Talk:Connectivism/Archive 1

3rd opinion
The article badly lacks independent evaluation of the theory. Please provide references from independent reliable sources. Please keep in mind that blogs, message boards, etc. are not valid references in wikipedia. `'Míkka 23:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I added several sources which should get things headed in the right direction. The criticisms of the theory weren't in any published journals that I could find, although I believe I could link to Bill Kerr's presentation from conference proceedings instead of his blog summary if you would view that as more reliable.

I'd like to include some of Stephen Downes' contributions on the subject as well, but I wasn't able to find any non-blog sources. I know Downes is generally philosophically opposed to the entire peer review process, but does anyone know of a source for his thoughts outside of his site and blog? WeisheitSuchen 04:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Although the article may not be substantiated with a sufficient number of "independent" sources, I do not think deleting it is the right solution. Just wait and let it expand, like all knowledge expands over time. Thiemehennis (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC) ________________

Agreed. Keep it. I'll tidy it and add references over the Xmas holiday. I'm writing a paper on "e-pedagogy" and found the limited information on this page useful.

Bobby (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Cultural and Learning theory usage
This is just a starter for discussion on how to best divide/combine the term in both usages. I have no opinion about which way, this is just a starter to point other editors towards. -Optigan13 (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the two uses of connectivism are totally unrelated, so I think they should be kept as separate articles. However, I'm not sure that the literary usage is most common in English. I suspect that English-speaking users of Wikipedia who search for "connectivism" are more likely to be looking for the learning theory rather than the literary movement. For example, searching Google in English for "connectivism" doesn't return any hits on the literary movement in the first two pages. The article doesn't yet include any English references.

What about using a disambiguation page as the landing page for Connectivism? Then both the learning theory and the literary usage would get equal footing. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)