Concept Map

My concept map for this course never seems to be done, but as today is the date to submit here it is:
To see a closer view of this map go here.
I also just noticed that if you click on the picture above you can view it as a Picasa file. I love it when I discover something new.

CCK09 Final Project - Thoughts and Reflections

For our final CCK09 project we were given a number of possible questions we could reflect on. The questions I choose to focus on were "what is the quality of my network?" and "how connected am I?".

I first wanted to record a video podcast of my thoughts but the words just wouldn't come out without me reading a script and no one wants to see that. I turned to a tool I have never used but always wanted to, Prezi. I found it useful since I have a lot of thoughts that seem disjointed. I managed to pair a few with pictures I have taken. You can view the presentation here.

So, how connected am I and what is the quality of my network?

These are difficult questions to answer. I always end up comparing myself to others I see online. My network is smaller and compact, but it is growing and changing and I think that is a sign of a developing network.

Within my network I have a variety of people who share different things with me. I have also noticed that my network is made up of lots of different groups.

The best way to answer is to say for now my network and connections do what I need them to do. As my needs and interests change in the future so will my network and the connections I make.

Changing Roles in Instructional Design - CCK09 Paper #2

Everything changes, so it is no surprise that the role of the Instructional Designer will also have to change to keep up with society. There is a vast amount of information available on the internet and increasing social connection possibilities. We are coming from the framework Martin Weller refers to as a Pedagogy of Abundance (2009).

I received a comment in one of my recent blog posts from suifaijohnmak (2009) which stated, "In an learning ecology over the net, we are able to pursue our own interests with autonomy, and broaden our learning horizon as we engaged with different learning sources, experts, and media". I think this comment gets right to the heart of the matter in that there is so much in the way of content already out there and we have the potential now to easily access that.

This is completely different from reasoning for courses of the past. We are coming from the idea that knowledge or ideas reside in experts and those experts are few and far between. We needed to access them from either a recognized institution or a lecture or video that would be limited in distribution or accessibility.

The abundance of information also impacts the role of the student. No longer are students going to be passive learners. They need to take an active role in choosing the content of the course through the connections they make socially and also with the course material itself. This will inevitably have an impact on how an Instructional Designer will design a course.

I think the big change will come in how courses are actually designed. If education is moving more towards philosophies such as constructivism, problem based learning, and connectivism, Instructional Designers need to be involved through out the course, not just designing a set course and leaving it to run. Formative evaluation will play a much larger role.

Students are going to become more in control of where they want the particular course to go based on their own interests. There will be less emphasis on required readings and topics and more freedom for students to bring their own materials to share and for them to choose which way the course unfolds.

I propose the metaphor of the Instructional Designer as the Gamemaster or GM, a term borrowed from role-playing. A GM may have a particular story line he/she would like to players to go down but ultimately a good GM knows that the players have to control the story. If they choose not to take the story bait the GM has left, the story line must change. I think the same will be true in designing a class in the future. There maybe a learning path that the designer wants the students to go down but based on the interests, connections and experience of the students they may end up going another way. The Instructional Designer will need to watch where the students are taking the course and make changes to the design to accommodate that learning path.

There are many possible impediments to this idea. The first is that this is not a very good system for keeping consistency in courses for accreditation purposes. We would have to completely change the idea of static course outlines. Instead we might be able to use more open descriptions about possibilities of materials the course might cover. However there would be no guarantee that each group within the same course would learn the same materials. In all likelihood they would have very different learning experiences as their groups would be different. I think this is evident in our current course CCK09. From what I have read it is significantly different from CCk08, even though it is the same course and the same topics are covered. We as the student of CCk09 have taken the course materials in a different direction based on our interests.

A lack of purposefulness is another potential impediment. The current idea is that education should take a student from point A to point B in a logical predictable manner. In my idea of the Instructional Designer as a Gamemaster this is not the case. There of course is a purpose for the course but the purpose is often more vague than people would like. The purpose is to make connections and forge your own learning paths as a group of students.

Currently my idea of the Instructional Designer as a Gamemaster is not practical for many courses at a K to 12 level, however I think courses like this could be experimented with at the post secondary level. The blending of the informal and formal learning models is a gradual process. There are more an more people within education everyday experimenting with personal learning networks and discussing ways to incorporate learner empowerment into their classes. I think the more we experiment with these ideas the closer we become to the learner directed course as an accepted model.


Works Cited

Weller, M. A Pedagogy of Abundance (Elluminate Presentation). Retreived from CCK09 Recordings Wiki: http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/wiki/CCK09_Recordings#Week_9:_Net_Pedagogy_Conference

suifaijohnmak. (2009, November 20). My Position on Connectivism (Msg 1). Message posted to http://plaingillian.blogspot.com/2009/10/my-postition-on-connectivism.html

A Response to John Mak's Blog

Hi John,

Thank you for sharing this thoughtful post. Although you may not recognize me from CCK09 I recognize you :)

I have to admit I have been a bit guilty of lurking for some of the forum chats but I have been trying to chime in lately.

I will attempt to answer your questions from my point of view:

1) I expected CCK09 to be a bit overwhelming at first and it was. I did not expect some of the types of conversations though. Some have been well out of my comfort area in terms of knowledge. This has been helpful though as it has exposed me to all sorts of new concepts and terminology.

2) I am not totally sure what my needs are. I am taking the course as a part of the Emerging Tech certificate at the University of Manitoba so I think that makes me different to a lot of the participants. I need to understand enough to pass the course, but I want to meet different people and be exposed to different ideas. I also want a chance to work out what my own ideas are.

3) My needs have been met so far in the course. I think I could be doing more in the way of starting conversations. At the beginning I was quite intimidated, not because of the online nature of the course but rather the depth of the subject matter being discussed by participants. I also have needed time to reflect, which I try to do on this blog. I also do my reflecting with the people closest to me in real life, such as my husband and friends, which is not meeting needs on a course level but that is my fault :)!

4) My needs are fulfilled on the forum. I had heard that this course would probably take place mainly outside of Moodle so I ignored the forums for a while. That was a mistake. I think if I had been more attentive inside the forums I would have been saying more earlier. I do enjoy the formation of concepts that takes place inside a forum. I like that I can see who said what, in relation to what, and when. It gives me a good picture of how the concept is developing.

5) I am not sure what sort of new emerging concepts, knowledge, and connections I expected from the forums. I think it is difficult to predict where a course like this will go, but that is part of the fun of it.

6) Yes the concept of connectivism resonates very strongly with me. I have always been aware of my need to discuss and reflect on concepts. I love exploring and sharing with my colleagues and classmates. I was recently labeled a "connector" at a PD event my college held.

Once again John, I appreciated your blog post and enjoyed thinking about these topics.
I look forward to us continuing our learning journey!

Word Cloud of my Delicious Tags

I have been meaning to do this for a long time and my recent re-visitation of PLEs in CCK09 reminded me to. Here is a word cloud from Wordle of my delicious tags.




Clearly I have a lot of catching up to do if my toread tag is any indication.

(taken from http://www.wordle.net/)

My Postition on Connectivism

Our assignment was to discuss our position on Connectivism and I found this difficult. Every time I think I have a handle on what the theory is saying and how I relate to it I change my mind. So, I stuck with the suggested questions. I feel like I ended up not saying much! I think Connectivism is a concept that is difficult to verbalize in a short to the point way.

Here it is for better or worse...

What is Connectivism?

Connectivism is an idea that posits that knowledge is an emergent property of connections. Connections can form between people, concepts and neurons. This knowledge is also distributed across a network. So to gather or learn this knowledge we must understand how to navigate a network. Learning is by nature networked.

Is Connectivism a Learning Theory?

In his 2006 paper Pløn Verhagen states very strongly that Connectivism is not a learning theory. He believes that Connectivism only deals with the pedagogical or curriculum level of education (Verhagen, 2006). A learning theory would deal with how learning happens while a pedagogical theory would deal with "what is learned and why" (Verhagen, 2006).

I would argue that Connectivism is a learning theory. It attempts to explain not only how learning happens but how to improve learning. Connectivism goes into great detail on how learning occurs. In a Google doc by George Siemens (2009) Connectivism is broken down into a chart that describes its position on how learning occurs, influencing factors, role of memory, how transfer occurs, and types of learning best explained.

There also seems to be some question as to whether Connectivism is a new learning theory. Connectivism certainly contains similarities in thought to other theories, most notably Constructivism. I think that there are clear distinctions though. A Constructivist believes that knowledge is created by the knower while a Connectivist believes that knowledge is grown from a connection.

What are the Strengths and Weaknesses of Connectivism

One big strength of Connectivism in my mind is the fact that everything becomes a learning opportunity. If learning comes from navigating a network then we do it all the time. We are constantly making new connections and those new connections give us a new perspective on knowledge. Essentially we are always learning even if we "know" something because we are connecting from a different context. It also allows us to move away from the idea that someone holds knowledge and that we must get it from them.

Connectivism incorporates concepts form a large number of disciplines such as, neuroscience, AI, philosophy, sociology, and economics. This poses a possible weakness. The marriage of all this information makes it more difficult to test or validate as a whole theory. While the parts of the theory may have merit in the eyes of the academic community it may not be true as a whole and without the support of community it will make it difficult for Connectivism to be embraced as a theory. This is also a strength though. Connectivism in taking all of these diverse concepts and melding them in to one theory is self demonstrating. A new theory has emerged from the connection between individual concepts.

How does Connectivism Resonate with my Learning Experience?

The more I reflect on my learning the more I see how connections and networks have impacted it. I think I was taught to see learning as something only I and my teacher were involved in. That never quite worked for me. I always wanted time to reflect on what we were learning and more time to discuss it with my classmates. Both of these would have allowed me to deepen the connections I made as well as increased connections. I have also come to realize that a network is only as good as its connections. For example, if I had not signed up for the Daily in this class or Google alerts (to name a few) I would have missed out on some great insights from my fellow classmates. I would have a different understanding of the concept of Connectivism. Every time I make a connection regarding this topic more knowledge is grown which deepens my perception or understanding of the concept.

Conclusion

Connectivism is a fairly new concept which is based in many disciplines which are either cutting edge or constantly changing. As such it would be impossible to say where this theory will take us. Each day brings more connections to the theory which in turn molds its being. I have many outstanding questions which are not ready to be answered yet such as, how will this theory effect instructional design, how will it affect things like accreditation and assessment, or how will it change the role of a teacher. While there are many possible answers I think if Connectivism tells me one thing it is that these answers are all dependent on the connections made.

Works Cited

Siemens, G. (2009, September 12). What is Connectivism? Week 1: CCK09. Retrieved October 21, 2009, from Google Docs: http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=anw8wkk6fjc_14gpbqc2dt


Verhagen, P. W. (2006, November 11). Connectivism: a new learning theory? Retrieved 10 21, 2009, from http://elearning.surf.nl/e-learning/english/3793

Contributing to the Network

This week there is a thread in the Moodle forum for CCK09 asking where all the people have gone. Reading this made me re-evaluate my participation in the course.
I have found this course to be a bit more intimidating to participate in since it is so large and a number of people actively contributing seem to know so much about the subject already. But that shouldn't stop me! That is precisely what I should want right? I want a network with different views and discussions. That is the only way I will learn... if I connect with different nodes of the network.
So, I have come up with a plan that will hopefully get me participating more actively.

1. Every day I must post at least one thing to either the Moodle forum or on someones blog
2. Each week I must post at least one blog entry
   
3. I should check the Twitter feeds on #CCK09 more often
   
4. I should post things I find regarding CCK09 on Twitter

I forget that building a network and maintaining a network is time consuming. I get so involved in the weekly readings and catching up on the Daily that I forget what their purpose is... to start dialogue.
Any other ideas are appreciated.

Thoughts on Groups, Networks, Social Comfort, and Lurking

In our week 3 elluminate session we began discussing the necessity of social comfort to learning. In order to learn effectively we must be comfortable socially and since groups encourage control and silence the thought is that networks are a more effective place to learn. My question is with this line of thinking. I understand the reason that groups may not be conducive to learning in that they do not allow a person to deviate from the norm easily. However networks could just as easily be socially uncomfortable. The idea of sharing an idea with a network is daunting because you don't really know how the network is going to react. Even though the network is based on reason I may have a particular emotional tie to my idea and end up being socially uncomfortable when my idea is rejected. I think the concept of social comfort is precisely what keeps us from learning. We become to worried about being uncomfortable that we miss the learning.

My other thought is about lurking within a network. I have been especially guilty of lurking in this class. I find that as I read the posted readings, moodle comments, blogs, diigo comments/articles, and twitter posts for this course I often don't have anything to say. I have not fully formed my opinions or thoughts about a subject and so don't really have anything to say. Should we be forcing ourselves to say something just for the sake of interacting? Is this part of making a connection in a network and so not saying anything is an opportunity lost?

How Connectivism and Constructivism Differ

After listening to the week 2 discussion in Elluminate for CCK09 I think I have understood a key difference between Connectivism and Constructivism.

In Constructivism knowledge is created or constructed by the knower. It is all based on previous and present experience. This is an idea that has always made me uncomfortable. In Constructivism the correctness of knowledge is all about perception and you can't say someone is incorrect because you are not them and they are the constructor of their own knowledge. It is right for you but not for me.

In Connectivism knowledge grows or emerges from a connection. It is perceived and meaning is inferred by the perceiver. The knowledge emergent from this connection might be correct but that is not the issue. This is where the concept of feedback comes into play. Our connections are not static and the transfer of signal between the entities can be a check for our perceptions. This is also why we don't want our networks to be synchronous all the time. We need input from different groups to give us a better way to check for accuracy.

Does this sound right or have I totally missed the point?

Connectivism and Connected Knowledge Weeks 1 & 2

In the first week of the CCK09 class we were given a basic introduction on Connectivism. What it is, how it is different and similar to other learning theories, and how our two facilitators differ in their conceptualization of it.

Originally I thought the majority of my learning would happen on Twitter. I have found the Twitter feeds to be a bit overwhelming though. Surprisingly to me the most useful things so far has been Google Alerts and the Daily. I have also decided to use Diigio for the first time. I am still kind of lost as to how to use Diigo but hopefully I will get there soon. I had also hoped to use SL but I think I might let that go for this time.

There are so many people with so many different ideas and projects going on that it has taken me this long to actually get my thought together enough to actually write something.

Here are some initial questions I have:

1. I feel like there is some part of the idea behind Connectivism I am missing. It is almost like I have a veil over my head that is obscuring my full view. I wonder though if this is how it is supposed to be. Maybe there isn't a clear cut definition. Maybe it is more about knowing on a different level? I had a nice conversation with April Hayman and Christy Tucker on April's blog about this and have decided I need to work on visualizing my thoughts. I guess that is what the mindmapping is for :)
2. Is Connectivism more than the sum of it parts? Is the connection between two or more entities more than those entities?
3. Is Connectivism somehow related to Chaos Theory?
4. I am a bit fuzzy on Connectivism and the nature of Knowledge. This is what I think is the key idea but please help me out: Knowledge only exists when a connection is made. This connection can be neural, conceptual or social. Connections are made between entities (neuron to neuron, person to person, object to person). Knowledge is not transferred between entities rather it emerges in their connection.
   

I think sometimes this is difficult to grasp because we are looking at a large picture not discrete parts. I keep getting stuck on the social connections and forget about the neural and conceptual aspect which made the idea of where knowledge comes from difficult. I need to remember we are talking about multiple levels. Hopefully I am getting there!