Connectivism, the course. A review. (#CCK12)

Connectivism as espoused by Siemens and Downes is a theory of learning, and I quote Siemens (2005): "Learning is a process that occurs within nebulous environments of shifting core elements – not entirely under the control of the individual. Learning (defined as actionable knowledge) can reside outside of ourselves (within an organization or a database), is focused on connecting specialized information sets, and the connections that enable us to learn more are more important than our current state of knowing." 


Although I agree that the internet has become the source of learning materials and tools, and that its rapid ability to evolve has caused the nebulosity of the environment. I disagree with the venue for the learning. I do not agree that actionable knowledge can reside outside of the living organism as of yet. I believe that connectivism and learning to navigate the internet and the connections and the networks, is a skill necessary for learning. But it does not adequately explain how we learn. But does this diminish the importance of connectivism? I say, not at all. 


Content and Delivery


Throughout the course, there were various aspects of the idea (or for the purposes of this review, the "theory") that were presented. Discussed were the theory and its boundaries, networks, pedagogical systems and its impact on teaching, learning environments, openness, etc (Connectivism, on Wikispaces, 2012). As a course, it has successfully mapped the most significant components of an idea that is difficult to grasp. 


The delivery of the course is unique and challenging, and should I say, probably not for the uninitiated. It is sophisticated as it requires familiarity with many traditional e-learning tools as well as the unusual ones. LMS is seldom used, while wikispaces is the repository of information. Discussion in the class happens in elluminate, while contributions are in the form of blogs and diigo, informal grouping is through google groups. Homeworks consists of an essay, a virtual mind map and  an out-of-the-box presentation. 

my Pecha Kucha for Connectivism

My final project is a PechaKucha (20slides/20 second per slide system) that reviews some of the salient features of the course but I have yet to find way to upload it as a flash. But it is found in this Media Fire site: 


http://www.mediafire.com/?slyb5zpebzvmsal


Hope you get to take time out to play this.












References:




Simens G. Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. 2005. as viewed at http://www.itdl.org/journal/jan_05/article01.htm on 15 April 2012


Downes S, Siemens G. Connectivism on Wikispaces. 2012. as viewed at http://connectivism12.wikispaces.com/ on 15 April 2012.

Connectivism: how it works in my mind... (#CCK12)

In the beginning, I knew very little of the course in Connectivism except for the fact that it is indeed unusual. I was expecting that this would be a glimpse of the way learners of the future will learn.

In my attempt to organize the course in my mind, I drew this concept map.

It starts with the learner as a little RED square in one corner (very much in-the-box :). I am trying to show the course as a journey from one corner to the opposite, where the learner ends up as an empowered, and well-rounded (literally) GREEN circle. There are two main dimensions by which I mapped the concept: one was the virtual and technological resources that was put in the process, in the top horizontal YELLOW grid at the top. The elements moving from left to right shows intensity of the technological and virtual resources: the net pedagogy and the group of net-based software/applications/programs that contribute to the technological "savviness" of the learner. On the other grid, I am trying to demonstrate another dimension to the course which is openness in terms of both hardware as well as the reach of the applications (in my experience: blog->LMS/tweet/diigo->elluminate->google+). Thus pedagogy, learner driven multidisciplinary research, the devices and the networks all work hand-in-hand to create an open and liberal minded learner.

I grouped some of the elements by colors, the PURPLE boxes are more leaning towards intellectual, philosophical, pedagogical contribution to the process, such as research, net pedagogy and informational literacy. The ones in BROWN are mainly hardware that creates the physical connection and openness such as connective and mobile devices, and unbridled networks. The PINK group is a collection of some (but not all) of the learnware that we use in the course, as mentioned above, as arranged according to my perceived reach.

All of these elements interact in the journey mentioned in the GREEN bubble as the learner's connectiveness, and as indicated by the thick GREEN line, as the learner (me) journeyed through the course.

Connectivism and the network of power and counterpower in education (#CCK12)

From the dawn of humankind, inequality has existed. There are people who are better at some things and there are people who are worse at some things. As a corollary, a person can be good in some things and worse in other things. Fundamentally, it is how important the activity that one is good at that determines a person's social ranking i.e. a good hunter during the prehistoric era will rank higher in rank, whereas at present time, a person who is good at hunting may not be as ranked highly as someone who is good writing.

What happens then is that for every era, a particular activity is more important than others, and people who are good at these activities are the ones who are invested with power. History is littered with stories of the dominant social classes such as the landowners during the agricultural era, the factory owners during the industrial age, and now, the drivers of the internet are the richest group of men. There is always a dominant class, and a dominated class.

According to Manuel Castells, "Whoever has power determines the rules of the institutions..." He discusses various interrelated concepts such as
a. networks in power, b. network power c. networked power and d. network making power.

He believes that there are networks in power that control the fortunes of those that are in the network and even those outside it. In this particular concept then, those who are in the network that control information, control those within and outside of the network when it comes to traffic of information. What is disturbing in this concept is that in order to maintain power, those within the network will keep those outside the network out.

Network power on the other hand refers to the implementation of standards to all its members and those that want to be a member.

Networked power  is the concept wherein some members have power over others within the network. It can be coercive power or persuasive power. They always act in concert, intimidating members of the network to act according to the will of those holding the power. The persuasive power is always more influential than coercive.

Network making power is the most crucial form of power, as it has the ability to the network to form networks and to program and reprogram  the network so that it will always continue to serve the interests of those who make the network.

Using Castell's construct, I would like to explore the seat of power in education and the effect of connectivism on this network power of education. Modern education is now, more than ever enshrined within networks. Students use the internet freely, within the classroom and outside. They learn from their teachers but more so from the internet. Think Connectivism.

Thus, it is very important to look at the the powers that exist within this sector and the present educational environment of our students.

The networks in power in many traditional universities still exist to separate the academics from the outside world. The traditions are very much present to segregate those that are within, those that are enrolled, versus those outsiders who do not belong. Even within the universities, there are people who make the rules and there are members of the networks that follow. The regents make the rules, while the full professors are more powerful than the associate and assistant professors, and all the academics are more powerful than the lay employees and the students.

The network power of the universities is very much represented by the degrees and certificates that the students earn, marking them of sufficient standards. But do these certificates really reflect the amount and depth of learning?

How about the network making power within the universities? Many universities subscribe to and are now currently reliant on networks to maintain their standing. The Ivy League is one of the oldest among these networks. All universities of repute have to be members of some body that determine the minimum required standard for each member. They program and reprogram the necessary requirements for each member universities, from the required per capita bandwidth available to the students, to the impact factor of the publications that are required to maintain standing within the network.

How then does the internet affect this network? The internet in the beginning held so much promise to be the counterpower to this exclusive clubs of knowledge. The internet has threatened the bastions of education by seemingly able to democratize the knowledge. Not only do we make information available to everyone with the internet connection, but, we allow the community to compile their own knowledge. There is Wikipedia and all the wikis. Even this blog is part of the community driven knowledge formation. Or is it? Would I have been writing this blog had I not been enrolled in a module on connectivism? That is for another blog post to answer.

In Castell's own words, "Whenever there is domination, there is always resistance to domination. This is the only general law of humankind." Does the internet represent this resistance? There are many characteristics of the internet that seems to fit the description. In social networks, despite the boundary between members and non-members, the most successful networks are those that invite people in. Because the bigger the membership of the network, the more effective it becomes. This is opposite of traditional members where network power is derived from excluding others.

In networked power, the standards seemingly started from top down. There are specific ways to communicate, there are protocols and languages that you have to learn i.e. javascript, internet protocols and routing; intricate IP addresses. But the development of the internet is seemingly inclusive, that now, with the new interfaces, we do not need to learn those languages, the internet has learned to speak the common human language. The more successful websites and software are those that are intuitive. Now, there are devices that do not even need the written language, there are devices that follow the voice command, and some even reply in a human-like fashion (although AI may not yet exist).

So does the internet really represent the counterpower? Does connectivism as an educational landscape represent the breakdown of the traditional universities and schools?

Allow me to explore some counterarguments. The internet is fantastically democratic, yes. Internet stats website www.internetworldstats.com estimates that at the end of 2011, there are about 2.27 billion internet users in the world out of a population of 6.9 billion people. By sheer number, one would think that it is inclusive, right?

Well, if we use the network theory of power to look at the internet, we are in for some surprises.

The internet may have the billions of users, but in reality, the rules are not made by them. There are very few players that can influence the system. They are our internet giants, much similar to those holders of power in the different stages of development. For instance, Google (of the "do no evil" fame), controls the search engine market at 80% of the global market. Microsoft's Internet explorer controls 54% of the browser market for desktops, whereas Safari controls 61% of the tablet/mobile browser market.Bill Gates' Microsoft is by far the most dominant of the operating system's share at 92%, while iOS controls that mobile/tablet operating systems at 62%. In terms of social media marketing, Facebook may generate a measly 0.71% referral rate but that is by far the most powerful, as evidenced by second placer you tube at 0.05% referral rate. (All stats in this paragraph are taken from Net Market Share, http://marketshare.hitslink.com).

Well, firstly, all of these companies that are dominant are in the US, and yet North America (not just the US) has only 12% of the internet users. It clearly demonstrates networked power wherein, certain members of the network can exert power over the rest of the members of the network. They also control the standards and protocols for the rest of the users, simply because of their dominant market positions. If you want to be searched, you have to be visible to Google. If you want market referrals, then you have to play by FB rules. If you want to be seen clearly in the internet, then your website has to be optimized for internet explorer. These are clearly characteristics of network power.

And among the greatest fears of competition commissions around the world is the monopoly that exists within these segments of the virtual world. Clearly, networks in power are trying very hard to keep new players at bay, as well as terminate the competition or expand market services either through bundling (think Internet Explorer and Windows OS), through buy outs (think Skype and Pay Pal being bought by e-Bay) or through exclusive distribution (think Apple products and iOS and Safari).

What is even more interesting is that these companies have the network making power. They can actually persuade us to see and read, watch and view specific sites within the web. And by default, they can make things invisible to us by design. Governments have realized this power and some have exercised coercive powers over these companies for them in turn to "persuade" us of their versions of the truth. Imagine China and the internet censorship, and selective programming. In this instances, does the internet collude with the coercive powers that it is suppose to subvert?

It is a fact of life that the revolutionaries, when they succeed, become enshrined in power and will in an unavoidable twist of fate (as Castell has put out), generate a counterpower, a resistance. Has the internet, once the hope for democratizing education (and continues to be a source of hope), already transiting as the mainstream, and has been suffering from the corruption of the power networks? Is it therefore about to generate an opposition? What will this form of countermovement be?

I cannot wait to find out...


References:

Castells M. Network Theories of Power. 2010. University of Southern California. As viewed on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skcUYhRaEas on 31 March 2012.

Internet World Stats. Internet Users Statistics. Miniwatts Marketing Group. 2011. As viewed on http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm. on 01 April 2012.

Net Market Share. Various market share data. 2012. As viewed on http://marketshare.hitslink.com on 01 April 2012.

Collectives vs Connectives [#CCK12]

Networks and connections have progressed to such an amazing degree, that at present time, there are very few people with no connection to somebody else. The time of monkhood and solitude is all but extinct. Networks are, for all intents and purposes, all-encompassing.

But within the Network (with capital "N") is a broad range of diverse relationships. It could be formed in a one-to-one-communication (such as an email), or a one-to-many (such as twitter) or many-to-many (such as wikis). But also within this framework is a gradient of privacy and boundaries, from a totally connected and permeable unit that the world can peek trhough (remember the curious case of Mr and ex-Mrs Ashton Kutcher?) where all happiness and unhappiness that springs forth is completely visible to the world; to the almost disconnected individual, whose appearance in the grid is probably through an email or two. And what about the masses of individuals in countries where censorship of the internet is the norm or maybe insidious that they do not even know that they are being censored? How do we classify their connection? In Facebook alone, there are many ways to determine one's level of privacy and permeability of information.

Whatever the level of connections within the network, all these people belong to the Network, and as such the Network is present with Diversity, variable openness and privacy, on one hand the fully collective (sort of posse, groupie kind) to the connective (connected yet with individual opinion; think of blogs).

There is a certain parallelism to a real-world phenomenon of migration, wherein the recipient countries (and cultures) have variable policies; from one of pure assimilation and integration to one of multi-culturalism and preservation ethnic diversity. The individual families and the society determines which level of openness and acceptance are acceptable. [more on this on my blog article on "The Great Migration" 23 Jan 2012]

To me, there is very little need for debate about groups and networks because in the greater scheme of things, the collectives and the connectives all exist within the very inclusive walls of the Network. it is up to the individual as the learning unit, to determine his level of openness ideas and disclosure of his opinions to the world.

CONNECTIVISM, A LEARNING THEORY OR A NECESSARY SKILL FOR MODERN LEARNING? #CCK12

Connectivism has been proposed as an alternative learning theory particularly in the age of modern digital technology. As discussed by Robertson in a video lecture (2007), it is true that most of the prior learning theories such as constructivism and cognitism were proposed before our major leaps into the internet revolution happened, and therefore, the possibility of needing a new theory to explain how we learn may be timely. But is CONNECTIVISM, as described by its two main proponents, Siemens and Downes, it?

Siemens, in his 2005 paper “Connectivism: a learning theory for the digital age,” claims that learning occurs in “nebulous environments, and that it can “occur outside of individuals.” He is also of the opinion that learning can occur outside of human appliance.

Learning, on the other hand, is defined in many ways, but the one I am inclined to use is the one by Cobb (2009), “Learning is the lifelong process of transforming information and experience into knowledge, skills, behaviors, and attitudes.”
My paradigm for learning is that its evidence occur in many levels, from unicellular organisms (as evidenced by intercellular bacterial communications through quorum sensing), to specialized cellular communication of a complex organism, such as the neurons of the brain. Beyond the individual, there is some evidence of social learning, like how a group such as a flock of birds learn how to avoid buildings in its path, or as political animals, many human societies have learned to fight repression. In essence, there is individual learning; there is organizational learning, and social learning as well.

Using this paradigm of the levels of structures, it seems that Downes and Siemens are pushing for a view that is even wider than the social learning paradigm, a sort of extra-societal interactions that go way beyond individuals and maybe societies. CONNECTIVISM is in a way, paradigm shifting (as a skill necessary for learning, rather than a theory of learning), because it allows for conscious formation of network of learners, which allows each learner to sort into addresses and locations various bits of knowledge that they will need to access to process learning themselves. The main strength of this conscious network formation is that there is high degree of resolution and critical evaluation of the formed networks. A good learner can discern a valuable connection to less valuable ones. On the other hand, the main illusion that is brought about by connectivism is that we are always in a group, and that the group, including the connections between the members, are learning. In the end I believe that we are all in this together, alone.

In the positions of Siemens (2005) and particularly of Downes (2006) where he claims that “learning may reside in non-human appliance” (or by extension, non biological), it seems that they are claiming that the connections themselves are capable of learning. This is where my opinion diverges. I believe that learning, at least in the current level of technology, is still very much within the province of biology, and in our case, of the human brain. Even in organizational learning, it is the individual that captures that learning and encapsulates it into norms and traditions for the organization or society. Knowledge residing in processors, in the cloud, in the memory chips and in the connections between the biologics, is merely a collection of fact, no different to all the knowledge stored in Alexandria’s libraries. Despite automated processing that may happen to facts, these automated processing still means very little to where it resides. The resulting product of knowledge processing may move robotic arms and adjust machines, but in reality, these processors do not understand what is happening. It is the seat of consciousness that programmed the machines on how to transmit and process information – this is the location of learning. I agree with Kop and Hill (2008), when they concluded that: “Connectivism ...continues to play an important role in the development and emergence of new pedagogies, where control is shifting from the tutor to an increasingly more autonomous learner” and that “it does not seem that connectivism’s contributions to the new paradigm warrant it being treated as a separate learning theory in and of its own right.”

Conclusion:

Although I concur with Siemens (2005) when he said that “Our ability to learn what we need for tomorrow is more important than what we know today.” I do not entirely agree with the concept that forming connections is learning by itself, rather it is a necessary skill in this day and level of technology. Learning to form connections allows for better access of knowledge, and wider dispersion of sources. But I posit strongly, that the critical thinking, forming opinions and creating new knowledge is a province of the living cell.

References:
Siemens G. Connectivism: a learning theory for the digital age. 2005 as viewed from: http://www.itdl.org/journal/jan_05/article01.htm on 15 February 2012.

Cobb J. A definition of learning. 2009 as viewed from: http://www.missiontolearn.com/2009/05/definition-of-learning/ on 17 February 2012.

Robertson I. Introduction to learning theories. 2007 as viewed on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsX5Tq3WTBw on 21 February 2012.

Kop R and Hill A. Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? International Review of Research and Distance Learning Learning. 2008 as viewed on:
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/523/1103 on 20 February 2012.

Downes S. Learning Networks and Connective Knowledge. 2006 as viewed from:
http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper92/paper92.html on 17 February 2012.

Who's afraid of social media? CCK12

With the advent of social media, many are afraid of the impact that it may have towards education. While it is obvious that the use of technology, particularly the internet and social media affect the learning of the students, such as increasing individualization and its resulting de-institutionalization, I have a feeling that our fear of social media;s impact on education is largely based on the fear of the unknown.

For one thing, this is not the first time that there was a mass media threat to learning. Even modern music was thought to be a threat, and then came television, that one way information delivery systems that created a generation of zombies, or so they said. But this generation that was raised by a box-shaped nanny also produced the innovators that led to social media, like Sergei Brin, Mark Zuckerberg, and learning products like wikipedia, howstuffworks, etc.

Internet has even raised the bar of television even higher, besides the commercial version of interactive TV that is meant to sell, newer generation of are using the internet for learning.

How often have I seen a socially interesting commentary because of the newspapers from far-away have come within reach through not just the internet, but through facebook, or heard of earthquakes through twitter, and updated the developments of revolutions through you tube.

I believe that social media is only another system of learning/knowledge delivery system, it is not a threat, but has a potential to to elevate learning.

Now who is afraid of social media? Not I.

The Great Migration [For CCK12]

One of the greatest phenomena of the human civilizations is the great population migrations. There are a few examples, such as the Chinese and the Indian diasporas, as well as the current Filipino diaspora where I am a part of.

When diasporas happen, there are culturally two events that occur simultaneously, one is that of assimilation and the other multiculturalism.

In a bigger sense, I believe that what we are experiencing right now is the greatest diaspora of all time, when we migrate from the analog world that we live in (or used to live in) to the digital world of the current generation. Much like the geographical migration, where in the parents made the decision to migrate, the children born in the new location seems more at ease at fitting in than their parents.

We are the 'parents' of the internet generation. We are the ones who decided to migrate and to forge ahead, thinking that this will give the next generation a better world, but it is our 'children' who function about it with utmost ease. It is not second nature to them, but rather the digital world is the only natural world for them.

And yet, we are in danger of losing connections to these our children, much like the parents of the migrant families tend to lose touch of their children. They either assimilate to the new culture or they impose their original culture on their children whose world is now different. I believe in doing both simultaneously.

The whole rationale of studying Emerging Technologies for me is that - to be able to adapt to the digital nation that received me as a migrant, the world where our students (our children) are natives. I believe that instead of imposing the old ways of learning, we need to understand how the world around them functions and to teach them along the new ways. I also believe that we have to celebrate the old ways of teaching and learning. To teach the values of community and team spirit through old tools such as sports and group projects; to be able to teach empathy through exposure and experience. This alongside teaching them how to google and create wikis, and how to blog and to facebook.

There are many examples of new age tools that we need to learn and navigate. We have to learn to assimilate. There are also a lot of 'old' things in the real world that is highly applicable to the virtual world. Most of these digital tools still yield to old-fashioned common sense of security and boundaries. "Don't talk to strangers" is an adage that serve well both the analog world as well as the digital world.

Connectivism is a new concept of learning, mostly brought about by the new technology. It seems that this technology has rewired how we learn, or so the theory suggests. I would like to explore this during this module. And it situation permits, I would like to use the concept of migration as the backdrop of my understanding of connectivism.