Week 1 - Activity 1 - Definition of multimedia
Gonzalez, Cranitch, and Jo (2000) point to the fact that the debate about defining multimedia is intricately linked to the question of which discipline ‘owns’ multimedia (p.89) and that “multimedia is more than just a collection of sound, images, video and animations” (p.90). Multimedia is therefore, according to Gonzalez et al (2000) “not just another genre; it is a fusion of both the medium and the message to conceive interactive, multimodal information spaces effectively in the form of an artificial environment” (p.90).
Doolittle’s (n.d., p.1) refers in his course outline to the following definitions:
• Multimedia is the “use of multiple forms of media in a presentation” (Schwartz & Beichner, 1999, p. 8).
• Multimedia is the “combined use of several media, such as movies, slides, music, and lighting, especially for the purpose of education or entertainment” (Brooks, 1997, p. 17).
• Multimedia is “information in the form of graphics, audio, video, or movies. A multimedia document contains a media element other than plain text” (Greenlaw & Hepp, 1999, p. 44).
• Multimedia comprises a computer program that includes “text along with at least one of the following: audio or sophisticated sound, music, video, photographs, 3-D graphics, animation, or high-resolution graphics” (Maddux, Johnson, & Willis, 2001, p. 253).
Doolittle (n.d, p.1) also states that “The commonality among these definitions ‘involves the integration of more than one medium into some form of communication….Most commonly, though, this term now refers to the integration of media such as text, sound, graphics, animation, video, imaging, and spatial modelling into a computer system (von Wodtke, 1993).’”
Bates and Poole (2003) describe multimedia as “the combination of text, still graphics, animation, audio, and video within a single technology, such as computer or television” (p.60, emphasis added).
Mayer (2003) on the other hand defines a multimedia instruction message as “a presentation consisting of words and pictures that is designed to foster meaningful learning. Thus, there are two parts to the definition: (a) the presentation contains words and pictures, and (b) the presentation is designed to foster meaningful learning” (p.128). Interesting – Mayer (2003) also refers to “… broader definitions of multimedia could include modalities such as smell or touch, or formats such as music or non-speech sound” but he focuses on “multimedia instructional messages that use words and pictures” (p.128).
Closing thoughts: It would seem as if these definitions of multimedia all refer to the combination of a variety (more than one) medium. When multimedia is considered in an educational context, the purpose of the use of multimedia is to facilitate and increase the effectiveness of learning. I agree with Gonzalez et al (2000) that multimedia should not be seen as "just another genre" but that in the combination of different media, each of the media used, influences the other resulting into a "a fusion of both the medium and the message" (p.90).
References
Bates, A.W. & Poole, G. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education: Foundations for success. San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass.
Doolittle, D.E. (n.d).Multimedia learning: Empirical results and practical applications. Retrieved from http://scr.csc.noctrl.edu/courses/edn509/resources/readings/multimediaLearningEmpericalResults.pdf
Gonzalez, R., Cranitch, G., & Jo, J. (2000). Academic directions of multimedia education. COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM, January 43(1), 89-95.
Mayer, R.E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction 13,125–139.
Doolittle’s (n.d., p.1) refers in his course outline to the following definitions:
• Multimedia is the “use of multiple forms of media in a presentation” (Schwartz & Beichner, 1999, p. 8).
• Multimedia is the “combined use of several media, such as movies, slides, music, and lighting, especially for the purpose of education or entertainment” (Brooks, 1997, p. 17).
• Multimedia is “information in the form of graphics, audio, video, or movies. A multimedia document contains a media element other than plain text” (Greenlaw & Hepp, 1999, p. 44).
• Multimedia comprises a computer program that includes “text along with at least one of the following: audio or sophisticated sound, music, video, photographs, 3-D graphics, animation, or high-resolution graphics” (Maddux, Johnson, & Willis, 2001, p. 253).
Doolittle (n.d, p.1) also states that “The commonality among these definitions ‘involves the integration of more than one medium into some form of communication….Most commonly, though, this term now refers to the integration of media such as text, sound, graphics, animation, video, imaging, and spatial modelling into a computer system (von Wodtke, 1993).’”
Bates and Poole (2003) describe multimedia as “the combination of text, still graphics, animation, audio, and video within a single technology, such as computer or television” (p.60, emphasis added).
Mayer (2003) on the other hand defines a multimedia instruction message as “a presentation consisting of words and pictures that is designed to foster meaningful learning. Thus, there are two parts to the definition: (a) the presentation contains words and pictures, and (b) the presentation is designed to foster meaningful learning” (p.128). Interesting – Mayer (2003) also refers to “… broader definitions of multimedia could include modalities such as smell or touch, or formats such as music or non-speech sound” but he focuses on “multimedia instructional messages that use words and pictures” (p.128).
Closing thoughts: It would seem as if these definitions of multimedia all refer to the combination of a variety (more than one) medium. When multimedia is considered in an educational context, the purpose of the use of multimedia is to facilitate and increase the effectiveness of learning. I agree with Gonzalez et al (2000) that multimedia should not be seen as "just another genre" but that in the combination of different media, each of the media used, influences the other resulting into a "a fusion of both the medium and the message" (p.90).
References
Bates, A.W. & Poole, G. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education: Foundations for success. San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass.
Doolittle, D.E. (n.d).Multimedia learning: Empirical results and practical applications. Retrieved from http://scr.csc.noctrl.edu/courses/edn509/resources/readings/multimediaLearningEmpericalResults.pdf
Gonzalez, R., Cranitch, G., & Jo, J. (2000). Academic directions of multimedia education. COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM, January 43(1), 89-95.
Mayer, R.E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction 13,125–139.
Week 1, Activity 2
Please post your considered definition of 'Open Educational Resources (OER)' in this topic.
Instead of sharing my own “considered definition” of OER after so many of the class already posted a variety of definitions from a range of authoritative sources, I would rather share some reflections on the definitions and history of OER:
Reflection 1
Despite numerous definitions of and declarations pertaining to OER, Nikoi and Armellini (2012) state that “An authoritative definition of OER does not yet exist” (p.166). This claim or statement made me wonder what makes a particular definition “authoritative”? We have the definitions by UNESCO (which Nikoi and Armellini, 2012, accept and use), the definition in the Cape Town Declaration (in 2007) as well as the definition of the Center for Open and Sustainable Learning in 2008 (Nikoi & Armellini, 2012, p.166). How should we understand Nikoi and Armellini’s (2012) statement that there is, not yet, “an authoritative definition”? One of the reasons is that the field of OER is developing fast and as different regimes of intellectual property rights gain acceptance, the definition and scope of the definition of OER may change. Or do I miss something?
Reflection 2
What intrigue me about the origins and growth of OER as a movement within the broader education landscape, are the reasons why it came into existence and why it gained so much support. If we understand different changes in the broader education landscape as responses to changes and different factors such as socio-economic, geopolitical, cultural, etc., I am still looking for the reasons why OER gained so much and such a wide ranging support in the last ten years. According to Wiley (2009) Open Source came into existence in February 1998. What were the political, socio-economic, technological and geopolitical context making this possible? The same question can be asked regarding the contexts which made Creative Commons and the UNESCO OER definition possible in 2002.
Why am I intrigued by these questions? I suspect I have a gut feeling that if we understand particular forms of education as responses to broader societal factors (including political, economic, social, technological, environmental and legal), understanding the factors that resulted in OER as a major movement in 21st century education, will help us (or at least me) to understand how it will unfold in the next decade. While technology is mentioned as a major factor (e.g. Highton, Fresen & Wild,2011, p.29), surely there were other factors such as changing understanding of the notion of intellectual property right and knowledge as a public good, etc.? What made MOOCs possible and en vogue? What factors contributed to EdX, Coursera and Udacity taking off in 2012, while the first version of Wikipedia, Nupedia.com failed (Wiley, 2009)?
Reflection 3
I thoroughly enjoyed the article by Richter and McPherson (2012) in which they explore the complexities and challenges in increasing access to and the impact of OER on global education. I quite like their statement that the “simple availability of OER is unlikely to be a definitive solution” (Richter & McPherson, 2012, p.203). While a lot of the current literature on OER reflect on the production and seemingly lack of use of OER, Richter and McPherson (2012, p.206) point to the need for more OER on the level of basic adult education. It would seem as if we have become preoccupied with reflecting on the production and use of OER in higher education while forgetting that the biggest educational need is on the level of basic education.
Reflection 4
The “learning resources adaptation process” suggested by Richter and McPherson (2012, p.209) is a very useful overview of the different aspects to take into consideration in the adaptation of OER as learning resources. I also think the provision of a printable version of OER, as suggested by Richter and McPherson (2012, p.214) is a very valid and crucial point. Although OER is basically existing in digitized formats, the provision of these OER in printable formats will make their reach even wider.
References
Highton, M., Fresen, J.W., & Wild, J. (2011). Making academic OER easy: Reflections on technology and openness at Oxford University. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 15(2), 28-40.
Wiley, D. (2009), Introduction to open education [Video]. Available from http://blip.tv/introduction-to-open-education/lecture-01-history-1653975
Instead of sharing my own “considered definition” of OER after so many of the class already posted a variety of definitions from a range of authoritative sources, I would rather share some reflections on the definitions and history of OER:
Reflection 1
Despite numerous definitions of and declarations pertaining to OER, Nikoi and Armellini (2012) state that “An authoritative definition of OER does not yet exist” (p.166). This claim or statement made me wonder what makes a particular definition “authoritative”? We have the definitions by UNESCO (which Nikoi and Armellini, 2012, accept and use), the definition in the Cape Town Declaration (in 2007) as well as the definition of the Center for Open and Sustainable Learning in 2008 (Nikoi & Armellini, 2012, p.166). How should we understand Nikoi and Armellini’s (2012) statement that there is, not yet, “an authoritative definition”? One of the reasons is that the field of OER is developing fast and as different regimes of intellectual property rights gain acceptance, the definition and scope of the definition of OER may change. Or do I miss something?
Reflection 2
What intrigue me about the origins and growth of OER as a movement within the broader education landscape, are the reasons why it came into existence and why it gained so much support. If we understand different changes in the broader education landscape as responses to changes and different factors such as socio-economic, geopolitical, cultural, etc., I am still looking for the reasons why OER gained so much and such a wide ranging support in the last ten years. According to Wiley (2009) Open Source came into existence in February 1998. What were the political, socio-economic, technological and geopolitical context making this possible? The same question can be asked regarding the contexts which made Creative Commons and the UNESCO OER definition possible in 2002.
Why am I intrigued by these questions? I suspect I have a gut feeling that if we understand particular forms of education as responses to broader societal factors (including political, economic, social, technological, environmental and legal), understanding the factors that resulted in OER as a major movement in 21st century education, will help us (or at least me) to understand how it will unfold in the next decade. While technology is mentioned as a major factor (e.g. Highton, Fresen & Wild,2011, p.29), surely there were other factors such as changing understanding of the notion of intellectual property right and knowledge as a public good, etc.? What made MOOCs possible and en vogue? What factors contributed to EdX, Coursera and Udacity taking off in 2012, while the first version of Wikipedia, Nupedia.com failed (Wiley, 2009)?
Reflection 3
I thoroughly enjoyed the article by Richter and McPherson (2012) in which they explore the complexities and challenges in increasing access to and the impact of OER on global education. I quite like their statement that the “simple availability of OER is unlikely to be a definitive solution” (Richter & McPherson, 2012, p.203). While a lot of the current literature on OER reflect on the production and seemingly lack of use of OER, Richter and McPherson (2012, p.206) point to the need for more OER on the level of basic adult education. It would seem as if we have become preoccupied with reflecting on the production and use of OER in higher education while forgetting that the biggest educational need is on the level of basic education.
Reflection 4
The “learning resources adaptation process” suggested by Richter and McPherson (2012, p.209) is a very useful overview of the different aspects to take into consideration in the adaptation of OER as learning resources. I also think the provision of a printable version of OER, as suggested by Richter and McPherson (2012, p.214) is a very valid and crucial point. Although OER is basically existing in digitized formats, the provision of these OER in printable formats will make their reach even wider.
References
Highton, M., Fresen, J.W., & Wild, J. (2011). Making academic OER easy: Reflections on technology and openness at Oxford University. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 15(2), 28-40.
Wiley, D. (2009), Introduction to open education [Video]. Available from http://blip.tv/introduction-to-open-education/lecture-01-history-1653975
Unit 2, Activity 1
The generations of technological innovations help us to better integrate multimedia learning in the development of distance learning. Although Garrison couldn't foresee the enormous development of online distance learning, I think his concept of technological innovations is still valid.
1. What are the capabilities of media that initiated a new generation of distance education or a paradigm shift in the way we teach and learn?
2. What are "ancillary media" in this regard? Let me start my attempt to answer the question by stating by discomfort that with two aspects of Garrison’s (1985) article:
With the above in place, I now turn to Garrison’s description of and evaluation of “ancillary media,” which according to him (1985, p.238) has not “altered the delivery of distance education.” The rationale for his evaluation is the “non-interactiveness of media such as radio and television, audio and video cassettes” (Garrison, 1985, p.238; emphasis added). Due to the fact that these media did not constitute two-way communication, Garrison judges that these media did not alter the development of distance education. With all due respect, I disagree.
The use of media such as audiocassettes, video cassettes, and more recently, vodcasts and podcasts, has altered and is altering the way we perceive distance learning and the future of distance learning. The privileging of two-way communication against one-way media is in my opinion, a gross misrepresentation of the potential of one-way media and, the future role of these media in the unfolding of distance education. To describe these media as ancillary is doing the understanding of distance education disfavour.
I have a sense that the future of distance education is open, asynchronous and increasingly, just-in-time…
References
Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. International Review of Research in Online and Distance Learning (IRRODL), 12(3), 80-97. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/890
Garrison, G. R. (1985). Three generations of technological innovation in distance education. Distance Education, 6(2), 235-241.
Heydenrych, J.F., & Prinsloo, P. (2010). Revisiting the five generations of distance education: Quo vadis? Progressio 32 (1), 5–26.
1. What are the capabilities of media that initiated a new generation of distance education or a paradigm shift in the way we teach and learn?
2. What are "ancillary media" in this regard? Let me start my attempt to answer the question by stating by discomfort that with two aspects of Garrison’s (1985) article:
- Though it is most probably a valid investigation to look at how different generations of technology impacted on distance education, it is, in my opinion, a limiting view. Technology is but one of the many changes that impact on our understanding of cognition and ways of seeing the world. There are also changes in the way we see learning (e.g. Anderson & Dron, 2011), the way we define knowledge, store knowledge, validate and accredit knowledge, etc. Even before correspondence became a possibility, knowledge was defined and shared (albeit only to the initiated) through sages, rituals, oral traditions, rock paintings, etc. (see for example Heydenrych and Prinsloo, 2011). Heydenrych and Prinsloo (2010) state “we also need to look at the role and reliance on different pedagogies and learning theories; who owned the content; what type of interaction was possible and deemed necessary; what mediums were at the disposal of both the institution and the students; how learning experiences were developed and produced; and how these interactions were stored and delivered” (p.10).
- Reading Garrison (1985) I wondered about the centrality of the notion of “two-way communication” as an essential ingredient in distance education delivery. Many of the recent developments in higher and distance education such as the massive open online courses (MOOCs) resemble a one-to-many communication whether in the form of delivery or in the form of learners responding in the creation of artefacts that they then share to many and not necessarily to the ‘provider’ of the learning experience. If we take a wider approach to teaching as communicative action, then the one-to-many model was an essential ingredient since the early rock paintings and oral traditions. Two-way communication as a reciprocal ingredient between the deliverer of the teaching and the recipient of the teaching is an unnecessary and possibly limiting element in how we not only see the evolution of teaching and learning, but also the future. Or do I miss something?
With the above in place, I now turn to Garrison’s description of and evaluation of “ancillary media,” which according to him (1985, p.238) has not “altered the delivery of distance education.” The rationale for his evaluation is the “non-interactiveness of media such as radio and television, audio and video cassettes” (Garrison, 1985, p.238; emphasis added). Due to the fact that these media did not constitute two-way communication, Garrison judges that these media did not alter the development of distance education. With all due respect, I disagree.
The use of media such as audiocassettes, video cassettes, and more recently, vodcasts and podcasts, has altered and is altering the way we perceive distance learning and the future of distance learning. The privileging of two-way communication against one-way media is in my opinion, a gross misrepresentation of the potential of one-way media and, the future role of these media in the unfolding of distance education. To describe these media as ancillary is doing the understanding of distance education disfavour.
I have a sense that the future of distance education is open, asynchronous and increasingly, just-in-time…
References
Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. International Review of Research in Online and Distance Learning (IRRODL), 12(3), 80-97. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/890
Garrison, G. R. (1985). Three generations of technological innovation in distance education. Distance Education, 6(2), 235-241.
Heydenrych, J.F., & Prinsloo, P. (2010). Revisiting the five generations of distance education: Quo vadis? Progressio 32 (1), 5–26.
Unit 2, Activity 2
Terry Anderson (2010) - required reading - lucidly summarizes new theories in the context of learning with technologies. The term "connectivism" was coined by George Siemens (2004). He argues that we learn from forming connections and learning occurs as individuals discover and build connections between nodes.
Do you agree that connectivism is a new learning theory or is it just a further development of constructivism in a networked world?
In answering the above question, I want to acknowledge previous research I’ve done for the last assignment in OMDE601. The below is a reworked, rephrased and drastically shortened version of my last assignment for OMDE601.
In considering whether connectivism is a (new) learning theory, we have to take note of the impact of the “new chances and opportunities” offered by “digitized learning environments” (Peters, 2010, p.141). Siemens (2008, p.11) claims that connectivism provides an alternative way of understanding learning compared to historical learning theories such as behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism .While none of the previous learning theories fell into disuse or became obsolete, I am of the opinion that connectivism provides an enriched version of constructivism as a way to understand learning in a digital age.
If we accept that we are on the brink of a “Copernican revolution” (Peters, 2010, p. 139) due to impact of technology and networks on teaching and learning; it is clear that we should not underestimate or under-theorize learning in a networked world (Anderson, Boyles, & Rainie, 2012). Davidson and Goldberg (2009, p.1) state that the Internet exponentially increases “the potential for shared and interactive learning” and “demands a deep, epistemological appreciation of the profundity of what the Internet offers humanity as a model of a learning institution” (Davidson & Goldberg 2009, p.2). Due to the fact that constructivism arose in a different age and pre-Internet and social media era – we have to see connectivism as an alternative learning theory which reflects the impact of the digital age on information where the creation of information is “now largely in the hands of individuals”, and where the “packaging of information”, its validation, dissemination, and accreditation have fundamentally changed (Siemens & Tittenberger, 2009, pp.2-3).
We therefore need a rethink of how learning takes place in a digital age as the traditional learning theories provide limited and incomplete maps for understanding and explaining learning (Siemens, 2004, para.10). Networks “fundamentally alter” not only the hierarchical structures in many traditional institutions (Siemens, 2008, p.5), but also alter the way we understand and plan for learning. Siemens (2008, p.10) refers to the framework proposed by Mergel (1998) which points to, on the one hand, the limitations of traditional learning theories, and on the other hand, provide a rationale for connectivism as a new learning theory. Mergel’s framework (1998, in Siemens, 2008, p.10) uses five questions to “distinguish learning theory” namely
Siemens (2004, para. 23) therefore defines connectivism as:
… the integration of principles explored by chaos, network, and complexity and self-organization theories. Learning is a process that occurs within nebulous environments of shifting core elements – not entirely under the control of the individual. Learning (defined as actionable knowledge) can reside outside of ourselves (within an organization or a database), is focused on connecting specialized information sets, and the connections that enable us to learn more are more important than our current state of knowing.
There have been several critiques and opposing voices to connectivism as a learning theory such as Verhagen (2006; in Siemens, 2008, p.11), and Downes (2012). Verhagen (2006; in Siemens, 2008, p.11), for example, refers to connectivism as “unsubstantiated philosophizing” and an “unnecessary theory.” Downes (2012) approaches connectivism from an artificial intelligence (AI) and philosophical perspective and accuses Siemens of general “vagueness” (Downes, 2012, p.63) and lack of clarity regarding “how networks learn things, know things, and do things” (Downes, 2012, p.64). Siemens (2006) acknowledges these critiques and the need for more research and interrogation, but maintains that connectivism provides an alternative learning theory which addresses the limitations of traditional learning theories in a networked age (Siemens in Schwier, 2011).
Connectivism proposes that the Internet has fundamentally changed the way we create and share meaning. As such, connectivism proposes an alternative understanding of teaching and learning in a digital age.
References
Anderson, T. (2010). Theories for learning with emerging technologies. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.), Emerging technologies in distance education (pp.23-40). Canada: Athabasca University Press. Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/books/120177/ebook/02_Veletsianos_2010-Emerging_Technologies_in_Distance_Education.pdf
Anderson, J.Q., Boyles, J.L., & Rainie, L. (2012). The future of higher education (Report on the “Future of the Internet”). Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2012/PIP_Future_of_Higher_Ed.pdf
Couros, A. (2009). Open, connected, social – implications for educational design. Campus-wide Information Systems, 26(3), 232-239. DOI: org/10.1108/10650740910967393.
Davidson, C.N., & Goldberg, D T. (2009). The future of learning institutions in a digital age [Adobe Digital Version]. Retrieved from http://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262513593
Downes, S. (2012). Connectivism and connective knowledge. Essays on meaning and learning networks. National Research Council Canada. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/files/books/Connective_Knowledge-19May2012.pdf
Peters, O. (2010). A pedagogical model for using virtual learning spaces. In O. Peters, Distance education in transition: Developments and issues (5th edition) (pp.119-139). Oldenburg, Germany: BIS-Verlag der Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg.
Siemens, G. (2004, December 12). A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
Siemens, G. (2006). Connectivism. Learning theory or pastime of the self-amused? Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/Connectivism_response.doc
Siemens, G. (2008). Learning and Knowing in Networks: Changing roles for Educators and Designers. Paper presented to IT Forum for discussion, 27 January. Retrieved from http://itforum.coe.uga.edu/Paper105/Siemens.pdf
Siemens, G., & Tittenberger, P. (2009). Handbook of emerging technologies for learning. Canada: University of Manitoba. Retrieved from http://elearnspace.org/Articles/HETL.pdf
Do you agree that connectivism is a new learning theory or is it just a further development of constructivism in a networked world?
In answering the above question, I want to acknowledge previous research I’ve done for the last assignment in OMDE601. The below is a reworked, rephrased and drastically shortened version of my last assignment for OMDE601.
In considering whether connectivism is a (new) learning theory, we have to take note of the impact of the “new chances and opportunities” offered by “digitized learning environments” (Peters, 2010, p.141). Siemens (2008, p.11) claims that connectivism provides an alternative way of understanding learning compared to historical learning theories such as behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism .While none of the previous learning theories fell into disuse or became obsolete, I am of the opinion that connectivism provides an enriched version of constructivism as a way to understand learning in a digital age.
If we accept that we are on the brink of a “Copernican revolution” (Peters, 2010, p. 139) due to impact of technology and networks on teaching and learning; it is clear that we should not underestimate or under-theorize learning in a networked world (Anderson, Boyles, & Rainie, 2012). Davidson and Goldberg (2009, p.1) state that the Internet exponentially increases “the potential for shared and interactive learning” and “demands a deep, epistemological appreciation of the profundity of what the Internet offers humanity as a model of a learning institution” (Davidson & Goldberg 2009, p.2). Due to the fact that constructivism arose in a different age and pre-Internet and social media era – we have to see connectivism as an alternative learning theory which reflects the impact of the digital age on information where the creation of information is “now largely in the hands of individuals”, and where the “packaging of information”, its validation, dissemination, and accreditation have fundamentally changed (Siemens & Tittenberger, 2009, pp.2-3).
We therefore need a rethink of how learning takes place in a digital age as the traditional learning theories provide limited and incomplete maps for understanding and explaining learning (Siemens, 2004, para.10). Networks “fundamentally alter” not only the hierarchical structures in many traditional institutions (Siemens, 2008, p.5), but also alter the way we understand and plan for learning. Siemens (2008, p.10) refers to the framework proposed by Mergel (1998) which points to, on the one hand, the limitations of traditional learning theories, and on the other hand, provide a rationale for connectivism as a new learning theory. Mergel’s framework (1998, in Siemens, 2008, p.10) uses five questions to “distinguish learning theory” namely
- “How does learning occur?”
- “What factors influence learning?”
- “What is the role of memory?”
- “How does transfer occur?”
- “What types of learning are best explained by this [a particular] learning theory?”
Siemens (2004, para. 23) therefore defines connectivism as:
… the integration of principles explored by chaos, network, and complexity and self-organization theories. Learning is a process that occurs within nebulous environments of shifting core elements – not entirely under the control of the individual. Learning (defined as actionable knowledge) can reside outside of ourselves (within an organization or a database), is focused on connecting specialized information sets, and the connections that enable us to learn more are more important than our current state of knowing.
There have been several critiques and opposing voices to connectivism as a learning theory such as Verhagen (2006; in Siemens, 2008, p.11), and Downes (2012). Verhagen (2006; in Siemens, 2008, p.11), for example, refers to connectivism as “unsubstantiated philosophizing” and an “unnecessary theory.” Downes (2012) approaches connectivism from an artificial intelligence (AI) and philosophical perspective and accuses Siemens of general “vagueness” (Downes, 2012, p.63) and lack of clarity regarding “how networks learn things, know things, and do things” (Downes, 2012, p.64). Siemens (2006) acknowledges these critiques and the need for more research and interrogation, but maintains that connectivism provides an alternative learning theory which addresses the limitations of traditional learning theories in a networked age (Siemens in Schwier, 2011).
Connectivism proposes that the Internet has fundamentally changed the way we create and share meaning. As such, connectivism proposes an alternative understanding of teaching and learning in a digital age.
References
Anderson, T. (2010). Theories for learning with emerging technologies. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.), Emerging technologies in distance education (pp.23-40). Canada: Athabasca University Press. Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/books/120177/ebook/02_Veletsianos_2010-Emerging_Technologies_in_Distance_Education.pdf
Anderson, J.Q., Boyles, J.L., & Rainie, L. (2012). The future of higher education (Report on the “Future of the Internet”). Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2012/PIP_Future_of_Higher_Ed.pdf
Couros, A. (2009). Open, connected, social – implications for educational design. Campus-wide Information Systems, 26(3), 232-239. DOI: org/10.1108/10650740910967393.
Davidson, C.N., & Goldberg, D T. (2009). The future of learning institutions in a digital age [Adobe Digital Version]. Retrieved from http://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262513593
Downes, S. (2012). Connectivism and connective knowledge. Essays on meaning and learning networks. National Research Council Canada. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/files/books/Connective_Knowledge-19May2012.pdf
Peters, O. (2010). A pedagogical model for using virtual learning spaces. In O. Peters, Distance education in transition: Developments and issues (5th edition) (pp.119-139). Oldenburg, Germany: BIS-Verlag der Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg.
Siemens, G. (2004, December 12). A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
Siemens, G. (2006). Connectivism. Learning theory or pastime of the self-amused? Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/Connectivism_response.doc
Siemens, G. (2008). Learning and Knowing in Networks: Changing roles for Educators and Designers. Paper presented to IT Forum for discussion, 27 January. Retrieved from http://itforum.coe.uga.edu/Paper105/Siemens.pdf
Siemens, G., & Tittenberger, P. (2009). Handbook of emerging technologies for learning. Canada: University of Manitoba. Retrieved from http://elearnspace.org/Articles/HETL.pdf