Connecting Deconstructivism, Direct Learning and Connectivism

This is another post on my views on the EdTechTalk discussion (audio here and transcript here) recently between Stephen Downes and George Seimens about (among other things) views on objective and subjective knowledge and its impact on teaching (transfer of knowledge vs. connective learning). See this post for many more details and transcripts etc. To […]

This is another post on my views on the EdTechTalk discussion (audio here and transcript here) recently between Stephen Downes and George Seimens about (among other things) views on objective and subjective knowledge and its impact on teaching (transfer of knowledge vs. connective learning). See this post for many more details and transcripts etc.

To continue my critique of Stephen’s view that there is no objective knowledge, I believe that objective knowledge does exist in some situations, but that often the domain of what is considered objective knowledge is extended too widely and encompasses too many things. It can, like many things, be misused and abused. For example, it is easier for a teacher to portray something as objective and not have to research or explain caveats or varying opinions. And of course, many politicians who care more about themselves than the good of their constituency would far prefer their views to be regarded as objective facts.

I believe it is an inescapable fact that 1+1=2 is objective and that sure, later on, students can learn about other perspectives like base 2, base 8 and non-Euclidian geometry etc, but these perspectives do not make 1+1 subjective, they are simply more detailed levels of knowledge that the student will be taught later, after they have grasped the fundamentals. Initially, there is a lot of value in a student understanding, becoming proficient with, and building upon simple, reliable concepts. There is value in them being easy to understand, easier to become proficient, and possibly most importantly, increased confidence in their knowledge and abilities.

This is essentially the foundation of Direct Instruction (DI) – a structured transmission, clarification, verification and practice of knowledge. The aim is to make students very proficient at the fundamentals so that their confidence is boosted, they stay excited about learning and that when they can focus on new, complex concepts, without getting distracted by slow, unsure fundamentals. A relative of mine has studied DI in great depth and compared it to a wide variety of other techniques. He has found that many solid studies show that students using DI far outperform students for pretty much any other technique and can help struggling students advance 2 to 3 year levels in a single year. What I found most interesting was that this technique does not continue exclusively – eventually the student proceeds to open, inquiry based learning, where a healthy view on subjectivism becomes important.

So it would seem that a healthy combination of structured transfer of knowledge (related to objective knowledge) and demonstration/interaction/inquiry (related to subjective knowledge) is not only possible, but highly effective. So while Stephen makes a simple, elegant case that objective knowledge does not exist, and that considering any knowledge to be objective creates bad teaching practices, I would suggest that objective knowledge does exist, and that if handled responsibly, it can have powerful positive impacts, and possibly even contribute to connective learning.

Author: EricWoods

See all posts by EricWoods (35)

11 comments until now

  • Hi Eric,

    A quick thought on 1+1=2. Math, as it applies to the world, involves a process of naming and categorizing that is subjective. To name two red apples, for instance, we make the decision that both apples are of significantly similar shade to be both called red, and, that, they are fully formed individual apples. (perhaps as opposed to half eaten, mutated or crossed with pears) Math, in and of itself, is an abstract, where it is not applied to the world. I’m not sure that the expression 1+1=2 makes any sense without a clear description of what is counted, and in that description, comes your subjectivity.

    By dave cormier 4 July, 2006 @ 3:44 am
  • Thanks for the first comment on my blog Dave.
    That is helpful thanks, though still leaves me unsure. It smells eerily similar to the unicorn issue, in that abstract and concrete is getting mixed up with objective and subjective.
    Your comment “I’m not sure that the expression 1+1=2 makes any sense without a clear description of what is counted” does leave me thinking. Abstract math has a very solid heritage and is useful in and of itself, even before it is ever applied to anything. Perhaps abstractions like abstract maths are more easily able to be objective, rather them not making sense.
    Maybe this is related to the resolution issue. I could reword “1+1=2″ and say “If I create an object, then create another object that is identical in every appreciable way, I will then have two objects”. Perhaps abstraction can be viewed as stripping away many layers of subjective resolution, leaving the core issue at hand. Or maybe resolution should not be confused with abstraction.

    By EricWoods 13 July, 2006 @ 12:34 pm
  • ?????-?? ?????? ????????!!

    ????????????? ?????????? ? ????????? ????? http://www.mindspacesolutions.com ))))

    ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ??????!

    By LolitochkaBC 11 May, 2007 @ 1:22 am
  • very interesting, but I don’t agree with you
    Idetrorce

    By Idetrorce 16 December, 2007 @ 1:03 am
  • hello. good site.
    kola kola xara xara

    By Arrakyfloatry 1 February, 2008 @ 1:32 am
  • I like everything positive. I’m on this website since the first day of its existence and I have never seen anything negative on it. This website is made by people, who think positive and who have many things to tell others. I love this website, I always get positive emotions from it and I can stay here the whole days and nights!

    By Jane 11 April, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
  • That was a brilliant article,Maybe I might sign up to your rss.

    By 150cc scooter 3 May, 2010 @ 5:45 am
  • Thank you for providing this inspiring read. Check out my very own!

    By Freeman Caslin 24 September, 2010 @ 12:26 am
  • Hey there! I just wanted to ask if you ever have any issues with hackers? My last blog (wordpress) was hacked and I ended up losing months of hard work due to no data backup. Do you have any methods to protect against hackers?

    By Audrea Mayden 6 December, 2011 @ 11:16 pm
  • Very nice post,Been looking for this. Thanks.

    By catherine 11 March, 2012 @ 7:13 am
  • Hi. WordPress is still very good – but be sure to get it to automatically update itself.

    By EricWoods 16 April, 2012 @ 2:30 pm

Leave a Reply