Connectivism squares with our experience
This week was an exciting one for us - ChinesePod published lesson number 1,000. Around all these learning objects we have had tens of thousands of conversation threads, questions, answers, and comments. There are some serious connections getting formed out there.
Meanwhile, there is some real energy in the edublogosphere concerning this course in connectivism. So, what about ChinesePod from a connectivist perspective? As it happens, connectivist theory and ChinesePod practice are surprisingly consistent. Let me point to some examples.
Connectivist principles
Central to connectivism is the primacy of the connection, the belief that more connections lead to more learning. ChinesePod started out with a similar idea: to maximize the interconnectedness between the people, the content, and the system on the platform. At this point, I think it is self-evidently true that (connectivist) theory squares with (our particular) practice. More connections on a network simply do enable more learning, though there are other factors involved.
And where you get connections, you also get networks. George Siemens distinguishes 3 types of networks that enable learning. These are slightly more tricky to assess but I think they also square with our experience. Let’s look at them:
1. Neural networks. No one can really know what goes on in learners’ synapses, but we all know that it is possible to induce learners to mobilize their cognitive faculties to a greater or lesser extent. More cognitive and affective experiences lead to more thinking, more synaptic connections, and more learning. To this end, we have sought to leverage guesswork, repetition, stories, context, in-depth discussion, etc, to offer what Siemens might call ’frequency, diversity, and depth of exposure’ to the content. I’ve always maintained that learning is multi-dimensional, and deepened when you approach the subject from different angles. The connections around the subject should be many and varied, a position consistent with connectivism: ’The act of knowing is to be in a particular manner of connectedness’.
2. Social/external networks. Learning has an undeniable social dimension, and on the network there are many ways to exploit the fact. For us, the starting point was Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (reinforced by Krashen’s more cognitivist input theory). Hence the ethos of the community of practice, the specialized groups, etc, on ChinesePod. These things were designed to bring together teachers, practitioners, and learners and increase learning opportunites. Most learning in life happens when we connect with someone who knows more about a subject than we do. There’s no reason why that would be any different on the network, or on ChinesePod, and so the community, an the connections they are allowed to make, play a central role.
3. Conceptual connections. To me, language learning must subordinate the structures (grammar) to meaning, concepts, conversations, and events. Concepts provide the basis for discussion, reflection, and cross-referencing from the learner’s own life experience and existing knowledge. We start with the concepts and try to relate specific language items to them by using those items for what they are designed to do: to describe concepts. The language learning is almost as a bi-product of the conversation, the reflection, etc. I am convinced that there is such a thing as conceptual networks and that they are crucial to learning. We hang the language onto the concepts, not the other way round. It is also very clear that learners are far more willing to engage with real concepts that connect with their lives than with grammatical abstractions that do not.
Seeing the patterns
Connectivism clashes with one of dominant concepts in ESL for the last 20 years - second language acquisition. Stephen Downes asserts, I think convincingly, that we do not acquire linguistic items in the sense of holding or possessing pieces of knowleledge, wrapped in language forms. Instead, we come to recogize meaning as an epiphenomenon of distributed patterns. I can actually live with both notions but as it happens I think we have taken a course that is consistent, once again, with the connectivists.
Example: The teachers and practitioners on ChinesePod do not see ourselves as lecturers or teachers who impart knowledge in the old sense. Instead, we are connectors, or resources who point learners at key patterns or elements that help strengthen their connection to a piece of information (and emphasize the skill of being able to identify patterns). One example is the focus on lexis, rather than grammar. Grammar offers a set of abstractions to be used, theoretically, in a deductive way to generate accurate sentences. In reality, however, it suffers from the humpty-dumpty effect: good for breaking language down, but not for putting it back together again. By contrast, lexical patterns, chunks, and collocations reflect how the language is actually spoken. It shows how certain words are more likely to consort with certain other words (like clusters or even networks). At the level of comprehension and of production, language learners do well to get good at identifying the patterns of the target language.
What are the differences?
All in all, I think there is a good deal of consistency here. Looking at the differences would require a new post, but such differences as there are emerge from perspective rather than philosophy. As a content provider we have to be very mindful of the motivational, humanistic, and affective dimensions of learning. (Carl Rogers had a permanent effect on me, personally.) We also need to ensure the learning is as relevant as possible - relevance is something that we have to strive for on a daily basis, to paraphrase John Pasden.
Most edubloggers are concerned with the broader question of education as a system. That is a huge challenge and a noble undertaking. We approach it from a very different perspective and a narrower focus. I think this explains the differences in perspective but again, this is one for another day. In the meantime I salute the people behind the connectivism course and I will continue to follow it as closely as time permits. After all, we have much in common.
Ken Carroll
October 5th, 2008 at 2:29 am
Second step: Ask at what those “neural connections” in the community are all about.
From what I have seen so far I, bet the ranking of on-topic lesson post types will be:
5. Changye providing ultra-deep language background
4. Smalltalk, personal anecdotes, cultural stuff
3. Praise / Criticim / Bugs
2. Vocab related questions and
1. Yes: Old-fashioned Grammar questions (”Why is the word order not different?” “Where does that 了 come from?” etc.)
With No. 1 taking by far the biggest share of the on-topic posts.
If you also take the popularity of Qing Wen into consideration indeed a pattern emerges. Those concepts we all get together and interconnect neurally for are indeed dusty little grammar concepts from the bottom drawer!
I am convinced that the human brain just loves rules and structures to come to an efficient road to learning. Of course those rules are a crutch and do by no means replace “language feeling”. But they are at least a dim little flashlight on a dark path in the deep woods.
Which answer is more satisfying?
The typical native “Well, it is just wrong, accept it. There is no particular reason. You will never learn it.”
Or the experienced language teacher’s “It is because there is no change of state involved. Similar examples include […]”
At best the pattern the teacher referred to is actually *tested* later with *challenging* exercise that forces you to become active and *think* about sentences.
Aren’t “grammar dills” in the very end nothing but enhanced “language chunks in different contexts”? Don’t those seamingly warring worlds blend happily together?
Of course, and especially with Chinese, Grammar should definately not come in the very beginning and does not help in the very advanced stages. But at Intermediate it is a cornerstone that you can rub against.
And I definately include function words in “grammar”. Those are the hinges languages revolve around.
Sidenotes: Interesting is also what the groups are about. Some of the highest frequented onces address written or writing chinese.
I really do love the lessons as they are. But moving ahead the road ahead should not be defined to narrow just because of some rigid academic stance.
Feel free to enrich CPod with:
1. Grammar and grammar exercises
2. HSK drills. I recently found those to be perfect for honing skills. Even if I don’t plan to take the test short term.
3. Lessons and content on formal and written Chinese.
October 5th, 2008 at 3:44 am
Henning,
I totally agree that grammar is a worthy subject of discussion and activity in the community and I heartily encourage it.
My point is that I would not *base* the learning on it, as the old textbooks did. Grammar isn’t something we could make central to the audio lessons, for example. It’s so abstract and contingent that it woudlk require endless explanations, exceptions, etc. Instead we use a concrete event,or short drama that encapsulates the language, context, mood, etc. Instead of talking about how we *might* use language in certain contexts (a necessity with grammar) we have a concrete exampple. Explanations are therefore not contingent, but specific.
And if people want more grammar discussion, great. We could provide more of it and you chaps are free to discuss it to your heart’s content. It is one more way to build those neural configurations around the subject - clearly some people really like it.
Ken
October 5th, 2008 at 3:46 am
Ah, the wind of change.
My biggest problem with connectivism concerns quality. Every time I hear you comment on connectivism my mind retreats to “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance”
To wit, your claim is clear:
“Central to connectivism is the primacy of the connection, the belief that more connections lead to more learning.”
Against this I have nothing to offer but the notion of quality and the idea that there is a limit to the value of any single good.
To a man without salt, it is a precious commodity, to a man surrounded by the sea it is nothing more than a slow poison.
Let me be even more explicit. For the individual, what are the limits to these fantastic connections? Is ten a good amount? Ten times ten? ten times ten times ten? Can you tell me what the optimum number is?
Obvious there is a limit, just as there is a limit to the amount of salt we can consume. The problem however is that you go on as if this limit doesn’t exist. As I see it, the key to language learning is not quantity it is quality. Why is it someone can be surrounded by a language for five years and not learn more than 50 words (I describe my own experience) while others can soak up 50 words in ten days?
And before you try to figure out what the optimum number of connections is I would ask you to define in great detail the simple quality of a single connection and then I would ask you if the quality of any one single connection can differ from another?
If so, if these connections can differ in quality then it is conceivable that a single connection is more valuable then 10 or 20 or 30 connections all bundled up together working at top speed.
When you define progress at C-pod by the number of connections, asking us to believe that this is the primary reason that more learning is taking place, it sends shivers up my spine.
When I listen to your podcasts and look at what you have done I am overwhelmed by your quality. The attention to detail, the systematic feedback, the simplicity of your teaching materials, the utter joy that I hear in your podcasts. Well, I guess I just don’t get connectivism.
October 7th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Congratulations! I remember checking out Praxis language learning before and thinking it was a great idea and a great website. Unfortunately for both of us, I’m in a demographic that never puts any financial information of any kind on any household personal computers. We’re a suspicious lot - the over 55 crowd that thinks Gen Y is so gifted that they can hack anything. It’s a shame because we also know that language learning is the best brain workout there is. If you can figure out a way to overcome that one little barrier, you’d be swamped by all the people who had a parent develop a cognitive disorder.
I visited several language learning websites and whoever designed your site got it right - it looks very polished and professional.
October 11th, 2008 at 6:14 am
[…] and the value of collaboratively contributing to this networked knowledge base. In his post “Connectivism squares with our experience,” Ken Carroll writes with respect to neural networks: No one can really know what goes on in […]
October 15th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
[…] and the value of collaboratively contributing to this networked knowledge base. In his post “Connectivism squares with our experience,” Ken Carroll writes with respect to neural networks: No one can really know what goes on in […]
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:23 pm
[…] “Una idea central en el Conectivismo es la primacía de la conexión, de la creencia que más conexiones conducen a más aprendizajes. El sistema Chino-Pol empezó con una idea similar: la de maximizar en la plataforma la interconectividad entre las personas, los contenidos, y el sistema. [L][C] […]