Shared publicly  - 
Here's an interview we did with +George Siemens on 30 June, 2011, at the Laboratory of Distance Education and eLearning, Universidade Aberta, Portugal. It's around 40 minutes long and has, imo, a lot of great stuff on conectivism, change and moocs. There's no doubt he is one of the best persons you can find to have a great conversation with.
Stephen Downes's profile photoJosé Mota's profile photoGeorge Siemens's profile photoMiguel Zapata-Ros's profile photo
+Miguel Zapata-Ros It's not that I am acritical, it just wasn't that kind of interview. This one was more intended for our students and people in general who want to understand connectivism a bit better in terms of how it sees learning and how you can put it into practice. Although I believe in connectivism, I agree that there are many aspects in it that need to be better developed and founded. Furthermore, there are huge challenges in putting it into practice, especially in formal contexts, that need a lot of work. Connecivism seems better at describing how people learn in the open environment of the web than at showing how you can support learning in structured or semi-structured environments.

There has been a lot of good and sound critique on connectivism, from Plon Verhagen (2006), Bill Kerr (2007), Adrian Hill & Rita Kop (2008), Rita Kop (2010), and +Frances Bell (2010), to name some of the most relevant I know of. You yourself make some good points in the three articles you mention (and which I have read), although you fail to reference any of this prior work. And there have been some good answers, too, by +Stephen Downes (2007) and +George Siemens (2006 and 2008

I believe these critical contributions are very important in themselves and also as a challenge for connectivism to establish itself on more solid foundations and to develop and perfect its concepts and assertions. So I sure would like to watch an interview with George Siemens by someone critical of connectivism and capable of asking him tough, informed questions about it. We would all learn a lot from it, I am sure.
Good interview, interesting, and I appreciated the tough questions, not only because it was fun to see George on the hot seat, but because it's just these sorts of questions that need to be asked and answered of any theory.
Thanks +José Mota for posting this.

+Miguel Zapata-Ros I've tried translating your critiques with Google Translate, but unfortunately, the translation is not effective. By the same account, I encourage you to continue your critiques. +Stephen Downes and I are exploring learning in digital and distributed social and technical networks. We are not saying that we have all of the answers. Based on open courses that we have run in the past, however, we are developing a growing research base on how people learn in networks. Since the first course in 2008, we have improved the pedagogical model and have experimented with new approaches. To date, the experience has been affirming of the early papers +Stephen Downes and I did on connectivism. Part of what we argue is that learning is a complex, networked, iterative, dynamic, social process. Your critiques are part of that. With connectivism, we are coming to know...rather than declaring what we know.
Siento que George no pueda leer de forma efectiva la traducción de Google. Agradezco sus ánimos e igualmente le agradecería que más allá de saber que son críticos entrara en las razones y argumentos que se aportan y los rebatiera de forma igualmente argumentada, o de alguna forma le diese respuesta. Intentaré hacerselos llegar en inglés aunque reconozco mi incompetencia para manejarme con el detalle necesario en ese idioma.
Sugiero la lectura de los post de CUED blog en y siguientes. Sobre todo los párrafor finales de donde hay una propuesta constructiva.
Add a comment...