http://francesbell.com/2008/11/19/a-networked-conversation/
Stephen Downes posted a reply to my blog post http://francesbell.com/2008/11/09/cck08-is-connectivism-a-learning-network/ at http://connect.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=44375. I tried to reply there but my comment was not accepted so I am posting it here, hoping it gets picked up automatically.
I was very grateful for Stephen’s comments, as there is plenty still be ironed out (from my persective at least). I found it interesting that he said that the application of networks to the social domain is not a metaphor. Presumably it is not a ‘literal truth’. I can imagine that there could be some links between the social behaviour of individuals in a group or network and their brain activity relating to it, but I don’t know that this has been researched and presented. It is seductive to think that principles from networks in neural science apply in social networks, actor-networks and connectivist learning networks but I think that we would need some evidence (from neural studies and/or rich case studies of human and non-human behaviours).
I am not holding out on Stephen - but rather still studying this from reading about connectivism and actor-network theory.
I was interested that Stephen claim a clear distinction between social action and learning theory. One of the things that has slightly surprised me on CCK08 has been the boldness and desire for radical change, informed by connectivism. When cast in this light, connectivism seems as much about social action as about learning (though of course the two are intertwined).
I hope that my modest critique can contribute but what I really hope to see are empirical studies (case studies, action research, etc.) that apply ANT and connectivism to educational change and processes (radical and otherwise). That will really move things forward, I think. Mine is a developmental critique - not a complaint.
