CCK2011

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 these networks

social network analysis

to discover how A, who is in touch with B and C, is affected by the relation between B and C” (John Barnes)

Interactions with one’s artifact increase intrinsic motivation and create connection between people and knowledge.

I have introduced in the Plearn blog the principle of ELIS Wheel : Explore, Learn, Interact and Socialize in the learning process. We need to create something and share it with others in the cloud and we need to interact to enhance intrinsic and extrinsic motivations in the crowd’s spirit.

We need to demystify the complexity of learning in some areas and make it accessible to everybody by presenting it in different shapes and colors, in different terms and formats so that people in all level take advantage in developing their learning

The lady of wisdom has so much unwritten knowledge and experience that it could fill a library when ‘unveiled’ Same thing will happen for “Unwritten Knowledge when it become Written”.

I must admit that I struggled with some of the basic concepts when I first read Siemens’ paper, and I found the lack of practical examples frustrating.

There are two goals supported in the connectivism learning theory, according to Downes:  The ability to grow and foster a network of connections.  The ability to develop a successful, robust, trustworthy network.

That makes what Siemens calls the “know-where” knowledge (“the understanding of where to find [needed] knowledge”)  much more important than “know-how” and “know-what.”

perhaps it is time for us to begin contributing to Wikipedia and adding links to those sources we wish our students would also visit in a quest to solve problems and expand their learning.

Two broad approaches exist for learning technology implementation: The adoption of a centralized learning management approach. This may include development of a central learning support lab where new courses are developed in a team-based approach—consisting of subject matter expert, graphic designers, instructional designer, and programmers. This model can be effective for creation of new courses and programs receiving large sources of funding. Most likely, however, enterprise-wide adoption (standardizing on a single LMS) requires individual departments and faculty members to move courses online by themselves. Support may be provided for learning how to use the LMS, but moving content online is largely the responsibility of faculty. This model works well for environments where faculty have a high degree of autonomy, though it does cause varying levels of quality in online courses. Personal learning environments (PLEs) are a recent trend addressing the limitations of an LMS. Instead of a centralized model of design and deployment, individual departments select from a collage of tools—each intending to serve a particular function in the learning process. Instead of limited functionality, with highly centralized control and sequential delivery of learning, a PLE provides a more contextually appropriate toolset. The greater adaptability to differing learning approaches and environments afforded by PLEs is offset by the challenge of reduced structure in management and implementation of learning. This can present a significant challenge when organizations value traditional lecture learning models.

Self-organised learning networks provide a base for the establishment of a form of education that goes beyond course and curriculum centric models, and envisions a learner-centred and learner controlled model of lifelong learning. In such learning contexts learners have the same possibilities to act that teachers and other staff members have in regular, less learner-centred educational approaches. In addition these networks are designed to operate without increasing the workload for learners or staff members.

Instead of learning housed in content management systems, learning is embedded in rich networks and conversational spaces. The onus, again, falls on the university to define its views of learning.

you need a mixture of materials, you need a collection of different perspectives, different points of view, in order to come to any new understanding.

Communities have to be open, they have to have some source of new material coming in, whether its raw material, resources, ideas, etc., and then they have to have some place where they can send their creative product, the things that they make, the ideas that they have.

A third criterion that distinguishes a community defines as a network from a community defined as a group is autonomy. And what that means is that each of the members of that community are working toward their own sense of values, their own sense of purpose, their own goals or endeavours.

narrative of coherence