Skip to main content

Home/ Multiliteracies Evo session/ Group items tagged theories

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Vanessa Vaile

Main Page - Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Technology - 0 views

projects.coe.uga.edu/...index.php

evomlit wiki CMI CMC learning theories edtech teaching education technology resources tools web2.0

shared by Vanessa Vaile on 16 Jan 10 - Cached
  • Vanessa Vaile on 16 Jan 10
     
    "Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Technology" ~ SECTIONS on Learning and Cognitive Theories, Learner-Centered Theories, Inquiry Strategies: Tasks, Inquiry Strategies: Changing Learners' Minds, Tools for Teaching and Learning: Changing or Encouraging Human Behaviors, Tools for Teaching and Learning: Technology Tools, Socially Oriented Theories, Direct Instruction Strategies
  • Vanessa Vaile on 16 Jan 10
     
    Wiki book licensed under Creative Commons: "Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Technology." Sections on learning and teaching theory,teaching strategies, tools,
Vanessa Vaile

What is the unique idea in Connectivism? « Connectivism - 0 views

www.connectivism.ca/?p=116

connectivism Siemens #evomlit #evomlit11 #CCK11 multiliteracies mooc web2.0 education technology

shared by Vanessa Vaile on 20 Jan 11 - Cached
  • what is the unique idea in connectivism?
  • a new idea is often an old idea in today’s context.
  • what is the new idea in constructivism? That people construct their own knowledge? Or the social, situated nature of learning? Or that knowledge is not something that exists outside of a knower? (i.e. there is no “there” out there)
  • ...30 more annotations...
  • What is new with constructivism today is that these principles are being (have been) coupled with existing calls for educational reform
  • calls for increased learner control
  • From whence does connectivism originate?
  • 1. Tools augment our ability to interact with each other and to act.
  • “carriers of patterns of previous reasoning”
  • all technology carries an ideology.
  • 2. Contextual/situated nature of learning.
  • 3. Social learning theory
  • 4. Epistemological views: all learning theory is rooted in epistemology
  • concept of rhizomatic knowledge and community as curriculum
  • Stephen Downes’ work on connective knowledge valuable.
  • Dave Cormier has been advancing the
  • 5. Concept of mind.
  • 6. We also find a compatible view of connectivism in the work of new media theorists such as McLuhan
  • 7. We also find support for connectivism in the more nebulous theories of complextiy and systems-based thinking
  • 8. Network theory
  • The Unique Ideas in Connectivism
  • Concepts like small worlds, power laws, hubs, structural holes, and weak/strong ties
  • Networks are prominent in all aspects of society, not just education. This prominence is partly due to the recognizable metaphor of the internet…but networks have always existed. As Barabasi states, networks are everywhere. We just need an eye for them.
  • 1. Connectivism is the application of network principles to define both knowledge and the process of learning.
  • 2. Connectivism addresses the principles of learning at numerous levels – biological/neural, conceptual, and social/external
  • 3. Connectivism focuses on the inclusion of technology as part of our distribution of cognition and knowledge.
  • 1) cognitive grunt work in creating and displaying patterns
  • 2) extending and enhancing our cognitive ability
  • 3) holding information in ready access form
  • 4. Context. While other theories pay partial attention to context, connectivism recognizes the fluid nature of knowledge and connections based on context
  • 5. Understanding. Coherence. Sensemaking. Meaning.
  • These elements are prominent in constructivism, to a lessor extent cognitivism, and not at all in behaviourism.
  • But in connectivism, we argue that the rapid flow and abundance of information raises these elements to critical importance.
  • Connectivism finds its roots in the climate of abundance, rapid change, diverse information sources and perspectives, and the critical need to find a way to filter and make sense of the chaos.
Vanessa Vaile

Education and the social Web: Connective learning and the commercial imperative - 0 views

firstmonday.org/...2718

technology PLENK2010 multiliteracies evomlit resources tools

shared by Vanessa Vaile on 08 Dec 10 - No Cached
  • I argue that commercial social networks are much less about circulating knowledge than they are about connecting users (“eyeballs”) with advertisers
  • not the autonomous individual learner, but collective corporate interests that occupy the centre of these network
  • business model restricts their information design in ways that detract from learner control and educational use
  • ...54 more annotations...
  • Just as commercialism has rendered television beyond the reach of education, commercial pressures threaten to seriously limit the potential of the social Web for education and learning.
  • Web 2.0 and online social networking have been the subject of sustained and lively interest among practitioners and promoters of educational technology
  • what is seen as the radical potential of these services
  • Social networking is so central to these new versions of education that a new “connectivist” theory of learning has come to be closely associated with them
  • a theory in which “knowing” itself is seen to be “defined by connections” making “learning primarily a network forming process”
  • described in terms of the liberation of learners from traditional constraints, as allowing them go beyond the classroom, to network “with peers worldwide,” and ultimately, to “take control of their own learning”
  • These visions are above all associated with the “personal learning environment
  • The personal learning environment is envisioned as a set of applications and services — to a large extent, logos and brands — organized around a single user, according to his or her learning and informational preferences and needs.
  • Through these services, the user is to be connected with teachers, mentors and other learners
  • some advocates of these approaches to learning have been raising concerns about the commercial nature of many of these services.
  • “You are not Facebook’s customer. You are the product that they sell to their real customers — advertisers. Forget this at your peril”
  • “This simple reality underlies almost all considerations having to do with these tools,
  • To use these tools is to reinforce, however indirectly, the ‘advertised life,’
  • The question is whether there is a role for higher education to promote ‘safe spaces’ free of this influence.”
  • the business model of commercial social networks is based on advertising, assisted by the data collection, as well as powerful tracking and analysis capabilities.
  • powerful surveillance functions
  • theories of media ideology and hegemony developed some time ago by Raymond Williams and Todd Gitlin
  • constraints presented by commercialized forms and contents rendered educational television a failure decades ago
  • similar structural issues threaten to sharply limit the potential of much newer social media for education and learning
  • Facebook, Google and other Web 2.0 and social networking services are making enormous sums right now from the users and advertisers they attract, and they are in aggressive competition to do this more efficiently
  • The absence of references to advertising (and also to tracking and analysis) in many discussions of the personal learning environments is surprising given the proliferation of logos and brands of commercial services
  • Because advertising is the raison d’être of services like Google and Facebook, it also provides the basis for the design, organization and maintenance of all of these other services and functions.
  • This way of understanding advertising and Web 2.0 draws on critiques of television (and the role of advertising in it) that were articulated decades ago.
  • the goal of these media organizations, he says, is to sell a product, and the product that “the networks sell is the attention of audiences; their primary market is the advertisers themselves”
  • One thing that is different today is that there is no one monolithic audience that forms a generic product to sell to advertisers.
  • An obvious objection to be raised at this point is that Facebook or Google, unlike television, do not have significant control over the content that is used to assemble audiences for advertisers
  • users have a clear choice regarding the kinds of content that they wish to view and disseminate
  • complex and subtle but very effective ways in which advertisers’ interests shape online social contexts.
  • Raymond Williams’ 1974 critique, Television: Technology and cultural form.
  • Williams’ text requires only minor revision to speak to the situation of commercial Web services today:
  • whether there is a role for higher education to promote ‘safe spaces’ free of this influence.”
  • Williams is making the point that the relationship between content and advertising is subtle and insidious, and that it is slightly different in the case of content “made for TV” than for its non–commercial counterpart.
  • “a dominant cultural form;”
  • what is important for the similarly non–commercial content of the social Web is informational design, architecture, and algorithm.
  • operation in otherwise non–commercial programming is registered in terms of sequence, rhythm and flow
  • Users of Facebook are sure to have been struck by the numerous and varied ways in which it cultivates gregarity and interaction, the way in which it relentlessly structures and supports sociality and connection
  • It is common to observe that the term “friend” itself is emptied of meaning by this incessant use and quantification;
  • Facebook exemplifies a way of generating and circulating information that encourages the expansion of interconnections between users
  • The controversy arises from the possible addition of a corresponding “Dislike” button.
  • lowers the psychological barrier to connecting with commercial entities
  • Gregarious behaviour is rewarded on Facebook
  • approval of a resource will draw ever more attention to it.
  • To provide the option of expressing dislike for a brand like Coca–Cola or to disapprove of a newspaper report or an article like this one is contrary to Facebook’s business interests
  • The dynamics here are rather reminiscent of what television of a bygone era had to offer: In both cases, you can either watch (i.e., “Like”) the products and lifestyles being showcased, or simply walk away.
  • “Like buttons” similar to many other connective features of social networks, “are about connection; Dislike buttons are about division.”
  • Similarly, other services will also systematically exclude possibilities for the expression of dissent and difference.
  • Despite the current prominence of social–psychological and connectivist theories, it is easy to make the case that learning is just as much about division as it is about connection.
  • In fact, the consistent pattern of suppressing division, negativity and interpersonal dissent that is central to the business model of social networking services runs counter to some of the most common models and recommendations for online student interaction and engagement.
  • Opportunities for social selectivity, discretion, privacy and detachment are an important precondition for the acts of disclosure and mutual critique, falsification and validation central to these models
  • selectivity and discretion — the “safe spaces” hoped for by Lamb and Groom — are rendered structurally impossible in convivial, commercially–contoured environments
  • Knowledge is not exclusively embodied in ever growing networks of connection and affiliation, and it does not just occur through building and traversing these proliferating nodes and links
  • Education is clearly a social process, but it is probably much closer to an ongoing discussion or debate than an extended feast or celebration with an ever-expanding network of friends.
  • advertising, tracking and analysis functions of commercial social media present, as Raymond Williams says, “a formula of communication, an intrinsic setting of priorities”
  • It only remains to be seen whether this dynamic renders commercial social networking services as fully unsupportive of educational ends as commercial television has long been.
  • Vanessa Vaile on 08 Dec 10
     
    In recent years, new socially‏oriented Web technologies have been portrayed as placing the learner at the centre of networks of knowledge and expertise, potentially leading to new forms of learning and education. In this paper, I argue that commercial social networks are much less about circulating knowledge than they are about connecting users ("eyeballs") with advertisers; it is not the autonomous individual learner, but collective corporate interests that occupy the centre of these networks. Looking first at Facebook, Twitter, Digg and similar services, I argue their business model restricts their information design in ways that detract from learner control and educational use. I also argue more generally that the predominant "culture" and corresponding types of content on services like those provided Google similarly privileges advertising interests at the expense of users. Just as commercialism has rendered television beyond the reach of education, commercial pressures threaten to seriously limit the potential of the social Web for education and learning.
Vanessa Vaile

The Ning Thing.docx - 0 views

docs.google.com/...pub

evomlit tools multiliteracies technology ning

shared by Vanessa Vaile on 06 Jul 10 - Cached
  • good source for information on Ning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ning_(website)
  • Ning was a free-form platform for the development and hosting of open-source social applications
  • Ning pricing structure is three-tiered, as explained here: http://blog.ning.com/2010/05/introducing-ning-pro-ning-plus-and-ning-mini.html
  • ...40 more annotations...
  • ompelling affordances for group collaboration
  • Participants can sign up or sign in and set up profiles for any particular Ning, parts of which carry over to other Nings, achieving familiarity with minimal repetition of data entry
  • crucial components of many educators’ PLNs
  • Nings have c
  • Webheads in Action used to enroll participants in its free bi-annual WiAOC international online conferences in a Moodle, but for the last one, moved the community over to a Ning (http://webheadsinaction.ning.com/). This Ning now has over 350 members.
  • Because Nings were free and robust for collaboration, they were an ideal tool for educators seeking to jump-start communities on little or no funding.
  • Alec Couros sees this kind of thing happening more and more in the crystal ball future and suggests that schools and educators would be better off investing in self-hosting using FOSS, free and open source software (Couros, 2010).
  • general consternation
  • a number of issues
  • One is for how long Internet users can expect free services
  • other side of the coin is the nature of teaching, where hard-pressed teachers with little time and less budget tend to cobble together whatever resources they can muster
  • Monetization is rarely a consideration for teachers and educational technology specialists
  • , whose main aim is to find platforms that will support learning through sharing.
  • The immediate concern following an announcement such at the one issued by Ning April 16 is simply preservation of content stored at the free site
  • sponsorship is available only for “Ning Networks focused on North American K-12 and Higher-Ed ... including Ning Networks that facilitate learning in a classroom, best practices, educator-to-educator collaboration, or parental support,”
  • Pearson, who have offered to sponsor Nings for educators at the Mini level, the lowest level of Ning
  • almost all continents on the planet are excluded from the deal
  • Kevin Hodgson has been writing some interesting posts about the Ning thing.
  • the only reliable alternative to Ning is to host your community yourself, or at a trusted institution
  • http://tinyurl.com/alternatives2ning).  This document remains the most comprehensive source of advice on what to do about replacing Ning that exists anywhere on the Internet
  • Alec Couros (2010) decided to crowdsource some answers
  • back up your Ning
  • there are a number of sites offering Ning-like look and feel which will (attempt to) import your content, or some of your content, from Ning
  • Grou.ps
  • Grouply
  • designed to work as a social-network portal for Yahoo and Google Groups.
  • see: http://webheads.grouply.com/
  • A tool that works well for capturing blog content is Posterous
  • Spruz
  • Wackwall
  • Good and Bazzano (2010) have a good rundown of many of the options listed here
  • another free site that lets you set up a Portal with features similar to those of Ning.
  • another social networking portal which will do much the same thing
  • Other sites encourage you to restart your community afresh
  • Stevens, V. (2010). The Ning thing. TESL-EJ, Volume 14, Number 1. Retrieved on today’s date from http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume14/ej53/ej53int/.
  • Posterous Targets Ning
  • Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A Learning theory for the digital age. Elearnspace. Retrieved June 27, 2010 from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm.
  • Good, R. and Bazzano, D. (2010). Ning Alternatives: Guide To The Best Social Networking Platforms And Online Group Services. MasterNewMedia May 3rd, 2010. Retrieved June 27, 2010 from http://www.masternewmedia.org/ning-alternatives-guide-to-the-best-social-networking-platforms-and-online-group-services/.
  • If you wish to write anonymously on a Ning thing document, you can do so at Alec Couros’s crowdsourced Google Doc here: http://tinyurl.com/alternatives2ning
  • Multiliteracies
Vanessa Vaile

Learning with 'e's: Anatomy of a PLE - 0 views

steve-wheeler.blogspot.com/...anatomy-of-ple.html

#PLENK2010 evomlit multiliteracies pln ple socialnetworking web2.0 elearning

shared by Vanessa Vaile on 28 Sep 10 - Cached
  • Personal Learning Environments (PLEs) do exactly what they say on the can - they are personal to each individual, created by them, owned by them, used by them within their lifelong learning.
  • Originally a counterpoint to the institutional Managed Learning Environment (iMLE or 'VLE'),
  • Delegates at the conference could not agree whether PLEs should remain the sole domain of the learner, or whether in some way they could be incorporated into institutional infrastructures.
  • ...10 more annotations...
  • students own and create their PLE but that the iMLE also has something to offer them, even though it is highly problematic in its current form
  • reconceptualise PLEs, so that they are locatable within both informal and formal learning contexts.
  • walled garden effect, which presents a great barrier to student freedom and creativity
  • challenge the unhelpful binary of PLE versus VLE
  • the true nature of the PLE - its anatomy
  • in our view, the PLE is wider than the Web tools students use to create, find, organise and share content. It is also wider than the Personal Learning Network (PLN) of people and content that each of us generates when we learn informally or in formal contexts.
  • hybrid approach.
  • students require structure and scaffolding when they first venture into digital learning environments. No-one is a digital native, no matter how much the Prensky theory is talked up
  • Yet the average institutional Managed Learning Environment is by nature dull, uninspiring and difficult to navigate.
  • Web 2.0 tools (Cloud Learning Environment) are more attractive, easier to use and free, but are unprotected and vulnerable.
Vanessa Vaile

Complexity, self-organization, and #Change11: reactions to Siemen's presentation on onl... - 1 views

michaelgallagher.posterous.com/-organization-and-change11-rea

MOOC evomlit complexity change11 navigating chaos tools self-organization

shared by Vanessa Vaile on 02 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • presentation from George Siemens on Self-Organization in Online Courses (embedded below) that addressed some aspects of learning complexity (through the context of a MOOC)
  • we need to sift through the chaos to create signal, perhaps even a pattern language
  • I liken this process to language itself and the alphabet. The alphabet developed to take a series of meanings and weld it to one symbol (a process more pronounced in Chinese and ancient Egyptian perhaps) that everyone might recognize and accept.
  • ...8 more annotations...
  • It reduces the complexity, yes, but more importantly it provides a starting point for a common process. Without it, we would be lost in theory. 
  • The same holds for learning to some degree. We look for structure, but if none exists on sight, we combine things until some structure emerges. That structure can be represented in a single symbol, but its foundation might shift as new understanding emerges. Occasionally, there is need to ditch the symbols or invent a new one altogether as emerging learning dictates. That is a healthy and complicated process. The MOOC captures this process a bit and adheres to an open structure to allow pattern language to emerge, a shared vocabulary, a knowledge construct (however ephemeral).
  • Feedback as friction as forces interact. A spark, a collision, waste, and occasionally a nova. A big (learning) bang. This makes me think a learner's responsibility (among many others) is to be open to this collision of actors, agents, feedback, waste, noise, and then, ideally, pattern, understanding. The only way out is through.
  • Disturbing- an ontological disturbance, an unknown, an uncanny sense of veering through uncharted, potentially treacherous waters. It is a good place to be as a learner, but it requires a strength and confidence that only an empowered learner could put forth. But in that disturbance, that mess, there is the friction, that meat-grinder of understanding.
  • This is learning as curiosity and sometimes it can be quite scary. 
  • Often we seek knowledge for the sake of knowledge (anyone subjected to my endless banal history lessons will understand this), but I do believe that most learning is action oriented. To learn not only to get a job, to live in a world, to subsist, but rather for acting as best as we can. For improvement, for progress, for self-actualization.
  • disaggregated, emotive, functional machine of interaction. One that has to be tinkered with constantly. 
  • self-actualization (the development of self) can only be realized through sharing, group interaction
Vanessa Vaile

#cck11: Connectivism and Social Constructivism - what's the difference? | Life through ... - 0 views

lindsayjordan.edublogs.org/...ructivism-whats-the-difference

cck connectivism constructivism evomlit multiliteracies education theories

shared by Vanessa Vaile on 04 Jul 11 - No Cached
  • what distinguishes a connectivist perspective from social constructivism
  • similar principles
  • complexity
  • ...8 more annotations...
  • technology
  • ‘complex’ phenomena as different from ‘complicated’ phenomena
  • Connectivism acknowledges the complexity of knowledge and learning in a way that social constructivism cannot. A central tenet of social constructivism is the definition of knowledge as the result of consensus. The connectivist perspective allows for a greater diversity of opinions, and acceptance of transience and unpredictability of knowledge.
  • dependence on a large number of ‘weak ties’ in knowledge networks
  • connectivist notion of knowledge and learning existing outside the individual human brain
  • web of nodes and connections
  • Bonkers.
  • transient content
1 - 8 of 8
Showing 20▼ items per page