You are here:

Connectivism: Its place in theory-informed research and innovation in technology-enabled learning
ARTICLE

, University of Salford

IRRODL Volume 12, Number 3, ISSN 1492-3831 Publisher: Athabasca University Press

Full Text

Abstract

The sociotechnical context for learning and education is dynamic and makes great demands on those trying to seize the opportunities presented by emerging technologies. The goal of this paper is to explore certain theories for our plans and actions in technology-enabled learning. Although presented as a successor to previous learning theories, connectivism alone is insufficient to inform learning and its support by technology in an internetworked world. However, because of its presence in massive open online courses (MOOCs), connectivism is influential in the practice of those who take these courses and who wish to apply it in teaching and learning. Thus connectivism is perceived as relevant by its practitioners but as lacking in rigour by its critics. Five scenarios of change are presented with frameworks of different theories to explore the variety of approaches educators can take in the contexts for change and their associated research/evaluation. I argue that the choice of which theories to use depends on the scope and purposes of the intervention, the funding available to resource the research/evaluation, and the experience and philosophical stances of the researchers/practitioners.

Citation

Bell, F. (2011). Connectivism: Its place in theory-informed research and innovation in technology-enabled learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 98-118. Athabasca University Press. Retrieved August 6, 2024 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Ally, M. (2004). Role and function of theory in online education development and delivery. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Foundations of educational theory for online learning. Athabasca, AB: Athabasca University.
  2. Ball, W.J. (1995). Using the Internet as a teaching tool: Why wait any longer? PS: Political Science and Politics, 28(4), 718–720.
  3. Beetham, H. (2009). Thriving in the 21st century: Learning literacies for the digital age (LLiDA project). The Caledonian Academy: Glasgow Caledonian university.
  4. Bell, F. (2003, September). Framing e-learning communities within a wider context. Paper presented at the ALT-C 2003, Communities of Practice, Sheffield, UK.
  5. Bell, F. (2010). Network theories for technology-enabled learning and social change: Connectivism and actor network theory. Paper presented at the Seventh International Conference on Networked Learning, Aalborg, Denmark. Retrieved from http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/organisations/netlc/past/nlc2010/abstracts/Creanor.html.
  6. Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The digital “natives” debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–786.
  7. Bigum, C., & Rowan, L. (2004). Flexible learning in teacher education: Myths, muddles and models. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 213-226.
  8. Black, E.W., Beck, D., Dawson, K., Jinks, S., & DiPietro, M. (2007). The other side of the LMS: Considering implementation and use in the adoption of an LMS in online and blended learning environments. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 51(2), 5.
  9. RetrievedfromCape Town Open Education Declaration. (2007). Unlocking the promise of open educational resources. Retrieved from http://www.capetowndeclaration.org/.
  10. Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishers. Connectivism: Its Place in Theory-Informed Research and Innovation in Technology-Enabled Learning Bell
  11. Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. In A. Kozulin (Ed.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 39–64). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  12. Cormier, D. (2008). Rhizomatic education: Community as curriculum. Innovate, 4(5). Retrieved from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article & Id=550.
  13. Darke, P., Shanks, G., & Broadbent, M. (1998). Successfully completing case study research: Combining rigour, relevance and pragmatism. Information Systems Journal, 8(4), 273– 289.
  14. Downes, S. (2005, December 22). An introduction to connective knowledge [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=33034.
  15. Downes, S. (2006). Learning networks and connective knowledge. Discussion paper #92 (online document). Instructional Technology Forum. Retrieved from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper92/paper92.html.
  16. Drexler, W. (2008, June 15). CCK08 connectivism-networked student—the movie [Video]. Retrieved from http://teachweb2.blogspot.com/2008/11/cck08-connectivism-networked-studentthe.html
  17. Duchastel, P. (1998). Prolegomena to a theory of instructional design. Online ITFORUM presentation and archived discussion. Retrieved from http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper27/paper27.html.
  18. Fleck, J. (1988). Innofusion or diffusation? : The nature of technological development in robotics (Edinburgh PICT working paper 4). Retrieved from http://www.issti.ed.ac.uk/publications.
  19. Gestzi, T. (1990). Physical models of neural networks. Singapore: World Scientific.
  20. Goodyear, P. (2001). Effective networked learning in higher education: Notes and guidelines (Vol. 3, 2005). Lancaster, UK: Centre for Studies in Advanced Learning Technology, Lancaster University.
  21. Griffiths, M., & Light, B. (2010). Social networking and digital gaming media convergence: Consequences for appropriation in Habbo Hotel. Paper presented at Under the Mask 2010: Perspectives on the Gamer, Bedford University, UK. Retrieved from http://underthemask.wikidot.com/griffithsandlight
  22. Horowitz, B. (2006, February 16). Creators, synthesizers, and consumers [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://blog.elatable.com/2006/02/creators-synthesizers-andconsumers.html
  23. Internet Usage Statistics. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
  24. Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/523/1103
  25. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  26. Mackness, J., Mak, S., & Williams, R. (2010, May). The ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC. Paper presented at the Seventh International Conference on Networked Learning, Aalborg, Denmark.
  27. Mak, S., Williams, R., & Mackness, J. (2010, May). Blogs and forums as communication and learning tools in a MOOC. Paper presented at the Seventh International Conference on Networked Learning, Aalborg, Denmark.
  28. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
  29. Saunders, M., Charlier, B., & Bonamy, J. (2004). Some concepts and tools for evaluating the effects of complex change projects. Retrieved from http://wwwnew1.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/ourwork/changeacademy/2010/Amended_resources/Saunders-ToolsForEvaluatingComplexChange.pdf
  30. Scott, G. (2003). Effective change management in higher education. EDUCAUSE Review, 38(6), 17.
  31. Selwyn, N. (2009). The digital native—myth and reality. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 61(4), 16.
  32. Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm.
  33. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: Learning as network-creation. ASTD Learning News, 10(1). Retrieved from http://www.astd.org/LC/2005/1105_seimens.htm.
  34. Silverstone, R., Hirsch, E., & Morley, D. (1992). Information and communication technologies and the moral economy of the household. In R. Silverstone & E. Hirsch (Eds.), Consuming technologies: Media and information in domestic spaces (pp. 115–131).
  35. Smith, M.K. (1999). Learning theory. The encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved from www.infed.org/biblio/b-learn.htm.
  36. Stewart, J., & Williams, R. (2005). The wrong trousers? Beyond the design fallacy: Social learning and the user. In H. Rohracher (Ed.), User involvement in innovation processes: Strategies and limitations from a socio-technical perspective (pp. 39–71). Munich: ProfilVerlag.
  37. Verhagen, P.W. (2006). Connectivism: A new learning theory? http://elearning.surf.nl/e-learning/english/3793
  38. Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19.
  39. Williams, R., Stewart, J., & Slack, R. (2005). Social learning in technological innovation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  40. Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine. New York: Basic Books.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

Links

Also Read

Related Collections