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: 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.

CCK08 Network Metaphors and Week Three Recap

Week 3 of the CCK08 Connectivism course focused on networks. The metaphors and analogies have been flying in the forums, blogs, and chat rooms in Elluminate and UStream sessions. This is another example of how we, as humans, find meaning in confusion. We make connections with ideas and concepts we already know, comparisons that fit within the established schema.

George Seimens explains, "Knowledge is distributed. Learning is the process of creating networks. This is increasingly aided by technology." George posed a question this week, "If a network structure is a foundation of learning, are our education systems designed to appropriately take advantage of networking opportunities?" A number of course participants have asked for practical applications of connectivism theory. I long for that myself, but I'm beginning to realize that we're putting the cart before the horse. It's a lot easier to observe a highly functioning networked learning environment or situation than it is to create one. Though many early adopters are trying. Newer web applications such as Nings and wikis offer some structure for networked communities. But, it's still quite messy. I'm increasingly challenged to sift through the networking opportunities that come along each day, especially as someone working in the educational technology field. I personally belong to a Powerful Learning Practice Ning, an NAIS Teacher of the Future social network, a Florida Master Digital Educator's Ning, a University of Florida Department of Ed Tech Wiki, student AP Human Geography Wiki, student Great Debate 2008 Ning, K12 Online wiki, and the connectivism course. These are just the ones in which I'm supposed to be currently active.

This is not a complaint. Nor, am I trying to win the most-networked teacher award. I'm actually trying to embrace the cognitive dissonance that is the result of my immersion in this 24/7 connectedness. On the one hand, I'm picking up tidbits of useful knowledge that greatly enhance my research and pique my curiousity. I also hope that I'm sharing useful information with others. On the other hand, I'm losing a lot of sleep and feeling extremely disjointed in my participation in these networks. So, if I exist as a single node within all of these networks, what is my value to the network? Would I be of greater value in one network to which I could devote a greater amount of my thought processing? Or, am I of some value in each of these networks? Furthermore, do I personally get more out of full participation in one network - or disjointed participation in many?

Back to George's question. My answer today is.. we won't be equipped to design a system that supports networked learning until we understand it much better than we do now. It may even require us to rethink our definitions of learning, structure, scaffolding, and other concepts we relate to a learning environment. Rather than teaching students how to learn, we may have to teach them how to effectively manage learning. We don't do a good job of that, even in our current system.