Ed Tech 504 - Final paper

7/27/2019 Ed Tech 504 - Final paper

1/16

Connectivism Learning Theory 1

Running head: CONNECTIVISM

Connectivism Learning Theory and its influence on Educational Technology

Teresa Froehlke

Boise State University

ED-TECH 504

Dr. Dazhi Yang

July 29, 2011


2/16


Abstract

Connectivism is described as an emergent learning theory. Emergent learning arises out of the

interaction between a number of people and resources, the learners organize and determine the

process as well as the unpredictable learning destinations. Learning theories such as behaviorism,

cognitivism and constructivism are accepted learning principles and have application in

instructional design. However, technological advancements have spurred the evolution of new

learning theories such as connectivism. This paper examines how connectivism contributes to the

new skills necessary for learning environments in the 21stcentury. This paper introduces the

principles of connectivism, compares the relation of connectivism to other learning theories, and

includes instructional models based on connectivism.


3/16


Connectivism Learning Theory and its influence on Educational Technology

Introduction

The use of technologies for interaction and communication is showing rapid growth in

the developed world. The integration of technology into learning activities has increased the

need to instruct in less traditional methods. Students are taking control of their learning and are

deciding how, where, and by whom, they want to be educated. Connectivism is an emergent

learning theory that has evolved through the interaction of a number of people and resources.

The interaction is self-organized, but with constraints and structure with virtual or physical

networks (Williams, Karousou, & Mackness, 2011). It is a learning theory which has

supporters and non-supporters. The concept of connectivism, as a learning theory, is important

to instructional design and educational technology because the four principles of the theory are

imbedded in technology.

Definition of Connectivism

Connectivism has evolved out of the use of technology in our society, and with new

technology, it has become increasingly important to learn how to learn with technology (Davis,

Edmunds, & Kelly-Bateman, 2008). Siemens (2005) defined connectivism as an

incorporation of four fundamental theories: Chaos, network, complexity and self-organization.

Chaos

Chaos is the interruption of predictability. The learners goal is to recognize the patterns

that are difficult to distinguish. The learner forms meaning and connections between identified

communities and activities. Chaos realizes the connection of one thing to another. The student

must recognize the change in the pattern when learning a task. Chaos in a learning environment


4/16


is demonstrated in decision making. When the conditions to make a decision change; the initial

decision is not as correct when it was first made. The ability to determine and adjust to a shift in

the conditions is a key component to learning the task. Chaos, as a science, recognizes the

connection of everything to everything. The importance of these connections leads the theory

into the network component (Siemens, 2005).

Importance of Network

A network is defined as a connection between entities. The entities are comprised of

people, technology, social structures and systems. Each entity is a learning community which

can communicate their ideas with other communities (Siemens, 2005). A central idea in

connectivism is that learners connect to a learning community with both groups giving and

receiving information. The learning community is defined as a group of people with similar

interests learning together through continuous interaction. Each community is a node which is

part of a wider network of nodes. The networks are diverse, but connected. They support

autonomous, diverse, and creative knowledge development. This knowledge is distributed

across an information network and is comprised of a diversity of opinions. The information is

changing at a continuous rate and evaluated for validity and accuracy . There is also an inter-

disciplinary connection in the creation of knowledge, largely due to the Internet environment

with its constant dispersal of instant information. This interaction is complex and migrates

towards self-organization (Davis, Edmunds, & Kelly-Bateman, 2008).

Complexity and Self-Organization

A complex system is characteristically modeled, as a collection of interacting elements,

as diverse as people, cells or molecules. Because of the non-linearity of the interactions, the

overall system development is unpredictable and uncontrollable. The system, however, migrates


5/16


towards self-organization and synergy. The resulting system can be modeled as a network, with

stabilized interactions functioning as links connecting the elements (Siemens, 2005). Due to

the influence of the internet and the rate of change in the information, the connectivsm theory,

defines the half-life of knowledge.

Half-Life of Knowledge

Todays learner is processing and applying information at a faster pace and in different

ways than any others in history. This has resulted in a half-life of knowledge which is the time

frame of learning something new and applying it and then finding that it is outdated (Siemens,

2005). Improvements in technology have caused the half-life of knowledge to decrease

considerably. The four theories of connectives and the half-life of knowledge have resulted in the

basic principles of the connectivism:

Learning and knowledge originate in a diversity of opinions. Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources. Learning may occur in a machine. Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known. Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning. Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill. Current and accurate knowledge is the intent of all connectivist learning activities.

Based on the definition and the principles of connectivism, decision-making is its own learning

process. The right answer now, may be wrong tomorrow because of new information and a

shifting reality (Siemens, 2005).

One of the main differences between behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism is these


6/16


theories are based on the assumption that the learning occurs inside a person. Another criticism,

that Siemens notes in his research is these theories do not address learning that occurs outside of

people, such as with technology. Learning theories are concerned with the actual process of

learning, not with the value of what is being learned.

Comparison of Learning Theories

(Davis, Edmunds, & Kelly-Bateman, 2008) defined the differences in learning theories by

answering the following questions:

Table 1

Table of Comparison of Learning Theories on Main Questions Guiding Theories

Questions Behaviorism Cognitivism Constructivism Connectivism

How doeslearning occur?

Black box,observable

behavior, mainfocus

Structured,computational

Social meaningcreated by each

learner

Distributed withina network, social,

technologicallyenhanced,

recognizing andinterpreting

patterns

What factorsinfluence

learning?

Nature of reward,punishment,

stimuli

Existing schema,previous

experience

Engagement,Participation,

social, cultural

Diversity ofnetwork

What is the role

of memory?

Memory is hard

wiring of repeatedexperiences where

reward andpunishment aremost influential

Encoding, storage,

retrieval,

Prior knowledge

remixed to currentcontext

Adaptive patterns,

representative ofcurrent state,

existing innetworks

How doestransfer occur?

Stimulus, response Duplicatingknowledge

constructs of theknower

Socialization Connecting tonodes

What types of

learning are bestexplained by thistheory?

Task based

learning

Reasoning, clear

objectives,problem solving

Social, vague Complex learning,

rapid changingcore, diverseknowledge sources

(Davis, Edmunds, & Kelly-Bateman, 2008).

According to the behaviorists, learning is not an active, but a passive process of


7/16


memorizing information that requires a reward external to the learner. Understanding is merely

seeing relationships and the application is a transfer of training. The cognitist view learning as

structured, the learning is based on reasoning and problem solving. The Constructivist identify

that the meaning of learning is created by the learner, the engagement is social and the transfer of

knowledge occurs through socialization (Davis, Edmunds, & Kelly-Bateman, 2008).

Connectivists believe that learning is a way of being. It is an ongoing pattern of attitudes

and actions by individuals and groups, which they employ to deal with new and unexpected

events and situations. Learning occurs differently in the practicing communities, personal

networks, and through completion of work-related tasks. It is a continuous process for a lifetime

without separation from work related activities (Behold & Dad, 2010).

Educational Technology Applications

The theory of connectivism is applicable to the field of educational technology. The

nature of connectivism lends itself to using the networking capabilities of information and

communication technologies. As a result, of these networking capabilities connectivism is easily

manifested into an online community of practice. An online community of practice is

characterized by each member participating in defining the community. Each community shares

expertise and determines the meaning which then defines the learning. The communities share a

collection of resources such as tools, words, and symbols. These characteristics of an online

community follow the theoretical concept of connectivism. Also, visible in an online community

of practice are the social constructivist, situated cognition and distributed cognition theories. One

of the main proposals of connectivens is that knowledge is spread among a community of people

and devices (Ravenscroft, 2011).

Web 2.0 technology has been incorporated into online communities of learning. It is


8/16


well-suited for interaction and communication in emergent learning. Information and

communication technologies, provide global open access at an extremely low cost, and are well

suited for the tenets of connectivism such as producing, distributing texts and artifacts while

learners interact, communicate and network (Williams, Karousou, & Mackness, 2011).

The use of Web 2.0 technology and connectivism requires new institutional and social

structures. Some frameworks which provide protocols and resources for collaboration and

sharing are: Open Source licenses for collaborative software and Creative Commons licenses for

collaborative and shared content. Other platforms are also available, such as Google and a range

of social software and cloud-based downloadable applications (Williams, Karousou, &

Mackness, 2011).

When connectivism is implemented in a classroom , the shift in the learning environment

should shift from a monolithic learning environment, in which everything is controlled and

predictable. In a connective learning environment, the learning ecology is a more pluralistic

learning ecology. In this environment, both prescriptive and emergent application domains and

modes of learning are employed with unpredictable learning outcomes (Williams, Karsouou, &

Mackness, 2011).

Also, for connectivism to be fully represented, it should be based on self-motivation and

self-organization. The success of self-organization depends on the quality of the facilitator, the

open interaction with other learners and the balance of openness and the constraints. Emergent

learning is not intended to displace prescriptive learning or teachers, but it should be recognized

as a vital learning experience and not as an add-on to a learning ecology. Web 2.0 platforms

should be given a place in a learning environment and recognized for its contribution for


9/16


information, interaction, networking, collaboration, and unique challenges (Williams, Karsouou,

& Mackens, 2011). Pettenati and Cigonini (2006) in their article identified stages of the

connective learning experience in which the lesson utilized the theories of chaos, network,

complexity and self-organization.

The stages of connective learning experiences

During the first step awareness and receptivity should be established. The individuals are

introduced with the resources and tools of the new learning environment. It is important at this

stage to maintain motivation, as well as, the acquisition of basic skills. If this phase is frustrating

to the learner, it may cause the learner to drop out from the learning environment (Pettenati &

Cigonini, 2006).

In the second stage connection and selections are filtered. The learners start to be active

in the learning space and begin to acquire new resources and tools. The factors of fun, pleasure

and positive interaction increases the meaning and builds the roots of an effective personal

learning environment. During the third stage, the learner begins to actively contribute to the

learning network. The learner becomes a visible node. The other nodes on the network

acknowledge his contributions and ideas. A reciprocal relationship of shared understanding is

created. It is in the fourth step, that the learners are actively involved in modifying and rebuilding

their own learning network. The learner has been both a provider and helped other networked

learners. This model can be used to design learning activities and environments in different

educational settings (Pettenati & Cigonini, 2006).

The use of connective learning environment

The model and stages of the connective learning experience can be noted in the following

example of an university course offered at the University of Regina.


10/16


The educational technology faculty at this university facilitated a course with the intent to

develop and facilitate an open, connected, social, graduate course in educational technology.

The online course, facilitated primarily through Web 2.0 and open source software, was designed

to foster an immersive experience

where participants engaged in and critically interpreted digital content, tools and

emerging pedagogies (Couros, 2006).

The principles of connectivsim that were used in the open, connected and social course included

the following:

Learning and knowledge rests in diversity. Dynamic learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes, or ideas. Information and digital interfaces. Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known . Fostering and maintaining connections is critical to knowledge generation. A multidisciplinary, multi-literacy approach to knowledge generation is a core

tenet of connectivism.

Decision making is both action and learning (Couros, 2006).The course was designed with the complexities of knowledge management and learning

in the digital age. In accordance to the response to this theoretical view of connectives, the

course consisted of personal learning networks (PLNs) by students and facilitators to assist

knowledge/network formation by learners. The tools of each PLN varied but each group could

use a personal blog, wiki, delicious account (social bookmarking), twitter account (micro

blogging), or other social media sharing services. An interesting aspect of this course was each


11/16


learner developed a different PLN, consisting of different members within and outside the course

community. These networks were developed through a student-centered approach with the

unique needs of each student addressed. The intent of the PLN was to create an environment for

individual and group learning that would extend and persist outside of the course.

The course included open, connected, social thinking. Open thinking is defined as:

a group, institution, or individual that uses open technologies or formats in regards to software,

publishing, content and practice (Couros, 2006).

The course also promoted open teaching. Open teaching is the facilitation and promotion

of learning experiences that are open, transparent, collaborative, and social. To achieve open

teaching, the teachers often use free and open source software, they promote open content, open

access and open publication. The most important feature this teaching method is the shared

development of student-centered learning networks.

The course was influenced with the Social cognitive theory; connectivism and open

thinking were the three major philosophies. From these theories, guiding principles for the

course were synthesized and established. They included the following:

The instructor and assistants assumed roles as facilitators and socialconnectors, rather than deliverers of knowledge.

Course content was offered through conversations with invited guests,and in student participation in the greater educational network.

Students immersed themselves in social knowledge creation and collaborative

skill-building activities.

Student learning was aligned with personal and professionallearning goals.


12/16


Students were engaged in the use of emerging technological tools (e.g. Web 2.0) forthe critical consumption and production of content.

Students also participated in distributed conversations, and were immersed in relevanttopics, and reflected on personal learning experiences.

Students engaged in the development of student-centered, PLNs with the hopethat these networks outlive the course itself (Couros, 2006).

The course facilitation tools and processes used of free and open source software (FOSS),

free services, open access tools, open formats, and transparent course mechanisms.

Three major student assessments guided student activities for the course experience: the

development of a personal blog/electronic portfolio, the collaborative development of a wiki

resource, and a major digital project (Couros, 2006).

The course designed by the faculty demonstrates the use of the connective theory in

practice and its integration with other learning theories. The students immersed themselves in the

new forms of pedagogy and connected and conversed with experts and other students from

around the globe. The authors felt the course was a success in part because one of the students

wrote that the best part of this course is that its not ending, with the connections weve built, it

never has to end (blog post). This demonstrates the impact of the connective theory and its

implications for educational technology (Couros, 2006).

Validation of Learning Theory

The impact of the connective learning theory and its use in educational technology is just

at the introduction stage. Since connectivism is a newly defined learning theory, not all

researchers define connectivism as a legitimate learning theory. Kop and Hill (2008) contend

that a new epistemology may be developing, but the new model does not justifyit being treated


13/16


as a separate learning theory. They agree with Foster, in which he maintains that for

connectivism to be a learning theory, the theorys limitations and the full range of contexts in

which learning can take place must be accounted for. The authors in their research contend that

connectivism does not fulfill the tasks of describing changes of behavior, and the relationships

among types of behavior to warrant being considered a theory. They do agree that connectivism

does play an important role in the development of new pedagogies, most importantly, the shift of

control from a tutor to an autonomous learner. Kerr (2007) describes connectivism as an

extension of previous learning theories. He states that the relationship between internal and

external knowledge environments were accounted for in Vygotsky's formulation of social

constructivism, long before any explanation was provided by connectivism. Also, Paperts

constructivism and Clarks embodied active cognition, further provided learning paradigms prior

to connectivism.

Boitshwarelo (2011) is not concerned in his article as to whether learning is a theory or

not, but acknowledged that it is a compelling way of perceiving learning in the digital age. In his

article, he recommended that research on connectivisms applicability and effectiveness in a

variety of educational contexts is necessary. It will be through the developmental research that

models can be developed to assist in understanding the pedagogical implications of

connectivism. He recommends using a design based research (DBR) method, a methodological

pattern of research. The importance of this research and the recommended methodology is that it

will assist educators in using connectivism in a manner that will enhance learning. The paper

integrates the theories of online communitiesof practice, design-based research, and activity

theory to construct a research framework that is characterized by a synergistic relationship

between each of these methodologies.


14/16


Conclusion

The use of technology in learning environments has enabled new learning theories to

evolve. The connectivist learning theory incorporates the theory of chaos, the importance of

networks and complexity and self-organization. This theory integrates into the use of open

community of practice and web 2.0 practices. There are instructional models that have been

designed to implement connective learning to use the basis of connectivism. This learning

model will receive more attention and perhaps become a standard theory as education shifts from

the traditional classroom to more of a learning environment that uses educational technology.


15/16


References

.

Beetham, H. (2005). E-Learning research: Emerging issues?Research in Learning Technology,

13(1), 81-89.

Behlol, M., & Dad, H. (2010). Concept of learning.International Journal of Psychological

Studies, 29(2),231-239.

Bell, F. (2010). Connectivism: Its place in theory-informed research and innovation in

technology-enabled learning. The International Review Of Research In Open And

Distance Learning, 12(3), 98-118. Retrieved from

http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/902

Boitshwarelo, B. (2011). Proposing an integrated research framework for connectivism: Utilizing

theoretical synergies. The International Review Of Research In Open and Distance

Learning, 12(3), 161-179. Retrieved from

http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/881/1816

Calvani, A. Connectivism: New paradigm or fascinating pot-pourri?Journal of e-Learning and

Knowledge Society, 4(1), 247-252.

Couros. A. (2009). Open, connected, social - implications for educational design. Campus -

Wide Information Systems,26(3), 232-239. Retrieved July 17, 2011, from ProQuest

Central. (Document ID: 1880654451).

Dempster, J. A., Beetham, H., Jackson, P., & Richardson, S. (2003). Creating virtual

communities of practice for learning technology in higher education: Issues, challenges

and experiences.Doi: 10.1177/0270467609336305, 11(3), 103-117.


16/16


Ravenscroft, A. (2011). Dialogue and connectivism: A new dialogue and connectivism: A new

approach to understanding and promoting dialogue-Rich networked learning approach to

understanding and promoting dialogue-Rich networked learning. The International

Review in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 139-160.

Rita, K., & Adrian, H. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the

past? The International Review in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3), 1-12.

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age.International Journal of

Instructional Technology and Distance Learning.doi=10.1.1.87.3793

Strong, K., & Hutchins, H. M. (2009). Connectivism: A theory for learning in a world of

growing complexity.Impact: Journal of Applied Research in Workplace e-Learning,

1(1), 53-67.

Williams, R., Karousou, R., & Mackness, J. (2011). Emergent learning ecologies in web 2.0.

International Journal of Open Research in Distance Learning, 12(3), 39-59.

Documents

Ed Tech 504 - Final paper