Connectivism: The (in)formal cohort and its implications in knowledge construction

Transcription

1 CONNECTIVISM: THE (IN)FORMAL COHORT 1 Connectivism: The (in)formal cohort and its implications in knowledge construction Donna Murdoch, Ed.D Candidate, Columbia University Teachers College Francesca Socolick, MA, New York University Jenna Murdoch, Barnard College, Columbia University

2 CONNECTIVISM: THE (IN)FORMAL COHORT 2 Connectivism: The (In)formal Cohort and its Implications in Knowledge Construction Introduction This paper examines connectivism within the context of both the digital technology infrastructure used and the question of whether or not we are offloading the process of meaningmaking. Connectivism may be further understood as the distribution of knowledge outside of the learner. We conclude with implications that call for further research, as there is a growing movement that reflects the increasing social applications of such learning environments. Design of Technology-Aided Learning Environments The ability to know what information is needed for a given task is critical to developing competency within a given domain. Active, learner-centered learning is the key component to supporting constructivist theories of learning. (Jonassen, 1999) Learning from doing thus far has been framed within the context of the individual; actions and decisions made by the learner. This type of learning environment places a large amount of responsibility upon the learner; a vast amount of knowledge must be constantly stored, retrieved, and evaluated. However, within the twenty-first century the rate of new information being developed is exponentially faster than it has been throughout the last twenty years. (Siemens, 2005) This information-gain is due largely in part to information-communication technologies (ICT) storing and communicating both new and old knowledge. Therefore, theories of learning for the twenty-first century need to be reflexive of the significant amount of information an individual might share between themselves, a computer, and the learning-relationship between these two systems. This is the basis for the constructivist-based learning theory of connectivism. (Siemens, 2005)

3 CONNECTIVISM: THE (IN)FORMAL COHORT 3 Connectivist Theory - Learning by information network creation As Siemens (2005) explains, Learning (defined as actionable knowledge) can reside outside of ourselves (such as a database) and is focused on connecting specialized information sets, and the connections that enable us to learn more are more important than our current state of knowing. (p. 6). As we acquire new information at an incredibly high rate, it is important to critically evaluate what information is still relevant and important to the system. Jonassen (1999) uses the term mindtools to explain how information represented within databases can extend the mental capacity of an individual in order to successfully support a learning environment. Therefore, Siemens (2005) proposes that learning can reside outside of a person s own mind and is extended into a computer-based application; constructivist learning is shared between the two systems because both are active participants. According to Siemens (2005), once a network has been established, the flow of information can move from one domain to another with relative ease (p.1) Learning by creating and reformatting nodes occurs because meaningful connections are created by the user; Siemens explains this process through patterning, experience and creating meaning (p.3): Patterning is recognizing the informational organization within connections of nodes Experience facilitates acquiring new nodes and forming connections between existing nodes (a constructivist principal towards learning) Creating meaning is supported by the connections users make between nodes, based on the information of the node. While connectivism explains the process where the learners and their connections to their ideas (and others) become central to the educational experience, Communities of Practice

4 CONNECTIVISM: THE (IN)FORMAL COHORT 4 (Wenger, 2006) deconstructs how members develop knowledge through social practice, mentorship, and skill acquisition. A community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991) requires understanding of the social practices of a specific community and understanding how one learns to become an active participant within that community; The authors define that participation within a community as a way of learning and knowing. The state of becoming into a culture of expertise is a long, on-going process and consists of first being an outsider and then gaining entry into the domain through apprenticeship. Furthermore, Downes (2005; ) more specifically identifies knowledge construction as shared across connections which allow learners to grow, extend, and traverse networks and questions whether that knowledge is learned and grounded - or in fact not acquired at all. Connectivism seeks to form a deeper connection between internal understandings within an external platform. This application of a technology-aided connectivist learning environment has been lauded as learning theory for the digital age, and as such seeks to describe how learners who use collaborative tools learn in different ways as compared to other knowledgeacquisition practices (drill & practice, lecture-style.) Siemens criticizes the three dominant learning theories, namely behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism, suggesting that they all locate learning inside the learner; through the use of networked technologies, learning is now distributed outside the learner. Networked Learning in the Digital Age Networked learning takes the notion of digital seriously. (Jonassen, 1999; Jones, 2012) A more detailed understanding needs to be developed about what kinds of affordances digital technologies make available, that often times facilitate a different, richer experience than that of 1 Stephen Downes, in discussion. May 2013.

5 CONNECTIVISM: THE (IN)FORMAL COHORT 5 a CoP. There are many ways in which technology alters learning and meaning-making that evolve from dialog that happens both inside and outside of the network. While aspects of Wenger s CoP theory are still evident within the network, connectivism allows for a learner to move beyond a user-centric learning style to more of a knowledge-centric representation. Clay Shirky (2011) further discusses the use of technologies that support networked learning. He notes that these technologies enable cooperative infrastructure that supports collaborative productivity within networks (outside of the learner) as opposed to inside the learner, for he sees centralized and internal learning structures as self-limiting. His theories highlight knowledge that is produced through collective intelligence in networks as favorable to knowledge that is consumed both passively and individually. Connectivist and networked learning theorists often base their models on the availability of technologies thought of as simple technological tools. Infrastructure is often conceived of as ready-to-use and completely transparent (not requiring consideration, such as a telephone or the Internet.) In networked learning, a distinction can be made between technologies that are an infrastructure for learning such as discussion forums, learning management systems, or cmoocs and technologies designed to or assigned to support learning such as Wikis, SlideShare, or activity streams. (Guribye and Lindström 2009) New knowledge is continually generated and validated by the collective intelligence of the inquiry and the informal cohort of learners with the objective of lifelong learning and ongoing discourse: essentially, successful educational environments need to support knowledge maintenance by supporting a participatory culture of knowledge creators and updaters. (Scaramalia & Bereiter, 2006; Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2003) There are also digital technologies that do not appear directly in networked learning, but instead as tools that networked learning engages with. These technologies include low-tech and

6 CONNECTIVISM: THE (IN)FORMAL COHORT 6 high-tech platforms that are equally important (these can be as simple as Post-it notes, concept maps, spreadsheets, social media, Meetups, or Wikipedia.) Digital technologies are parts of infrastructures that are complex socio-technical systems, but may differ as digital technology evolution takes place, and low-tech networked learning may take place depending on the geographical location of the informal cohort members. (Downes 2013) Implications of Connectivism in Learning Theory If knowledge is now distributed outside the learner and much of the process can be offloaded onto technology or others in the network (the informal cohort who can be called upon as reference when needed, or if knowledge built collaboratively on a platform or other tool) what does that mean to an individual s meaning-making, if one comes to rely on a collection of knowledge outside vs. the construction of knowledge inside? Distributed cognition (interacting with tools that expand mental capacities,) and collective intelligence (pooling knowledge and comparing information with others toward a common goal) (Jenkins, 2006) has a greater potential for successful integration and adoption when facilitated by technology-enhanced instructional environments; however when we distribute knowledge, do we have the notion that we are offloading it? When we contribute to the development of new ideas and generate knowledge collectively, do the concepts we contribute remain intrinsic or do we feel that we need to call on external resources in order to recall them in the future?

7 CONNECTIVISM: THE (IN)FORMAL COHORT 7 References Downes, S. (2006.) Learning Networks and Connected Knowledge. Discussion Paper #92. [online document]: Instructional Technology Forum. Guribye, F., and Lindström, B. (2009) Infrastructures for learning and networked tools - The introduction of a new tool in an inter-organisational network. Jenkins, H. (2006) Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. Chicago, IL: MacAuthor Foundation. Jonassen, D. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problemsolving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 26(1), Jones, Chris (2009). A context for collaboration: The institutional selection of an infrastructure for learning. In: 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learnings, 8-13 June 2009, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece Lave, J. & Wenger E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: theory, pedagogy, and technology. Knowledge Creation Diffusion Utilization, Shirky, C. (2011). Cognitive Surplus: How Technology Makes Consumers into Collaborators. Penguin Books. New York. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: Learning as network-creation. Learning Circuits. Retrieved from Wenger, E. (2006). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.