Instead of a practice to replace independent learning, as a student I see NGL as a complementary tool that can be used to facilitate a wider, more multi-modal viewpoint. As a student attempting to uncover the practicalities of NGL, I question whether the learning which has resulted from it would have been any different in a less networked environment. I am sceptical about the misguidance which can be caused by false mass consensus, and concerned by NGL's potential to spiral out to embrace the random as opposed to focussing on relevant learning.
However, participation was useful, as it helped me understand what networked and global learning is, by connecting with those who’ve conceived and criticised it, and how it can be applied, by exploring the concepts of groups, collectives, networks and personal knowledge management.
What is NGL?
Essentially, the basis of networked and global learning (NGL) seems to be making connections in order to learn thoroughly. It is a threshold concept (Perkins, 1999), which is still being developed. Threshold concepts can cause inherent problems for learners, as they demand an integration of ideas that require students to accept a transformation of their own understanding (Land, Cousin, Daveis & Meyer 2004). This student is no exception.
By connecting to blogs, sites and resources authored by networked learning scholars I gathered that NGL is a process of developing and maintaining connections with people and information, and communicating in such a way that supports collective knowledge (Ostashewski & Reid 2011). Siemens (2006) and Downes (2012) promote the idea of connected learning in their theory of connectivism. Siemens (2006) posits that all learning starts with a connection, and connectivism enhances these connections through digital linkages. Downes (2012) claims 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 those networks. Accordingly, Tschofen and Mackness (2012) conclude that learning, in connectivism terms, is a network phenomenon, influenced, aided, and enhanced by socialisation, technology, diversity, strength of ties, and context of occurrence.
Therefore, I realised that connectivism is an element of NGL, aiming to facilitate connections through networks and technology. Subsequently, NGL takes a relational stance, in which learning takes place both in relation to others and in relation to learning resources (Dirckinck-Holmfeld, Jones, & Lindström, B, 2009).
The suggestion of learning resources infers NGL also has links to social constructivism and constructionism. Ideals which pose that meaningful learning must involve ‘hands-on’ learning tasks that require information processing and intentional knowledge construction within the context of active collaboration and social interactions (Jonassen, Howland, Moore, & Maura, 2003). Ostashewski and Reid (2011) note that what makes constructionism of particular interest for online or networked learning activities is that the theory is concerned with the constructions or artefacts created by learners who are supported by computer-based technologies. As such, connectivism, constructivism and constructionism form a foundation for the paradigms of networked and global learning. Yet, establishing these associations didn’t allay my suspicion of inadequate learning sequences.
However, participation was useful, as it helped me understand what networked and global learning is, by connecting with those who’ve conceived and criticised it, and how it can be applied, by exploring the concepts of groups, collectives, networks and personal knowledge management.
What is NGL?
Essentially, the basis of networked and global learning (NGL) seems to be making connections in order to learn thoroughly. It is a threshold concept (Perkins, 1999), which is still being developed. Threshold concepts can cause inherent problems for learners, as they demand an integration of ideas that require students to accept a transformation of their own understanding (Land, Cousin, Daveis & Meyer 2004). This student is no exception.
By connecting to blogs, sites and resources authored by networked learning scholars I gathered that NGL is a process of developing and maintaining connections with people and information, and communicating in such a way that supports collective knowledge (Ostashewski & Reid 2011). Siemens (2006) and Downes (2012) promote the idea of connected learning in their theory of connectivism. Siemens (2006) posits that all learning starts with a connection, and connectivism enhances these connections through digital linkages. Downes (2012) claims 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 those networks. Accordingly, Tschofen and Mackness (2012) conclude that learning, in connectivism terms, is a network phenomenon, influenced, aided, and enhanced by socialisation, technology, diversity, strength of ties, and context of occurrence.
Therefore, I realised that connectivism is an element of NGL, aiming to facilitate connections through networks and technology. Subsequently, NGL takes a relational stance, in which learning takes place both in relation to others and in relation to learning resources (Dirckinck-Holmfeld, Jones, & Lindström, B, 2009).
The suggestion of learning resources infers NGL also has links to social constructivism and constructionism. Ideals which pose that meaningful learning must involve ‘hands-on’ learning tasks that require information processing and intentional knowledge construction within the context of active collaboration and social interactions (Jonassen, Howland, Moore, & Maura, 2003). Ostashewski and Reid (2011) note that what makes constructionism of particular interest for online or networked learning activities is that the theory is concerned with the constructions or artefacts created by learners who are supported by computer-based technologies. As such, connectivism, constructivism and constructionism form a foundation for the paradigms of networked and global learning. Yet, establishing these associations didn’t allay my suspicion of inadequate learning sequences.
Criticisms of NGL
Fortunately, irritation inspires motivation. Often, my frustrations facilitate a drive to establish sound reasoning either for, or against an argument. The case for NGL was no different, so the reservations of other scholars were investigated.
Upon commencement of NGL as a student, networked learning appeared as if it could easily enable mass groupthink through unquestioned assumptions of consensus.
This is supported by Hodgson and Reynolds’ (2005) query:
Fortunately, irritation inspires motivation. Often, my frustrations facilitate a drive to establish sound reasoning either for, or against an argument. The case for NGL was no different, so the reservations of other scholars were investigated.
Upon commencement of NGL as a student, networked learning appeared as if it could easily enable mass groupthink through unquestioned assumptions of consensus.
This is supported by Hodgson and Reynolds’ (2005) query:
“What happens to members of the community who do not feel represented by these ‘terms’ or ‘expectations’? Is there space for contesting voices, or does deviation from the norm result in marginalisation or exclusion?”
Furthermore, what about those who are unfamiliar with the application of technology? Dirckinck-Holmfeld, Hodgson and McConnell (2011) theorise that these ‘digital immigrants’ may never able to fully bridge the digital networks gap with ‘natives’ arising from their generational position and may feel disconnected.
Then there are those who aren’t comfortable learning in groups. Bennett and Maton (2010) suggest that networked individualism places the focus on the individuals to source information in their own networks, which may be insufficient if the networks aren’t broad or informed enough.
Kop, Fournier and Mak (2011) stress that if adequate aggregation of information sources isn’t applied AND external networks are not constructed to support discussion and reflection, then little benefit will come from NGL. While Goodyear, Avgeriou, Baggetun, Bartoluzzi, Retalis, Ronteltap and Rusman (2004) indicated a major issue with NGL was its complexity, which makes its instructional design overwhelming, and potentially ineffective. Given I’m an instructional designer, this concerned me.
Additionally, a further complication may arise through what Goodyear (2014) characterises 'homophily'; the tendency to prefer to interact with others who are like oneself. Goodyear (2014) claims this can have positive functions, such as reducing conflict, simplifying coordination and facilitating the sharing of tacit knowledge, but can also reduce access novel ideas or the ideas of those less public.
The results I uncovered seemed to indicate that many of the issues held with NGL were based on inadequacies arising from groupings; digital immigrants, misplaced consensus, ill-chosen mentors or unchallenged bias. The potential for manipulation in this made me more uneasy.
Kop, Fournier and Mak (2011) stress that if adequate aggregation of information sources isn’t applied AND external networks are not constructed to support discussion and reflection, then little benefit will come from NGL. While Goodyear, Avgeriou, Baggetun, Bartoluzzi, Retalis, Ronteltap and Rusman (2004) indicated a major issue with NGL was its complexity, which makes its instructional design overwhelming, and potentially ineffective. Given I’m an instructional designer, this concerned me.
Additionally, a further complication may arise through what Goodyear (2014) characterises 'homophily'; the tendency to prefer to interact with others who are like oneself. Goodyear (2014) claims this can have positive functions, such as reducing conflict, simplifying coordination and facilitating the sharing of tacit knowledge, but can also reduce access novel ideas or the ideas of those less public.
The results I uncovered seemed to indicate that many of the issues held with NGL were based on inadequacies arising from groupings; digital immigrants, misplaced consensus, ill-chosen mentors or unchallenged bias. The potential for manipulation in this made me more uneasy.
Groups, collectives and networks
Personally, it took some time to be comfortable knowing where I sat as a student in NGL. There is no back seat. In any course of learning, I like to operate alone. Not due to a fear of socialisation, but because I don’t feel that group outcomes are always constructive, synchronised or universally beneficial. In part, my aforementioned concern of groupthink stems from this.
Allegedly, working in a group is designed to achieve a common goal. Though I wasn’t convinced my goals aligned with those of this NGL group. As Dron and Anderson (2007) note, groups in education are set in a sequence of time and strive for certain purpose, this binding restricts access and outcomes. Furthermore, groups are structured around particular tasks and institute various levels of access control to limit participation, review of group artefacts, or transcripts to members, providing a less public domain (Dron & Anderson 2014). Not being fond of restriction, or limitation I made a concerted effort to consider NGL as more than groupwork.
When knowledge within a group becomes too insular or disconnected it can become bias, unchallenged and two-dimensional, which may happen in what (Dron & Anderson 2007) label a collective. Collectives are an embodiment of collective intelligence. They use aggregation and collaborative consensus to average out behaviour, and results. Collectives arise from actions taken by individuals in a crowd and play a binding role in enabling social software systems to do things that were difficult or impossible in the past (Dron & Anderson 2014).
However, collectives can quite easily fall victim to the Mathew Principle, which states that cumulative advantage stimulates inequality. In an NGL setting, this can lead to the wisdom of the crowd becoming the stupidity of a mob (Dron & Anderson 2007). This is why mindless television like Big Brother rates through the roof.
Enter. The. Network. The shape of the network is emergent, not designed and members share a marginal sense of commitment to each other, but are not symbiotic (Dron & Anderson 2007). The simplicity in this revelation resonated with me. Typically network contribution is the result of desiring personal enrichment or adding value to a greater resource (Zarb, 2006). In essence, this means there is no pressure to follow or be restricted by the many, but enhanced by what we extract or contribute. Dron and Anderson (2014) identify that networks consist of nodes—such as people, objects, or ideas—and edges, the connections between them. Learners can be connected to other learners either directly or indirectly, and may not even be aware of all those who form part of the wider network to which they belong. A semi-fastened community?
According to connectivism, communities are characterised by a shared domain of interest where members interact, learn together and develop a shared repertoire of resources (Lave & Wenger, 1998). But if this was the case, then surely the more members of a network, the more resources there are? And if one is to avoid spiraling out, how can those resources be used effectively?
Personally, it took some time to be comfortable knowing where I sat as a student in NGL. There is no back seat. In any course of learning, I like to operate alone. Not due to a fear of socialisation, but because I don’t feel that group outcomes are always constructive, synchronised or universally beneficial. In part, my aforementioned concern of groupthink stems from this.
Allegedly, working in a group is designed to achieve a common goal. Though I wasn’t convinced my goals aligned with those of this NGL group. As Dron and Anderson (2007) note, groups in education are set in a sequence of time and strive for certain purpose, this binding restricts access and outcomes. Furthermore, groups are structured around particular tasks and institute various levels of access control to limit participation, review of group artefacts, or transcripts to members, providing a less public domain (Dron & Anderson 2014). Not being fond of restriction, or limitation I made a concerted effort to consider NGL as more than groupwork.
When knowledge within a group becomes too insular or disconnected it can become bias, unchallenged and two-dimensional, which may happen in what (Dron & Anderson 2007) label a collective. Collectives are an embodiment of collective intelligence. They use aggregation and collaborative consensus to average out behaviour, and results. Collectives arise from actions taken by individuals in a crowd and play a binding role in enabling social software systems to do things that were difficult or impossible in the past (Dron & Anderson 2014).
However, collectives can quite easily fall victim to the Mathew Principle, which states that cumulative advantage stimulates inequality. In an NGL setting, this can lead to the wisdom of the crowd becoming the stupidity of a mob (Dron & Anderson 2007). This is why mindless television like Big Brother rates through the roof.
Enter. The. Network. The shape of the network is emergent, not designed and members share a marginal sense of commitment to each other, but are not symbiotic (Dron & Anderson 2007). The simplicity in this revelation resonated with me. Typically network contribution is the result of desiring personal enrichment or adding value to a greater resource (Zarb, 2006). In essence, this means there is no pressure to follow or be restricted by the many, but enhanced by what we extract or contribute. Dron and Anderson (2014) identify that networks consist of nodes—such as people, objects, or ideas—and edges, the connections between them. Learners can be connected to other learners either directly or indirectly, and may not even be aware of all those who form part of the wider network to which they belong. A semi-fastened community?
According to connectivism, communities are characterised by a shared domain of interest where members interact, learn together and develop a shared repertoire of resources (Lave & Wenger, 1998). But if this was the case, then surely the more members of a network, the more resources there are? And if one is to avoid spiraling out, how can those resources be used effectively?
Personal Knowledge Management
My answer, and a feeling of vindication came in the form of social curation. Clay Shirky (2008) poses this is a form of filtering information aimed at the discovery, selection, collection and sharing of digital artefacts by an individual. It plays a part in personal knowledge management (PKM). PKM refers to a collection of processes individual learners should carry out to effectively gather, classify, store, search, and retrieve daily knowledge (Grundspenkis, 2007). Fundamentally, this cannot be done without a degree of both digital and information literacy, which is the ability to search for, filter, use, manage, assess, and understand information through technology (Ward 2015). Integrally, this involves learners becoming engaged in critical thinking as they design and develop products, systems, and environments to solve practical problems (ITEA/ITEEA, 2006). Herein lies the essence of effective NGL. That is, social curation of ones own personal network, and network resources, through an application of both digital ant information literacy.
My participation in NGL as a student has been useful in the sense that I now know what NGL is and have thought deeply about how it can be used effectively. However, in the current format of this particular course I’m not convinced that those without the 21st Century literacies of technological and information literacy will be able to succeed. Therefore, in my post about future implications, I’ve considered a number of recommendations for the instructional design of NGL courses. So you’ll simply have to keep reading!
My answer, and a feeling of vindication came in the form of social curation. Clay Shirky (2008) poses this is a form of filtering information aimed at the discovery, selection, collection and sharing of digital artefacts by an individual. It plays a part in personal knowledge management (PKM). PKM refers to a collection of processes individual learners should carry out to effectively gather, classify, store, search, and retrieve daily knowledge (Grundspenkis, 2007). Fundamentally, this cannot be done without a degree of both digital and information literacy, which is the ability to search for, filter, use, manage, assess, and understand information through technology (Ward 2015). Integrally, this involves learners becoming engaged in critical thinking as they design and develop products, systems, and environments to solve practical problems (ITEA/ITEEA, 2006). Herein lies the essence of effective NGL. That is, social curation of ones own personal network, and network resources, through an application of both digital ant information literacy.
My participation in NGL as a student has been useful in the sense that I now know what NGL is and have thought deeply about how it can be used effectively. However, in the current format of this particular course I’m not convinced that those without the 21st Century literacies of technological and information literacy will be able to succeed. Therefore, in my post about future implications, I’ve considered a number of recommendations for the instructional design of NGL courses. So you’ll simply have to keep reading!
References
Bennett, S., & Maton, K. (2010). Beyond the ‘digital natives’ debate: Towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26 (5), 321–331.
Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Jones, C., & Lindström, B.(2009), Analysing networked learning practices in higher education and continuing professional development. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (Eds.). (2011). Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning. Springer Science & Business Media.
Downes, S. (2012). Connectivism and Connective Knowledge: essays on meaning and learning networks. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/me/mybooks.htm Stephen Downes Web.
Dron, J., & Anderson, T. (2007, October). Collectives, networks and groups in social software for e-Learning. In World conference on e-learning in Corporate, government, healthcare, and higher education (Vol. 2007, No. 1, pp. 2460-2467).
Dron, J. & Anderson, T. (2014). Teaching crowds: Learning and social media. Athabasca University Press
Goodyear, P., Avgeriou, P., Baggetun, R., Bartoluzzi, S., Retalis, S., Ronteltap, F., & Rusman, E. (2004, April). Towards a pattern language for networked learning. In proceedings of networked learning (pp. 449-455).
Goodyear, P. (2014). PRODUCTIVE LEARNING NETWORKS. The architecture of productive learning networks, Vol 23.
Grundspenkis, J. (2007). Agent based approach for organization and personal knowledge modelling: knowledge management perspective. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 18 (4): 451-57.doi:10.1007/s10845-007-0052-6.
Hodgson, J. & Reynolds, M. (2005) Consensus, difference and ‘multiple communities’ in networked learning, Studies in Higher Education, 30:1, 11-24, DOI:10.1080/0307507052000307768
International Technology Education Association (ITEA/ITEEA). (2006). Technological literacy for all: A rationale and structure for the study of technology. Reston, VA
Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J. L., Moore, J. L., & Maura, R. M. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Kop, R., Fournier, H., & Mak, J. S. F. (2011). A pedagogy of abundance or a pedagogy to support human beings? Participant support on massive open online courses. The International Review Of Research In Open And Distributed Learning, 12(7), 74-93.
Land, R., Cousin, G., Davies, D., Meyer, J. F. H., (2004), Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge (3): Implications for Course Design and Evaluation, Improving Student Learning Conference
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity: Cambridge University Press.
Ostashewski, N., & Reid, D. (2015, June). Networked Learning Framework Design: Exploring Three Implementations of Connectivist Learning. In EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (Vol. 2015, No. 1, pp. 1612-1621).
Perkins, D., (1999), Many Faces of Constructivism, Educational Leadership, 57, 3
Shirky, C. (2008). It is not information overload. It is filter failure. Retrieved from: http://lifehacker.com/5052851/information-overload-is-filter-failure-says-shirky
Siemens, G. (2006). Learning theory or pastime for the self-amused? Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism_self-amused.htm
Tschofen, C., & Mackness, J. (2012). Connectivism and dimensions of individual experience. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(1), 124-143.
Ward, B. (2015). Deconstructing Technological Literacy. Technology and Engineering Teacher, Feb, 18-22
Zarb, M. (2006). Modelling Participation in Virtual Communities of Practice. London School of Economics; London. Retireved April 2007 from http://www.mzarb.com/Modelling_Participation_in_Virtual_Communities-of-Practice.pdf
Bennett, S., & Maton, K. (2010). Beyond the ‘digital natives’ debate: Towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26 (5), 321–331.
Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Jones, C., & Lindström, B.(2009), Analysing networked learning practices in higher education and continuing professional development. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (Eds.). (2011). Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning. Springer Science & Business Media.
Downes, S. (2012). Connectivism and Connective Knowledge: essays on meaning and learning networks. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/me/mybooks.htm Stephen Downes Web.
Dron, J., & Anderson, T. (2007, October). Collectives, networks and groups in social software for e-Learning. In World conference on e-learning in Corporate, government, healthcare, and higher education (Vol. 2007, No. 1, pp. 2460-2467).
Dron, J. & Anderson, T. (2014). Teaching crowds: Learning and social media. Athabasca University Press
Goodyear, P., Avgeriou, P., Baggetun, R., Bartoluzzi, S., Retalis, S., Ronteltap, F., & Rusman, E. (2004, April). Towards a pattern language for networked learning. In proceedings of networked learning (pp. 449-455).
Goodyear, P. (2014). PRODUCTIVE LEARNING NETWORKS. The architecture of productive learning networks, Vol 23.
Grundspenkis, J. (2007). Agent based approach for organization and personal knowledge modelling: knowledge management perspective. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 18 (4): 451-57.doi:10.1007/s10845-007-0052-6.
Hodgson, J. & Reynolds, M. (2005) Consensus, difference and ‘multiple communities’ in networked learning, Studies in Higher Education, 30:1, 11-24, DOI:10.1080/0307507052000307768
International Technology Education Association (ITEA/ITEEA). (2006). Technological literacy for all: A rationale and structure for the study of technology. Reston, VA
Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J. L., Moore, J. L., & Maura, R. M. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Kop, R., Fournier, H., & Mak, J. S. F. (2011). A pedagogy of abundance or a pedagogy to support human beings? Participant support on massive open online courses. The International Review Of Research In Open And Distributed Learning, 12(7), 74-93.
Land, R., Cousin, G., Davies, D., Meyer, J. F. H., (2004), Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge (3): Implications for Course Design and Evaluation, Improving Student Learning Conference
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity: Cambridge University Press.
Ostashewski, N., & Reid, D. (2015, June). Networked Learning Framework Design: Exploring Three Implementations of Connectivist Learning. In EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (Vol. 2015, No. 1, pp. 1612-1621).
Perkins, D., (1999), Many Faces of Constructivism, Educational Leadership, 57, 3
Shirky, C. (2008). It is not information overload. It is filter failure. Retrieved from: http://lifehacker.com/5052851/information-overload-is-filter-failure-says-shirky
Siemens, G. (2006). Learning theory or pastime for the self-amused? Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism_self-amused.htm
Tschofen, C., & Mackness, J. (2012). Connectivism and dimensions of individual experience. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(1), 124-143.
Ward, B. (2015). Deconstructing Technological Literacy. Technology and Engineering Teacher, Feb, 18-22
Zarb, M. (2006). Modelling Participation in Virtual Communities of Practice. London School of Economics; London. Retireved April 2007 from http://www.mzarb.com/Modelling_Participation_in_Virtual_Communities-of-Practice.pdf