Group items tagged

The paper outlines 4 key principles for connected learning - autonomy, connectedness, diversity, and openness. The authors' point of view is that all four principles can be "expanded to recognize individual and psychological diversity within connective environments." They conclude by saying that it is in the "context and recognition of the engagement" that makes connectivism a "viable framework for learning, offering great potential..."

In 2011, George Siemens and Stephen Downes launched a massive open online course called "Connectivism and Connected Knowledge" (CCK11.) The article defines Connectivism as "network-based pedagogy" and discusses why these authors value "the process" over "the product." Specifically, why the process of taking the course would be in itself much more important than what learners may have learned. Additionally, they offer 4 major components: aggregation, remixing, repurposing, and feeding forward. In the nutshell, the article argues that, as far as connectivism in concerned, knowledge is not something that can be "neatly packaged and passed along as a finished product"; rather, it is "complicated, distributed, mixed with other concepts, looks differently to different people.."

Interesting to see the authors explaining connectivism in light of personality theory and self-determination theory rather than trying to argue it as a learning theory akin to behaviorism, cognitivism, or constructivism. I appreciated their inclusion of Downes' four key components of connectivism: autonomy, connectedness, diversity, and openness. As I read their discussion of autonomy, my mind was drawn to Daniel Pink's explanation of intrinsic motivation, which is comprised of three key aspects: Autonomy, Mastery, and Purpose. [See Pink, D. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.] This piece was a helpful read with a very different perspective than I had previously encountered for connectivism.

The main idea of this article is to explain how and why he and George Seimens offer MOOCs to the world. Downes believes that all learning is about connections made among the learners, just we are the neurological connections that our brains make every second. He does not believe knowledge is acquired or transmitted, but rather experienced. One of his most telling statements is his belief that the process of taking the course is more important than what people may happen to learn from it--which is at the heart of what he believes connectivism is.

I was very excited to find this article! In it, Stephen Downes, Canadian Education Technology Research Specialist, describes his and George Siemens,' Associate Director, Technology Enhanced Knowledge Research Institute, free course, 'Connectivism and Connective Knowledge' -- or CCK11. It is a twelve week course of readings and online seminars, where learners are invited to read selected materials and study the content with a connectivist's approach. Downes says, "What is important about a connectivist course, after all, is not the course content. Oh, sure, there is some content -- you can't have a conversation without it -- but the content isn't the important thing. It serves merely as a catalyst, a mechanism for getting our projects, discussions and interactions off the ground. It may be useful to some people, but it isn't the end product, and goodness knows we don't want people memorizing it." I want to register for the next one!

This is a blog post from Steven Downes about the courses on connectivism he offered with George Siemens. It offers a good argument for taking the connectivist approach to learning and explains what connectivism is. It offers an explanation for connectivist teaching and learning falling into the 4 major activities of aggregation, remixing, repurposing, and feeding forward. He stresses that connectivism is a pedagogy based on the realization that knowledge is not something you can solidify into a single perfect product to pass along because different people/communities will always interpret/learn from it differently.

George Siemens and Stephen Downes provide online courses call 'Connectivism and Connective Knowledge' to over 2,000 educators on the philosophy of teaching and learning they instill in their learners. http://cck11.mooc.ca is a twelve week course that is free for those who register. They disclose attributes to connectivist teaching and learning. Aggregation provides a starting point. Remixing draws connections to others. Repurposing is practicing the concepts learned, not just repeating them with route memorization techniques. Feeding forward consists of sharing with others and being able to collaborate on others' projects to use them as your own.

What I find really cool about this is that the content of the course is not what is important, but rather the fact that they are connecting and networking. The networking is more powerful than the content is what seems to be the focus.

I found this quote interesting, "So what a connectivist course becomes is a community of educators attempting to learn how it is that they learn, with the objective of allowing them to be able to help other people learn." I like that there is no distinction between the "teacher" and the "student". Instead, everyone is seen as both learner and educator. However, I have some concerns about how this works with middle school or high school students. Are they mature enough to really take on that role and stay on task? How do you ensure the respect and authority in the class when you are putting yourself on nearly an equal foot with the students? Kids are so used to a traditional direct instruction class they they often get confused or rebel against anything different.

This is one of the resources listed in the video I posted earlier. It is an introduction to the Connectivism and Connective Knowledge course. It explains how the core aspects of connectivism are built into the course and gives a description of each aspect.

This article introduces the term connectivism as a "network-based pedagogy" Through the article the author makes references to a course that he will be providing. Overall though there is some really good information about connectivism from both the teacher and learner perspectives.

Along with George Siemens, Stephen Downs is one of the intellectual leaders of connectivism, which he describes in this article. One of the things I really like about this article is the fact that it is written for a wide audience via an outlet like The Huffington Post, rather than an exclusively academic audience.

I enjoyed this article because it identified 4 connectivist "activities." They are aggregation, remixing, repurposing, and feeding forward. It explains these concepts clearly while also giving a succinct overview of connectivism, and their relationship to connectivism.

This article provided me with a clearer understanding of the Connectivist approach and the four activities that surround it--aggregation, remixing, re-purposing, and feeding forward. It was interesting to read under the Aggregation portion that Siemens and Downes have to tell participants to pick and choose what they read for the course. We are still very pre-conditioned to want to read and study everything that is handed to us and regurgitate it back. There is something about Connectivism that bothers me. It seems a little "loosey goosey" at times. I like the idea of people being able to gather and share ideas and make meaning from them, but I wonder if one can become a true expert in something by just solely using this approach.

This site goes over, in detail, what a community of practice is. I had a little trouble understanding what the concept was referring to from the class material, but after reading this site, I was no longer confused. It defines a Community of Practice and breaks it down on a basic level. It provides the three requirements and explains what a CoP basically does. It is very informative.

Article describing communities of practice. Where they come from, and where they are being applied.

Wenger 2006, I chose this article because I recognized his name from my 503 reading. He does explain CoPs well. Wenger states there are three charateriestics crucial to being a CoP. They are: domain or the common interest; community or the interaction, and practice or the fact that the members are practitioners. He coined the phrase community of practice in reference to the living curriculum of apprentices.

Etienne Wegner is a leader in the field of CoP. He along with Jean Lave coined the term. This is his website and it provides a direct introduction to the concept and the application of communities of practice.

This is the website of Etienne Wenger, one of the leading researcher's of communities of practice. This website contains an overview of his theory and links to his papers. Wenger studied the learning process in apprenticeship situations and found that most learning and sharing of knowledge actually takes place between the community of advanced apprentices and journeymen.

Wenger defines what makes a CoP different from a group of friends who like some of the same things, people who share the same occupation, or 30-somethings who all like romantic comedies. CoPs must consist of a group of people who pursue a certain focus and help the members obtain more skills/knowledge in the process. He explains where the term came from and various ways in which it is applied today.

I'm sure many people have listed this one but it does seem like the place to start; at the source. I do like that the wenger does speak in plain language, especially in the call out boxes.

I agree with Richard, especially since the term gets used loosely and tends to mean many different things. One of the articles I found deals with contrasting four different definitions of Communities of Practice.

In this Web site Etienne Wenger introduces the concept of "communities of practice" and defines them as "groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly" and describes why they are useful for learning in many different contexts. A community of practice has 3 characteristics- 1) an identity defined by a shared domain of interest 2) a community of members that engage in joint activities and discussions, help each other, and share information and 3) members who are practitioners. These communities develop their practice through activities such as sharing information, problem solving, and mapping knowledge. Communities of practice are ubiquitous and can be small or large, local or global, meet face-to-face or online, informal or formal.

Wegner describes three characteristics necessary for a community to be a "community of practice." These are the domain of interest, a community of members that engage in activities and discussions that allow them to learn from one another, and the actual practice or application of that learning. Wegner also describes what CoPs look like, the theory behind CoPs, and the environments in which they are used.

This site by Etienne Wenger gives an overview of what a community of practice is. You will find definitions and descriptions, as well as applications. There are also resources listed concerning application and learning theory.

Communities of practice are groups of people who share the same job or a common interest in a subject. They come together to form a link to help each other perform in the world around them. This article talks about the value of communities of practice and how and why they work.

Eckert, P. (2006). Communities of practice. ELL, 2, 683-685. In this article, Mrs. Eckert does a great job in simplifying what a community of practice entails and means. She allows you to visualize the communities you belong to as well as other communities of practice you interact with or observe on a daily basis. One important distinction is that the author of this work is written from the sense of sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology and not from an educator's mind set. Irrespective of this standpoint, you can see direct correlations to where students understand themselves and what communities of practice your own student population may fall under. In order to understand the social development of communities of practice Mrs. Eckert does a good job in breaking down common cores that can emerge from memberships. The linguistic side she writes, "A white working class Italian-American woman does not develop her ways of speaking directly from the larger categorical working class, Italian American, and female, but from her day to day experience as a person who combines those three memberships. Her experience will be articulated by her participation in activities and communities of practice that are particular to her place in the social order."(Eckert, 2006) Building upon that theory, she discusses the importance of social space "Emma Moore's study of teenage girls in Northern England (Moore 2003) traced the gradual split of a group of somewhat rebellious "populars" as some of them emerged as the tougher "townies" in their ninth year. In the process, the vernacular speech patterns of the "townies" intensified in opposition to those of their more Conservative friends". (Eckert, 2006) While the article sheds more light on the development of speech patterns and dialects through the medium of communities, we can also see the definition in practice in which a collection of people gather together over a common interest and then orients to their new surrounding

This is just a basic definition of communities of practice. It is a very easy way to understand it.

Communities of practice (CoP) are created through a community of people who have common interests. In communities of practice, Eckert (2006) explains "a community of practice develops ways of doing things, views, values, power relations, and ways of talking" (p.1). CoP's have a way of providing a personal identity and a way of speaking within a CoP.