Connectivism and PLN

Peter Sloep said in Google + “Where I definitely do disagree with her is that PLNs are founded in the theory of Connectivism. Connectivism still has to prove its worth as a learning theory and I would not want to have the useful notion of a PLN depend on the fate of Connectivism as a theory. That said, PLNs are all about social learning, as is Connectivism, so the two are definitely connected.”

Are PLNs founded in the theory of Connectivism?  Connectivism is based on the notion that learning is the result of connections of nodes in networks – as the capacity to build, construct and navigate across networks (including social and personal learning networks, and the neuronetworks).

In this connection, PLNs relate to Connectivism but it is more than the social learning, mainly because it covers the neuro, conceptual (cognitive & across different domains) and social level.  I understand that when Connectivism was first postulated in George’s paper, there seemed to be a stronger focus on social learning, which then led to a debate whether it is just a re-coining of social constructivism with technology as basis of  connections and mediation.

I have shared the similarities and differences between Connectivism and Constructivism (and Social Constructivism) in my posts. Stephen has proposed the elements of diversity, autonomy, openness and interactivity and connectivity as properties of networks, which seem also focus more on the social learning.  However, these social learning would need to relate back to the learner at the three levels, in particular the perception and interpretation of learning based on individual’s experience, in order to make sense (i.e. the sensemaking).

It seems that most of the evidences collected in research relates to the social learning, at a collective level, rather than the individual learning, based on the those tacit and explicit knowledge developed as a result of “connections” at a neural and conceptual level (and these are very hard to be evidenced and quantified, but could be revealed through more narratives and discourse analysis and checking of the connections using brain scanning).
John

Personal Learning Environment and MOOCs

In response to a post here, Peter Sloep comments on Google +

Peer learning makes a lot of sense but as one of the tools in the box only. We’ve done work on this, see the PhD thesis by Peter van Rosmalen, back in 2008 already: http://hdl.handle.net/1820/1267. See also a paper by me:http://hdl.handle.net/1820/1198. There are pedagogical issues but the really hard part is developing the supportive technology that works at the level of large networks.

Thanks Peter for the precious sharing.  I have browsed through the papers, and there are many points worthy of deep reflection, especially in the peer learning and PLE/PLN. The development of supportive technology that works at the level of large networks, as Peter said could be a challenge, especially if such technology is overly rigid.

Take MOOCs as examples of technology platform, should one consider distributed platforms/social media, or a hub (VLE/VLM) for MOOCs?

Should MOOC shift its pedagogical to be more adaptive (or more connective and engaging) or should it stay with a prescriptive design (emphasising on one standardised model only – especially in mastery learning and common examination or quizzes)?

Are learners involved in the design of curriculum or instruction?

How would PLE/PLN developed by participants support MOOCs?

My sharing of cMOOCs https://suifaijohnmak.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/in-moocs-more-is-less-and-less-is-more-part-1/

More sharing on xMOOCs in part 2.

PLE, Do it Yourself Learning and Education and the assumptions behind

What does PLE mean? Here in Dave’s post: does the PLE make sense in connectivist context?

Dave says:

 connectivism where “Learning is a process that occurs within nebulous environments of shifting core elements” and “learning is no longer an internal, individualistic activity”.  There is a desire, it seems, to return to what “I” have and what “I” know pulling things out of their connective space. It makes sense to make the attempt, certainly. The vast majority of what we call education is premised on the idea of knowledge being something that can be owned, that you can give and receive. What, I wonder, does knowledge co-created look like when it is taken back and possessed by an individual? This seems like a critical context shift that removes knowledge (and learning) from its connective state and returns it to something countable.(as opposed to knowledge and the learning thereof being non-counting nouns).

Is learning an individualistic activity under Connectivism?  I would argue that it is both an individualistic and social activity that are interconnected since we were born.  What happened in the past was that we seemed to have focussed on certain aspect (cognitive development) over the others (social development) and vice versa, but then as technology has become ubiquitous, we soon found that cognitive and social development are in fact two sides of the same coin, where technology provides the affordance (the periphery of the coin as linking the 2 faces) and has in one way or the other becomes part of our tools to connect with instantiation.  So knowledge and learning is in fact part of our living cycle of life-long learning.

We might however, need to forgo the concept of thinking knowledge as the only “countable” personal possession that would give us the “power” to solve problems alone.  Rather, it is the connectedness or connectivity that is associated with the learning that would allow us to exercise the power – the power of autonomy, power of choice of connections – on when, where, who, how, what and why.  This connectivity and autonomy, when coupled with openness, diversity would then be expanded to form an emergent learning system (Complex Adaptive System on a personal level) that is embeded in the PLE/PLN, when we interact with actors, nodes and resources on the networks, web and internet.  That’s also what and how I have interpreted as Connectivism.

Here is Stephen’s post on What is Connectivism where he highlights:

Connectivism is, by contrast, ‘connectionist’. Knowledge is, on this theory, literally the set of connections formed by actions and experience. It may consist in part of linguistic structures, but it is not essentially based in linguistic structures, and the properties and constraints of linguistic structures are not the properties and constraints of connectivism.

In connectivism, a phrase like ‘constructing meaning’ makes no sense. Connections form naturally, through a process of association, and are not ‘constructed’ through some sort of intentional action. And ‘meaning’ is a property of language and logic, connoting referential and representational properties of physical symbol systems. Such systems are epiphenomena of (some) networks, and not descriptive of or essential to these networks.

Hence, in connectivism, there is no real concept of transferring knowledge, making knowledge, or building knowledge. Rather, the activities we undertake when we conduct practices in order to learn are more like growing or developing ourselves and our society in certain (connected) ways.

In Stephen’s terms, Connectivism differs significantly from the typical notion of transfer or making of knowledge, and it is more relating to growth and development.  I think this is manifested with the PLE/PLN that seems to be at the heart of Connectivism.

Pat shared his views on PLE.  How about some of the latest trends in PLE as highlighted in this PLE Conference 2011?  The PLE conference 2011 provides updates with videos and articles.  Here share your experience is an interesting video on Vimeo summarizing the essence of PLE Share.

How does PLE relate to Do it yourself (DIY)? Learners can now download free courses and videos from all over the educational sites. Anya prepared an Edupunks guide.  Stephen responded with his review on the guide.

Stephen remarked:

That’s why it is so disappointing to read this:

In the case of DIY education, it means getting the knowledge you need at the time you need it, with enough guidance so you don’t get lost, but without unnecessary restrictions. DIY doesn’t mean that you do it all alone. It means that the resources are in your hands and you’re driving the process. (p.3)

Education isn’t about ‘getting the knowledge’…. It’s about becoming something – whether that something is a painter, carpenter, computer programmer or physicist. And becoming something is so much more than getting the ‘big buckets of benefits’ from educational institutions.

Yes, I shared Stephen’s points in that education is more related to aspiring to one’s potential through continuous self-development, in becoming something, and I would add that: it should add value to both the individuals and the community.  To this end, DIY education could be interpreted differently from the formal education that we are referring to, where formal education is normally provided by the public or private provider, or even by home schoolers, and informal education is provided by our parents, friends, or peers, (i.e. education by others) .  So learning could be personally or socially situated and appropriated, under the umbrella term of formal education or informal learning, within a landscape of practice.

Etienne Wenger has explained here on walking on the landscape of practice, and how he sees one locating oneself in such landscape.

How about this sort of education where learners and educators are connected to others on a global basis?  Thanks to Stephen here for the link.

That is similar to the concept of connected classroom applied in action: Connected Classroom in action 

If you could afford the fees, then this Floating University – a massive online University could be another way to go.

Lisa Lane shares her experience and views on MOOC, with a SMOOC, where she highlighted the challenges with the design and setup.

How do I see all these on MOOC? I have shared my views on design and delivery of MOOC and MOOC here. What I think is critical to success needs to be based on questioning the assumptions made in MOOC, followed by an inquiry on what online learning means from both the educators and learners point of views, like what Lisa Lane and Jim Groom have done.  Surely, George Siemens, Stephen Downes and Dave Cormier’s efforts in pioneering in MOOC have been instrumental in pushing the boundaries of MOOC in this Change MOOC.

So, for me, it is the combination of personal learning coupled with social learning, together with the teacher presence, social presence and cognitive presence (both individually and collectively) that would make learning meaningful and valuable.

I reckon once the learners have acquired the learning skills (metacognitive skills), then it would be better to encourage and support them to exercise their autonomous learning through the development of PLE/PLN.

There are still challenges ahead with the adoption of technology in higher education as highlighted in Ignatia post

But what did surprise me was that although mobile devices are all around us, and we use it in many cases for contextualized, informal learning, most of the educational institutes don’t yet have a clear guideline for these new learning devices. Which immediately suggests to me that the content resources will probably also not be designed taken into consideration mobile learning affordances. Or web-based affordances at that. For although courses are mentioned in the report, the quality of these online courses, and whether these courses are designed following online contemporary needs (peer interaction, scaffolding, designed for reconfiguration depending on the device which accesses the content…) is unclear.

I think the use of technology in the classroom environment is still hindered by the pedagogy adopted – and the assumption that formal education and informal learning (with the use of mobile devices) could be fused to exploit the learning affordance.

How do we know if the online learning is effective or not?  We are now turning to Learning Analytics.

Learning analytics has been around for sometime, and here is an interesting post by Wgreller.  “One common assumption I noted is the belief that all students are ambitious and only aim for top grades and the best learning experience. Being a father and having seen a few student generations, I contest this assumption.”

Not all students are motivated in the same way when it comes to managing their learning, as shared in this post on PLEs and PLNs.

I resonate with the author’s views here too, and I have suggested the application of Assumption Theory in my post – that there are lots of assumptions made in the theory and pedagogy, that may need to be questioned, contested, debated, and re-tested under different context and networks/groups of learners.  What are our assumptions in adopting learning analytics? Is it a tool for the educators/administrators for monitoring and control purpose? Or for intervention when educators/administrators noted outliers and inactivity in the learners within or outside the networks? What are the assumptions held by actual learners who are under the “lens” of learning analytics? What reactions and issues would they have when it comes to their privacy and personal security?  What assumptions have been made on those self-directed or paced learners who might just be visitors to the web and internet?  Would these learners have left traces on the networks?  Is inactivity in connections over networks equated to inactive learning?  How about those learners who prefer to learn through reading of books, artifacts, watching TVs, videos, doing physical activities and playing educational games, or socializing with other groups and individuals face to face, without much traces on the virtual or digital networks?  How do we know whether these learners’ connectedness is well enough if their learning is outside the “radar” of the learning analytics?

Erik Duval, a professor in the research unit on human-computer interaction, at the computer science department of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven shared in this post:

you have to be careful what you measure: an optimal Body Mass Index (BMI) is not the same as perfect health. In fact, this is more problematic even in learning or research, where it seems to me that there is less consensus on what are relevant criteria… Do higher assessment scores always indicate better learning? Are papers with higher numbers of citations always more relevant? Are researchers with a higher h-index always better researchers?

Learning analytics is an important tool for us to consider, though it needs to be exercised with caution, due to the many assumptions we might have made.

In conclusion, PLE, PLN, Do it yourself and online education via various means like MOOC have their own merits and limitations, and it would be important to question the assumptions behind each model of education and learning, in order to match the needs and expectations of BOTH educators and learners.

Learning in a landscape of practice or networks of practice is both challenging and rewarding, though, each promise comes also with basic questions: Is this sort of learning valued by the learners?  Is it an effective way of learning? How? and Why?  Research and continuous exploration through experimentation and application would likely provide the answer to the question of: What is knowledge? What is learning? And how does it occur at this digital age.

Photo: From Networked Learning Conference 2012

#CCK11 How to explain Connectivism, MOOC and PLE/PLN?

How to explain connectivism, MOOC, and PLE/PLN in the simplest way?
Simple? Just Google it 🙂
Have fun.
Ahh
My family? My dog, me and my horse…
With the duck versus the cow?

Picture credit: From Gordon’s blog post.  Thanks for his generous sharing.

#PLENK2010 Emotional and Social Intelligence and PLENK

The sociable brain (Daniel Goleman in his book Social Intelligence): Neuroscience has discovered that our brain’s very design makes it sociable, inexorably drawn into an intimate brain-to-brain linkup whenever we engage with another person. That neural bridge lets us affect the brain-and so the body-of everyone we interact with, just as they do us.
Even our most routine encounters act as regulators in the brain, priming our emotions, some desirable, others not.  The more strongly connected we are with someone emotionally, the greater the mutual force.
Does this explain why networkers are having strong or weak ties in social networks, where emotions could play a part in its formation, development and sustainability? What would be your basis of your weak ties/connections?  Ideas or information sharing? Emotional sharing? Socialising?

In search of answers to the above questions, I explored this Bar-on Model of Emotional Social Intelligence .  It provides some important insights into emotional and social intelligence.

emotional-social intelligence is a cross section of interrelated emotional and social competencies, skills and facilitators that determine how effectively we understand and express ourselves, understand others and relate with them, and cope with daily demands.

I would also rate this article as one of the best in emotional and social intelligence that I have read, as the research was extensive, and findings based on strong evidences.

Ref to p7 of 28:

More specifically, the Bar-On model reveals that women are more aware of emotions, demonstrate more empathy, relate better interpersonally and are more socially responsible than men. On the other hand, men appear to have better self-regard, are more self-reliant, cope better with stress, are more flexible, solve problems better, and are more optimistic than women. Similar gender patterns have been observed in almost every other population sample that has been examined with the EQ-i. Men’s deficiencies in interpersonal skills, when compared with women, could explain why psychopathy is diagnosed much more frequently in men than in women; and significantly lower stress tolerance amongst women may explain why women suffer more from anxiety-related disturbances than men (American Psychiatric Association, 1994).

The above findings sound well when I reflect on my observations in social networks, though I think more researches need to be done to substantiate the claims, in order to avoid any stereotyping.

Would gender difference affect the way how people use PLENK and connect with others? This could be important to understand, and if the findings of the research are right, then this may imply that more women are able to connect with others than men in social networks due to their superior skills in empathy and emotional awareness, whereas men may be able to cope better with stress, are more flexible, solve problems better, and are more optimistic than women.

This led me to explore further…..

In this Social intelligence, innovation, and enhanced brain size in primates by Simon M. Reader and Kevin N. Laland

Individuals capable of inventing new solutions to ecological challenges, or exploiting the discoveries and inventions of others, may have had a selective advantage over less able conspecifics, which generated selection for those brain regions that facilitate complex technical and social behavior. An alternative account is that primates are making opportunistic use of information processing capabilities afforded by a large executive brain that has evolved for some other reason to cope with challenges in new flexible ways. However, as these two hypotheses are not mutually exclusive (3), our findings support the view that social learning and innovation may have been important processes behind the evolution of large brains in primates.

To the extent that innovation is a measure of asocial learning, the correlation between social learning and innovation frequencies suggests that asocial and social learning have evolved together. This pattern suggests that social and asocial learning may be based on the same processes (50), which conflicts with the widely held view that social learning requires distinct psychological abilities from asocial learning (70). However, we cannot rule out the possibility that social and asocial learning are separate, domain-specific capacities (14, 15) that have undergone correlated evolution.

If the findings of the research are right, then innovation (as a measure of asocial learning) based on the use of PLENK and social learning might have evolved together, confirming that social learning and innovation is part of the evolution in past decade.  Could we separate the social and asocial learning?  That remains a myth.

This emotional and social intelligence is just so interesting for me to explore.


Photo: From Flickr

John

Postscript: Just read Heli’s Designing for commitment in online communities Great insights from Heli.

Will reflect and respond.

#PLENK2010 Reminder on Research Survey into the Design and Delivery of MOOC PLENK

Thank you to our PLENK2010 participants who have responded to the Research Survey.  If you still haven’t responded yet, please note:

Reminder:

“PLENK2010 participants are invited to fill out a short survey on the Research into the Design and Delivery of MOOC – PLENK2010. This survey is anonymous and voluntary and should take no more than 10 minutes to complete. Sui Fai John Mak, a participant of PLENK2010 would like to thank you in advance for your time and contribution to the research. The survey can be accessed here http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/K3JDXD3 for 2 more days and will close on November 26th 2010 at 12:00 AM Pacific Standard Time.”

John

Postscript: In response to a request, Survey MOOC PLENK http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/K3JDXD3 extended 2 more days & will close on Nov 29th 2010 at 12:00 AM Pacific Standard Time.

#PLENK2010 What tools have you used in PLENK2010?

Thanks Chris for the http://grou.ps/globalcollaboration link in the PLENK Forum of Research Survey into the Design and Delivery of MOOC PLENK2010.  Some interesting discussion there too.

Where there is a problem, there will be an opportunity, and possibly a solution smile

We don’t have gRSShopper, but surely it depends on your needs of further connection and interaction after this PLENK.

I use email, FB, Twitter, blog, Google, Google Scholar, Delicious, Wikispaces, this Forum, Youtube, Slideshare, and RSS as the central platform for my PLE/N in PLENK.  There are many other tools/social media that I use as mentioned here https://suifaijohnmak.wordpress.com/2010/09/19/plenk2010-plepln/ and https://suifaijohnmak.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/plenk2010-tools-of-use-in-online-learning-plepln/

Here are the research references http://connectivismeducationlearning.wikispaces.com/Research+References

What do you use? Any other platforms or tools that you have created, used that you would like to invite us to join?

This surely relates to the research into MOOC PLENK2010.

How to keep up with the conversation and interaction? What are the tools suited to your needs? What sort of PLN would be most helpful and valuable to your personal learning?

Photo credit: from other blog post…