Vas, R., Weber, C., & Gkoumas, D. (2018). Implementing connectivism by semantic technologies for self-directed learning. International Journal of Manpower, 39(8), 1032–1046. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-10-2018-0330
Broad Topic: As with the other topics, this paper covers the connectivism theory and how it can be applied cross-culturally through three learning experiences.
Theoretical frameworks used to ground the piece: George Siemens and Stephen Downes’ 2005 initial paper on connectivism is the foundational educational theory. Also, the authors draw inspiration from the following articles: 1) An evaluation of structural model for independent learning through connectivism theory and web 2.0 towards students’ achievement, 2) Using connectivism theory and technology for knowledge creation in cross-cultural communication, 3) Study on college English teaching interaction and teaching practice based on connectivism from the neurocognitive perspective, and 4) Intercultural rhetoric and professional communication: Technological advances and organizational behavior. These articles form the basis for the researcher’s guiding principle in that learning is guided via a range of technologies and, in keeping with the technological times, a new learning theory that capitalizes on this trend is needed.
Seminal constructs or concepts in the article: Referencing Siemens’ and Downes’ paper, the founding authors created six stages of connectivist learning: Awareness & receptivity, Connection forming, Contribution & involvement, Pattern recognition, Meaning making, and Praxis. These six stages form the nexus of how connectivism works with learning. In Stage 1, students acquire basic skills, then begin to learn, use, and acquire new tools in their newly formed personal networks (Stage 2). Stage 3, Contribution & Involvement, students become more comfortable in their networks and make their presence known to others; essentially, a more noticed connection. Stage 4 involves the student being an active contributor, while Stage 5 sees the learner forming opinions and determining the meaning of patters. Lastly, Stage 6 is a reflective process in which the student is actively reengaging and recreating their personal networks to best suit their learning needs. The core of connectivism revolves around knowledge being distributed across networks and that learning happens when students are able to transverse those established networks. “The role of technology in connectivism is to be enablers of new opportunities—by opening doors and creating pathways to new information sources and maintaining those connections” (p. 3). The researchers’ purpose in creating the Trans-Atlantic and Pacific Project (TAPP), describing Personal Learning Networks (PLN’s), and Fabric of Digital Life (Fabric), is to highlight the success of incorporating networking in a writing pedagogy. Through these examples, their hope is to establish research-based practices that employs the connectivist learning principle.
Broad research or theory objectives including hypotheses, propositions, etc.: The learning theory, connectivism, was born out of the technological and networked environment that has existed since the late 80’s. Founded in 2005, this theory states that learning is enhanced through society and technology. Patterns to learning are formed and learning is directly influenced by the networks that are established throughout society. The “node” that the learner connects with is a deciding factor in what information is established and how information flows. In this article, the authors are instructors who teach writing and communication. Their purpose in designing the soon to be mentioned projects, was to “examples gather attention on theory-driven practices in our local contexts that take advantage of available tools and resources. Our goal is to use these experiences as a basis for promoting connectivist learning, mindfully designed and carefully deployed” (p. 5).
Research methodology: In this study, the researchers showcased the success of connectivism is three areas of evidence-backed practice: Trans-Atlantic and Pacific Project (TAPP), Personal Learning Networks (PLN), and the Fabric of Digital Life (Fabric). TAPP emphasized multiple stages in the connectivist theory by allowing students to partner with students at a university in Spain. Through oral presentations, reflections, and establishing commonalities, students were able to form connection nodes, establish connections via a chosen technology, learn about different viewpoints, and finally unify their thoughts by reflecting on their experience. In the PLN example, “student development of visualizations of their individual learning networks provides a means to both document their awareness and receptivity to connections and also begin to sort and filter the enormous flows of information available” (p. 11). The instructors allowed the students to design a visualization as a way to introduce themselves to their Spanish partner. The differing designs emphasized Stages 4 & 5 in the connectivism process by allowing the students to focus on the connections they formed via a diagram. Through learning networks, the students were able to witness firsthand the construction and facilitation of connectivism. Lastly, the students utilized a digital archive and increased their knowledge on digital literacy and by determining what contributions would be accepted onto the platform. This allowed the students to further examine the interconnected networks that broadened their learning experience by reflecting on the awareness needed in making decisions that affect their learning.
Findings, implications, conclusions: The researchers concluded that through the aforementioned examples, the students gained an intercultural competence in collaborating with other nationalities, formed new connections, and learned from their communication on how to best proceed with their course assignments. Also, by growing their learning network, the students were able to decipher and filter through flows of information that illustrated their unique cultures and individuality. This allowed the students to reflect on their purposeful connections and taught them the value of modifying connections as they deemed fit. Finally, when working with the digital archive known as Fabric, students were able to modify and contribute content that increased their digital literacy and showcased their understanding of emerging patterns in a networked society.
Prescriptive and descriptive contributions: While connectivism as an educational theory is still being debated, the researchers were able to demonstrate three evidence-based practices that, according to the six stages of connectivist learning, met the required threshold. I also felt like the teacher’s methodology of requiring oral presentations and reflections were a great way to determine competency and learning outcomes. The students were able to demonstrate problem-solving and critical thinking skills in a cross-cultural learning environment that demonstrated learning “on the fly” instead of traditional assessments. In terms of learning technologies, this methodology is similar to defending one’s portfolio or presenting a paper and/or original research. By engaging in the aforementioned communicative practices, they further increased their connections and learned to expand their social circles; both of which are important when pursuing a career. The students learned the value of networking in a global society, formed their own opinions, and contributed to a learning environment all while engaging the resources around them.
Critique of ideas and research: As it relates to this article, my critique would point to the principle in which the research stands upon; connectivism. As with other learning theories that are well-established, connectivism does not have a well-founded literature in which to compare the different practices that it might apply. Similarly, it could be argued that this theory is not really a theory and merely should serve as a supporting role to other established paradigms. I do agree that learning occurs via networked systems, and I appreciate the founding researchers work in creating a theory to explain our digital age, yet I think that instead of creating new theories of learning we should potentially integrate the ones we have. Could we not take the best of constructivism, behaviorism, cognitivism, social learning, connectivism, etc., and produce a theory that is relevant to the age in which we live? Why must we deconstruct in order to mesh with our new reality?
Relevant gaps and research opportunities: Connectivism requires the students to be motivated and self-directed in the pursuit of knowledge. Well, I have witnessed (and been guilty myself) students who need the teacher to drive the course content while holding the learner responsible for the knowledge that is attempting to be shared. Be it formative assessments or recitation of speeches, there exists a place in education for a top-down approach. Secondly, the rise of MOOCs in the mid 2010’s is very applicable to this theory. Content is organized and distributed via a network and the student is largely responsible for driving the knowledge engine. The jury is still out as to whether MOOCs will persist in the future (though they haven’t fared very well as of now). I suppose a full-on approach to testing this theory would be to apply it directly to a fully online course. While we have seen evidence-based practices in terms of projects (as witnessed in this investigation), it would be interesting to apply the six stages to multiple courses that are being taught online and see how the learner responds. Would they direct their learning towards their interests, or flounder without direction?