Dunaway, M. K. (2011). Connectivism: Learning theory and pedagogical practice for networked information landscapes. In Reference Services Review, 39(4), 675–685. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907321111186686
Broad Topic: I am studying Connectivism as a learning theory in online learning. This article, written in 2011, was one of the first papers I read when learning about Connectivism in a previous course. The author expands on the theory set forth by Siemens and Downes while applying the approach to information literacy instruction.
Theoretical frameworks used to ground the piece: This article draws from the original Connectivism article written by Siemens and Downes while drawing information from the following articles: Mackey and Jacobson (2011) and Thomas et al. (2007). The two aforementioned articles dive into the topics of information literacy and how computer-mediated communication has changed the framework in which prior theories were presented. In these articles, two frameworks emerge that are relevant to the connectivist learning theory: metaliteracy and transliteracy. Metaliteracy, as explained by the researchers, builds on prior information literacy theories yet believes that they do not “consider collaborative media production and the impact on learning, which is why we need an expanded metaliteracy model with an emphasis on active production and sharing of new knowledge through technology” (p. 679). This expansion allows for Connectivism to be explored as a potential link with metaliteracy. Transliteracy takes a narrower approach in that the authors believe the focus on information literacy should be “on how communication takes place; transliteracy refers to skills that enable learners to access information and communicate across multiple platforms, tools, and technologies” (p.679). Again, the use of technology is the center piece of this theory and has the potential, like metaliteracy, to unify with Connectivism.
Seminal constructs or concepts in the article: George Siemens’ paper, Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age, serves as the seminal construct for this paper. His work established the theory and laid the framework for other researchers. His paper proposed certain tenets such as: 1) Learning is process involving the connection of nodes (aka information sources), 2) learning and technology are intricately linked, 3) Diversity of opinion, and the ability to perceive connections, are fundamental to leaning, 4) connections must be formed and maintained and, 5) evaluating information is a skill that represents the learning process. These facets emphasize the learners’ ability to process knowledge that is stored and biased via technology. The ability of the user to make connections is central to the connectivist theory, thus adding to the notion that learning occurs by developing a network, establishing connections, and learning through the pathway that is formed.
Broad research or theory objectives including hypotheses, propositions, etc.: Connectivism is a modern learning theory to deal with direct impact the technology has on learning. The change brought on by technology calls for a learning theory to reflect our way of thinking and our way of off-loading tasks to a system. These principles of Connectivism guide the author’s research in that the learning environment should allow the student to gain from the instructional experience. Since this paper covers information literacy, as experienced by a librarian, the “Web 2.0’s emphasis on communication, connection, and content creation has contributed to educators’ interest in the ways that web technologies interact with students’ learning processes” (p. 678). According to the author, information literacy theories are more concerned with the social framework that information and libraries exist within, and not the technological background in which information resides.
Research methodology: The author conducted a literature review with two key tenets arising from her work; metaliteracy and transliteracy. Both models recognize the impact that technology has on learning with slight differences. Metaliteracy focuses on the connection between different literacies, while transliteracy is concerned with the connection process between the user and the technology. “Metaliteracy and transliteracy are frameworks for understanding information literacy that emphasize the importance of communities, connections, information networks, and information technologies; these concepts are central to the principles of the theory of connectivism, which postulates that communities, connections, information networks, and information technologies are central to the learning process” (p. 680). The author attests that Connectivism could explain how students acquire the aforementioned literacies.
If the purpose of Connectivism is to postulate that learning is the network that is established, then it follows that those practitioners of information literacy should acknowledge that students learn by connecting to the vast array of networks available. In terms of applicability as it pertains to libraries, if students can be encouraged to view libraries as part of their personal learning network and, as it relates specifically to information literacy, students would gain transferable skills that enable them to learn across a range of media. The author further explains that sources such as Wikipedia act as a pre-search tool for students prior to engaging with in-depth research databases. She notes that by recognizing user-generated content as “potential nodes in students’ personal learning networks and point students towards scholarly resources and library databases that represent other locations of knowledge” (p. 682). As it relates to librarians, the author further specifies that they have the ability to direct the learner to library resources and potentially cultivate the creation of a connecting node in the students’ personal learning network.
Findings, implications, conclusions: Due to this article being a literature review of information literacy and Connectivism, there is not specific findings to report on. In terms of a conclusive statement, the prevailing theme is that the information literacy framework has been significantly impacted by technology and that metaliteracy and transliteracy can provide a framework for helping students learn. The learning theory behind the instruction process, Connectivism, can help librarians understand how students are learning and engaging with their formed networks.
Prescriptive and descriptive contributions: Connectivism provides a framework for how students learn through personal networks, how teachers can play an influential role in shaping a classroom, and how technology can help design instruction that facilitates modern modes of learning. The author suggests that a single theory cannot explain the entire learning process, but points to a layering approach in which Connectivism can build upon prior learning theories (such as Constructivism, Cognitivism, and Humanism). In our field of learning technologies, I find this statement to be pertinent in that we are interested in how students learn. Multiple theories hold valid information that can be utilized in learning the process of how a student engages with their surroundings, forms patterns that build remembrance, or utilizes their available resources to shape their knowledge repository.
Critique of ideas and research: The author’s understanding of the impact that technology plays on a student’s ability to learn was very important. This article was written in 2011 when many competing ideas were battling for dominance as it relates to learning. I think she did a good job in recognizing the role that media plays when forming learning connections and that not all learning happens in a formal setting with formal resources. More research needs to be done as it relates to verifiable and empirical proof that Connectivism is a theory of learning and not just a perspective on how technology impacts the process. Some critics have argued that Connectivism is more of an instructional theory than that of a solidified learning theory. This statement could be true due to the systematic nature that surrounds technology (also, technology can be viewed as merely a tool and not a true learning mechanism).
Relevant gaps and research opportunities: At the time of publication, the idea behind the paper (Connectivism) was fairly new with many 2.0 technologies launching that had the ability to impact connections made to various sources. It would be interesting to see new literature as it relates to Connectivism and how our technological society has impacted the learning process. Are our sources factual? Do we take for granted the scientific process and ingest low-hanging information due to laziness? Has technology hindered our ability to think for ourselves, or are we evolving, and technology is our new system companion? Have more researchers accepted Connectivism as a theory and worked to iron out the flaws within it? Or is it still considered an outside perspective compared to Constructivism? Is there room for a melding of the two with parts from each theory combined? Regardless of the end result, the fact is we do learn via a digitized network and are directly impacted by the expansion of technology.