Steve Wheeler offers an interesting quote at the end of this post: “Minimally invasive education has been shown to be better than direct instruction for promoting intellectual maturity. Thus, said Sir John, social connectivism trumps constructivism for third world child learning.”
This comment was picked up by Pontydysgu under the post of Connectivism vs Constructivism:
Finally, I am genuinely confused by social connectivism being presented in opposition to constructivism. Is Social Connectivism now a distinct pedagogy that has fallen bellow my radar? Or, for that matter is Constructivism a pedagogy? Constructivism is a theory of knowledge not a specific pedagogy – Constructionism is the educational theory proposed by Papert using Piaget’s constructivist ideas.
For most educators, at least as is presented in graduate theory courses, constructivism is very much a learning theory…a pedagogy. The distinction between OLPC and Mitra’s research is interesting, especially in light of the open courses we’re currently offering. Providing technology without information and social connections doesn’t guarantee effective learning. While not hierarchical, knowledge does have shape or structure. In connectivism, the assertion is made that learning and knowledge are essentially the same thing – patterns of connectedness, or network growth.