This is my reflective response to George’s paper on Transformational Learning Experience entitled: Designing Opportunities for Transformation with Emerging Technologies.
I have divided this post into two parts, with part one on my reflection of transformative learning with PLENK and Connectivism based on my previous post, and the second part of my reflection on George’s paper on designing opportunities for transformation with emerging technologies.
I would first re-post part of my previous blog post (comments) on transformative learning below as reference.
We all learn differently, due to many factors. So when it comes to learning on the web & internet, we may have used different strategies that are based on our capacity, skills and experience – critical literacies etc.
1. Do a full understanding of PLENK theory and practice necessary?
2. Does a full understanding of PLENK in theory and practice require “transformative learning” (as asked by Carmen)
There are two questions here: For Q1, what is involved in PLENK theory and practice? I don’t think we have come up with an agreed PLENK theory as yet. There are PLENK practice which are all based on idiosyncrasy and again there are only general principles which are found to be useful if followed. I think we have been discussing and critiquing on the constructivist (VLE) and connectivist approaches (PLE) and it would take another post for further sharing.
Q2. Relating to transformational learning theory:
This theory has two kinds of learning that is involved with it. Those learning theories are instrumental learning and communicative learning. With instrumental learning, it focuses on “learning through task-oriented problem solving and determination of cause and effect relationships” (Taylor, E. W., 1998, 5). With communicative learning, it involves how others communicate their feelings, needs and desires with another person.
In a post by Elmine Wijnia (Communigations) (http://elmine.wijnia.com/weblog/archives/001298.html) she posted: Weblog serves as a communication hub
“I’ve been thinking about whether weblogs can be a medium for discourse. .. Habermas makes a distinction within communicative action, between conversation and discourse. I figured that no single medium can offer a platform for discourse, so weblogs as a sole medium can’t be seen as discourse. Rather, weblogs are a very good starting point for discourse. The weblog can serve as a filter for getting to know people who are interested in the same things. Through weblogs one can have conversations with ‘self’ and (preferably) others. These conversations can transcend into discourse when people start using multiple communication tools simultaneously (VoIP, chat, forum, e-mail, wiki, webcam etc.) ” “Combining different media is the strength and the weblog serves as a communication hub”
To me, that sounds like the communicative and instrumental learning based on the PLE/N, and if there are further ontological learning happening, based on the connectivist approach, then that would be the connectivist approach towards learning and knowledge in action.
Also, the reason why it is so difficult to fully understand connectivism might be based on the fact it addresses the three levels in an integrative manner – neuro (neuroscience approach), conceptual (cognitive approach) and social and external (social learning approach with complexity theory and various social learning theories integrated). This is similar to viewing 3 D pictures where the images of 3D are all overlapping, and you need to put on 3D glasses (technology, agents, TV, tools) in order to view them properly. Besides, you need to interpret the 3D movies based on the emergent properties, as each 3D patterns may be different when shown, due to the complexity nature of the environment and 3D glasses one puts on.”
Designing opportunities for transformation with emerging technologies
Design opportunities that Allow Engagement Beyond Course Activities
“First, it is important for learners to understand and instructors to acknowledge that knowledge is distributed and that the instructor is not the sole source of knowledge on a topic. Second, while the instructor can provide opportunities for engagement and transformation, such outcomes cannot be forced or achieved unless learners exploit such opportunities.” These echoed with the basic principles of Connectivism, where knowledge is distributed, and the most significant learning points are based on sensemaking and wayfinding by the learners, through navigation and building of learning networks.
Here some of the engagement opportunities are captured in the reflection about MOOCs by Jackie. I could see that she has designed a highly structured course where students are guided through detailed instructions. This may be useful for those novice students with little experience and limited skills in networking. Here Fabio, one of the learners reflected:
In this model the entire group would teach and learn from each other. I’d really love to take part in the one that I designed and others that I saw my peers start and design. I may not make an entire course into a MOOC, but I definitely will add aspects of MOOCs into my courses. http://edtech.cominotti.net/llog/2012/12/10/social-network-learning-course-reflection/
I do think these are interesting trends, as it seems that some learners do prefer the structured learning approach, though this may differ significantly from the Connectivist model suggested by George Siemens and Stephen Downes, in that under Connectivism, it is more related to self-organised learning, with Complexity Theory of Learning, and learning as informed in Neuroscience.
I still reckon that Connectivism would provide a more long-lasting impact on transformational learning, especially when learner plays the dual role of teacher and learner in the learning process as I have shared in my previous post on Complex Learning Theories. Would cMOOC providers be offering a value proposition in this transformational learning experience? How would such values be “designed” into the course?
Design for Lasting Impression
“A lasting impression may be more likely if the activity is extended to include added elements of interaction such as conversations with cooperative learning experts.” This is frequently practised by many learning experts, where interviews were held, see below.
Learning relates strongly to our tacit knowledge and life experience. As we experience life, we store our learning as tacit knowledge in memories and intuitions. What we don’t experience or learn, we can glean from others. (See here)
Design for Intrigue, Risk-taking and Challenge
“Requiring learners to devise solutions to real problems and present their solutions to interested parties invites them to take risks, and challenge themselves to devise solutions good enough to address competing requirements.”
Design for Engagement
“- Deep learning engagement
– Should aspire for learning that changes the ways a learner acts in the world
– Indicators of “transformative” education may be student discussions of their desire to make a difference in the world, improve their skills, or become leaders in their profession.”
I noted that engagement could be achieved through gamification, and the use of multi-player online games:
Design for Reflection
– Participants have shown shifts in perspectives about themselves and their teaching. I think this is the critical part of a course – so participants could see things differently. Here I have shared my views about MOOCs and connectivist learning and the role of reflection throughout my involvement in the course.
Here are the key points and guiding principles on the design of transformative learning experience from George’s paper:
- Employ technology as a means to provide opportunities for personally relevant and meaningful transformation.
- Transformative learning experiences cannot be “imposed” on learners.
- Deeper forms of learning can just be made to happen; they are invited, and encouraged, and facilitated.
- Technology has been described as an agent of changes, as a way to provide opportunities for transformation while sculpting pedagogical practice.
- Since it is not possible to construct transformative experience but, to provide opportunities for transformation, these learning experiences are bound to encompass unknown outcomes.
- Due to instructional designers’ inability to pinpoint clear-cut transformational outcomes, and because related learning outcomes are invited (as opposed to constructed/designed), transformational learning experience may not be replicable or even predictable.
- The extent to which transformative outcomes can be realized depends on numerous factors including individual learners, the scaffolds presented to them, and the design of the opportunities for transformation.
Here are my suggested additional Design for transformation:
Design for conversation and Community Building
There are various forums and platforms for conversation, as an example here on Cube for teachers, where teachers could design a community with resources and artifacts (lesson materials, lesson plans etc.) for sharing.
Design for feedback
Most of us are familiar with the design of feedback in learning. This is especially useful if such feedback are built in during and after the course such as a survey on learners as a feedback mechanism. (see here)
Thanks again to George Veletsianos for an excellent and insightful paper. I reckon an extension of conversation based on research papers would further help us in exploring their applications in wider context, in global networks and communities.
How about your experiences and views on transformative learning?