Siemens (2005a) suggests learning that can reside outside the individual learner, is focused on connecting specialised information sets and the connections that enable us to learn more than our current state of knowing. According to Siemens, the main intent of network creation is to enable learners to continue to stay current in the face of rapidly developing knowledge. Siemens (2005a, 2006a) points out that the half-life of knowledge is shrinking. The half-life of knowledge is the time span from when knowledge is gained to when it becomes obsolete (Gonzalez, 2004). Siemens (2006a) writes: “In today’s world, knowledge life is short; it survives only a short period of time before it is outdated”

Connectivism is also the assertion that “the pipe is more important than the content within the pipe” (Siemens, 2005a). That is, the connections that enable us to learn more are more important than our current state of knowing. As Siemens (2006a) puts it: “Our ability to learn what we need for tomorrow is more important than what we know today.

3 The LaaN perspective In this section, we will present our own conceptual viewpoint on connectivism by discussing the learning as a network(LaaN) perspective, which represents a knowledge ecological approach to learning. The LaaN view is built upon four premises: •knowledge and learning are two sides of the same coin •knowledge and learning are fundamentally personal and social in nature •knowledge is in the network, or even more knowledge is the network •learning is a matter of knowledge networking within knowledge ecologies.

Boyer’s (1990) four components of scholarship – discovery, integration, application, and teaching – and to explore them as a techno-cultural system of scholarship suited to an era of knowledge abundance. Not only does the paper find that networked engagement both aligns with and exceeds Boyer’s model for scholarship, it suggests that networked scholarship may enact Boyer’s initial aim of broadening scholarship itself through fostering extensive cross-disciplinary, public ties and rewarding connection, collaboration, and curation between individuals rather than roles or institutions.

The way Twitter draws scholars from multiple disciplines and geographic areas together via conversations and hashtags emerged as a clear manifestation of scholarship of integration. Participants demonstrated active engagement with multiple audiences, across fields and disciplines. The accounts that participants connected with in their 24-hour reflections were traced, and in all cases but one participants were found to engage across both geographic and disciplinary boundaries.

Boyer (1990) emphasizes scholarship of integration as “research at the boundaries where fields converge…[T]hose engaged in integration ask “What do the findings mean?” (p. 18). Thus scholarship of integration centers on public discussions and negotiations of meaning; what distinguishes the techno-cultural system of NPS is that this happens in constant, abundant real-time. This indirectly reinforces the system’s emphasis on individual rather than institution; the regular unsettling of the boundaries of what is known or understood makes formal hierarchies and categories – tenets of the techno-cultural system of institutional, disciplinary scholarship – difficult to enact and enforce.