Alex Adams

OMDE 601 - 6040

November 23, 2014
The Theory of Connectivism and its Application in DE
Introduction
The rapid growth of the internet and internet-enabled technologies has transformed the landscape
of distance education (DE). These new technologies have created many stunning affordances that were
not available during earlier forms of DE. Anderson (2010) indicates that three affordances of this new,
networked age are access to powerful, low-cost communication tools, a shift from scarcity to abundance
of information and content, and the ability to set autonomous learners free to search for and connect to
relevant content. The affordances identified by Anderson (2010) along with others have prompted the
recent emergence of a number of theories that attempt to understand and envision new forms of teaching
and learning within this connected, resource-rich context. Anderson (2010) characterizes these new
theoretical approaches as net-aware theories of learning (p. 30). One of these new theories that has
received a good deal of interest is connectivism developed by George Siemens and Stephen Downes. This
paper will explore the relatively new learning theory of connectivism and look at its application within a
DE context.
Overview of Connectivism
Connectivism is a theoretical framework for understanding learning in a networked environment
(Kop & Hill, 2008). According to Siemens (2004), Learning (defined as actionable knowledge) can
reside outside of ourselves (within an organization or a database), is focused on connecting specialized
information sets, and the connections that enable us to learn more are more important than our current
state of knowing (para. 21). In other words, learning is the process of forming connections to
information resources and learning communities. Moreover, the connections that are formed are more
important than the information that they carry since most knowledge resides outside of ourselves and is
dispersed throughout the network.

In a connectivist framework, resources such as learning communities, information or ideas are

referred to as nodes. Two or more nodes that connect together to share resources form a network (Kop &
Hill, 2008). Within a network, nodes compete to make connections with other nodes. The nodes that have
a greater profile and a better recognition of their expertise will gain the most connections (Siemens,
2004).
As indicated by Siemenss (2004) conception of learning quoted above, a concept key to the
theory of connectivism is the distribution of knowledge. Knowledge is not found solely in the minds of
individuals; rather, knowledge is distributed across various resources that exist on the network.
Knowledge can even exist in a purely digital format (Boitshwarelo, 2011). Siemens (2004) does not see
learning and knowledge as absolute; rather, Siemens (2004) states learning and knowledge rests in
diversity of opinions (para. 23). Connectivism accounts for the fact that the accuracy and validity of
information changes over time (Kop & Hill, 2008). As new contributions are made and new information
is discovered about a topic, an individuals understanding of a topic can change. Therefore, a connectivist
framework requires the learner to continuously be on the hunt for current information and possess the
ability to sort through and filter out information that is peripheral and irrelevant (Kop & Hill, 2008). The
learner must then be able to make decisions and draw conclusion based on the best information at hand.
This implies a need for the learner to achieve a high level of information literacy. Siemens (2004) refers
to this learning process as a cycle of knowledge development (para. 27). The learning process is
cyclical in that learners participate in an on-going and continuous process of connecting to resources and
learning communities, modifying their understanding and creating new knowledge, and then connecting
to new communities to share new understandings (Kop & Hill, 2008).
One final feature of connectivism relates to the sheer amount and variety of resources that are
available within a network particularly when considering the entirety of the World Wide Web. A
connectivist learning framework affords the learner the ability to quickly and easily move between
different spheres of knowledge and learning communities. The result of this freedom of movement is that
learners have the ability to connect to and develop knowledge that is very interdisciplinary(Kop & Hill,

2008). Along these lines, Siemens (2004) states that a key principle of connectivism is developing the
skill to identify relationships between different fields of knowledge.
Applying Connectivism to DE Practice
Connectivist pedagogy represents a fairly dramatic departure from earlier DE pedagogies. As
Anderson and Dron (2011) state, in a connectivist pedagogy interaction moves beyond individual
consultations with faculty (CB pedagogy) and beyond the group interactions and constraints of the
learning management systems associated with constructivist distance-education pedagogy (p. 87). In a
connectivist framework, the learner is free of many of the traditional constraints allowing the autonomy to
move, explore, create and connect to resources within the network. This freedom has a effect on teacherstudent interaction which in many ways is radically different in a connectivist pedagogy. The role of
teacher is considerably less substantive than in other DE pedagogies. The teacher does not define and
assign content to the learner; rather, the teacher is critical friend who collaborates with the learner to
connect to and create content and generate artifacts (Anderson & Dron, 2011).
In order to put connectivism theory into practice, a technology platform that supports these new
forms of interaction and collaboration is required. An assortment of technologies are required to achieve
the highly-networked, collaborative environment in which connectivist learning takes place. In particular,
Web 2.0 technologies are key to putting connectivist pedagogy into practice (Armatas, Spratt, & Vincent,
2014). Web 2.0 refers to a wide-range of web-based tools that allow online learners to create and share
content, collaborate, and interact in online communities. These tools can generally be accessed through
the internet for limited or no cost. A key feature of Web 2.0 tools that demonstrates their value to the
connectivist framework is that they are typically modular allowing multiple platforms to be linked and
content to flow across platforms (Armatas et al., 2014). The high of customization and interoperability of
Web 2.0 technologies places the learner in control of the learning process. The content that is created, the
tools that are used, and networks that are formed using Web 2.0 technologies can come together to form a
Personal Learning Environment (PLE) (Armatas et al., 2014). The PLE can be used to store and manage

learning content, communicate and connect to others to support learning, and manage progress towards
learning goals (Armatas et. al, 2014).
One format that has appeared in the past few years as an attempt to operationalize the theory of
connectivism is the massive open online course (MOOC). According Cormier (2011), a MOOC is an
open event in which individuals interested in a specific topic come together to work on and discuss the
topic in a structured way. In a relatively short period of time, the MOOC has spawned several iterations
that have moved the model beyond what its creators Siemens, Downes and Cormier envisioned in 2008
(Yeager, Hurley-Dasgupta & Bliss, 2014). The three distinct iterations that have emerged are networkbased MOOCs referred cMOOC, task-based MOOCs, and content-based MOOCs referred to as xMOOCs
(Yeager et al., 2014). Although the xMOOC format has become the most popular and widely known
being popularized by providers such as Udacity and Cousera, the cMOOC is closer to the format that was
originally envisioned.
Yeager et al. (2014) identify four key activities that take place in a cMOOC. The first activity is
aggregation in which an initial list of resources is posted to a website to which additional resources are
added throughout the course. The second activity is remixing during which connections are made to
resources and then documented and shared using social networking tools such as blogging and tweeting.
The next activity identified is repurposing during which internal connections are formed by learners.
Finally, the last activity is feeding forward in which new connections are shared with others (Yeager et
al., 2014). The four key activities that Yeager et al. (2014) identifies seem to correspond directly with the
cycle of knowledge creation that Siemens envisioned when the theory was proposed in 2004.
Conclusion
The rapid development and spread of the internet-enabled technologies has served to create a
connected, resource-rich environment that offers many affordances to distance learners. Understanding
the most effective and appropriate way to take advantage of this new environment for educational
purposes is major challenge that currently faces DE theorists and practitioners. Connectivism offers a

compelling approach. It empowers learners to chart their own course toward the creation of knowledge by
exploring and connecting to the innumerable resources that are available on the World Wide Web.

References
Anderson, T. (2010). Theories for learning with emerging technologies. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.),
Emerging technologies in distance education (pp. 23-40). Canada: Athabasca University Press.
Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/books/120177/ebook/99Z_Veletsianos_2010Emerging_Technologies_in_Distance_Education.pdf
Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. International Review
of Research in Online and Distance Learning (IRRODL), 12(3). Retrieved from
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/890
Armatas, C., Spratt, C., & Vincent, A. (2014). Putting connectivist principles into practice: A case study
of an online tertiary course. American Journal of Distance Education, 28(2), 81-91.
doi:10.1080/08923647.2014.901782
Boitshwarelo, B. (2011). Proposing an integrated research framework for connectivism: Utilising
theoretical synergies. International Review of Research In Open And Distance Learning, 12(3),
161-179.
Cormier, D. (2011). What is a MOOC? [5 minute YouTube video.] Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW3gMGqcZQc
Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past?.
International Review of Research In Open And Distance Learning, 9(3), 1-13. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ815759.pdf
Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved from www.
elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
Yeager, C., Hurley-Dasgupta, B., & Bliss, C. (2013). cMOOCs and global learning: An authentic
alternative. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(2), 133-147. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ1018269