Keynote slides from Segundo Coloquio Nacional de Educación Media Superior a Distancia, in Mexico, 2011, discussing the dance and coevolution of technologies (including pedagogies) that has led to the emerging connectivist model of distance learning. The presentation looks beyond this to a holist model of distance learning that embodies collective and set entities as well as networks and groups.
12. Generation 1
Individuals
• the sage on the stage
• cognivist/behaviourist/cognitive-constructivist
pedagogies
• scripted learning
• teacher control
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AHW_Prof_Moritz_Vogel_Matthaeikirche_Leipzig_um_1920.jpg
16. weaknesses
Individuals
• poorly situated
• limited personalisation
• learning is far better when social
• rigidity and hardness
17. Generation 2
Groups
• the guide on the side
• negotiated control
http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2163782226/sizes/o/in/photostream/
21. weaknesses
• very poor scalability
Groups
• reliance on skilled facilitation
• very expensive
• still need cognitivist/behaviourist
resources sometimes
• not everyone is equally sociable
22. Generation 3
Nets
• the co-traveller/ the role model
• learner control
23. Dominant technologies
• connectivist pedagogies
• blogs
•
Nets
wikis
• social bookmarking
• file sharing
• social networking systems
• mashups and aggregators
24. Connectivism
■ Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.
■ Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.
■ Learning may reside in non-human appliances.
■ Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known
■ Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.
■ Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.
■ Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist
learning activities.
■ Decision-making is itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the
meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality.
While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations
in the information climate affecting the decision.
25. Connectivism
■ Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.
■ Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.
■ Learning may reside in non-human appliances.
■ Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known
■ Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.
■ Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.
■ Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist
learning activities.
■ Decision-making is itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the
meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality.
While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations
in the information climate affecting the decision.
26. Connectivism
Knowledge that is:
■ Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.
■ Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.
■ Current
Learning may reside in non-human appliances. Complex and
■ Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known
■ Meaningful and diverse
Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.
■ and situated timely
Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.
■ Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist
learning activities.
Connected
Social and cooperative and
■ Decision-making is itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the
meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality.
networked
While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations
Read/write
in the information climate affecting the decision.
A moving target
It is more important to know where than to
know what (Thomas & Seely Brown, 2011)
28. Presence
Social presence
Nets
Teaching presence
Cognitive presence
29. strengths
• ownership
• active: read/write
•
Nets
many minds, shared purpose
• cheap: self-generating
• self-direction + crowd-direction
• informal and highly situated
• good use of available resources
30. weaknesses
• lost in social space
• inequalities
•
Nets
confusion
• quality
• only benefits a minority
• inefficient
• too soft
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nationaalarchief/2948560477/sizes/o/
31. A sense of scale
cognitivist/
behaviourist
social
constructivist
connectivist
32. Soft Hard
Connectivist
Constructivist
Instructivist
33. Soft Hard
Connectivist
Constructivist
Instructivist
holist
36. Connectivist learning in
the institution
• sharing: cooperation, not collaboration
• building from small pieces: students to find and
build and connect them
• teacher as curator and goal-setter
• effective aggregation - a mix of automation (e.g.
RSS) and curation (teacher or student led)
• providing defaults and templates:
resources, technologies, methods
37. What next?
• holist
• collective control
• adaptable and adaptive control
• the right amount of control
at the right time
38. Transactional control
Learner Negotiated Teacher
control control control
autonomy dialogue structure
Transactional
distance
(Dron, 2007)
39. Transactional control
Collective
control
Learner Negotiated Teacher
control control control
autonomy dialogue structure
Transactional
distance
(Dron, 2007)
44. Modes
language, writing,
telephone
• One to one
• one to many
printing, radio, cinema
• many to many bulletin boards, social
networks
• many to one collaborative filters,
social navigation, reputation
systems, analytics, data mining,
network analysis
45. Social forms
• The group
Hierarchies, membership, intentionality, collaboration,
boundaries
• The set
Publication, aggregation, anonymity, cooperation
• The net
Personal connections, fuzzy boundaries, emergence
• The collective
Computational agents, algorithms, analytics,
visualization, crowd wisdom/mob stupidity
46. Sets, nets, groups and
collectives
collective
net set
group
the negative set of
individuals
49. The two most successful and
important learning technologies
today
50. For principles to avoid stupid mobs, see Dron, 2007:
Designing the undesignable: social software and control
www.ifets.info/journals/10_3/5.pdf
or....
http://www.igi-pub.com/books/details.asp?ID=6732
in other words, we make use of the way things are, putting them together in order to do something\n
should be clear by now - not just how tools are used, but actually technologies themselves\n
as long as it uses repeatable and intentional method, it is using technology\n
ref Terry Anderson. actually a process of coevolution\nit is not a question of whether technology comes first or pedagogy comes first - they have to work together\n but some technologies like to lead the dance\n\n
\npresedentcia municipal - almaraz\nStructure influences behaviour - provides limits of what is possible. \nIf structure takes us where we want to go, all is well. Can also provide creative constraint. \n\nHowever...\n
things go wrong when we don’t make things work together well - when we, for instance, try to fit incompatible patterns of pedagogies together. e.g. marking of participation in forums (you are marking a process, not a product, and making people say things even if they have nothing valuable to say, and people get better as they go) - mapping instructivist and constructivist methods.\n
\n
This is about theories of individual learning, including Piaget’s version of constructivism\n
\n
\n
students can choose pace - and choose to ignore the instructions!\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
cooperative not equal to collaborative\n
cooperative not equal to collaborative\n
cooperative not equal to collaborative\n
cooperative not equal to collaborative\n
cooperative not equal to collaborative\n
cooperative not equal to collaborative\n
cooperative not equal to collaborative\n
cooperative not equal to collaborative\n
cooperative not equal to collaborative\n
community of inquiry model is hard to apply - only constant is social presence\n
community of inquiry model is hard to apply - only constant is social presence\n
community of inquiry model is hard to apply - only constant is social presence\n
community of inquiry model is hard to apply - only constant is social presence\n
community of inquiry model is hard to apply - only constant is social presence\n
\n
inefficient for the individual? sometimes\nvery confusing to navigate - especially popular forms like MOOCs\n
most effective methods so far involve a blend of techniques - still need the stuff from which to learn, still need to form groups to learn with\n
Instructivist: pedagogy etc entirely embedded - very hard\nConsturctivist: process still instructor determined, but greater flexibility and adaptability\nconnectivist: very soft and flexible - process invented as we go along, technologies assembled (which makes them soft)\n\n
hard technologies have their processes embedded - may be laws or rules or part of the software or hardware - \nnotably, LMSs embed implicit pedagogies\n\nhard technologies tell us what to do - they reduce choices. So, they make things easy. and reliable, fast, free from error\n
by which I mean soft technologies are more difficult (and unreliable, slow)\n\nWe have to invent social technologies and to literally be a part of them\n\nSofter technologies increase the adjacent possible by enabling and/or making more likely new choices to be made. They enable creativity\n\nMore choices come at a price - we have to make them. That is one thing that makes them difficult or hard.\n\n
\n
\n
I have mapped Moore’s transactional distance to control: \n1st gen the teacher decides everything, apart from (sometimes) pace and place\n2nd gen, control is negotiated, though teacher tends to determine pace\n3rd gen control is from the learner - can be a bit confusing though\n4th gen, control is emergent and combines the wisdom of all\n
I have mapped Moore’s transactional distance to control: \n1st gen the teacher decides everything, apart from (sometimes) pace and place\n2nd gen, control is negotiated, though teacher tends to determine pace\n3rd gen control is from the learner - can be a bit confusing though\n4th gen, control is emergent and combines the wisdom of all\n
\n
\n
\n
yes, all amazon, all one book - clay shirky’s here comes everybody (but i like it)\n
yes, all amazon, all one book - clay shirky’s here comes everybody (but i like it)\n
yes, all amazon, all one book - clay shirky’s here comes everybody (but i like it)\n
yes, all amazon, all one book - clay shirky’s here comes everybody (but i like it)\n
yes, all amazon, all one book - clay shirky’s here comes everybody (but i like it)\n
\n
\n
\n
collaborative filters\n social navigation\n recommender systems\n tag clouds\n network mining\n learning analytics\n
The big challenge is to design ecosystems in which collectives that evolve are wise, and act as effective teachers\n\nbut -- where do you turn when you want to learn something new?\n
we all turn to google or wikipedia when we need to learn something.\nThere are ways to build better - e.g. see my own paper, \n
See publisher’s site at http://www.igi-pub.com/books/details.asp?ID=6732\n\nmy book contains info on building software and social technologies (including soft systems) for learning. Alternatively, see\n
