Autonomy vs Control

In designing and developing learning materials for mobile devices there are a number of different points to consider. What kind of access is available to students? What service providers or data plans are available to the student? Are the students familiar with mobile devices and are they comfortable working with them? Who has control over the choice of mobile device and data plan? Should this be the domain of the institution or the student? All of these questions address the larger issue of institutional control verses learner autonomy.

Institutional Choice

If a particular institution is going to be providing devices to the learner they have control over what types of devices are used as well as what data plan is chosen. The institution could choose to go with one particular device or a select few. In a model like this the designer can be sure that all learners will have access to the same device capabilities. The designer can create learning materials that work on that particular device and have a relatively good idea of how the materials will look to the learner. The designer can also know what the limits of the data plan are and be sure to design materials which will not exceed those limits.

Another benefit to this model is increased support for the learner. The learner will not have to spend their time and money choosing their own device or plan as it is already done for them. They will also not have to worry about any problems that arise with the device as the institution will most likely have tech support available for situations like this as well as reserve replacement devices.

Learner Choice

If learners are free to choose their own device and plan institutions lose control. Designers will not know what type of device they are designing for or if their design will even work on the device that a student chooses. Another consideration is that of familiarity with mobile technology. This model assumes that each learner has a mobile device that they are familiar with. What if that is not the case? The learner would then be forced to not only choose a device and appropriate plan but also to familiarize themselves with the platform.

One of the advantages seen in m-learning is the ability to personalize the learning experience. In the article Mobile Learning in Higher Education: Multiple Connections in Customized Learning Spaces, author Ruth Renard discusses the ability of m-learning to allow students to customize their own learning experience (2008). The idea is that each student will be able to use their own device and software to increase learner independence as well as reinforce learning through each learners own preferred learning style (2008). How can learners truly personalize their learning if they are not given the opportunity to have a choice in what type of mobile device they use?

Autonomy vs Control

The problem of devices comes down to autonomy vs control. Institutions require a certain amount of control in order to ensure quality learning materials for the learners. However the learners might do better with greater autonomy. If we are designing learning materials for m-learning it might be better to use a more learner autonomy pedagogy such as constructivism or connectivism. The designer could provide some basic starting points but leave the learners to determine what type of content to access and how to present and share ideas. It would be similar to the course we are currently taking where we as learners, are free to use whatever tools we want to access and create course content with a bit of support from our instructor and the institution.

References

Renard, R. (2008). Mobile Learning in Higher Education: Multiple connections in customized learning spaces. Campus Technology. Retrieved from http://campustechnology.com/Articles/2008/04/Mobile-Learning-in-Higher-Education.aspx?Page=1

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

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!