Is Connectivism as a Learning Theory Bogus?

Some argue that there are only three "main" learning theories, all listed and explained in the images below:

Image from http://thepeakperformancecenter.com/educational-learning/learning/theories/

Image from https://www.pinterest.com/pin/417005246746609671/visual-search/

However, as shown in the image below, since the introduction of the internet and mass access to technology a theory known as "Connectivism" has made an appearance.

Image from https://www.tankonyvtar.hu/hu/tartalom/tamop412A/2011-0023_Learning_in_digital/0204.scorml

As can be seen this image shows four learning theories and attempts to place them on a timeline showing when each was largely developed, believed, and followed. From Freud, Pavlov, Watson and others came the development of Behaviorism, which was countered in the early 1900s by Cognitivism with main arguments coming from B.F. Skinner. Over time psychologists, researchers, and educators began to accept Constructivism, and last we can see that around the turn of the millennium Connectivism arrived on scene.

It makes sense that as the world of technology advanced and became integrated into our daily, professional and academic lives, that a learning theory based on connecting networks and searching for knowledge rather than memorizing it, was born. So why is Connectivism often put down as a learning theory, discredited and unappreciated? 

Image from https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/learning-network-age/0/steps/24641

On "A Point of Contact", an education and technology blog by Glen Cochrane, this question is addressed in a post from 2011. Cochrane argues that "to interpret actual learning and collect concepts based on observed learning is the role of a learning theory, and these tasks lie outside the capabilities of Connectivism" (2011). It is acknowledged that such a theory was made necessary by the "boom of information technology" and that Connectivism helps learners make sense of the map that is a web of connected information (2011). Ultimately, Cochrane defends the theory as a Theory of Education, just not one of learning.

Another online article titled "Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past?" also argues the point that Connectivism is not a learning theory. It defines developmental theories as theories that "may attempt to take strides towards becoming an established formal theory over time...are fertile testing grounds for ideas, which, in turn, may lead to empirical research that can then validate – or disprove – formal hypotheses posited within the framework of the scientific method" (Kop & Hill, 2008). The authors also reference Siemens in their article noting that learning theories often result in practical changes to how teachers teach and how curriculum is designed (2008), which it subtly argues Connectivism does not do or perhaps does not yet do.

After looking at these two sources, it seems like a commonality is the recognition of technological evolution and a need for a theory to address it, however the general consensus is that perhaps Connectivism is simply still too new to have the clout needed to be dubbed a learning theory, or in the argument of Kop & Hill, it doesn't result in a change of teaching or curriculum planning. After our discussion in class I definitely felt that the idea of Connectivism was more abstract than other learning theories, but I think only time will sway the opinions of those who are non-believers. 

References

Cochrane, G. (2011, September 7). A point of contact: Why connectivism is not a learning theory. Retrieved from https://apointofcontact.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/why-connectivism-is-not-a-learning-theory/

Kop, R. & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/523/1103