Networked Learning

Connectivism and the Future of Networked Learning Achraf Touati Boise State University Summer 2013

Networked Learning
Abstract

Connectivism has been offered as a new learning theory for the digital age. This paper will provide a background of this emerging theory along with some of the key aspects and principles of the connectivist approach to acquiring learning. To establish the connection between the key principles of the connectivist theory and the online classrooms, a thorough analysis of e-learning 2.0 and MOOC (Massive Open Online Courses) is provided. In addition, networked learning has gained growing popularity in the recent years and is making use of the connectivist theory principles in different aspects of the student-student, student-computer, and student- teacher interactions; therefore, this paper discusses some of the strengths of the connectivist and networked approaches to learning. Finally, we will carefully examine some of the challenges that the connectivist theory is currently facing, along with the views of some theorists and scholars in that regard. Keywords: Networked learning; MOOC; connectivism.

Networked Learning

Introduction Because of the technological innovations in different aspects of our lives, particularly in the field of education, connectivism has emerged as a new learning theory for the digital age. Proponents of connectivism have long argued that it has become substantial to review the previous learning theories to ensure that they accommodate the changes that technological advancements have brought along. Connectivists claim that the way students learn is strongly affected by changes affecting the way we search for information. As a result, Siemens (2004) proposes connectivism as a learning theory for the digital age, a successor to behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. To better understand the connectivist approach to learning, this paper will provide a background about this emerging theory and the most common beliefs and principles as being laid out by some well-known connectivists. Next, this paper will unfold some of the key differences between e-learning 1.0 and e-learning 2.0 to better understand the impact of these changes on the online learning experience. As mentioned earlier, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are the only known research platforms for the connectivism learning theory; thus, it is crucial to expose some of the research findings and carefully examine them to see to what extent can the online learning community benefit from this new theory. Finally, this paper will discuss the concept of networked learning, which is viewed as the 21st century approach to learning, and how connectivism plays a big part in the design of a networked student model.

Networked Learning

Connectivism: Why the Need for a New Learning Theory

In the recent years, the Internet has allowed students to use a rich array of online resources such as collaborative knowledge exchange systems and such. According to Bell (2011), learning involves the connecting and strengthening of links between concepts and ideas. From a social standpoint, Bell (2011) claims that learning involves interacting with other individuals across technological networks .What makes connectivism different from other learning theories is the more intense focus on the networks and shared experiences (Tshofen & Mackness, 2012). Moreover, when Siemens (2005, 2006) and Downes (2005, 2012) proposed the core psychological principles of connectivism, their argument was that the existing learning theories were unable to explain some challenging characteristics which were posed by Web 2.0 (Clara & Barbera, 2013). The most important argument that both Siemens (2005) and Downes (2005) presented in regards to the existing leaning theories was that behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism shared two key attributes: 1) Knowledge resides in the individual and 2) Knowledge is a thing, a representation that people create or appropriate. Siemens (2005) and Downes (2005) also argued that the two attributes mentioned are not compatible with the characteristics of knowledge in Web 2.0 (Clara & Barbera, 2013). According to Siemens (2005, 2006) and Downes (2005, 2012), the dynamism of knowledge outlined in Web 2.0 contradicts the thingness of knowledge assumed by the previous learning theories; as a consequence, Siemens and Downes proposed a new learning theory, connectivism. The connectivist theory can be summarized by two fundamental ideas, according to Clara and Barbera (2013):

Networked Learning
1. As a response to the idea of thingness of knowledge, Downes (2006, p. 3) states the following: It [knowledge] is, rather (and carefully stated), a recognition of a pattern is a set of neutral events (if we are introspecting) or behavioural events (if we are observing). We infer to mental contents the same way we watch Donald Duck on TVwe think we see something, but that something is not actually there its just an organization of pixels (p.3). 2. Connectivism claims that the neural associative patterns are caused by the learners recognition of associative patterns between informational entities located outside the learner and organized in a network. This idea of external knowledge is proposed as a reaction to the idea of knowledge as residing in the individual. Connectivism and E-learning 2.0 There is no doubt that the Internet has changed the way we acquire and research information. In fact, both teaching and learning have changed over the past few years. However, before we discuss how the e-learning experience has been impacted all along and how both connectivism and constructivism approach the online learning experience, I believe that it is very important to discuss some of the transformations and differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. What Has Changed Since E-learning 1.0 When we discuss e-learning 1.0 and e-learning 2.0, the idea is not about new technology or a replacement in the sense of new releases. According to Ehlers (2009), e-learning 2.0 refer to a number of developments, trends and points of views, which emphasize change from teaching to learning. While e-learning 1.0 follows a broadcasting logic, which characterizes teaching as
5

Networked Learning

being simply transmissive in nature, e-learning 2.0 means using software and learning services, which can be customized according to individual needs (Ehlers, 2009). Ehlers (2009) connects e-learning 2.0 with the following five characteristics: 1. Learning takes place always and everywhere, and in many different contexts. Consequently, learning is not only acquired in classrooms. 2. Learners take the role of organizers. 3. Learning is considered a lifelong process and is not only linked to educational institutions. 4. Learning takes place in communities of learning. Learners also participate in formal as well as informal communities. 5. Learning is no longer centered on institutions or teachers; it can take place at home, at work, and even during leisure time. E-learning 2.0 and Siemenss New Approach When Siemens (2004) developed a new learning theory, connectivism, he stated that his theory goes beyond the former theoretical approaches of behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. The new theory takes pride in considering the growing tendency of learners to use informal, networked, and electronically-supported learning (Ehlers, 2009). According to Siemens (2004), learning is lifelong learning process, which extends into the fields of work and leisure time activities. Furthermore, Siemens (2004) is more concerned about the who and where of the subject rather than the how and why.

Networked Learning
Though Ehlers (2009) claims that Siemenss design is not clearly distinct from previous learning theories, he acknowledges that this connectivist approach to learning emphasizes the development of e-learning 2.0 and social processes as the basis for the learning and interaction process that take place. E-learning 2.0 and Quality of Learning Ehler (2009) suggests quality should be understood from a development-oriented way by enabling learners to develop themselves in their own learning processes, and as a result, produce better results. As an increasing practice in the recent years, methods of self-evaluation, reflections, and peer evaluations are in alignment with the learners self-development suggested by Ehlers (2009). It is important to note that this kind of quality methodology does not have anything to do with universally-valid standards, but rather aims at improving the quality of learning. In e-learning 2.0 learning, scenarios, communication, feedback, and the exchange of information within the learning community are essential (Ehlers, 2009). As mentioned earlier, learning is perceived as a social process. Since the new culture of learners is more characterized by autonomy, connectivism does in fact offer this concept, autonomy, as a key principle in addition to connectedness, diversity, and openness (Tshofen & Mackness, 2012). MOOCs and the Networked Learning Now that we have explored the different views of connectivism and how it supports e-learning 2.0, it is time to discuss the Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) and the role of connectivism in Networked Student Models.

Networked Learning

Massive Open Online Course In 2008, MOOC emerged as a new term in the e-learning community. Lifelong learners can now use various tools to build and manage their own learning networks (Fini, 2009). The idea of MOOCs is to encourage learners who are comfortable using blogs, wikis, and social networks to use such tools when engaged in learning activities. A MOCC can be attended by a large number of students from all over the world. Siemens (2009) describes MOOCs as an example of shifting from content-centered model towards socialization as information objects. According to Tshofen and Mackness (2012), MOOCs are open and free courses where participants are expected to share their expertise, knowledge, and ideas, so that knowledge is distributed freely across the network. It is very important to note that MOOCS are considered a testing platform to support the approach of the connectivism theory of learning; and since the MOOC is still on trial mode, a number of issues have naturally surfaced. Learners in a MOOC are expected to be autonomous and manage their own learning by making their own individual connections to suit their needs. However, MOOCs courses do provide a structured curriculum around a given theme or topic. Because this is an online learning experience, participants did report lack of time as the most commonly reason for course noncompletion. In terms of the tools used in the course, there is an abundance of tools that are proposed by the instructors. Social tools such as Moodle, Daily, blogs, and Flickr are all used in MOOC courses. The most important issue that rises, according to Fini (2009), is that despite the abundance of social tools proposed by MOOC courses and Siemenss claim of it being as an opportunity for
8

Networked Learning
building networks, it seems that a more traditional approach is preferred by most participants in this course. Also, since the learners in this study are involved in both a formal and informal learning experiences, Fini (2009) suggests that further research might overcome the limitations of this study to better investigate the profile of the participants of MOOCs. He also suggests that issues related to sustainability and the workload of instructors should be studied in depth as well. Networked Learning In the recent years, there has been a major focus on personal learning. However, personal learning suggests learner autonomy and increased self-regulation in the most part. The issue with increased responsibility on the part of the learner does not necessarily equate to learner motivation (Drexler, 2010). Student in networked learning are required to take a more active role in the learning process by making decisions about how to research, where to research, and why certain topics align with the learning objectives (Drexler, 2010). On the other hand, traditional, lecture-based classrooms are designed as passive learning environments where teachers convey the knowledge and the learners respond. Earlier, I have mentioned how Siemens (2008) associates connectivism with networked learning. He claims that learning and knowledge rest in the diversity of opinions, and learning is a process of connecting nodes (Siemens, 2004). Traditional classroom settings provide a forum for a limited point of view, and in most cases, its only the teachers, the textbook author, or another student in class (Drexler, 2010). However, in the networked learning environment, blogging is considered a key component through which students respond to and collect the opinions of others. In a networked learning setting, learners have the option to respond to a specific unit of study with opinions of their own.

Networked Learning
Furthermore, networked learning gives learners the opportunity and the control to connect with subject matter experts in virtually any fields (Drexler, 2010). Unlike in a traditional classroom setting where the teacher has primary control over the content, networked learning offers the learners a chance to establish connection to other members to include access to resources and creative artifacts (Drexler, 2010). The most interesting aspect about the networked learning is the availability of personal learning environments that are constructed by humans to new learners who are interested in studying the same topic. New learners who connect through computers or personal devices may or may not have personal contact with the originator, and yet, they learn and contribute to the collection of resources. As Siemens (2009) states, there is always the capacity to add nodes to the network. Constructivism and Networked Learning Constructivism is considered to be an essential component in the networked learning design. According to Drexler (2010), networked learning, constructivism, and principles of connectivism provide the foundation on which future studies can explore the impact of networked leaning on students and teachers, especially in a k-12 setting. As far as the role of the constructivist approach and how it is implemented in the networked learning model, Drexler (2010) states that a networked student follows a constructivist approach to learning and allows learners to construct knowledge based on social experiences and interactions with students, teachers, and technology. Moreover, in a networked learning model, it is important to note that technological tools and resources are seen to promote and support knowledge construction, and also provide a social medium to promote conversing and intellectual reflections (Drexler, 2010).

10

Networked Learning

Connectivism and Current Challenges Perhaps the most challenging issue for connectivism is the ability to establish itself as a learning theory. Bell (2011) argues that connectivism must not be seen as a learning theory, but rather a phenomenon at best. According to some theorists, connectivism under conceptualizes interactions and dialogue by understanding it as a learners connection to a human node in the network. Clara and Barbera (2013) claim that the issue with connectivism is that it views the connection to human node as binary (on-off) and static, which is in clear contradiction with the evidence on interaction that the scientific community has been observing for decades, especially in learning environments. Another issue with connectivism, according to Clara and Barbera (2013), is that it is unable to explain the concept of development. The authors argue that there is no doubt about the concept being developed overtime and that there is strong evidence to support such claim. This issue was also faced by all associationisms in the history of psychology, which eventually led to the abandonment of associationism in the twentieth century (Vygotsky, 1986). Conclusion Siemenss (2004) strongest argument about the need of a new learning theory is based on the fact the constructivist theory of learning emerged prior to the revolutions of information technology that created the Internet (Guder, 2010). Therefore, whether we believe that connectivism should be categorized as a learning theory or a simply a phenomenon, the key focus concluded from this research should be the major contributions of the constructivist approach to the networked learning community. As discussed earlier, MOOCs are the only
11

Networked Learning
known testing platforms for this newly emerging theory, and further experiments and research are still underway before making final conclusions. However, it is perfectly clear that connectivist theory is in complete alignment with the characteristics of e-learning 2.0. As far as networked learning is concerned, this new approach does offer teachers an opportunity to explore a student-centered, 21st century approach to learning. Not only this offers students more control and responsibility, it will also provide more autonomy and will eventually help learners construct their own learning environment. As Drexler (2010) indicated, networked learning is best designed when it includes principles of constructivism and principles of connectivism. Therefore, instead of rejecting one theory or the other, I think it is best that we incorporate both constructivist and connectivist approaches to ameliorate the online learning experiences. Finally, networked learning still poses some challenges for both learners and teachers. Teachers are challenged to provide balance between structure and learner autonomy to facilitate personalized learning (Drexer, 2012). On the other hand, varying levels of student comfort with technology, motivation, and self-directions have major implications on the design of networked learning courses.

12

Networked Learning
References Bell, F. (2011). Connectivism: Its place in theory-informed research and innovation in technology-enabled learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12, 98118. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/index lar , ., arber , . (2013, May 01). Learning online: massive open online courses

(MOOCs), connectivism, and cultural psychology. Distance Education, 34(1), 129136. Downes, S. (2005, December 21). An introduction to connective knowledge. Stephens Web. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=33034

Downes, S. (2012). Connectivism and connective knowledge: Essays on meaning and learning networks. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/files/books/Connective_Knowledge- 19May2012.pdf

Drexler, W. (2012, January 01). The networked student model for construction of personal learning environments: Balancing teacher control and student autonomy. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(3), 369-385.

Fini, A. (2009, November). The technological dimension of a massive open online course: The case of the CCK08 Course Tools. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(5). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/643/1402

13

Networked Learning
Guder, C. E. (2010, January 01). Patrons and Pedagogy: A Look at the Theory of Connectivism. Public Services Quarterly, 6(1), 36-42.

Siemens, G. (2004, December 12). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Elearnspace. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved from http://www. itdl.org/journal/jan_05/article01.htm

Siemens, G. (2006). Connectivism: Learning theory or pastime for the self-amused. Elearnspace. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism_self-amused.htm

Tschofen, C., & Mackness, J. (2012, January 01). Connectivism and dimensions of individual experience. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(1), 124-143. Ulf, D. E. (2009, January 01). Web 2.0 e-learning 2.0 quality 2.0: Quality for new learning cultures. Quality Assurance in Education, 17(3), 296-314.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

14