Week 7   Engagement activity #2

Some findings and thoughts about Connectivism

According to George Siemens (2004), the last 20 years has seen technology reorganise how we live, communicate and learn.  Siemens posits that the classical learning theories – behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism, have a central tenet where learning occurs inside a person. He goes on to suggest that “these theories do not address learning that occurs outside of people … and fail to describe how learning happens within organisations” (Siemens, 2004).

Siemens  (2004) concludes by suggesting that connectivism presents a model of learning that recognises huge changes in society where learning is no longer an “internal, individualistic activity”. This change has seemingly occurred because using new technological tools influences how people work and function (Siemens, 2004).

Kop and Hill (2008) critically analysed connectivism within the context of previous learning theories and concluded that connectivism will “…continue to play an important role in the development and emergence of new pedagogies”, however they do not warrant it being treated as a separate learning theory . This was supported by Kerr (Kop & Hill, 2008 after Kerr 2007) who suggested that existing theories already address learning requirements in today’s “technologically connected age”.

Supporters of connectivism purport a model of learning based on the importance of online networks. It is interesting to note that although language is ubiquitous and not always noticed, it too could be regarded as an important existing network (Kop & Hill, 2008).

I think the diagram presenting the alignment of epistemological and learning frameworks (Kop & Hill, 2008 Figure 1) is very useful for contextualizing the suggested new theory and the three universally accepted ones. The question begs – does the concept of ‘distributed knowledge’ stack up to be a learning theory when aligned with objectivism, pragmatism and interpretivism?

Bates (Kop & Hill, 2008 Figure 1) maintains that “a connectivist view of knowledge is where the nature of knowledge is radically transformed by the technology of the internet”. Bates agrees that Siemens’s work on connectivism has profound implications for teaching and learning, however regards it as more of an epistemology or view of the nature of knowledge, rather than a theory of teaching.

The phrase often used with the term connectivism is ‘ a learning theory for the digital age ("Connectivism," nd). This illustrates the effect technology has on contemporary society – how we live, communicate and learn and in turn why some believe connectivism should be a new theory of learning.

List of references

Connectivism. (nd).   Retrieved 27 April, 2014, from 20 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectivism>

Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9 (3), 8.

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age.   Retrieved 8 April 2014, from 7 http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

WEEK 7

Engagement activity

Does elearning require a new theory of learning? Some initial thoughts.

Andrews (2011) presents a paper arguing that elearning requires a new theory of learning. Some definitions will assist to provide context for the purposes of my response…

Definitions

Theory

According to the CQU Study Guide (Central Queensland University, 2014), theory may be defined as:

1.     an explanatory function with ability to account for or explain phenomenon

2.     ability to be stated in terms of propositions and concepts

3.     ability to be tested repeatedly through hypothesis and investigation.

Learning

Gaining knowledge or skill by studying, practicing, being taught, or experiencing something[1]

Knowledge

Information, understanding, skill that you get from experience or education, influenced by cognition, emotion, environment and prior experience[2]

Learning theories

Conceptual frameworks that describe how information is absorbed, processed and retained during learning[3]

Pedagogy

Presenting content via learning strategies connecting with cognitive process[4]

Interaction

“Reciprocal events that require at least two actions; interactions occur when these objects and events mutually influence on another” (Anderson, 2008, p. 43 after Wagner, 1994)

Key concepts from Andrews’ paper as they relate to my teaching context in the health milieu.

Key concepts	As they relate to my teaching context
Learning and technology are reciprocally co-evolutionary (Andrews, 2011)	I do not see this concept as necessarily true as applied to my teaching context. A learner who becomes more au fait with the technology does not always learn more effectively. As mentioned in the paper, ‘technology can interfere with learning’ (Andrews, 2011, p. 107)
Transactional distance (Andrews, 2011 after Moore, 1997) where f2f con-presence is compensated by more extensive and busier electronic networking. – focus on learner autonomy	This concept relates to my teaching context – this encourages co-learning processes where the learner can self-direct the topic. This is particularly pertinent to senior clinicians who seek refresher opportunities of their own volition, for example.
Communal constructivism (Andrews, 2011 after Holmes & Gardner, 2006) Development from behaviourism to cognitive constructivism to socio-constructivism to communal constructivism	I don’t think this trend has quite evolved to communal constructivism as the norm in my context. There are many instances where teaching models are still based on behaviourism; for example, mandatory training and other drill and practice programs.  However, socio-constructivism including for example, problem based learning scenarios for clinicians is often practiced.
Learning informed multimodally (Andrews, 2011 after Jewitt, 2008) – may be manifested in the productions of learners – evidence of learning? – available as publicly shared archives of interaction	Applicable in my context in the production of databases of clinical information for example for practicing clinicians.
Transformation – process of inward meaning making and the resultant change to the state of an inner semiotic resource – learning transforms a person’s state of mind or knowledge (Andrews, 2011 after Kress, 2003)	Transformational learning is described as frame-changing learning (ie cognitive, emotional and value-based frameworks). This type of learning may occur when a new clinical technique is introduced for example – this would best be delivered by a clinician renowned in that particular field
Internet use – skill alone does not determine competency, it requires a strong sense of internet efficacy allowing users to adapt to the requirements of the online milieu (Anderson, 2008, p. 36 after Eastin & LaRose, 2000)	This definitely applies to my teaching context. For example, there are 24,000+ nurses in our organisation and more than half are > 50yrs old. Many are not au fait with computer technology however, this should not preclude them from becoming users and engage in learning experiences online.
Internet has enabled a new system of relationships based on the individual (Andrews, 2008, after Castells, 2001). Interaction: communication technologies are used to enhance interaction between all participants in the educational transaction (Anderson, 2008, p. 43 after Wagner, 1994)	This is applicable to my context. A lot of interaction occurs with other health organisations around the world experiencing similar challenges to us. This encourages new relationships through special interest groups and affiliations with tertiary education networks.
Limited access and decreased broadband connectivity may result in some learners being disadvantaged (Andrews, 2008)	Our rural staff engaging in professional development opportunities certainly face this dilemma on a daily basis. As access and broadband improve, this is becoming less of a problem, but it is still challenging for some. We work around this by sending out USBs, DVDs, as a starter.
Andrews (2011) …print based cultures had given the false impression that learning was static once ‘enshrined’ in print	Can not agree with this – unless references or sources are checked, it is naïve to believe that the knowledge is enshrined just because it is in print
Andrews (2011) argues that elearning changes the nature of learning…	Can’t agree – I support Mayes and de Freitas’s findings where they suggest powerful new learning opportunities are being facilitated in a new way through the internet, however they are a new model of education rather than a new model of learning (Mayes & de Freitas, 2011)

Does elearning require a new theory of learning?  Is there sufficient, in your opinion, to identify a separate theory of elearning?

My investigations on this topic to date suggest that elearning does not require a new theory of learning and that it is an extension and application of contemporary learning theories. 

Some initial thoughts…

I agree with Bates (2011, p. 22) where he rejects the notion that elearning tools will revolutionise education because many learners require structure and guidance.

I also agree with Mayes and de Freitas’ (2011, p. 20) approach where they suggest it is possible to view the three differing perspectives they mention in their paper (associationist, cognitive and situative) as all integral to learning. The perspectives described present “different aspects of the progression towards mastery of knowledge or skill. Each is associated with a particular kind of pedagogy and each is capable of being enhanced through elearning”.

Findings have shown that we have changed from an era of shortage and restriction in content to one where content resources are so large that filtering and reducing choice is as important as providing sufficient content (Anderson, 2008, p. 41). It follows that “education is not only about access to content, it includes the profound and multifaceted increase in communication and interaction capability it provides” (Anderson, 2008, p. 42).

From what I have read to date, I am not convinced that elearning is anything more than a tool for learning, similar to the introduction and availability of libraries in times gone by. Elearning allows improved access to information primarily, closely followed by an explosion of applications of the various technologies available.

I acknowledge that there is much more to be investigated and reflected upon before I can say with conviction that there is no requirement for elearning to have a new theory of learning…

List of references

Anderson, T. (2008). Toward a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), Theory and practice of online learning (pp. 33-60). Edmonton, Canada: Athabasca University Press.

Andrews, R. (2011). Does e-learning require a new theory of learning? Some initial thoughts. Journal for Educational Research Online, 3(1), 104-121.

Bates, T. (2011). Understanding web 2.0 and its implications for E-Learning. In K. Klinger (Ed.), Web 2.0 based E-Learning: Applying social informatices for tertiary teaching (pp. 21-42). Hershey New York: Information Science Reference.

Central Queensland University. (2014). Learning theory in the digital age: Graduate Certificate in elearning: Central Queensland University. Retrieved from 15 <cqu.edu.au>.

Mayes, T., & de Freitas, S. (2011). Learning and e-learning: The role of theory. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy in the digital age (pp. 13-25). London: Routledge.

---

[1] Merriam-Webster Online <www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/> viewed 27 April 2014

[2] Merriam-Webster Online <www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/> viewed 27 April 2014

[3] <en.wikipedia.org/Learning_theory_(education)> viewed 28 March 2014

[4] <youtube.com> Dr Sonwalker Nish- What is pedagogy; viewed 27 April 2014