As this article suggests, Connectivism (as I understand it) is non-representationalist. That is, "The theory seems to suggest that language, or other representations of knowledge, are disregarded... It seems reluctant to move into the world of symbols and practical application; to move beyond structure; to move into the realm of value-making. It shuns the world of intent." But we want to be careful about how this is explained. I would not say, for example, "The theory disregards any learner’s, human or otherwise, point of view." Quite the opposite; there is only point of view - but this point of view should be understood not in terms of what it represents, not in terms of (externally defined) values or intentions, but in itself, not in terms of language, mathematics, or any other externally defined representational system. The 'linguistic pull' is the (incorrect) tendency to conflate the properties of language with the properties of thought. (p.s. Glen, put your name on your blog). Via Susan Bainbridge's Scoop.
Today: 3 Total: 3 [Direct link] [Share]
