Connectivism + Connected Learning in Week Three

This week was all about finding the value in connectivism, and battling the cold that won’t quit. Apologies for posting a day late, hopefully some of the grogginess has passed and I am ready to work through my learning from last week.

Learning Goals

I actually began the week exploring some of the different instructional theories exploring blending formal and informal learning, most notably, connected learning. I had been exposed to Mimi Ito a little bit in library school, but haven’t heard much about connected learning since. In a connected learning model, a learner exists within a personal learning network, and learning takes place through connecting people and information within that network. This network expands beyond the classroom, and there is an emphasis on integrating experiences, collaborations, and resources from a multitude of sources.

Immediately “learning as a network” brought to mind connectivism – learning as a process of connecting information within a network, and choosing “what” to learn is key, rather than specific content knowledge. I agree with some basic connectivist tenets: informal learning is important part of our learning experience, and learning is a life-long process. However, connectivism seems mostly about “learning literacy” – learning how to learn most effectively, how to evaluate information, and so on. While this is certainly a useful 21st century skill, I still believe it must be combined with more constructivist approaches to create successful learners.

Through my reading I think connected learning seems to do just that, combining connectivism with experiential learning to create a constructivist, networked learning process. According to Rob Reynolds, “The Promise of Connected Learning,” connected learning experiences are all:

  • participatory – learners connect to content based on common goals and interests, and engage through shared learning activities
  • interactive – learning is production-centered across multiple modes of expression
  • openly networked – learners should be linked together with peers, instructors, and other learning communities

Some questions that I hope to puzzle through this week:

  • Connected learning seems especially well suited to certain disciplines, especially sciences and practical fields such as nursing, dental, social work, etc. where real-life scenarios are essential to learning. What does connected learning look like in a humanities classroom? Is it digital humanities? Is it public history?
  • What does assessment look like in a connected learning model? I imagine a combination of reflection and learning analytics measuring activity and engagement within the network. What actions would we collect data on specifically?
  • How do we keep learning rigorous when dealing with individual personal learning networks?

I’m working on a concept map that connects the multiple theories I’ve been learning about this week. If anyone has any additional theories or resources that investigate blending formal and informal learning, I’d be glad to hear of them. Adaptive learning is a theory that popped up in my reading, so I will be adding that to learning goals for next week.

Communities of Practice

In terms of CoP, I’ve been looking into the Linked In Higher Education group suggested to me by James last week – I have just been accepted and hope to find it a little more active and relevant than the other communities I’ve joined. I’ve found that even though I haven’t gotten much out of interactions with other CoP members, I have found other useful communities – and plenty of resources. Much of my reading this week was found on Educause (all my reading is linked below), and through Shift eLearning I found the Cult of Pedagogy blog. While K-12 focused, I have found her simple explanations of instructional and learning theories easy to follow and understand. She also offers a plethora of instructional strategies and digital tools that are easily adapted to a higher education environment.

In terms of interacting with other ID throughout the past three courses, I think what has been the most helpful to me is seeing how other instructional designers revise and edit their work each week. Seeing how they apply theory and our reading into practice has really helped me think about how to do the same with my own courses. Within my own office, this draft and revision process is not nearly as transparent. It has definitely pushed me to ask more questions of my colleagues, and to share my work at multiple stages instead of just final products.

Week 3 Resources

Educause, “7 things you should know about Connected Learning”

Educause, “The Connected Learning Environment”

Rob Reynolds, “The Promise of Connected Learning”

Siemens, George (2005, January 1). “Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age“. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, Vol. 2 No. 1

Some additional thoughts on week one

I thought I would use what we learned last course  – curating and organizing resources – to organize this blog and my thoughts around instructional design. Categories reflect the different tasks we were asked to select this week, and tags so far are those I have chosen to focus on. Since there already seems to be a significant amount of overlap among learning theories, I’m sure this tag system will grow and evolve over time.

The two instructional design communities I joined are Educause, which I already am familiar with, and trust as a resource, and the Shift eLearning blog, which I am not. I have happened upon several Shift articles and blog posts while doing early searches on ID theories, so I’m hoping it will be a valuable CoP.

I’m really enjoying the concept map exercise this week, although perusing others’ work and previous examples has me worried that I should be focusing more on applications of the learning theories. Since we revise work often in these courses, I hope I will have the opportunity to add that layer in the coming weeks.

concept map of learning theories

Concept map of learning theories, based on Ertmer and Newby, “Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features from an Instructional Design Perspective.”