Module 2 Post

When one first explores the concept of learning, three main descriptors of learning come to mind: behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. According to George Siemens, “These theories, however, were developed in a time when learning was not impacted through technology” and “behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism do not attempt to address the challenges of organizational knowledge and transference”(2004). In describing learning in a digital age, Siemens (2004) notates limitations of these three theories and addresses an evolution of theory: “At some point, however, the underlying conditions have altered so significantly, that further modification is no longer sensible. An entirely new approach is needed.”

The new approach Siemens proposed is the theory of Connectivism. Connectivism takes into account the new processes that learners must take on when learning in a digital, technology-based environment. As the name implies, connectivism is based upon connections, networks, digital and mental, which allow learners to access, retrieve, and utilize information to gain knowledge, thereby changing behaviors, which is indicative of learning. In his book Knowing Knowledge (2006), Siemens discusses this shift in knowledge flow:

“The most substantial changes will be felt in how we organize ourselves. The
spaces and structures of society – corporations, churches and religious
bodies, schools and government – will experience a different relationship with
knowledge. Instead of relationships of control/monitor and cause/effect,
these organizations require a shift in view to foster, nurture, and connect.
Customers, students, and clients no longer tolerate pre-packaging (music,
news, media). Knowledge set free enables dynamic, adaptive, and personalized
experiences.”

In this 21st century learning environment, George Siemens discussed the growing acceptance of distance education in today’s corporate and educational spheres, including three possible elements of distance education that are creating more effective learning experiences and giving distance education an identity of its own distinct from F2F courses: (a) global diversity, (b) communication, and (c) collaborative interaction.

I fully agree with Siemens in this regards, especially in the case of collaborative interaction. This evolution of collaborative interaction has been augmented greatly by this virtual learning environment and several online tools are available today to facilitate these interactions among learners. Collaborative interactions are no longer limited to strictly face to face interactions; teachers and learners alike can now collaborate via online discussion boards, collaborative WikiSpaces, Blogs, and Google Documents and applications which allow all users to see the same document at the same time, simultaneously working towards a common goal. Time and space are no longer limitations when it comes to collaborative interaction. In their blog (http://blog.commlabindia.com/elearning/collaborative-learning), CommLab India discusses just this thought: “Learning in a collaborative environment can take place at any time. It can happen when individuals are in discussion in a group or over the Internet” (2010). Additionally, as Blogger David Hopkins points out, collaborative learning online “creates an environment of active, involved, exploratory learning” (2010, http://www.dontwasteyourtime.co.uk/eresources/benefits-of-collaborative-learning-elearning/). The teachers and learners have via the aforementioned tools and the Internet, more time, space, and opportunity to create true to life applications of the exploratory information they are gaining, in a self-guided, inquiry based environment via the Internet.

References:

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age.
Retrieved April 22,2010, from http://elearnspace.org/Articles/Connectivism.htm.

Siemens, G. (2006). Knowing Knowledge. Retrieved April 21, 2010, from
http://www.LuLu.com.

Blogs Posted to:
Linda Hutchinson
Karen Connell

Module 1 Post

Module 1 Blog Post – Educ 8842

In this week’s readings, defining arguments were posed by two different sets of authors. These authors have varying and overlapping reasons as to why they believe there is a need to evolve distance education to the next generation. Professor Mike Simonson believes that distance education is nearing the point of critical mass. In this regard, Simonson believes there is a need to evolve distance education be we “can expect exponential growth” (Simonson, 2010) of distance education. Because the point of critical mass is approaching, Simonson emphasizes an evolutionary need to “nurture, support, and inculcate” (2010) distance learning into what we do daily as teachers and learners. Simonson sees distance learning’s evolution from a functionality point of view, whereas the second group of authors’ perspective is functionality combined with effectiveness, whereby effectiveness is linked to quality of instruction.

Moller, Foshay, and Huett, in their 3-part series of articles on the evolution of distance education, also share reasons for the need to evolve distance education. In part one of the series, Moller, Foshay, and Huett discuss the major ramifications of training and development in the context of e-learning’s instructional design, part two focuses upon higher education, and part three on K-12 education. In each of the three articles, one aspect of a need for evolution rings true: sound instructional design methodology.

Despite the fact that I fully understand Simonson’s perspective, I concur completely with Moller, Foshay, and Huett. Once a sound and solid culture of distance learning is established, universally agreed upon, and accepted, the pedagogy, structures, and procedures will follow suit. This is iterative of the “sound ID methodology” (2008, Moller et. al, p. 68) and “sound ID principles” (2008, Moller et. al, p.71) emphasized as important to the evolution of distance learning by the authors. This is quite the contrast to Simonson’s emphasis upon nurturing distance education. There is less of a need to nurture what is overwhelmingly becoming a standard in society as there is to set and codify a distance learning culture with structures and procedures in place.

References:

Huett, J., Moller, L., Foshay, W. & Coleman, C. The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the
potential of the Web (Part 3: K12). TechTrends, 52,(5), 63–67.

Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J. The evolution of distance
education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the Web
(Part 1: Training and Development). TechTrends, 52(3), 70–75.

Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J. The evolution of distance
education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the Web
(Part 2: Higher Education). TechTrends,52(4), 66–70.

Simonson, M. (2010). Distance Education: The Next Generation. [Video]. Laureate Education, Inc.

Blogs Posted To:
Karen Connell
Milton Francis