Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Connectivism 9-17

I thought empirical, rational, and connective were three different ways to describe knowledge, not three different kinds of knowledge.

Stephen says in his paper that there are three types of knowledge. “Connectivism is a theory that described this third type of knowledge. It is a theory that tells us what this third type of knowledge is, where it is, what produces it, how we learn it, and how it can be used. “ (Downes, 2008)

He goes on to say that there are two kinds of connective knowledge, a knowing of the connections and way of knowing. I thought connectivism was knowledge created by the connections.

For any of this to be valid, knowledge must exist even when not perceived. It is, if one accepts these definitions, there whether anyone senses, measures, or connects.

But if knowledge is created through the connections, then it does not exist outside of connection. It is not there if no one connects the dots (to use a poor analogy).

So I'm wondering, what do you all say about this quandary? Besides go have some more coffee Durff....

1 comment:

Beth Holmes said...

I'm following the connectivism conversations with great interest and am particularly interested in your take on the course. I'm certain that one needs much more in the way of knowledge (connections)than I am able to bring to your good question. But...if knowledge is created through the connections, and does not exist outside of connections...aren't we back to the old,old,old question about the tree that falls in the woods? If a tree(knowledge)falls in the woods and noone hears it(connection)does it make a noise? One step further...Is there an impact(noise)from unconnected knowledge? Probably not.Are we closer to answering an age-old question. Thanks for making me think!