Module 4- Connectivism, Communities of Practice, & MOOCs
Entry #1
In this module, I was able to learn a little more about educators who are against Connectivism being a learning theory. Kop & Hill’s article mentions Verhagen (2006) disagreeing that Connectivism is a theory because learning is still the same. It’s just in a different environment, utilizing different tools, and the learner has more control. To a certain extent, I agree with Verhagen because eLearning teaches you to be a self-directed and motivated learner and forces you to stay current with technology and your technical skills improve. The computers and mobile devices have just replaced books and lectures (videos) where the knowledge is available. After reading this article, I felt that Connectivism is a developing theory because there is so much technology emerging. How can an established theory keep up with the rapid changes? All of the other established theories had a chance to breathe before a new theory came along. Even schools are having a hard time staying abreast with the current changes in technology. If the technology wasn’t there, would Connectivism even exist?
Entry #2
In one of the discussion questions, we were asked have we developed our own theory or theories yet on how course design, learning theories, and choice should lead to choices about course structure, teaching strategies, and institutional policies. I had mentioned because I have a business background, I didn’t feel as qualified to develop my own theories as of yet. My fellow classmate and an online instructor, Keesha Patterson, stated because I’m coming from corporate with fresh eyes to academia, my vision will be sharper and I may end up developing a theory that many couldn't see because they have been too close. I thanked her for her encouraging words to a novice.
Entry #3
Because of its size, structure, and how the courses are facilitated, any discussion about Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) is a hot topic in distance education. In reading some of my classmates’ posts about the concerns of MOOCs and their accreditations were alarming. Yes, I believe in open and distance learning (ODL), but I feel strongly about structure. If there isn’t any structure, this a major concern. In reading George Siemiens’ blog, which highlights some of the differences (not just enrollment numbers) between Connectivism MOOCs model and Coursera/EDx MOOCs model, Siemens states that Cousera/EDx’s elite university MOOC model follows more of a traditional education because it is more focused on the instructor to provide the knowledge to the students and it is replicated via the student. Connectivism MOOCs model allows a student to create and reflect on their learning. If the MOOCs choose to follow a traditional educational model, then they should be accredited. The fact of the matter, these MOOCs are providing masses of content and knowledge globally, and quality assessment is needed.
I believe MOOCs are here to stay because now you have the Ivy League schools on board giving access to people who would not be able to attend these schools. So you have the prestige and the branding of the Ivy League schools or professors to help sell the courses. The only way I can see it becoming a passing fancy is if there is some type of scam or they don’t put the student first by keeping a customer-service oriented environment to keep students/staff happy.
References
Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past?. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 9(3).
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age.International journal of instructional technology and distance learning, 2(1), 3-10.
Siemens, G. (2012). What is the theory that underpins our moocs? elearnspace. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2012/06/03/what-is-the-theory-that-underpins-our-moocs/
Entry #1
In this module, I was able to learn a little more about educators who are against Connectivism being a learning theory. Kop & Hill’s article mentions Verhagen (2006) disagreeing that Connectivism is a theory because learning is still the same. It’s just in a different environment, utilizing different tools, and the learner has more control. To a certain extent, I agree with Verhagen because eLearning teaches you to be a self-directed and motivated learner and forces you to stay current with technology and your technical skills improve. The computers and mobile devices have just replaced books and lectures (videos) where the knowledge is available. After reading this article, I felt that Connectivism is a developing theory because there is so much technology emerging. How can an established theory keep up with the rapid changes? All of the other established theories had a chance to breathe before a new theory came along. Even schools are having a hard time staying abreast with the current changes in technology. If the technology wasn’t there, would Connectivism even exist?
Entry #2
In one of the discussion questions, we were asked have we developed our own theory or theories yet on how course design, learning theories, and choice should lead to choices about course structure, teaching strategies, and institutional policies. I had mentioned because I have a business background, I didn’t feel as qualified to develop my own theories as of yet. My fellow classmate and an online instructor, Keesha Patterson, stated because I’m coming from corporate with fresh eyes to academia, my vision will be sharper and I may end up developing a theory that many couldn't see because they have been too close. I thanked her for her encouraging words to a novice.
Entry #3
Because of its size, structure, and how the courses are facilitated, any discussion about Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) is a hot topic in distance education. In reading some of my classmates’ posts about the concerns of MOOCs and their accreditations were alarming. Yes, I believe in open and distance learning (ODL), but I feel strongly about structure. If there isn’t any structure, this a major concern. In reading George Siemiens’ blog, which highlights some of the differences (not just enrollment numbers) between Connectivism MOOCs model and Coursera/EDx MOOCs model, Siemens states that Cousera/EDx’s elite university MOOC model follows more of a traditional education because it is more focused on the instructor to provide the knowledge to the students and it is replicated via the student. Connectivism MOOCs model allows a student to create and reflect on their learning. If the MOOCs choose to follow a traditional educational model, then they should be accredited. The fact of the matter, these MOOCs are providing masses of content and knowledge globally, and quality assessment is needed.
I believe MOOCs are here to stay because now you have the Ivy League schools on board giving access to people who would not be able to attend these schools. So you have the prestige and the branding of the Ivy League schools or professors to help sell the courses. The only way I can see it becoming a passing fancy is if there is some type of scam or they don’t put the student first by keeping a customer-service oriented environment to keep students/staff happy.
References
Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past?. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 9(3).
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age.International journal of instructional technology and distance learning, 2(1), 3-10.
Siemens, G. (2012). What is the theory that underpins our moocs? elearnspace. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2012/06/03/what-is-the-theory-that-underpins-our-moocs/