• Transformative learning theory • Adult learning (andragogy)
• Online learning and use of technology
• Social networking and virtual learning communities
Connectivism
I begin with a review of connectivism as it is the theoretical framework used in this study. The term connectivism was coined by George Siemens in 2004 in his article, Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Stephen Downes states that, “At its heart, connectivism is the thesis that knowledge is distributed across a network of connections, and therefore that learning consists of the ability to construct and traverse those networks” (2007, p.1).
Connectivism also takes into account the concept of institutional knowledge
transference. In the case of faculty development, it is not just the storage and dissemination of content that matters, it is the transference of institutional standards, policies and procedures that
becomes a part of the information flowing through George Siemens’ metaphorical pipeline. Echoing Siemens’ (2004), quote on the knowledge economy from earlier in this paper, information is the commodity that is moved, traded, bought and sold, and organizations must make the management of that information a key organizational activity. He likens the flow of information to a river that meanders, pools, ebbs and flows. The very health of the organization depends on the “effective nurturing of the information flow” (p. 3).
Networks, according to Siemens, are comprised of connections between nodes of individuals, groups, systems, fields, ideas, or communities. Connectivism starts with the individual, whose personal knowledge resides within a network, which then feeds into an organization, and ultimately provides learning back to the individual. “This cycle of knowledge development (personal to network to organization) allows learners to remain current in their field through the connections they have formed” (Siemens, 2004 p. 5).
Siemens’ eight principles of connectivism are: • Learning and knowledge rest in diversity of opinions.
• Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known.
• Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning. • Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.
• Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities. • Decision-making is itself a learning process.
• Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality.
• While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the decision.
Stephen Downes (2007) has also written extensively on connectivism and the theory of distributed knowledge. To Downes, individuals or members of a group connected through common causes or needs, form entities which, in turn, have their own unique properties and behaviors different from those of the individuals who make up the entity. There is a shared knowledge among the group or entity that is central to his theory of connective knowledge. Downes says, “The emergent properties of a distributed entity exist solely as a consequence of the organization of its parts, and not its membership, and specifically, from the fact that these parts are connected in a certain recognizable way” (p. 7).
Frances Bell (2011) argues that, while connectivism is based on strong philosophical foundations which grow out of Downes epistemological framework for distributed knowledge, it really makes more of a contribution to the field of technology-enabled learning as a
phenomenon. He asserts that it lacks the rigor of research and theory required for it to stand as a theory of learning, let alone a replacement for traditional learning theories such as
behaviorism, cognitivism and social constructivism. Bell sees connectivism evolving as two divergent strands, namely “connectivism”, espoused by Siemens as a new learning theory for the digital age, and “connective knowledge” as an epistemology articulated by Downes. However, while Bell is critical of recognizing connectivism as a stand-alone learning theory, he nevertheless sees the need for more qualitative research in relation to Siemens’ eight principles of connectivism. Bell (2011) says that, “Connectivism exists as an influential phenomenon that inspires teachers and learners to make changes in their practice but will not be built as a theory without significant qualitative studies to inform its development within the context of other theories” (p. 9).
Kop and Hill (2008), offer a vigorous critique of connectivism by examining the fundamental assertions made by Siemens and Downes and how prominent critics of connectivism, including Bill Kerr (2007) and Pløn Verhagen (2006) have challenged its
assumptions and assertions. They acknowledge, like Bell, that Downes has, “...elucidated an epistemological framework for distributed knowledge which provides a strong philosophical basis for the connectivist learning framework” (p. 5). Kop and Hill contend that, in our Internet connected environment, information acquisition will become increasingly learner-centered and that learners will also increasingly determine the content of learning and even who will
participate in the process. They state that, as learning becomes more self-directed, the role of the tutor may disappear entirely as learners, “...find their own information, and create knowledge by engaging in networks away from the formal setting” (p. 7). However, while Kop and Hill acknowledge that a new epistemology may be emerging, they also contend that connectivism should not be “...treated as a separate learning theory in and of its own right” (p. 8) but rather as Kerr and Verhagen see it, as an emerging new pedagogy or curriculum.
While critics see no new theory of learning in the assumptions and principles of connectivism that don’t already exist in accepted models of constructivism, social
constructivism, embodied active cognition and community of practice, there appears to be a discernible difference in how learners acquire knowledge in a connectivist learning theory. Existing constructivist learning models view learning as mostly linear (horizontal structuring) or scaffolding (vertical structuring), but connectivists view learning as a largely non-linear or meta- cognitive evaluation of “...which elements in the network serve useful purposes and which elements need to be eliminated” (Siemens, 2006 p.1). In connectivism, learning communities are created when connections are made and (nodes of) networks are joined together. As Downes (2007) states,
The point is: - there are no mental models per se (that is, no systematically constructed rule-based representational systems) and what there is (i.e., connectionist networks) is not built (like a model) it is grown (like a plant) (p.1).