Language of Learning: Is it Grown or Built?

First of all, let me start with a question. What kind of language should we use if central educational language is focused either, on "growing" learning or "building" it?

As you've already perceived, this discussion is about two currents: Connectivism vs. Constructivism. And I am bit off-base because that was an issue that psychologists fought about 20 years or so. You might also remember the Theory of the Gestalt that was that era when we, as educators were discussing all this stuff in how people(students in this case) are internalizing knowledge.

We are a week into the Connectivism and Connective Knowledge Course. For those unfamiliar with what we've mentioned, this is a massively open online course led by Stephen Downes and George Siemens. No record disclosed but we also believe, around 1900 people have signed up for the course, so it really is huge and so hard to follow the conversations. I wonder how the organizers are doing to handle such a massive demand.

Stephen has stated that learning throughout Connectivism it's not other thing than "the process of making connections." But people who believe themselves working into the Constructivim, think "building implies structure and order"

We are not going to argue about any of these two conceptions about learning. Although, we've been working into both of them. How come? It all depends, of course, of the conceptions a teacher has on how the process of learning is happening. Let's assume the mapping on our brain still is incomplete, so I cannot conclude that learning is a connection of ideas or whatever for that matter, but at the same time it will be too early to say that internalization process of knowledge is built in a constructivist way as Christy Tucker implies.

Will Connectivism vs. Constructivism continue until we see the future of the Education in the 2050?

If you want to receive my future posts regularly for FREE, please subscribe in a reader or by e-mail. If you have concerns, Contact Me at anytime.