My learning reflection

Is it time to let go, on MOOC? I am now more like a philosopher (I consider myself a thinker, hopefully a philosopher) of MOOCs. I think I am a post-MOOCer, just like the Post-modernist, where I no longer go inside the box to search for the truths or knowledge. MOOC becomes the past of me, as new and emergent wave comes along where I just surf through, and to be a “being” to explore the Future of education. I found interest in Creative Classroom & Creatagogy (my latest post). Any thoughts?
Thanks Mary Rearick for adding a delightful insight, and yes, the reciprocity and empathic understanding for others deepens our learning connectively and collectively. I have often immersed in MOOCs and so have experienced c and x MOOCs in various degrees. Often, I found myself so ingrained with all the learning that I realize it is quite a challenge to shift the frame of reference, when looking into education from a different set of angles. As I shared in various posts, I had learnt and experienced Mastery Learning (in teacher training back in 80s) and had been adopting that for decades, and so now xMOOCs are using it as the main pedagogy. I wonder if most professors living with the xMOOCers are looking for going beyond that, as they are expected to “live” by and comply with such pedagogy, as it is also one of the expectations of the MOOCs providers. Obviously, there are more advantages than disadvantages when it comes to mastery learning, as it is also part of the apprenticeship models (from worker trainees to PhDs).

The theory behind MOOCs is a simple one: Wouldn’t it be great if every student had access to the best college professors and college courses? And what if those ideas were accessible 24×7, from anywhere in the world?

MOOC would change education forever, as the author of the post believes.

In many ways, these developments have the potential to invigorate higher education by compelling traditional colleges and universities to become more accessible, committed to graduates’ success and more distinctive and diverse.

Isn’t it interesting if the xMOOCs are focused mainly on the part of:

every student had access to the best college professors and college courses? And what if those ideas were accessible 24×7, from anywhere in the world

How about the students accessing to knowledgeable others, OERs, social and learning networks, accreditation and qualifications of institutions for (free or fees)?

The cMOOCs however, is based on a different model, though you could still make use of some of the concepts of Mastery Learning. cMOOCs do not rely solely on the “linear” learning approach of Mastery Learning, though it is assumed that one must have certain pre-requisites (knowledge and skills) in order to learn effectively. Instead of merely relying on a behavioral/cognitivist/instructivist model of education in traditional closed walls or open walls MOOCs, it could be beneficial to place the educators and learners in a co-evolving environment like fully open MOOCs to experience the networked learning model of learning (not just education). That is surely challenging the traditional notion of teacher giving out didactic instructions, where learners follow and repeat the action. See my post Creative Classroom on what I mean by such shift in the learning paradigm.
Learning in MOOC (both c and x MOOC) could happen in various spaces, and with the mediation of tools, it could include more diverse clusters (or even population) of educators and learners. It is no longer just about super professors teaching the course (or xMOOCs). It should go beyond that didactic teaching based on short videos lectures. It is more about deep learning based on conversation, dialogues, collective inquiry, collaboration and cooperation in networks, through various joint projects – wikis, Google doc, blog posts, tweets in various platforms etc.. I just don’t see these sorts of pedagogy much appreciated as yet by the participants of xMOOCs, as though I may not have seen enough blog posts reflecting on such learning.
In summary, I am letting go of MOOC, and be a post-MOOCer so as to look “back” into what works, and what doesn’t. Have I used it at work? Definitely. I don’t think it is that easy for any MOOC to change once the paradigm is set. You may wonder if you are trying to convince an elephant (xMOOC?) to change its direction, when it is already trotting the area for decades. May be you have to understand why it keeps on moving in that direction so you could follow. Is it overly philosophical. I think it’s time to put these into a post.
Thanks again

What does it mean to have more MOOCs?

I have been thinking about when MOOC would come to a saturation point.

Here in this post:

More participants can mean more problems, however. Some academics emphasize that cheating is virtually impossible to measure—posing issues for the courses that are given for-credit. Additionally, though thousands of students often sign up for popular courses, only a select few will go on to complete all tasks necessary for credit. In Noor’s first Coursera course, taught this past Fall, he said that only about 2,000 participants completed the requirements of the course, which initially had about 33,000 enrollees.

In the case of formal online courses, would a low graduation rate of 10% be allowed to run?  I think the professors would be first to explain why there is such a low pass rate.  In a MOOC, that is however, acceptable, and to be congratulated instead.  That sounds interesting, not only that MOOCs are unique, but are un-questionable, indestructible.  It is a grand experiment after all, always in Beta phase.

Justin sees MOOCs in an unique way in this post on Why do professors hate MOOCs let me count whys.  “Faculty members must feel this, & thus supporting MOOCs like digging their own graves.

More MOOCs would lead to more cost-effectiveness in the delivering of courses for elite institutions, though this could also lead to a decrease in the demand of courses offered by “traditional Higher Education Institutions” as the students flocked to the MOOCs.  Would this lead to decrease in the demand of faculty professors?  Would this explain why MOOCs are welcome by some (super professors), but not all other professors, especially if their jobs are at risk as a consequence? “Why educators should hate MOOC” as concluded by Justin.

Though I could see the disruptive power of this MOOC innovation on Higher Education, I do think there are many opportunities for educators to re-build Higher Education in a constructive and contributing way.  Indeed, there are many alternative pathways that would “save” the crisis of Higher Education, which included the shifting of paradigm towards a Constructivist and Connectivist approach in the learning and teaching practices, with the adoption of Creative Classroom and Community and Networks of Practice as Learning Platforms.

As I have shared in my past post, MOOC has its own life cycle, and what we need to understand is where it is now and when it would start to change, given that it is hard to sustain just as Freebies.  Soon, there would be a business model of MOOCs, and we would be able to see how they could “replace” part of the mainstream online or face-to-face courses.

So, the reality is, MOOCs are here to stay, and there would be a significant impact on some of the traditional institutions, and the faculty professors.  What would happen next?  Just check on the MOOC growth, and pedagogy employed, and you could likely predict its future.

Postscript: In response to Steve’s question on whether MOOC is a subset of Creative Classroom (my previous post), here is my response:

I reckon MOOCs would behave similar to the COPs in some ways, though once the novelty is gone, creative learning environment (Creative Classroom – which is coined in the paper) would take its place. History will tell if this happens. There is always a life cycle – and MOOCs have no exception, especially if it is based on a Venture Capitalist model of quick launch, and “fast education” sort of entrepreneurship model of education. It is difficult to predict when this “bubble” would continue to grow, or would join another few bubbles for growth, especially when the government/education authority is going to support or regulate (and in fact this is happening in the USA). This would likely turn education into an arena where the “fittest” survive and thrive. Monetization and privatization of MOOCs must happen before another model could come in.

Product Life Cycle R0505E_A

Photo source: Tony Bates’ post.

MOOC 8028605773_857fcd5548

Mentoragogy for xMOOC

There are xMOOCs adopting the mentoring approach. Soon most xMOOCs would use such pedagogy.

In this post and this  Harvard asks alumni for help with humanities mooc.

For the first time, Harvard has opened a humanities course, The Ancient Greek Hero, as a free online class. In an e-mail sent Monday, it asked alumni who had taken the course at the university to volunteer as online mentors and discussion group managers.

One of the challenges of “massive open online courses,” or MOOCs, is managing their sheer size, and encouraging thousands of students to engage each other, since they cannot all converse with the professor. Tapping into a deep pool of alumni offers at least a partial way around that problem, one that a few schools have discussed trying.

This sort of mentoring differs significantly from the one-on-one mentoring, and as it is practised in MOOCs, I name it as Mentoragogy.

1. Mentoring in a networked environment.

Here is my response to George’s post on Tutor/Mentor Connection.

Hi George, I have been involved in Mentoring programs for years, have been a mentor in a professional mentoring program for a year, and am still providing mentoring within my organisation.  I also found mentoring very effective in nurturing future leaders.

I have however found some challenges with mentoring in a networked learning environment.  Mentoring does require the setting up of personal goals and personal learning and action plans in order for the mentoring to be “effective”. This should normally be aligned with the personal vision and mission of the mentee, and in the case of corporate business environment, an alignment with the corporate vision and mission, if ever possible is expected or required.  So, in theory, mentoring works best with the collaboration of mentors and mentees, in both achieving the learning and performance goals negotiated and agreed upon in the mentoring process.  However, in a networked learning environment where learner autonomy could be more important than anything else, it would be necessary to make the necessary adjustment in the mentoring relationship that would be based on the mentee’s needs, rather than alignment with any corporate goals or vision, as that might intervene or jeopardize with the personal goals of the mentees.  So, mentoring may be more effective in achieving personal learning goals rather than organisational goals.

Also, the matching of mentors and mentees is a critical factor which could determine the success of a mentoring program, as the relationship established between the mentor and mentee would greatly impact on the outcome of the mentoring.  Personal learning style, personality of the mentors and mentees would also be important consideration in the mentoring matching.

The use of Web 2.0 and social networks could be important platforms for e-mentoring be designed and implemented.  There are also implications such as the skills and literacy gaps between the mentors and mentees.  The concept of zone of proximal development is important here.

Would mentoring be more successful and sustainable under a group (organisation) or networked learning environment?  How would one ensure that such a mentoring program could deliver the outcome expected by the mentee?

More researches may be necessary to understand the impact and implications of e-mentoring in social networks and online education and learning.

John

2. My post on Mentoring:

Slow Learning through mentoring and coaching.  Based on Clark’s presentation, and the sage on the side – with mentoring as a way to learn, your performance would improve with the help of a coach.

Mentoring is a perfect model for anyone learning through an apprenticeship program, whether it is traditional apprenticeship or cognitive apprenticeship, I suppose.  I have reflected on mentoring in the networks and communities here.

Is mentoring suitable for everyone?  No, perhaps. Here George Hobson says:

I do not think that a personal learning mentor would be my ideal learning situation. The point of open is just that – open to wherever I want to go, not someone or something else to control.

The constant prodding of a sage on the side would worry me because of both this intrusion as well as manipulation – “stealth mentoring” as Carole McCulloch puts it in her post.

I reckon there is a subtle difference between learning and performance.  There are a few myths in learning and performance:

Myth 1 – People learn best by themselves, but people perform best with others.  Assumption: People who exercise full autonomy in learning would learn best when they have a full sense of control and responsibility, and thus enjoy learning. People who work cooperatively and collaboratively with others would contribute to the group or team’s goals, and would lead to improved group’s performance.

Stephen shares his views on informal learning here:

In the case of informal learning, however, the structure is much looser. People pursue their own objectives in their own way, while at the same time initiating and sustaining an ongoing dialogue with others pursuing similar objectives. Learning and discussion is not structured, but rather, is determined by the needs and interests of the participants. There is no leader; each person participates as they deem appropriate. There are no boundaries; people drift into and out of the conversation as their knowledge and interests change.

The individual performance resulting from mere personal learning could be limited, due to the limited perspectives and capability one has.  There are exceptions, as great scientists like Issac Newton and Albert Einstein developed their theories alone, without resorting to groups or networks.  However, times have changed, and so few people could afford to learn effectively by themselves alone.  Besides, researches have revealed that Wisdom of the Crowds, or Collective Wisdom is superior to individual’s wisdom.  Group and networks perform better than individuals. This is especially the case when working in corporations, or communities, where collective efforts and contribution are valued over individuals.

To me learning and performance must go hand in hand, especially in the corporate world.  In business settings, people are looking for performance, not (necessarily) learning.  So, would that be the challenge?  That’s why we always hear the tyranny of participation!  Performance requires participation, engagement, and most important of all, cooperation and collaboration!  But learning could be personal, and even personal performance don’t necessarily align with group or collective performance.  There are still nuances between personal and group performance.

Myth 2 – People learns best from their mentors. Choosing the best mentors would lead you to career success, for sure!

Assumption: In the case of formal institutions – educational and business organisations, mentoring is commonly practiced, and highly successful leaders have been nurtured through formal mentoring program.

What is the reality?

The more autonomous an individual learner is, the more the learner would like to exercise his perceived control, which would or could lead to a dissonance or resistance to perceived power over the learner’s learning. This could both be a merit and demerit to the learning situation, as on one hand, this could challenge the learner (mentee) to be more self aware of the personal strengths and weakness, and the need of personal development in response to personal and/or organisational changes. On the other hand, this could also lead to frustrations by the learner (mentee) if she or he doesn’t feel a sense of control over the learning (like what you mentioned, the brainwashing, or could be even worse, if the mentee feels the pressure of manipulation by others, in order to achieve some goals set by others which are too ambitious or difficult to achieve). There are also risks involved when learner (mentee) doesn’t feel secure when exposes to an open learning environment or networks, where unwarranted criticisms, cyber-bullying and privacy issues all hinder the mentoring process, and may weaken the mentee’s confidence. Failures in e-connections may also be an issue for many learner mentees, that may lead them to continue to lurk, rather than active participation in networks.

“If a mentee is being honest about learning in a connective community and the organization’s mission and vision align to that of the mentee’s, then it would seem that this would be more relevant than simply the mentor/mentee relationship.” I agree with your views, though the mentor/mentee relationship could be extended to the ” mentor” being “members” or “experts” in the Community (i.e. a mentee could have many mentors) This is a value judgment, and so if we are to put learner or mentee first, would we put the community (organisation) as a way to serve the mentee? Or if we think the Community or the organisation come before the mentor & learner (mentee), then the mentoring relationship could just be a subsidiary to the organisation or Community. Would there still be a tension between individuals and Community (or organisation) in terms of needs?

I have drawn up a needs diagram, and the concept of personal autonomy in the network here.

My experience in mentoring also revealed that relationship and communication amongst mentors and mentees would be important success factors. Also, it would be imperative to cater for the (changing) needs of the mentees, throughout the mentoring process. The mentoring process could be further enhanced with the use of Web 2.0 tools, though once the mentee has mastered the skills and literacies required to learn (i.e. metacognitive learning skills and critical literacy & thinking) within organisation, or learning institutions, or community or networks, then the mentor could/should recede (i.e. step out) from the mentoring/support gradually in order to enable the mentee to fully develop his/her capacity of learning and performance from dependency to independency, and perhaps inter-dependency in networks and community.

So e-Mentoring (individually with a mentor-mentee, or a community of mentors with community of mentees) could also be a life-long learning growth process and approach rather than a one off mentoring program in order to benefit both mentors and learners (mentees). These all are context driven, and so mentoring could be best achieved with a combination of one-on-one mentoring, a Community of Practice or Learners, or a Network of Practice and Practitioners etc.

We still need a pedagogy for e-mentoring to emerge from networked learning. Would it embrace participation, engagement, communication, collaborative and appreciative inquiry, discourse? And more….. Here is an interesting post on pedagogy.

3. Another post on Mentoring:

Mentoring has been hailed as an effective solution in personal learning and development for decades.  It is one of the most effective strategies in apprenticeship programs, for new apprentices in trades up to PhD in Higher Education, and formal and informal development for supervisors, managers, directors etc.

Here in an article on Mentoring and Coaching:

Annual evaluation of the mentoring program has found that a majority of the protégés feel mentoring has increased their skills in program planning and implementation, and has helped them develop an understanding of the political and economic climate in the workplace. Mentors and protégés reported that the communication between them was conducted in a calm, relaxed atmosphere.

Would mentoring work in MOOC?

Alec Couros has introduced mentoring as part of the program here. Lisa Lane has also incorporated mentors into her program in the past.

Photo: Google image (Cooper and Wheeler, 2007)

I have shared my views here on mentoring in MOOC.

Development of mentoring skills – one-on-one or one on many, many on many (peer mentoring) and organisation of learning activities (like b) – provision of a mentoring workshop where every participant could volunteer to become a potential mentor of MOOC (present or future).  In other words, peer mentors could be a good starting point for existing experienced educators to provide support to other less experienced educators or novice learners.  For those people who have less experience in teaching and learning, they could be involved in the program in many ways, like working in small groups, sub-networks, or individual projects and activities of their choice, such as blog post – learning or research, twitter – learning or research, FB – learning or research and exploration and research into various tools and technology – mobile learning, and COPs and research etc.  Conduction of actual interviews with educators, professors, and report on such interviews – via videos, blog posts etc. This could be done in wikis or a forum (a space of their choice).  Some initiation and organisation will be necessary to kick start such projects or activities.

Report on the exploration of some of the media or tools – like Amplify, Diigo, Scribe, Google +, Google Documents, wikis and research articles studied etc. could all be done in wikis, forum, or blog posts sharing.

What about your experience in mentoring, in c or x MOOCs, or in COPs?

What and who really transform education?

During the past few years, there has been talks and debates about what would transform education.

ICT, Internet, MOOCs, pedagogy, or social networks?  Is MOOC really transforming Higher Education?  If yes, then, I would say it started in 2008, when the first cMOOC CCK08 PLANTED THE SEED OF SUCH DISRUPTION AND TRANSFORMATION.

The theory behind MOOCs is a simple one: Wouldn’t it be great if every student had access to the best college professors and college courses? And what if those ideas were accessible 24×7, from anywhere in the world?

MOOC would change education forever, as the author of the post believes.

In many ways, these developments have the potential to invigorate higher education by compelling traditional colleges and universities to become more accessible, committed to graduates’ success and more distinctive and diverse.

At the same time, MOOCs have some potential downsides. They could promote a two-tiered system — one tier consisting of a campus-based education for those who can afford it, and the other consisting of low- and no-cost MOOCs. This stratification could be reinforced if the colleges and universities that offer massive online courses reserve degrees for the graduates of their physical campuses and provide lesser credentials for their MOOC graduates — in effect, creating a “luxury” brand and an “economy” brand.

How would institutions resolve such two-tiered system is still yet to be revealed, as the current vision and mission of most institutions would likely struggle when only elite institutions are admitted to the MOOCs hall of the fame and bandwagon.

To some extent, there are many who have changed the world of education, whilst others are working for free, including the super-professors and their teaching assistants.  Interesting post on they-can-hire-one-half-the-professoriate, where professors are competing with each others in order to teach in the MOOCs.

May I say that each of the above contributes to the transformation of Higher Education, but none of these would be possible without US – the educators (professors, the administrators, the technologists), the networkers, the learners etc.

My conclusion is: We all transform Higher Education, whereas all the tools that we are now using are enablers of the transformation.

It is human who would transform the world of education, and that is all of us.

Creative Classroom, Creative Learning, Digital Pedagogy and Netagogy

Innovating Learning: Key Elements for Developing Creative Classrooms in Europe (Bocconi, Kampylis and Punie, 2012) provides a comprehensive framework on Creative Classrooms and the applications of ICT in formal and informal learning.  There are rich examples supporting the parameters (building blocks) highlighted in the Creative Classroom Model.

Creative Classrooms are innovative learning environments that fully embed the potential of ICT to innovate and modernise learning and teaching practices.

The key dimensions of Creative Classrooms:

– Content and curricula

– Assessment

– Learning practices

– Teaching practices

– Organization

– Leadership and values

– Connectedness

– Infrastructure

This relates closely to my suggested Netagogy:

Netagogy is the study of netwok and internet-based learning.

The notion is an expansion and interpretation of Connectivismheutagogy and andragogy.  It is the process of engaging learners with the structure of learning experience in personal, social, international networks, and internet.

Netagogy places emphasis on learning how to learn, with multiple loop learning, personal, social, global and nebulous learning opportunities, a multi-purpose and non-linear complex and emergent process.  A multi-learner interaction coupled with self-directed Netagogy requires that educational and learning initiatives include the innovative and improvement practice of network and internet-based learning and technological skills, as well as learning experience on the multi-faceted perspectives and interpretations on various subject domains in the networks and internet.  These could include ConnectivismNetworked LearningSocial Media LearningPLE/N(PLENK), Virtual Learning Environment, LMS, Web 2.0, Information and Communication Technology, Mobile Learning and Digital/Online Learning based on a Pedagogy of Abundance.

This Netagogy helps to develop the capability and capacity of both individuals and networks in personal and social learning with affordances: communicating, engaging, interacting, cooperating and collaborating with others, leading changes necessary for transformational learning under a network and internet based learning ecology.

These relate to the report:

p20-

The challenging custom design and pedagogical zones have created a space for differentiated learning and digitalised didactic where students’ laptops are their most important learning tool.

p21-

ICT offers new tools for exploratory learning, such as online access to remote laboratories.

Creative classrooms actively engage learners in producing and generating their own contents (artefacts) in order to nurture creative imagination, innovation attitude and authentic learning.

Creative classrooms could also be based on Creatagogy, where I have elaborated here.

Emotional Intelligence and Innovating Learning

How important is emotional intelligence (EI) in teaching and learning?  Emotional Intelligence will be introduced into trainee teacher education, and that teachers would be tested on their EI in their course of study.  Do we need emotional intelligence tests for teachers?

I think emotional intelligence is important to our daily life.  Not only educators would require certain forms of “training” and development in EI, it seems that learners would need them too.  How and what sort of “training” and development programs on Emotional Intelligence would be helpful and supportive for educators and professors?

Our society seems to focus a lot on the training and education of new teachers.  How would teachers learn best in Emotional Intelligence.  Here are my posts: (1)(2)(3) on emotional intelligence.

How to foster Emotional Intelligence? (Innovating Learning – Creative Classroom CCR P17)

Emotional intelligence should be valued in CCR as it is a key factor for creative learning. It can be fostered through a variety of activities that aim to help learners recognise and manage emotions, form positive relationships, and successfully handle the demands of growing up in a complex and constantly changing world.

There are now courses offered on Emotional Intelligence including this one on Coursera.

I think the best way to learn about Emotional Intelligence would be action learning, where EI is used for personal reflection, together with research and practice at work (in creative classroom), where educators (professors, leaders etc.) and learners could learn from each others.  Have we forgotten that every one of us is a learner, including the directors, CEO, managers, professors, teachers and learners within institutions, and in social and learning networks?

Training the new teachers on EI alone would not improve the overall “QUALITY” of education and learning, just like quality cannot be designed by the Quality Manager only.  I think EI needs to be more thoroughly researched, theorized, practiced, and reflected, before it is “forced” through human’s minds.  EI itself is not a panacea to all problems of education.  Educators and learners should realize that EI could help them in overcoming obstacles and building resilience in their learning journey.  However, we shouldn’t be “testing” EI in order to ensure compliance with regulations, in order to screen the “good” teacher from “unsuitable” teacher.  Rather, we should think of encouraging teachers to develop their creative thinking and learning capacity, critical thinking capability, and problem solving ability, with their EI so as to support and improve the education system – by leading, coaching and mentoring their leaders, supporters, peers and learners.

In summary, we could develop EI in our course of learning. EI should be viewed as a strategic affordance that would help leaders, educators and learners in recognising and managing emotions, forming positive relationships, overcoming obstacles and building resilience in their learning journey, resulting in their abilities in solving problems and making decisions.  We should be encouraging all educators (professors, teachers, administrators) and learners to co-develop and co-learn with their colleagues and learners, in order to improve overall QUALITY of education and learning.

Which Learning Theory would be most appropriate for our Education System? Instructivism, Constructivism, or Connectivism

I know this would set out another fire, though you would surely like to know why this flame of debates about Learning Theory goes out.

First, let’s see the differences between Constructivism and Instructivism.

Second, the differences between Constructivism and Connectivism.

(a)    What is the difference between social interactions and networked interactions?  Social interactions certainly happen across multiple networks, through the use of many different tools.  What differentiates these? ; and

(b)   Do social engagement and participation correspond with diversifying a network?  If so, how is Constructivism different than Connectivism, and if not, how are these practically different?

Verhagen’s second argument against Connectivism regarded the potential for knowledge to be stored in appliances.  In my initial readings of Siemens’ discussion of Connectivism led me to this conclusion as well.  Further readings, however, led me to understand that “Learning may reside in non-human appliances” (2005, Connectivism section, ¶ 3) referred to the learning process and not knowledge itself.  Siemens (2008) seemed to have confirmed my understanding in a recent discussion on the IT Forum listserv, “In essence, information is a node, knowledge is a connection, and understanding is an emergent property of the network itself.”

Is Connectivism a re-wording of Constructivism?  In this wiki: The authors argue that
“No, we believe Connectivism is not a learning theory. It is the Constructivism theory reworked to fit the digital age.”

That’s the authors belief.  I see these differently, and that I don’t agree that Connectivism is the Constructivism theory reworked to fit the digital age.  It seems to be a matter of interpretation.  However, I reckon the authors have made a number of assumptions that were based on “weak grounds”.

Though there are overlapping areas in between Connectivism and Constructivism, they are essentially different.

My response here and here as shared below:

Part 1

Relating to Connectivism versus Constructivism, I could see the following similarities in principles:
(a) buffer between learner & potentially damaging effects of instructional practices, dialogue rather than a pure didactic approach
(b) provide a context – where Connectivism emphasizes the use of PLE and aggregate-remix-repurpose-feed forward in MOOC (networked learning with navigation and construction of networks), and Constructivism emphasizes on situated learning and COPs.
(c) Learning that supports autonomy and relatedness.
(d) embed reasons for learning – Under Connectivism-learning as personal growth and knowledge as pattern recognition (Downes) to achieve personal goals and create value networks, and under Constructivism- knowledge and truth are constructed by people and do not exist outside the human mind (Duffy and Jonassen, 1991). Learning as a change in meaning constructed from experience (Newby et al. 1996)
(e) Both support self-regulated learning – Connectivism stresses on autonomy, diversity, openness and interactivity and connectivity as property of networks. Constructivism stresses on social learning, and must be viewed as an active process where students actively construct their knowledge, and that learner is central to the learning process.
(f) Both strengthen learner’s tendency to engage in intentional learning process – Connectivism – the capacity to form connections between sources of information, and therefore create useful information pattern, is required to learn in our knowledge economy (Siemens, 2004). Constructivism – the design task, is one of providing a rich context within which meaning can be negotiated and ways of understanding can emerge and evolve (Hannafin et al., 1997)

Differences:
Constructivism:
– The design process is recursive, non-linear, and sometime chaotic
– Planning is organic, developmental, reflective, and collaborative
– Objectives emerge from design and development work
– General Instructional Design experts do not exist
– Instruction emphasizes learning in meaningful contexts
– Formative evaluation is critical
– Subjective data may be the most valuable

Connectivism
– The design process is based on chaos and complexity theory, theory of emergence and self-organisation. Chaos recognizes the connection of everything to everything (Siemens, 2004). Self organization and emergence in learning explains why the process is often “chaotic” and emergent in nature, when interaction among agents leads to connective and emergent learning.
– There are multiple objectives – all defined by individual pursuit of personal objectives, but all inter-related through complex emergent self-organised networks and communities
– Learning is situated at personal (neuro, conceptual) and social level (outside information sources and agents) and thus is distributed across networks.
– Instruction is based on demonstration and modelling, where learning contexts are likely based on PLE and conversation and cooperation (sharing of information). Here cooperation within networks and collaboration within groups, though small group collaboration and personal learning based on lurking emerge as self-organizing phenomena rather than imposition by outside bodies
– Formative evaluation is secondary to learning under Connectivism. Peer evaluation of PLE and artifacts emerged from interaction, conversation and negotiation.
– Critical thinking, curation, digital literacies and “aggregate-remix-repurpose-feed forward” is central to Sensemaking and Wayfinding

What are the common issues for Connectivism and Constructivism?

– Assessment based on “pre-determined learning objectives” may be a problem in a constructivist or connectivist learning environment.
– Connectivism – which is based on the integration principles explored by chaos, network, complexity and self-organization theory needs further elaboration on how those principles are integrated in practice. It seems a paradox when networked learning is heavily promoted within institutional and corporate education and learning environment, but then the challenges remained un-resolved – on openness – OER, open design, open research, open teaching etc., digital literacy development using social media and mobile technology, pedagogy etc. Currently, there are still too many “wicked problems” – where the problems are not clearly defined, and where risk management and innovation and creativity are at “odds” in a complex adaptive system.
– Constructivism – which is based on a social learning approach, encourages active, rather than passive learning and the use of group-based cooperative learning activities, which can be best mediated through telecommunication technologies. “A central strategy for building constructivist learning environment such as situated learning, multiple perspectives and flexible learning is to create a collaborative learning environment”. The reality is that such learning environment often requires students to question each other’s understanding and explain their own perspectives. This is easier said than done. Engagement and participation normally falls into the 1-9-90 or the 10-20-70 pattern, with the majority staying at the edge of Community. This may be due to the different backgrounds and skill levels of learners (i.e. digital literacy capacity), and the often perceived “power” and “group think” issues associated with group learning, with compliance and conformance that could silence the “critical thinkers” and “solo or solitary learners”, or the “dis-allowing” of lurkers or legitimate peripheral learners who often are situated in the networks and COPs.

So, in summary, the absence of specific learning objectives and outcomes has earned the “criticism” for constructivism as “inefficient and ineffective”. This may equally be a challenge for Connectivism to be adopted as a mainstream pedagogy. Unless the specific learning objectives and outcomes (based on competency-based learning) are adequately addressed and resolved, it seems both Constructivism and Connectivism would still be operating in a hand-in-hand “networked” informal learning “paradigm” waiting to be absorbed as new and emergent pedagogy.

May be the assumptions behind Constructivism and Connectivism need to be viewed under a new light, when those similarities and differences are leveraged, leading to a new form of emergent learning theory that meets the societal, institutional and personal goals. The paradoxes may be the catalyst of a transformation in education and learning. Who has got the crystal ball? You :)
John

Postscript: This blog provides useful information about Learning Theories – Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism and Networked Learning.  However, there wasn’t any mention about Connectivism.  Quite a surprise.

Part 2:

I found Jenny’s post thought provoking, and so this is a follow up post on my previous one relating to Connectivism & Constructivism – What’s similar and different.

Referring again to the diagram here.

How learning occurs:

What may happen is that social, meaning created by each learner (personal) could actually happen in a distributed network.  However, social doesn’t necessarily mean it would be within a virtual or digital space, or network, as it could happen in a space that once conceived to be navigation across networks.

I have reflected in my Intelligent and Dark side of Blogging, that:

Also, in networked learning, “it is not just what we learn, but how we feel about what we learn, which counts in the long term.” So is dancing as a metaphor. It’s the feeling of learning which makes a difference from the traditional education and learning, where group learning is believed to be based on a scientific approach, and individual feelings need to be constrained to avoid intervening the group’s performance.

So, it is important to encourage a dynamic between thinking and feeling in order to promote learning more effectively, rather than focusing on critical thinking alone, especially in networked learning.

“Learning is an interactive experience best achieved in a climate of relatedness, care and mutual respect. Such care is offered, not imposed, and respects humans’ need for autonomy, self-determination, and challenge as well as security” Rosyln Arnold (2005) (pg 28). This could be crucial to networked learning, especially where humans are interacting with each others in communities of practice. However, there are still paradoxes in between autonomy, diversity, openness and interactivity when educators and learners are immersed in a complex, emergent learning environment (MOOC).

It would be important to reflect on assumptions behind connectivist learning. Some questions include:
1. How could learning be best achieved under a connectivist environment?
2. What are the pre-requisite literacies and skills for educators and learners to consider in networked learning?

I suppose meaning created by each learner (under Constructivism or Social Constructivism) does assume the recognition and interpretation of networks.

I suppose there are overlaps in the Constructivism and Connectivism approaches

In this Beyond constructivism: navigationism in the knowledge era:

Teachers and educators should become the source of how to navigate in the ocean of available information and knowledge. We should become coaches and mentors within the knowledge era. Instructional designers should start to design coaching and navigating activitiesinstead of designing learning facilitation and learning activities; to configure navigation tools instead of the re-configuration of content.

Here is a video on Youtube:

I think this shows that a shift in the frame of reference would change the way we perceive an object’s appearance.  Similarly, the recognition and interpretation of the patterns as shown in this simple experiment well illustrates how a shift from Social to Network frame of reference (with neuro, conceptual and social) could make a difference.

Relating to Jenny’ example:

A constructivist approach involved challenging this deeply set misconception through physically demonstrating that heavy objects do not reach the ground before light objects. I believed that the physical demonstration had the effect of deconstructing the student’s existing thinking and reconstructing it or replacing it with the correct thinking.

How would a connectivist approach work? Yes, you still require the deconstruction of the student’s existing thinking, but not just based on the teacher’s input.  Rather, you would suggest the students to be immersed in networks, based on navigating activities and the using of appropriate tools or media (i.e. media and technology affordance), in exploring about the “right” and “wrong” concepts, and discerning those right from wrong through navigation tools and reflective thinking.  This is similar to what I have suggested here:

The concepts that are crystallised through such networked learning may be based on the ability of the learner to recognise and interpret the pattern (i.e. principally on the navigation and exploration, with or without the teachers), rather than the demonstration of the teacher and explanation of the concepts via “Constructivism or Social Constructivism”.  This means that the concept development under Connectivism is far more reaching than the typical “classroom” or social networks environment, but would also include technological and media enhancement for its nourishment.

This approach may take the form of Create, Interact and Track as discussed in CCK11.

Picture credit: CCK11

Picture: Garrison, Anderson, & Archer (2001)  Elements of an educational experience.

How would Connectivism and Constructivism differ in terms of the elements of educational experience?

Below is my Part 3 newly introduced in this post.

Part 3:

I am trying to shift my frame of reference and propose a different sense of looking into Connectivism:

As a transformative learning theory based on affordance and networks.

Why affordance?

Why networks?

Here I have reflected on how networks and connections are formed socially, most likely as a result of emotions and feelings attuned to the nodes or artifacts.

I have argued here on how technology would impact on our networking “affordance”:

It seems that we need both soft technology and hard technology to allow for the emergence of transformational learning.

The cMOOCs seem to be based on soft technology, with Connectivism as the principal model of education and learning.

The xMOOCs seem to be based on hard technology, with Instructivism and Mastery Learning as the principal model of education and learning.

For the current students, educators (including professors) and participants of xMOOCs, Instructivism and Mastery Learning may still be their favorite way of learning, whereas professors would likely prefer to adopt as a pedagogy.

For students and educators (including professors) and participants of cMOOCs, Constructivism and Connectivism would be their favorite way of learning, whereas all involved in the cMOOCs would like to experiment beyond the box, the four walls of institutions, and “test” the limits in terms of constraints imposed by the formal curriculum with stipulated timelines, set course structure with definitive and prescriptive learning outcomes, and routine video lectures of a didactic nature of teaching.

My verdict is: Behaviorism and Cognitivism would still ring supreme in xMOOCs, and it is not likely that these “massive” cohort of xMOOC students, professors would prefer the Connectivist or Constructivist approaches towards learning.  These may change upon time, as more and more learners and educators realize the need of adaptation and enormous changes that are required in order to survive and thrive in a highly complex education ecology.