CCK08-Connectivism: Networked Student...The Movie

YouTube version for sharing
(Please share, reuse, redistribute, especially with administrators, teachers, and parents.)

As a grand finale for the Connectivism course, George asked participants to respond to the following questions:

1. What is the quality of my learning networks: diversity, depth, how connected am I?
   
2. How has this course influence my view of the process of learning (assuming, of course, that it has)?
   
3. What types of questions are still outstanding?
   
4. How can you incorporate connectivist principles in your design and delivery of learning?

Questions 2 and 4 are addressed in the video above. The presented scenario is definitely not a complete picture of connectivism. I think it's a good start for a k12 classroom. I view the work with my students as networked learning incubation.

I had great fun creating this video. My 15 year old son, Alex, helped with the artwork and voice over. My high school students are currently working on the project that is highlighted in the video. I owe a big thank you to Lee LeFever of CommonCraft. He kindly gave me permission to use the "Plain English" format for my project. I absolutely love the brilliant simplicity of his work.

I sincerely hope that other teachers will use the video to help colleagues, parents, and students understand the potential of networked learning.


On to questions 1 and 3...
I managed a fairly robust learning network prior to taking the connectivism course. But, I believe I'm taking a more thoughtful approach as a result of this experience. I'm reaching out to those with whom I already have a professional relationship, building new contacts, and trying harder to seek out points of view that differ from mine. I hope that the visibility of CCK08 will facilitate more research and testing of Connectivism as a theory of learning. The biggest question in my mind is whether the theory is powerful enough to have a real impact on main stream education. I see a lot of potential obstacles, especially with younger children. I'm also contemplating the best strategy for strengthening network ties and developing deeper professional contacts for learning and sharing.

CCK08-Changing Space and Structure

Everything is connected. I find the day-to-day connectedness of life interesting. Think about it. You give your child a unique name. First time at a birthday party, two other kids have the same name. You buy a new car and run into identical models everywhere. You learn a new word and suddenly the whole world is using it, too. It's not that these things didn't exist before. You just weren't paying attention. This happens to me again and again in my personal network, tiny coincidences that really aren't coincidence at all. Such experiences are actually the unveiling of connections that reflect those moments where our paths intersect. I recently blogged about Scott McLeod's perception of Clayton Christensen's concept of disruptive innovation. (See the bread crumb trail here?) To my surprise, it appeared again in this week's CCK08 readings. Knowledge diffuses like a forest fire, moving in numerous directions, sometimes jumping roads to burn a whole new path.

Schools, by their structure, contain the fire. Closed classrooms contain knowledge by limiting access to available information, investing everything in the one teacher/one text model, and bureaucratizing the system in the name of accountability, thus making change nearly impossible. It is perfectly clear to me that changing the educational system will require a whole new paradigm of structure and space.

What will this new space look like? Will all learning take place online, or will we build blended connected environments that include small meetings of face-t0-face participants? Will the innovations made possible by new technologies be powerful enough to change an educational system that has managed to survive virtually all past technological advancements since the pencil? Will some of us have to start from scratch with a whole new paradigm of learning space? The chances of making that happen within the current physical structure appear bleak, at best.

CCK08-Connectivism, Disruptive Innovation, and the Long Tail

Paper #3
In this reflection, I offer a personal perspective on connectivism concepts addressed in the past ten weeks. Three major components drove my learning experience. Instructors, George Siemens and Stephen Downes provided a solid foundation of theory and concepts. Colleagues in the course and those who have blogged in the past brought unique perspectives to the content. My personal journey through blogs, online video presentations, podcasts, synchronous meetings, various articles and relationships with colleagues and students further constructed my connective knowledge.

As a result, I see opportunities for education, especially in helping students build personal learning networks that will serve them in all learning endeavors. While the connectivism that George and Stephen envision is often spontaneous and self-directed, I believe students can initially benefit from a more organized approach. Once the foundation is built, independent learning will thrive.

The challenge lies in making this possible for all students, from elementary through higher education. New technologies with connective network potential are released on a near daily basis. Yet, few teachers take advantage of the most basic benefits of network technology such as Internet search and research strategies.

Why is it so difficult to change the practice of education?
I recently listened to the 21st Century Learning Podcast, Dr. Scott McLeod on Disruptive Innovation and the future of K12 Education. Scott compares schools to the corporations in Clayton Christensen’s Innovator’s Dilemma (1997). Christensen’s basic premise is that “time and time again almost all the organizations that have ‘died’ or been displaced from their industries (because of a new paradigm of customer offering) could see the disruption coming, but did nothing until it was too late” (12 Manage, 2008, pg. 1). Basically, corporations are not able to handle disruptive innovation from within. Such innovation is only possible through completely new business models or off-shoots of the business with autonomous management. The sober implication for schools is that existing systems are so entrenched in bureaucracies of current practice that they are not likely to change. Those of us who are trying to innovate from within are basically banging our heads against the wall. On the other hand, online, connected learning may provide opportunities to disengage from the institution of school as we know it.

What kinds of opportunities can we embrace if we are able to make fundamental and systemic changes?

We must rethink school, structure, and power. School is not necessarily textbooks, and standardized testing. It doesn’t have to be a brick building, six or seven periods a day, and desks in rows. Teachers do not have to control the learning process. If we empower the learner and provide him or her with the resources necessary to embark on effective connective journeys, we’ll have a vehicle for innovation.

What can we learn from voices of resistance?
Resistance is good. Any new theory, or idea for that matter, needs vetting to fully develop and improve. Open-minded skepticism is healthy because it encourages creativity. There will be those who never change. However, our response to their arguments adds to the foundation on which we build a solid learning network. Learning may look different in a connective environment, but some traditional learning principles may be valid in certain circumstances. Resistance will help us evaluate those pedagogies and how they apply.

I see our current world of weak ties and easy connections as the long tail of learning. John Seeley Brown suggests, “the challenge of 21st century education will be leveraging the abundant resources of the web – this very long tail of interests – into a “circle of knowledge-building and sharing” (Brown, 2007). Success will depend on our ability to change our role from all-knowing teacher to network learning guide.

Brown, J. (2007, January 30). MIT World » : Relearning Learning-Applying the Long Tail to Learning. Retrieved November 17, 2008, from http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/419/.

Christensen, C. (1997). Innovator's Dilemma: Introduction: (Why Companies Need to Understand and Manage the Forces of Disruptive Innovation). New York: Harvard Business School Press.

Christensen, C. (2008, November 8). Disruptive Innovation (Christensen). Retrieved November 17, 2008, from http://www.12manage.com/methods_christensen_disruptive_innovation.html.

Ragone, A. (2008, November 14). 21st Century Learning #84: Dr. Scott McLeod on Disruptive Innovation and the Future of K12 Education | EdTechTalk. Retrieved November 17, 2008, from http://edtechtalk.com/21cl_84.

CCK08: I've Had an Ephiphany about emergent learning

I've had an ephiphany...an "aha" moment...I've experienced emergent learning!

(Then, again. I could be wrong. It's impossible to predict.)

People tell me that uncertainty comes with age. I have to admit I see less black and white in the world these days and a whole lot more gray. I continually marvel at the human need to simplify extremely complex ideas. We are always looking for that one cause to explain an issue or problem (e.g. cancer, economic collapse, student failure in school, poverty). The reality is that all of these problems are the result of complex systems. Therefore, cause is difficult to determine because it is the result of the interaction of many variables. We have to consider alternative conceptions of causality. In other words, prediction is uncertain, difficult, maybe impossible. (Phelps, 2003) The cause may turn out to be a system in and of itself. For example, cancer in one individual may be the result of a combination of genetic inheritance, exposure to a combination of environmental chemicals, and the complexities of diet. Removal of any one of those variable MAY decrease the risk, but which one? Are they all dependent upon each other? At this point that is impossible to predict.

How can we extend this concept to learning?
Can we even create specific learning objectives within a framework of complexity? (Framework of complexity...Is that an oxymoron?) Phelps points out that real life is not ordered or structured, but I submit that's the reason we humans try so hard to put structure and order around it. Order facilitates our understanding. If we took Phelps' study to the next level, we might find that students learn more from a free, open, complex content environment. But, I wonder if we would also find (as I am experiencing with this course) a motivation to impose our own individual structure around the chaos. So, maybe it's not about a lack of structure, but more about who's imposing the structure. Do we learn from artificially imposed structure conceived by the teacher, or self-imposed structure that meets our unique individual learning needs? How can teachers help students build those individual learning structures? Is that possible or practical?

CCK08: Groups versus Networks - What's the difference?

This week in Connectivism Stephen Downes and George Siemens differentiate between groups and networks. When I first started to consider connectivism as a learning theory, I had difficulty separating these two ideas. I wondered how connectivism was any different than cooperative learning with technology. A simplistic view, I know. But, playing devil's advocate in my own mind, I couldn't immediately see enough differences to warrant a brand new theory of learning. That changed for me somewhat over the past weeks and more so this week.

A few key concepts associated with groups and networks really clarify the differences.

Groups
Unity
Value
Closed
Limits
Distributive
Unequal

Networks
Connections
Diversity
Autonomy
Open
Distributed
Equal


Connectivism is about networked learning. This doesn't mean that groups won't form within networks. It just means that connective learning in it's most powerful sense has the characteristics on the right side of this concept map. Those characteristics are what differentiates groups from networks and connectivism from other learning theories.

Just one question...
I'm grappling with the notion that networks are like ecosystems. When I think of an ecosystem, I think of critical dependencies whereby the ecosystem fails when one component fails. Yet in a complex network, a node could theoretically disappear without causing major impact to the network. Again, I'm getting caught up in metaphors when I should be thrilled that all of this is starting to make a lot more sense to me.

CCK08: What is Connectivism? A position based on 4 weeks in CCK08, an open Connectivism Course

A New Theory of Learning?
The Internet, interactive social gaming, and Web applications designed to facilitate social participation have created a new environment for collaborating and learning. Humans adapt to their environment. “Learning is influenced in fundamental ways by the context in which it takes place” (Bransford et al, 2000, pg. 25). Connectivism seeks to understand learning within this relatively new, technology-enhanced context. “The concept of emergent, connected, and adaptive knowledge provides the epistemological framework for connectivism (Siemens, 2005) as a learning theory. Connectivism posits that knowledge is distributed across networks and the act of learning is largely one of forming a diverse network of connections and recognizing attendant patterns (Siemens, 2006)” (as quoted by Siemens, 2008, pg. 10).

Discussion continues in the scholarly and online blogging community over whether Connectivism is a new theory of learning. To answer that, we have to determine what constitutes a learning theory versus an idea or principle of learning. In Human Learning, Jeanne Ellis Ormrod differentiates between principles and theories. “Theories of learning provide explanations about the underlying mechanisms involved in learning. Whereas principles tell us what factors are important for learning, theories tell us why these factors are important” (Ormrod, 2008, pg. 5-6). Ormrod further identifies 4 advantages of theories. Theories summarize results of many research studies, provide starting points for conducting new research, help make sense of research findings, and ultimately help us design learning environments that facilitate human learning (Ormrod, 2008, p. 7).

Based on these views of learning theory, I submit that Connectivism is in its theoretical infancy. It is built on existing theories of behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism (Siemens, 2005). However, Connectivism is differentiated by new requirements for learning that are evolving in the digital information age. We’re in the middle of this evolution. Therefore, more observation and scholarly research studies are required before we can effectively apply this theory to instructional design. These are exciting times. All who are participating in this exploration of Connectivism are directly involved in the process of establishing Connectivism as a valid theory of learning.


Strengths and Weaknesses
The strength of connectivism is in its ability to explore and consider learning in a complex networked environment. There is powerful learning potential in a network where learning can reside outside the individual at the same time providing limitless access to further learning opportunities for each participant.

The weakness of Connectivism as a theory of learning is in practical application. Consider the concepts of chaos and self-organization, chaos, the “connection of everything to everything” (Siemens, 2005) and self organization, “the spontaneous formation of well organized structures, patterns, or behaviors from random initial conditions” (Rocha, 1998, p. 3). We can observe complex connections of everything to everything. We can observe random initial conditions after they occur. Unfortunately, we can’t effectively recreate them. (Unless we have access to large numbers of people to pull together for a common cause as with the 2000 participants in this class.) Therefore, how do we apply this theory of learning to design? Furthermore, how can we help practitioners fully grasp the theory in such a way as to consider the possibility that they won’t be able to control learning in the same way they have in the past. The implications to education must be explored further.

Personal Perspective
Connectivism resonates with my past learning experience in that I’ve come to personally value the power of networked learning. I was an independent, introverted learner throughout my formal education until the last few years of graduate school. I did not like group work primarily because I disliked the dependence on others to get work done. The distribution of work was never well balanced. Someone always ended up with more of the burden and it was often me, not because I was so intelligent, but because I just wanted to get the work done.

It has only been in the past few years, as I have seen the emergence of online networks, that I’ve come to understand the power of connections and collective intelligence. I’ve decided that networked learning doesn’t take place as effectively in a small group setting. Technology provides a means to network with a much larger population. People can contribute at all different levels of participation without adversely impacting others who seek to learn from the network. The larger the number of participators or subnetworks, the less important an individual level of participation becomes. The smaller the network, the more motivation and forced participation come into play. I’m currently involved in a number of 21st Century learning initiatives that require my participation in a Ning. On the one hand, it’s a great way to connect with other members of the group. On the other hand, contributions often seem forced or contrived. I resent (though I understand) the requirement to contribute when I don’t necessarily have anything I feel compelled to add to the conversation.

I believe that the bigger challenge for educators and instructional designers will be to figure out how to tap into or create larger networks for learning. I think that individuals will have to build their own personal learning networks based on unique needs and desires. Educators will become facilitators who help individuals navigate these large networks and organize content in a manner that best meets the learner’s unique needs.

Outstanding Questions
Connectivism is a theory in progress. As I practitioner, I’m continuously tempted to apply the theory to my personal practice. As a researcher, I understand why we’re not quite ready to make those leaps. At the same time, reflecting on possible practical applications helps practitioners grasp the theory. It might also identify areas where further research is needed. Questions I continue to ponder include:
• Is there an optimal size for a learning network?
• Are individual motivation, participation, level of expertise, and level of contribution dependent factors?
• How can teachers make the best use of existing networks and facilitate the organizational challenges for student participation?
• Is it possible to design an effective learning network? Should we even try?
• If Connectivism is a learning theory, we must presume that individuals are learning in this environment. What are the implications for future research and how do we design effective studies to address these implications?
• What are the roles of individuals in a learning network? Are the values of each role different? What is the implication if one or more of these roles are not fulfilled?


References

Bransford, J. et. al. (2000). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Ormrod, J. (2007). Human Learning (5th Edition). Alexandria, VA: Prentice Hall.

Rocha, L. M. (1998). Selected Self-Organization and the Semiotics of Evolutionary Systems. Retrieved October 4, 2008 from http://informatics.indiana.edu/rocha/ises.html.

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for a digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved October 4, 2008, from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm

Siemens, G. (2008). Presented to ITFORUM for discussion on January 27, 2008. Retrieved from http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:zSoDQHEjB3QJ:it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/Paper105/Siemens.pdf+george+siemens+learning+is+distributed+within+a+network&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a October 4, 2008.

Connective Knowledge CCK08

Connective Knowledge is this week's focus in CCK08. George Siemens' book, Knowing Knowledge (included in my summer reading) provides a good foundation for this week's discussions. A few course members are already contemplating the difference between knowledge and information. From a conceptual point of view, I see value in differentiating between

• Information
• Knowledge
• Learning
• Education

As these are English words, I don't want to get caught up in semantics. The differences are subtle, but important to note. The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition is italicized with my comments below.

Information
1: the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence2 a (1): knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction

Webster uses the words "communication" and "knowledge" in the definition for information. I would argue that information exists without necessary communication. Information is everywhere, not necessarily communicated. In some cases, it just is.

Knowledge
1 obsolete : cognizance 2 a (1): the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2): acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b (1): the fact or condition of being aware of something (2): the range of one's information or understanding knowledge

Knowledge is a noun, but attaining it requires action, either passive or active on the part of the one acquiring it. Note the phrase "through experience", "being aware", "understanding".

Learning
1 : the act or experience of one that learns 2 : knowledge or skill acquired by instruction or study 3 : modification of a behavioral tendency by experience (as exposure to conditioning)

Learning is the action. It is what happens as one acquires knowledge.

Education
1 a: the action or process of educating or of being educated ; also : a stage of such a process b: the knowledge and development resulting from an educational process education>

A favorite quote of mine: Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school.
- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
I digress. Seriously, Education is what exists after exposure to information, acquisition of knowledge, and the learning process take place. Education is dynamic and continuous. It is constantly being constructed or built upon.

This is where it is important to differentiate between an individual's experience within a networked learning community and the overall group experience or contribution. One person may contribute a lot of content or very little. Another may learn extensively from that content, or barely skim the surface.

From an individual's perspective within a networked learning environment, varying levels of knowledge may be negotiated and/or acquired. I'm going to use the Teach Web 2.0 Wiki as an example of networked learning because I'm close to it. But, I believe that this is a simplistic view compared to the connected learning going on in CCK08 where numerous tools are being used at once.

One of the frustrations of the Teach Web 2.0 design is getting participants to move beyond information gathering to application, synthesis, and evaluation of content (Blooms Taxonomy, 1956). Arguably, this transition must take place for deeper learning to occur. Information is the low hanging fruit in a learning network. People are happy cutting and pasting, moving content from one location to another. But, is that really learning? Is than even knowledge? The Teach Web 2.0 wiki was designed to encourage participants to evaluate Web applications and their potential value to teaching and learning. However, few contribute at this level without guidance. There's a much greater commitment of time and thought processing required to participate in this way. It's very easy to list a new tool, much harder to assess and articulate how to use it effectively.

I see a similar circumstance within the CCK08 community. Many are in the discussion forums typing a paragraph or so. Others offer drive by praise or criticisms. Still others pop in for Elluminate or UStream sessions. How many are diving into all of these things while closely digesting the readings and trying to offer new perspectives? I want to be in that last category, but time is an enemy.

I'm very interested in understanding connectivism from an instructional design and learner role perspective. How do we move from information collection to knowledge construction? I wonder if we'll skim this topic when we look at power, control, validity, and authority in week 8?

Learning can be painful and very messy

Thank you George, for your comments to my "disconnectivism" blog post. Now that I've had the chance to vent some of my frustration, I should clarify. While following the discussion has been overwhelming and at times (I REALLY hate to admit this) intimidating, I feel extremely fortunate to be part of the process. I appreciate Andreas' Walk in the Woods analogy and Stephen's reflection that "people want to cover the entire subject in the first five days". It's clear that the discomfort stems from trying to make sense of a complex environment. It almost feels like I'm personally experiencing every learning theory to which I have been exposed in my educational graduate work. Learning can be painful, confusing, and very messy. In this case, I see that as a positive.

So far, this has been one of the most intriguing and personally enlightening learning experiences I have encountered. I'm now mentally prepared for week two. :-)

Connectivism or Disconnectivism

My head hurts. It is day 5 of the connectivism course, and I have more disconnects than connects. I've been reading through the Moodle forums, specifically the skeptic thread. I strongly support challenging discourse and disagreement. However, I'm frustrated by the human tendency to over-simplify complex concepts and ideas. It's even more frustrating because I can't adamantly disagree with anyone at this point. All of the arguments have merit. I'm questioning everything - my educational philosophy, my profession, even the name of my blog and wiki.

The skeptic discussion thread includes a number of Web 2.0 criticisms. We tend to put every new web-related technology under the Web 2.0 umbrella. That's a mistake. I want to strike out the "Web 2.0" in my blog and just leave "Teach". At the same time, some of the so-called Web 2.0 tools have significant educational potential. Those of us who live in educational technology must continually remind ourselves that many of our colleagues do not. There has to be some guidance to help teachers navigate emerging tools and differentiate between those that facilitate learning and those that don't. I do not apologize for that. The tools are especially important if we are able to harness them to manage complex learning environments. Why bother? For one thing, our current system of education is not working, at least not for everyone. More importantly, I've seen a flash of light and I'm curious.

Professional experience at IBM in a socially networked environment and countless online courses in my graduate program have given me glimpses of earth shattering learning events, moments when concepts, contributions of others, and epiphanies collide on multiple levels - monumental a-ha's. How do I replicate that for my own students? Is it even possible to create an environment conducive to those experiences, or does it happen just as randomly with the help of technology as it does in a face-to-face classroom? I'm not sure, but those brief moments are what I hope to capture. My interest in connectivism is rooted deeply in the quest for understanding those "connected" moments.

I see the tools of technology as future potential to manage those moments. We're not there yet. The contributions of over 2000 participants in this course are confusing, overwhelming, and uncomfortable. I have to keep walking away. Then again, they certainly have me thinking.

Motivation and Connectivism

My previous post asked the question...

Shouldn't motivation be included as an influencing factor in Connectivism?

With a little more time to think about this, I realize that we have to differentiate between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Stephen Downes post Connectivism and its Critics: What Connectivism is Not states that "learners are not managed through some sort of motivating process, and the amount of learning is not (solely or reliably) influenced by motivating behaviours (such as reward and punishment, say, or social engagement)."

Delliotthk (see comment to post below) related my motivation question to our system in Florida, in which 1/3 of students do not graduate, contemplating whether networked learning might be a motivator for these students. I think it might, but my gut feeling (for lack of the requisite knowledge to make a stronger assertion) is that connectivism does not address this type of external motivation. In other words, it does not encompass those things we do as teachers to get our students to care about the work and do it.

I would, however, argue that intrinsic motivation is an influencing factor in the quality of networked learning. I do not mean the motivation of individuals. I'm talking about the motivation that exists within some larger number of participants. Not much learning will take place if no one is motivated to contribute. This begs the question, how much learning takes place when the network includes just a few highly motivated participants versus large numbers of motivated participants? What about those who lurk, but do not contribute? The thought-provoking concept here is just how does learning take place within a connectivist framework? Isn't motivation a critical factor?

Connectivism and Connective Knowledge

I'm taking George Siemens' and Stephen Downes' open Connectivism and Connective Knowledge course through the University of Manitoba. My blog is coming back to life with thoughts and questions based on the experience. Hopefully, you will see a deeper understanding begin to evolve. George posted a number of supporting documents for review, one of which was a comparison chart that differentiates connectivism from various other learning theories. This is helpful as I am still trying to grasp the concept of connectivism.

A couple questions came to mind as I read through the comparison chart.

• If learning is distributed within a network, how do you centralize understanding? In other words, each participant only holds a piece of the complete puzzle.
  
• Are the tools that help put those pieces together the new tools of learning?
• Shouldn't motivation be included as an influencing factor? My personal experience with online learning communities is that levels of contribution vary greatly. Learning therefore depends on individual participants' motivation to support and contribute to the group.
  

More to come.