Archive for the ‘Theory’ Category

New book on Web 2.0 and Social Informatics for Tertiary Learning

Thursday, August 19th, 2010

Together with Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld and Chris Jones I had the pleasure of being invited to contribute with a chapter to a recently published book titled “Web 2.0 Based e-Learning: Applying Social Informatics for Tertiary Learning“:

Lee, M. and McCoughlin, C. (2010) Web 2.0 Based e-Learning: Applying Social Informatics for Tertiary Learning Hershey PA: IGI Global, 415 pp, US$180 hardback

It is edited by Mark Lee and Catherine McCoughlin and I think it is a really interesting collection with a lot of promising chapters. I was actually going to write up a short description etc. but luckily Tony Bates has beaten me to it – so for more information about the book and the individual chapters I kindly refer to his excellent post.

I have been allowed to share a link to the chapter we have written – so if you’re interested in reading our chapter here’s your chance :-) – the title is: “Catering to the Needs of the “Digital Natives” or Educating the “Net Generation”?

Connectivism Wiki and the creation of knowledge

Friday, September 18th, 2009

From twitter I just happened to stumble upon a wiki-page on Constructivism which is being developed as part of the Connectivism and Connective Knowledge/09 online conference. While I find many of the ideas of connectivism appealing and really interesting, I think there are some problems in calling it a new learning theory or paradigm in itself (as the criticism section of the Wikipedia entry on Connectivism also suggest, and which is explored by Kop & Hill in the article: Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past?).

I really do not mean to make a long-winded criticism or dismissing a perspective which I truly find interesting, but looking at the wiki I also think there are some problems. For instance I found the following passage, which I think is quite curious:

What then, do we find to be distinct about connectivism?

1. Existing theories of learning fail to account for the expansion and creation of knowledge

I think it is rather curious that the authors use the word expansion without making reference to e.g. Yrjö Engeström’s theory of expansive learning, which he wrote back in 1987 (is available here). And in the table describing different theories of learning PIaget and Vygotsky are placed under ‘Constructivism’ – although I think there are many commonalities, there are also some differences, which I think would place Vygotsky more within a ‘socio-cultural’ approach (e.g. as also explored in Dillenbourg et al. 1995 who differ between socio-constructivist, socio-cultural (and then situated cognition)). However, there are many different attempts to group learning theories and is difficult to provide overviews without simplifying a bit of course. However, I think it is not quite right to suggest that existing theories fail to account for the expansion and creation of knowledge, as I do find that socio-cultural theorist (Engeström, Saljö and many many others have provided very interesting and extensive accounts of this) – also I would say that others have contributed to this as well (as discussed by Paavola et al. (2004))

Furthermore, I do find there are or could be some very interesting links between Networked Learning and Connectivism – e.g. when looking at the definition from Goodyear et al. (2004):

“Networked learning is learning in which information and communications (ICT) is used to promote connections: between one learner and other learners, between learners and tutors; between a learning community and its learning resources”

I think it would be interesting to further explore how connectivism resemble, differ from, extends or in some ways lack thought from some of these frameworks. Therefore I am also very happy that George Siemens and Stephen Downes will be hosting an online seminar in relation to the Networked Learning Conference from the 26th of October – I am sure some very interesting discussions will emerge from that, and I am also really looking forward to getting to know more about their perspective! (hopefully I will have all the time in the world to participate vividly during those days :-) )

Some references

Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The Evolution of Research on Collaborative Learning. In E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189-211). Oxford: Pergamon/Elsevier Science. http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/publicat/dil-papers-2/Dil.7.1.10.pdf

Goodyear, P., Banks, S., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (2004). Advances in Research on Networked Learning. Dordrecht: Klüwer Academic Publishers.

Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of Innovative Knowledge Communities and Three Metaphors of Learning. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 557-576.  http://rer.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/74/4/557 

Paper out in Educational Media Journal

Monday, September 15th, 2008

I am happy to say that a paper I and Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld have been working on as a further development of a paper presented at the LYICT conference is now out in the Educational Media Journal. It is work which build on my PhD project about understanding learning as a process of patchworking, but it also takes a critical look at notions such as digital natives, power users etc. Below is an abstract:

This paper sets out to problematise generational categories such as “Power Users” or “New Millennium Learners” by discussing these in the light of recent research on youth and information and communication technology. We then suggest analytic and conceptual pathways to engage in more critical and empirically founded studies of young people’s learning in technology and media-rich settings. Based on a study of a group of young “Power Users”, it is argued that conceptualising and analysing learning as a process of patchworking can enhance our knowledge of young people’s learning in such settings. We argue that the analytical approach gives us ways of critically investigating young people’s learning in technology and media-rich settings, and study if these are processes of critical, reflexive enquiry where resources are creatively re-appropriated. With departure in an analytical example, the paper presents the proposed metaphor of understanding learning as a process of patchworking and discusses how we might use this to understand young people’s learning with digital media.

For those interested the paper can be found here:

Ryberg, Thomas & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, Lone (2008). Power Users and patchworking – An analytical approach to critical studies of young people’s learning with digital media. Educational Media International, 45 (3), 143-156. Retrieved September 15, 2008, from http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/09523980802283608

Connectivism or Collectivism – relations between the ‘individual’ and the ‘social’

Saturday, April 26th, 2008

Through a post on Christian Dalsgaard’s blog I came across a discussion opened by George Siemens on the notions of Collectivism and Connectivism – a post which Terry Anderson then responded to. In the post ‘Collective Intelligence? Nah. Connective Intelligence’ George Siemens writes about his discomfort with the notion of ‘Collective intelligence’ – a term which appears in the 2008 Horizon Report – he writes:

“For reasons of motivation, self-confidence, and satisfaction, it is critical that we can retain ourselves and our ideas in our collaboration with others. Connective intelligences permits this. Collective intelligence results in an over-writing of individual identity”

In the post “Collectivism and Connectivism” Terry Anderson comments on this by presenting his understanding of ‘collective intelligence’ and presents four different social constellations related to learning (what Terry Anderson and John Dron have called the ‘taxonomy of the many’) – here Terry Anderson present four/three aggregations of the many (individual, group, network and collective. The notion of ‘collective’ he interprets in the following way:

“Collectives – These are non personal aggregations of the Many. They allow us to compare ourselves to the many, collectively predict and make decisions, ask questions of all, vote and visualize our aggregated opinions and ideas, match our interests and find networks, groups and individuals and in many other emerging ways help us understand and control our collective worlds.”

In another post “Networks Versus Groups in Higher education” (which is well worth reading I might add!) Anderson expands a bit on the notion of the collective or collectives:

“Collectives are machine-aggregated representations of the activities of large number of individuals. They achieve value by extracting information from the individual, group, and network activities of large numbers of networked users.”

As an example Anderson mentions recommendation systems (e.g. Amazon) and also ‘tag clouds’ and clusters (e.g. at Flickr) seem to fall under this category (where order or ‘intelligence’ emerge out of chaotically structured and large amounts of data, through the actions carried out and content provided by the individual users and (re)-represented through machine-aggregation and complex algorithms).

However, as I also argued in a comment to Christian’s post, I think the discussion of collective or connective has deeper roots which can be traced (at least) back to differences between a Vygotskian and Piagetian view of learning – as Christian very nicely summarised my comment:

“I think you have an important point, when you state that the theories differ in their approach to the relationship between individual and group or the individual and the social. One approach has the individual and individual cognition as a starting point (Piaget) and views the social as “connected” individuals; in other words, social connections can strengthen individual cognition. The other approach has social practice as a starting point (Vygotsky) and holds that individual cognition is dependent on a social practice.”

In the Piagetian view (or socio-cognitive view if we use the distinctions made by Dillenbourg, Baker, Blaye and O’Malley in the article: “The evolution of research on collaborative learning” [Google Scholar link]) individual cognition is strengthened, facilitated, matured or catalysed by social interaction – but the cognitive development (e.g. development of schemas) remains tied to the mental operations of the individual and has its own logic relative to the existing mental apparatus of the individual (the schemas) – a point taken to its extreme in e.g. radical constructivism known from Glaserfeld. In the Vygotskian view, as Christian says, the point of departure is a social practice and individual cognition is dependent on social practice – or to say in another way – our cognitive structures and processes are formed by the social, cultural world (ways of structuring our thoughts are derived from the socio-cultural world e.g. mnemonic techniques, language and ‘methods’ of approaching a problem) – in this sense our cognition is inherently social or cultural. As it is phrased by Cole & Wertsch in the article “Beyond the Individual-Social Antimony in Discussions of Piaget and Vygotsky”:

“Higher mental functions are, by definition, culturally mediated; they involve not a ‘direct’ action on the world, but an indirect action, one that takes a bit of material matter used previously and incorporates it as an aspect of action. In so far as that matter has itself been shaped by prior human practice (e.g., it is an artifact), current action benefits from the mental work that produced the particular form of that matter. [...] In such a view artifacts clearly do not serve simply to facilitate mental processes that would otherwise exist. Instead, they fundamentally shape and transform them”

Such ideas of the social shaping of cognition has a also lead to the critique that we must then be mere ‘puppets and marionettes of the culturally given’ – a critique which seems to be echoed in Siemens statement “Collective intelligence results in an over-writing of individual identity” or differently put and taken to an extreme – the individual becomes a mere reflection of socio-cultural forces and our cognition would then be uniformly structured or determined by the social. While this might be a valid critique of the argument, socio-cultural researchers (Cole, Wertsch, Engeström), however, also stress how individuals and collectives continuously produce new, surprising behaviour and knowledge- and no less – artifacts (ideal or material)…but this is a longer discussion and well worth a follow-up post!

With this I just wanted to stress that the discussions seem to have deeper theoretical roots and represent different ways of conceptualising and understanding the foundations of human cognition.

But such differences (in underlying assumptions and understandings) often pop-up during discussions of socio-cultural learning theory or social theories of learning – for instance when I discuss Wenger’s notion of communities of practice and his social theory of learning with students, a question that often arises is “but is it not possible to learn by one-self – do you mean that I can’t learn by myself by reading a book or reflecting on an issue”. This interestingly relates to what Anderson writes in his post about ‘individual learning’:

“Individual learning – Most of my learning takes places as I read, watch and listen with no desire or expectation for human interaction, connecting or networking.”

Now, my contention to such an argument (which I think Anderson himself also addresses in a follow-up comment) is that the activities of reading, watching or listening never actually take place in a social vacuum. This is not to say that individuals don’t read, learn, listen etc. by themselves but that this always take place in relation to, in anticipation of or in the light of other social activities – one is reading to prepare a lecture, for writing an article etc. In this sense such an activity might be individual, but it is simultaneously also always social. And, I think both proponents of collectivism and connectivism would actually agree on that; even though they might view the foundations of human cognition differently.