I never did sign up for this, but, hey, the purpos/ed project is making a splash in our world and it is worth pitching in, even if my contributions are not timely, original or synthetic of what has gone before (see David Jennings, who took the synthesising route: http://alchemi.co.uk/archives/mis/purposed_whats_the_purpos.html). Cristina Costa neatly exposes a key issue, saying, “… education is part of what we are and what we become” (http://knowmansland.com/learningpath/?p=811). From this, I suggest that asking what the purpose of education is, is not far different from asking what our purpose is.
Frances Bell asks “CCK08 Is Connectivism a Learning Network?. She critiques the connectivism community/network/group of people who regularly use that term in their writing about education, in connectivist terms (“in their own terms”). The main argument is that “Protagonists have shown their ability to connect between fields of their own choosing, but less willingness to explore fields suggested by others e.g. Actor-Network Theory.” (ANT) “There are little or no links between ANT and connectivism,” says Bell. Therefore, Connectivism may not be willing to be “mutable knowlege as it extends its network…” Bell, here fails to draw a distinction between the ideas and the people who have them. If Connectivism IS its “protagonists” and the “protagonists” ARE Connectivism, then, if they do not engage with ANT, following Bell’s argument, there is a contradiction. But, how unusual is it for humans to display behaviour inconsistent with their ideas?