We are spending a lot of time exploring this, and I’m glad – many of us are grappling with figuring out what the diff is. I guess it’s because constructivism is the default position of many of us, and because it has a lot of “motherhood” statements that resonate with educators (the centrality of the individual, honouring individuals’ past, present, level of understanding/knowledge, etc).
Huh, wait: I just said …we’re all trying to take what we already know/understand (the “existing” idea of constructivism) and integrate this new idea (the idea of connectivism) into it. Doesn’t this sound like constructivism? but we are doing so with/through the network? (which sounds like connectivism)
at the risk of taking the easy way out – what if it’s both? I do feel like the individual is missing in connectivism, or I don’t UNDERSTAND the role of the individual in connectivism (at least in what I’ve read so far – need to do more digging on this to see what George and Stephen have to say).
Anywho, there was an Elluminate session this week, which I was unable to attend live, but LOVED that i could listen later. Points that were reiterated/emphasized:
- Constructivism: knowledge is constructed (by the individual, in his/her mind/brain or whatever), like a puzzle. knowledge is an entitly
- Connectivism: knowledge grows (in the network? and in the individual?). knowledge is ecological. emphasis on the primacy of the connection.
What I’m not sure of:
- can’t knowledge be a growing thing? a thing which grows? and is cultivated (by the individual and the network)