Connectivism: It’s always a Charlatan. Week 4
It was a difficult reading, mostly because I agree more with the criticisms that what the paper defends or even justify. The paper in itself is dishonest as does not attempt to discuss or examine, or even outline, what’s most important in any theory its “philosophical and epistemological issues” furthermore he states “..the is beyond the scope of this article and it will therefore [the paper] concentrate on outlining the main areas of criticism.”
Luckily just the highlights of this criticism is sufficient to see that the paper pushes a description of what’s happening today’s in the field of education and technology into a shape of “education theory” without a theory and even jumping to the conclusion that that big body of available content is education per se is independent thanks to AI.
In a nutshell he is shaking oil and water in a bottle and saying they mixed together into one, in just a little time will separate, and the charlatan will be exposed.