OU blog

Personal Blogs

Thoughts on Connectivism

Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Sharif Al-Rousi, Monday, 18 Mar 2013, 16:42

Post in response to H817 activity 13: Connectivism


This theory attempts to assert that changes in technology have changed the activity of learning - a new learning theory.
 
Key foundations:
- Learners move across a variety of unrelated professional fields over their career lifetime
- Informal learning is a significant aspect of our learning experience (formal eduacation provides the minority). CoPs, personal networks and work-related teaks are more important sources.
- Learning is a continual process, and is not separate from working – they are the same!
- The tools we use define and shape our thinking - Well I agree that they make us devote our thinking effort proportionally to different activities.
- Information storage and processing processes can now be off-loaded or supported by technology
- Where to find info is a critical skill
 
I broadly agree with Driscoll's (2000) definition of leraning: 'a persisting change in human performance or performance potential... [which] must come about as a result of the learner's experience and interaction with te world'
 
I see the following as a continuum:
1) Objectivism (similar to behaviouralism) reality is external and objective. Knowledge gained through experiences
2) Pragmatism (similar to cognitivism) reality is interpreted. Knowledge is negotiated through experience and thinking
3) Interpretivism (similar to constructivism) reality is internal. Knowledge is constructed.
 
Similar to Poppers (?) "theory - empirical evidence continnum". If we cannot experience without interpreting external things. Learning is a product of both processes. However, I can conceive that some learning might fall toward one end of the continuum. For example, learning about an abstract scientific theory, might involve more objectivism. Something more personal to you, and subjective, might be more interpretive. I tentatively put forward an argument that in the more messy work situations we find ourselves in, more decision making, and therefore associated learning, falls toward the interpretive end.
 
Question - is one end of this continuum, more than the other, associated with innovation?
 
Principles for connectivism
*       Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.
*       Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.
*       Learning may reside in non-human appliances.
*       Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known
*       Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.
*       Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.
*       Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities.
*       Decision-making is itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the decision.

 


What I think is important about Constructivism:

Constructivism raises 2 important considerations to existing learning theories:
1) There is more cognitive effort of the individual put into a process of evauating whether knowledge is worth acquiring, before expending effort to learn it.
2) The skill in making connections and synthesising different bits of knowledge has become more important where there is easy access to vast quantities of it.
 
In these ways, I do believe that elearning has a difference balance of learner activities than other forms of learning.

Reflection point - How did I decide this course was worth doing?
- I think I wanted people input - I wanted connectivity. Did I subconsiously realise that this was valuable?
 
 
Connectivism says that we expand our access to experiences (though second hand access to other peoples' experiences) though technology. Our connections are surrogates for our knowledge. Karen Stephenson's quote
"Experience has long been considered the best teacher of knowledge. Since we cannot experience everything, other people's experiences, and hence other people, become the surrogate for knowledge. 'I store my knowledge in my friends' is an axiom for collecting knowledge through collecting people (undated)."
 
Connectivism als talks about an issue of organisational learning. I think there is an issue of the asynchronous timing of planning, learning and decision-making activities, and our difficulties in making these work effectively in organisations. The actors in each of these processes are not weakly tied. Often they are not tied at all!
 

 
Most useful bit of this theory for my own professional context:  Connectivism talks about creating the optimal flow of knowledge through an organisation via interdependence and weak ties. Perhaps this is a good model for what training organisations should
provide:
*       An infrastrucure that supports interdepence and weak ties
*       Supports the development of skills to navigate
*       Supports the connectivity of ideas and individual nodes
*       Makes special effort to connect large scale diverse knowledge areas with small ones (perhaps work-based communities of practice)
 
The above should lead to an amplification of relevant learning!
Design of learning implications

References:

Driscoll, M. (2000) Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Needham Heights, MA, Allyn & Bacon

Stephenson, K., (Internal Communication, no.36) What Knowledge Tears Apart, Networks Make Whole. Retrieved December 10, 2004 from http://www.netform.com/html/icf.pdf

Seimens, G. (2004) Connetivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age

Permalink
Share post

Continuing the journey toward an elearning theory

Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Sharif Al-Rousi, Monday, 18 Mar 2013, 16:43

Post in response to H817 activity 10: Nichols (2003) A theory for elearning

Hypothesis 1: elearning is a means of education, not a mode. It can compliment different learning systems and philosophies.  I agree this is a helpful position to take, though I do think that there is a new type of learning ecosystem that operates in wholly online learning. However, as elearning encompasses more than just online learning I am happy with this position.

Hypothesis 2: elearning enables unique forms of education that fit within both face-to-face and distance learning paradigms.   The bit about this I agree with is that it changes the role of the instructor facilitator. There are new channels of communication that need to be mastered, and skills developed to achieve that.

Hypothesis 3: Choice of elearning tools should reflect rather than determine the pedagogy of a course.  As a general position I agree with this, I do think that the way in which technology enhances the learning is more important than the technology per se, with the following exception: some learners are excited and motivated by a particular technology. For example, my son, 8 years old, was far more excited by doing his times tables through a simulation game on a PC. Partly this was due to it being a game, but partly it was due to wanting to have a go with the PC.

Hypothesis 4: elearning advances primarily through the successful implementation of pedagogical innovation  I really want to agree with this, though I would add the caveat that there needs to be an inquisitiveness and curiosity about technology, as lots of people, learners and instructors have internal barriers to using technology, which will act as a drag on any potential innovative capability.

That’s is my intuitive reaction. However, I suppose we ought to judge this on the evidence we have gathered through our case studies to date. In that case, I don’t think I would agree. Things like Cloudworks, and the Personal Inquiry study (using mobile technology to expand the classroom) appear to have been primarily driven (at an early stage anyway) by a desire to explore the potential of a new technology. In other-words, the ‘build it and they will come’ approach does seem to have worked, and that conscious design has perhaps been ‘retro-fitted’ as patterns of use and user behaviour have settled over time.

Hypothesis 5: elearning can be used in two major ways: presenting content and facilitating the education process.  I agree, but if you want to be pedantic I would add that you can use it to construct (and co-construct) new content. I suppose you could consider that an overlap of the two.

Hypothesis 6: elearning tools are best made to operate within a carefully selected and optimally integrated course design model  In other words – you need to make sure that the selected tools are going to work. This could be a cultural or workflow issue. On a course I have worked on, the online forums were never used as the learners all found they could interact to the level they wished to via email, without the distraction of logging onto another system.

Critique: The ‘build it and they will come’ approach does seem to have had some traction, in contrast to Nichols’ (2003) assertion that it hasn’t, although to be fair, the examples that seem to falsify this statement (Cloudworks, Personal Inquiry study) do post-date his work. It could be that times have just change – and probably more importantly has both instructors’ and learners’ willingness to experiment, and level of comfort with the technologies.

Hypothesis 7: elearning tools and techniques should be used only after consideration to online v offline tradeoffs  A lot of this section is quite old – considering it is talking dial-up and the inability to deliver video online, which is obviously no longer the case. Saying that, I think this is a legitimate point as there is very different access to different technologies across the globe. For example, Digital Study Hall plumped for CD-Rom over online video transfer, because it was less problematic.

Hypothesis 8: Considering end-user behaviour and engagement  Absolutely vital I think – this is a principle of service design, and I think instructional design overlaps a lot here. Probably even more important, as in a live, face-to-face environment, instructors can modify their delivery style, which is removed because you are communicating through a ‘third party’ of a technological portal.

Hypothesis 9: Development of the learner in the context of a curriculum does not change when elearning is applied.   This certainly works for an institutional or a business training model – there is a need to judge outcomes, ultimately in a ROI (return on investment) mindset.

Hypothesis 10: Only pedagogical advantages will provide a lasting rationale for implementing elearning approaches  Given what I’ve said earlier, in relation to point 6, I don’t think this is a reality. There will be certain amount of pedagogical retrofitting or pedagogical redesign for elearning approaches introduced for other reasons.

Permalink
Share post

This blog might contain posts that are only visible to logged-in users, or where only logged-in users can comment. If you have an account on the system, please log in for full access.

Total visits to this blog: 230286