory is not the same as an hypothesis. A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory. I believe connectivism is still just an hypothesis. any discussion?174.99.59.109 (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Turgid prose

I came here hoping to learn what Connectivism was, after getting bogged down in some turgid prose at a site devoted to connectivism. Someone there was trying to explain the big idea in Connectivism by rambling around talking about several other things, then providing a list of incomprehensible paragraphs to illustrate the core concepts.

What on earth is this???

I was going to point to the Constructivism article as an example of a clear explanation, but I see that it too, has been overwhelmed by turgid prose. Is this a new sort of attack on Wikipedia?

I must admit that I do most of my writin on a corporate wikimedia site where brevity and plain English are encourages, and prior to that I contributed a lot to the OLPC wiki, where we had the luxury of providing an overview of a topic and then referring to Wikipedia. So maybe I'm a little bit too immersed in the simple prose and plain English. Nevertheless, I believe that this article has gone too far towards incomprehensibility. --Wavetossed (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I added the following line in an attempt to clarify the key themes, as I interpret them: In other words, "know-how" and "know-what" are being supplemented with "know-where" (the understanding of where to find the knowledge when it is needed), and meta-learning is becoming just as important as the learning itself. It's not much, but it's a start. Ryanwiki (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I was taking a more polite approach, but yes, Connectivism is a Hoax. An affair ala Sokal (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Sokal_affair) except that Sokal did it as an experiment.

Connectivism is nothing new. Activity theory had been introduced long ago that covers all the aspect of social learning. The concept of network of connections is directly borrowed from Connectionism, a paradigm in cognitive sciences that sees mental or behavioral phenomena as the emergent processes of interconnected networks

As far as I know, it was never published in a refereed journal.

scholarly work on connectivism - http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=connectivism

I've encountered it in the context of conversations with both Downes and Siemens who are both academic/practitioner in their backgrounds. I don't think they would deny that a lot of their material comes from other sources and that it is as much about pedagogy as it is about learning. We also need to be a bit careful with the "jargon" label. One person's jargon is another's specialised language after all. The article would benefit from removal of the "this explains" type statements and a general hard edit, but it has enough adherents to be notable.--Snowded ^TALK 09:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, your comment will help illustrate my points. When people take connectivism's defense, this typcally is in the form provided "and that it is as much about pedagogy as it is about learning." And it stops there. No further explanation is provided. This is what they say they do. This is not what they do. That they propose a theory that has anything of value to say about learning or pedagogy is unwarranted and unsupported by the content of any references provided on the wikipedia page.

(1) Connectivism doesn't make any new or original contribution to learning. Learning is defined as "Process by which knowledge is acquired." If you take Downes, he claims in different places that he believes that knowledge is not constructed. Cf "The committee felt that my PhD would be better spent in an investigation of mental content - something I had denied in the paper even existed! - rather than this fool's errand." (http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2009/03/tnp-20-years-on.html) and "Hence, in connectivism, there is no real concept of transferring knowledge, making knowledge, or building knowledge." (http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-connectivism-is.html). As a cognitive psychologist, I can tell you that You cannot have a theory of learning phrased in these terms. What you have is a theory of absence of learning. If you take Siemens, the word learning is used repeatedly. It is stated that learning takes place. However, (a) the process is never described in details: learning (undefined) happens (undefined) as a join a social network, with no evidence of any kind provided to establish that yes, learning happens. In that context, it is has to be taken as a personal belief of Siemens, nothing more. (b) he often uses learning inappropriately (when knowledge should be used instead). He uses the word learning without having defined it and outside of the meaning traditionally given in that literature.

(2) Connectivism doesn't make any new or original contribution pedagogy. As education practitioners they were expected to present a theory of instructional design instead of a theory of learning. A theory of how instruction can be designed and presented to lead or increase learning. But there is no guideline of any kind provided. More importantly, they phrased their theory in a way that explicitly rejects the notion of accountability and evaluation. There is no way to know whether this method of instruction is efficient or not. They say that growth (undefined) takes place. However this entirely depends on the participants. If you take MOOC. They provide a video. They set up a forum. That's it. There is no real pedagogy involved. If you take that model, then any blog writer can claim to be an instructional theorist

It is not clear that Downes is an academic. His about page says that he works for the "National Research Council of Canada". He didn't get a PhD. Siemens' about page states that he is currently "affiliated" with the Technology Enhanced Knowledge Research Institute (TEKRI). That doesn't make him an academic. I didn't see "Dr" or "Professor" anywhere on the page. That's another problem. People tend to give them a lot more credentials than they really have. They name themselves theorists and everybody assumes that they are qualified. Not necessarily.

That Downes or Siemens are practitioners doesn't make them de facto experts or even able practitioners. They have 2000+ participants at the start of their course. The Farmville phenomenon indicates that there is a need for connectedness and they unambiguously sell connectedness. They however have huge numbers of drop outs. It is not clear how many students attend till the end. I followed one of these courses (LCK). I found it to be of very poor quality. I personally don't consider it to be instruction. I am certainly not learning anything from Siemens half-baked ideas that fail to give any justice to the current state of knowledge on analytics. Worse, I am highly uncomfortable as to its content, the same as the one of the paper. Ignore decades of research and propose what is nothing but speculations as the latest findings in the area, preferably to people who lack the knowledge and background to know better. Sect/cult would probably be a better name to qualify the way it runs than course.

That Downes or Siemens are practitioners doesn't make them de facto able theorists. They have truckloads of blogposts but if you check their publications, no refereed paper on theoretical issues. That they are practitioners doesn't give them a de facto respectability. I personally find that the way they behave, as practitioners is really quite appalling. They don't see the value of conducting research and to give any representation of the excellent work done by other before them.

The connectivism paper was written published in Educause 2005. Long before that, Social learning had already been covered in some depth: See (black-listed link), Social Development Theory (Vygotsky), Communities of Practice (Lave and Wenger), Social Learning Theory (Bandura). You can probably also consider Situated Learning Theory (Lave), that "posits that learning is unintentional and situated within authentic activity, context, and culture". (link black-listed). See also: http://www.nwlink.com/%7Edonclark/hrd/media/social_learning.html for pre 2005 references to social learning.

They seem to think that their own. highly speculative, ideas expressed with so little clarity are so much more important than the ones that had been introduced much more ably before. They wrote a paper "sans queue ni tête" (non-sensical in English) and is full of unwarranted and largely uninformed claims (cf "Connectivism is the integration of principles explored by chaos, network, and complexity and self-organization theories" there is no "integration" chaos is thrown in as a buzz word without any attempt for integration).

"One person's jargon is another's specialised language after all". English is not my first language. Apologizes if I sometimes use words that don't exactly capture the intended meaning. Wikipedia tells me that in English, a better word is "buzzword". My background is connectionism, I am familiar with Chaos. When I use the word "jargon" in reference to their description of either, what I really mean is that they throw in words, out of context, without proper representation of what these theories entail. They throw in words and suggest that they explain things perfectly. However they don't explain in any way. They apply theories develop at one level of analysis to a completely different level and don't even realize it may matter. There is a video that does a good job explaining the issue of levels of analysis: Link removed.

Well that was a very long response. Now personally I would tend to agree that connectivism is a collection of other theories and its partial in what it takes from them. In several discussions with George I am pretty convinced that his version of complex adaptive systems is flawed and the general looseness of people talking about chaos is a problem in many areas and this is one more. That said, connectivism has a lot of followers, a programme of education etc. etc. They also encourage dissenters to teach on those which is encouraging. Its notable enough for an article. but it is not a rigorous academic theory, its a construct which appears to have utility for some people. That justifies stripping it down to supportable material and making its status clear. It does not justify you bringing your own experience of their courses into play, also the fact that you obviously have issues with their consultancy approach. This is starting to look like a personal attack. I suggest you bring some of that academic detachment you seem to value to bear on your own postings here. --Snowded ^TALK 13:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep I know them and disagree with them, you have been on their courses and dislike them. Neither of us should make major changes to it, so I've restored the status quo --Snowded ^TALK 15:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't justify you writing your own criticism. I tagged that if there are no third party references tomorrow I will delete it. You can tag an article for improvement, you can ask for help at a related forum but you should not engage in hostile editing when you have a clear conflict of interest. Nominate the article for deletion if you think its unsupported. --Snowded ^TALK 15:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to echo Snowded's comments. If you think its unsupported, nominate it for deletion. http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/523/1103%22 Here is a perfectly good article that brings up some of the points that you make from what I hope you will accept is a respectable journal. The fact that the theory is contentious makes it A THEORY. That's what we do with theories... we argue about them. There are 1500 entries for the word connectivism in google scholar... and if we assume that 90% of them are blog posts, that leaves 150 articles from journals talking about connectivism. If we were to delete every wikipedia post that had been disproven or that you didn't like or agree with, it would stop being an encyclopedia. --Davecormier (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Dave, the article you link notes, "A paradigm shift, indeed, may be occurring in educational theory, and a new epistemology may be emerging, but it does not seem that connectivism’s contributions to the new paradigm warrant it being treated as a separate learning theory in and of its own right." I have yet to read a convincing response to the criticisms that are provided by Verhagen, for example. Criticisms of a learning theory are healthy; they all have them. However, the criticisms for Connectivism are targeted on whether the proposed theory is even a new theory or not. Connectivism as a learning theory appears to be more wishful thinking than not at this point. --Jayhawksean (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I support keeping the article and improving it. Here is my argument:

(1) A simple search on Google Books about connectivism returns 1000+ results. Knowing that the idea is relatively new, this result indicates that it has serious presence in academia. I agree that we need to check the validity and neutrality of the results which I am ready to do if given the opportunity and time.

(2) A Quick browse through the thousands of blogs that are connected to discuss the theory will show that it has been seriously discussed by reputable academician. So, the blog, *sometime*, might be a good means to discuss an item academically. See point (4) below.

(3) I agree that the Wikipedia article is not well constructed and needs a major re-work referencing trustworthy resources. If you give us the time, I am willing to work on it to improve it. Your help and contribution is valued. Let us show the good and the bad... through proper references and not personal emotions.

(4) Smurf raises a good point I believe we should investigate: What is the standpoint of the Wikipedians with respect to referencing blogs? Is it time to address it? Are there any guidelines? There is a lot of talk around the "digital scholar" suggesting that blogs will become the new reliable source of information. Where do we stand?

I am hopeful that together we can improve the article rather than just deleting it. Aboluay^Talk2me 16:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the 'suggest for deletion' as per wikipedia policy which claims that i can remove it 'if i have 'any' objection. I have several objections to its deletion.

(1)The objection was based on two things a. that the idea started in a blog post and b. that the journal that was cited was 'not-for-profit'. The origins of an idea that later becomes the subject of academic research is not relevant. The 'peer reviewed' nature of a journal is critical, whether it is for-profit or not is not.

(2) Further comments here in the discussion page seem to focus on how people 'do not agree' with connectivism. This is not relevant. There is a significant debate in learning theory around connectivism. This is a healthy reflection of the academic process. Bill Kerr disagrees with connectivism being a learning theory. good. That does not mean connectivism doesn't exist, it means that there are people in the field that disagree on what it is. A good wikipedia page would explore this topic with references to relevant literature. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Paleolithic_diet this entry is a good example. Some people think it's a fad. Some think its scientific. Some think its quacky.

(3) I have added another article from IRRODL, one of the most respected journals in the industry. It addresses many of the concerns cited here in this talk page. again... not reason for deletion, reason for explanation. --Davecormier (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the contributions guy and glad to hear some more moderate advice.

As per wikipedia instructions, I did my very best to edit the article, to get rid of the "turgid content". I renamed the page, etc. I spent a considerable time and effort trying to improve the content. As I worked on the content, I went through my notes and was reminded of all these theories that have already been introduced. I then became convinced that there was no original idea in connectivism. The more I did my research, the more I was convinced this page should be deleted. The main reason it should be deleted, because the 1995 paper is in my opinion nothing but a scam. Speculations not supported by evidence.

As per wikipedia, "http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Theory", in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with the scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it.

Connectivism cannot be treated as a theory. There really is a good deal of issues with it. Better light needs to be shed on these isssues.

The only reason given so far for this article to not be deleted is that "it has enough adherents to be notable." It is a claim frequently made by the authors.

My issue is that is has no place as a theory. No, the fact that it is contentious doesn't make it a theory. What makes me most uncomfortable about presenting this as "shared knowledge" is that these guys in my opinion have, with this paper, engaged in intellectual dishonesty. They wrote a paper. As Snowed said, full of ideas from other theories. They didn't give credit to any of these theories. They presented the ideas as their own.

If you check out the references provided, about other theories, there is nothing original in connectionism (nothing that hasn't been discussed before), by more able persons. The only argument that is being given is "they have a good number of adherents". They obtained to some extent by misrepresentations. So we should reward them for having used blogs and other web media to go viral? Most of their adherents are persons without the knowledge of alternative theories and who truly believe that they came up with the ideas.

When I tried to discuss, in a neutral way, Snowed answered with argument of authority without any evidence, unwarranted claims (you called them academics first and then consultants later; later Snowed said this was indeed not an academic paper). Heplayed exactly by the connectivism rules. False allegations. Suggestions of credibility that is not necessarily evidenced. This is the case too often in all these links on the web. For god sakes. If I search for connectionism on google, when using images, I have Downes notes show up on the first page, if anything near the top (http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2009/03/tnp-4-connectionism.html). This is a lot of wild imaginings, speculations, etc. His PhD committee refused the proposal for good reasons. If you try and post a comment that points to misrepresentations, he deletes them (I tried). I would hope that wikipedia is not. The initial text was well, as the other guy put it, "turgid". There is a good deal of controversy around connectivism and this needs to be discussed. Connectivism is not what they claim it is and this should be discussed.

The reason to keep the page, I am told is because they already have had an impact. Through viral means, they have acquired "many adherents". Please do provide objective evidence of this. Downes said that he had 2000+ participants in CCK08. Yet, when I looked at Siemens slides for CCK09, I saw 122 on Moodle in week #1. The only actual evidence I have is this 122. For CCK09, it goes from 122 week #1 to only 3 in week #13 and 17 in week #14.

The problem then is to evaluate how much. Is it better to ignore them and let them die a rapid death as soon as a better phrased theory appears. Or is it necessary to warn their current followings of possible issues with that approach. There is no doubt that papers should be published in the field, to discuss these issues. It is not clear whether this should be done here, on wikipedia. I would really like to have the opinion of a non educator on this. Does an article that presents Connectionism, as it was introduced by Siemens in 2005 makes sense. Should we treat it as "established knoweldge"

Again, look at the fact. Paper written as if these were all original ideas of them. Ideas present in numerous works published before their work (sometimes before they were born).

Not enough, I am told.

The difficulty then is to provide evidence that the theory doesn't do what it says. This is not possible because the theories never really says what it does. It is so abstract and vague and very confusing that there is no way to conduct a proper evaluation. Ok, then the next thing to do is try and find if there is evidence that it works, as an instructional approach. Concretely, once implemented. Themselves, they reported these huge drop out rates and all they had to say about it was "Is this declining participation a concern? Perhaps not – MOOCs don’t have the participation barriers of traditional courses (fees), so learners are able to jump in, sample, take what they want, and move on." . The theory is worded in such a way that is straightforward to put the blame on external factors (learners included) rather than the approach itself. In a sense, there is no accountability built in the theory. No way to perform any assessment of its efficacy.

This is the fundamental problem. This theory is phrased in such a way that you can never prove it wrong.

If you follow a model like Kirkpatrick, there are four-levels of evaluation of instruction (1994)

• Reaction - how the learners react to the learning process →learner-satisfaction
• Learning - the extent to which the learners gain knowledge and skills →learning-evaluation
• Behavior - capability to perform the learned skills while on the job →performance-evaluation
• Results - includes such items as monetary, efficiency, moral, etc. →impact-evaluation

Theory is worded in such a way that it cannot be evaluated any further than the level of reaction. The only option you have, when you want to discuss this theory is to shut up (which is exactly what all professionals in the field do - simply pretend that the paper doesn't exist; I am glad to hear to some have started to address the problem). Or provide evaluation in the form of reaction. This is a discussion tab. These guys claim to do instruction. I was participant in one of their courses. I provided my testimony as a participant. As a community member, I am highly concerned that these guys keep making false claims about their courses. People buy on the sales pitch, not on the evidence (none is provided).

I really would appreciate if a non moderator could have a look. Does Connectivism, as described in the references provided, meet the standards for being referenced on wikipedia? Yes / No.

We are cycling back to the same issue. It is not Smurf's or anyone else's job or right to judge the validity of Connectivism. This is done in academic journals and in other publications of record. What you are doing in this talk page is 'new research'. If you object to connectivism (also please note that connectionism and connectivism are not synonymous) please write an article, and get it published. The only problem is... that in publishing that article, you would be further supporting the inclusion of Connectivism in wikipedia. I encourage you, once again, to note the paleo-diet entry. Many, many scientists say its nonsense. It may be. But that doesn't matter.

Other notes:

(1) If you are going to search, please do so in google scholar. The fact that Stephen Downes' blog posts are at the top of the google search results have no impact on the validity of connectivism, they are the result of an entirely unrelated issue. He's popular.

(2) Whether you prove beyond any doubt (in your own mind or others) that connectivism is not a theory is not relevant. The wikipedia talk pages are not a publication of record.

(3) I note that you were a participant in one of the courses and had a negative experience "These guys claim to do instruction. I was participant in one of their courses. I provided my testimony as a participant. As a community member, I am highly concerned that these guys keep making false claims about their courses. People buy on the sales pitch, not on the evidence (none is provided)." This does not make you an objective reviewer of this page. --Davecormier (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You could call it 'arguments of authority' if you like. It also happens to be how wikipedia works. Which I thought was what we were discussing. --Davecormier (talk) 11:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The fact remains Smurf that you are writing a criticism not quoted reliable third party sources who criticise. Its called OR and its not allowed here. You also have a possible conflict of interest, not just because you did not like the course, but because (according to your linked in reference which you display) you are in the same field. I really suggest that you read the welcome page I gave you and learn how things work around here. --Snowded ^TALK 18:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I missed your rejoinder. Yes. I have worked with both stephen and george. I have also published articles using the word connectivism, but not in 'agreement' with it. We are in the same field, and i have had coffee with both of them. And co-facilitated with them. But this is not relevant. I don't claim objectivity (nor do i believe in it anyway). --Davecormier (talk) 11:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

@Smurf: I admire your passion to prove your point. My initial reaction is that you are mixing up between three inter-related concepts:

1) Connectivism as a theory (i.e. the concept that learning is the expansion of connections and that knowledge resides in machines)

2) Connectivism as a learning approach (i.e. learning in the knowledge age will depend on how we connect with individuals and other knowledge devices/machines) and

3) MOOC as an application to the learning approach (i.e. 2 above). MOOC is a course designed to introduce the concept of connectivism in a "connective" way. The success of the attempt is not indicated by the number of the participants in the Elluminate sessions, but by the number of "knowledge connections" that are formed outside the course. Try to search for #CCK08, #CCK09 or #CCK10 (the tags used to connect the groups) and you will find out that numerous groups and networks exist in the Web 2.0 world that continue connecting even after the conclusion of the course. Which proves that there is a merit to the theory and its application! (although it still need to be captured, analyzed and documented! ;)

I agree with you that the article should be re-written and I will start early next week working on it. Aboluay^Talk2me 18:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If as Snowded says the criticism needs quoted reliable third party sources who criticise, then this discussion is coming at a good time when (over)due is a Special Issue of IRRODL see http://www.connectivism.ca/?p=254 so there should be additional sources to inform the wikipedia entry. I know that this special issue contains some critical papers as I wrote one of them. My argument in this paper is that Connectivism is not a learning theory (as Verhagen and Kop & Hill have argued) but a phenomenon that comprises different activities (such the MOOCs, seminars, blogs, etc.), ideas and networks of people and things. I compared connectivism with Actor Network Theory a descriptive theory of change with which it has superficial similarities in a conference paper this year Bell paper. --Francesbell (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This debate is instructive. But more so about wikipedia, and the threshold, or boundaries of what 'is' and what is not appropriate for wikipedia than about learning (unfortunately). Connectivism is a useful description of a social phenomenon - it pulls together things like crowd sourcing, networked learning, distributed learning, etc. But it is not a theory of learning, maybe a framework for conducting, designing, or even managing learning, but a theory of learning, no.

So ...

Surely wikipedia includes useful (yes) and new descriptions of social phenomena? In which case, the more interesting debate is whether connectivism can be defined much more broadly than just 'learning' - so it might be useful to talk of a 'connectivist society', or a 'connectivist social/ political/ 'revolutionary' movement'. This might or might not include activities which are centred around 'learning'.

However ... If the wikipedia entry takes the form of "x is a theory", then the criteria are more rigorous, so why not change the wikipedia entry to: "Connectivism. Connectivism is a concept that describes a set of social activities which are characterised by a, b an c"? Its the theoretical aspirations (unwarranted and unjustified in my view) that stick in the craw, and muddy the water in an otherwise very interesting debate about how we can describe what's going on out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustcube (talk • contribs) 10:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

References

My experience with CCK11 Connectivism and Connective Knowledge

The high drop-out rate of the Connectivism and Connective Knowledge course and others like it is being used as an argument against keeping the connectivism article as part of wikipedia. First the course is free and open -- there is no commitment required. Personally, I'm taking the course on a "best efforts basis". Second, the course material and activities are set out as a smorgasbord, participants can participate as they are able. Further, the underlying structure of the course encourages building connections allowing the participant to experience the connectivist process. Personally, I usually view the recordings of the presenters and weekly review. Consequently, I am not counted as a participant. Given that I haven't figured out or taken the time learn how to use the moodle forum replacement, I'm not likely to be counted.

Concerning the theory itself, I have problems with it. I don't think building a network equates to learning. Somehow a connection needs to be polled for the information residing there. I don't understand how that happens. However, I have learned a lot about learning theory and have been entertained by the discussions. I think the purpose of a theory: valid, coherent, reasonable, original, or not is to promote discussion and thought. The connectivist theory does that and is worthy of being a part of wikipedia. Ljpother (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for contribution: Peer Learning/Connectivism

Anyone interested in improving the "connectivism" section on a related article on peer learning that I've been working on? It's currently pretty minimal. I know there's considerable discussion about research in e.g. Coursera that talks about how people help each other learn in the course: but I don't know specifics. Arided (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Improving the Lede Section

I see most posts on this Talk page are debating the validity of maintaining the "Connectivism" WP page. Under the assumption that it will at least be here for awhile, it seems the Lede Section could be improved. Dustcube's note about "turgid prose" is well-taken...the article needs to give background and context that goes beyond linking to other theories (that may be unfamiliar to most). I will try to add onto this area.Graphemie (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Connectivism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081210214143/http://www.surfspace.nl/nl/Redactieomgeving/Publicaties/Documents/Connectivism%20a%20new%20theory.pdf to http://www.surfspace.nl/nl/Redactieomgeving/Publicaties/Documents/Connectivism%20a%20new%20theory.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206172809/http://aupress.ca/books/120146/ebook/01_Anderson_2008_Ally-Online_Learning.pdf to http://www.aupress.ca/books/120146/ebook/01_Anderson_2008_Ally-Online_Learning.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you User:InternetArchiveBot for fixing these links. The first link now works, though the second link does not, so I changed it to a working link at the publisher. FULBERT (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)