As a student, participation in NGL was useful to me

When I began NGL I perceived online learning to be an isolating process and, at best, something that could only add to the experience of learning in more traditional arrangements. Although I still believe in the importance of face-to-face learning, as it is a very powerful process to learn with the guidance of an experienced other, learning within an “online network” provides “exponentially more connections and possibilities” than traditional learning environments, thus enhancing learning more than ever before (Jarche, 2012). I experienced this as a student in NGL. Through cooperation and collaboration with other learners (i.e. my peers and writers) my understanding of networked learning, the writing process, and creation of writing artefacts was enriched far more than it would have been had I just researched and wrote about the process.

At the beginning of the course I was initially dismayed by the lack of participation with course participants. Identifying myself as a self-declared "extrovert," I believed that the most effective way to learn was to be able to interact with my peers (meaning course peers). When this was not immediately forthcoming, as it takes time to make connections in a networked environment (Ito et al. 2013), I began to feel that asynchronous learning was less productive that synchronous learning. This was particularly due to not having the opportunity to immediately engage with peers and feeling overwhelmed by what was required. In fact, if not for the transformative learning that I was experiencing, particularly newly acquired skills in using online tools and the habit of daily blogging, combined with a sheer will to persevere, I may have pulled out. I, like many individuals who have experienced networked learning, particularly through MOOCs, found the "autonomy, diversity, openness" and requirements for "connectedness” and “interactivity" as initially daunting (Mackness et al. 2010). Although in NGL there was structure, some support and moderation, unlike what can happen in some MOOCs, I did find myself lamenting for the traditional groups that I was familiar with. 

What I have found is that my perception as a student in online learning illustrates Dave Snowden's argument about the difficulties in changing human systems, including educational systems and associated behaviours. He says that when making changes we are always "dealing with people's perception of the present and memories ofthe past." In other words, any change to a system will be filtered through the patterns already established. This explains why students, including myself, are tempted to revert to what feels safe or familiar, regardless of how much he or she may espouse the importance of freedom and autonomy, two values that I place at the top of my hierarchy of values, as do many participants in Mackness et al. (2010) research on MOOCs. Although the participants espoused learner autonomy as one of their highest concerns, many complained of not having enough structure or guidance.

Another concern at the beginning of the course was whether NGL was too much to handle. I was exposed to a plethora of tools and practices that I had some familiarity but did not actively use on a daily basis, such as using Diigo or Feedly, or sharing journals, web-based articles, blog posts, and Youtube videos simultaneously. In hindsight I can see the course lecturer, David’s, intention was to enhance our learning experience through encouraging learners to become actively involved in a network. In accordance with Siemens (2009) and Downes (2007) connectivist principles, David “distributed the conversation and learning resources in as wide a format as possible,” making it "impossible for anyone" (himself included) to participate in all the blogs and "master the full range of content" (Mackness et al. 2010). He did this, not to overwhelm, but to encourage students to "traverse networks of connections in which knowledge resides" (Mackness et al. 2010). For the student to learn he or she needs to make their own connections, thus encouraging learner autonomy, something I believe that the traditional educational settings do not nurture. Lastly, David also wanted to encourage "open sharing," the sharing of information and expertise to create knowledge collaboratively, rather than individually, thus enriching the learning process.

However, unlike another subject I am studying, Theories for Learning Futures, where peers can engage in discussion forums that require collaboration to produce an assignment, NGL provided me with collaborative opportunity through the writing of blogs, that are interlinked to the blogs created by my peers, and the opportunity to write reflectively or engage in dialogue about my work using considered writing (Ben et al. 2010). It also encouraged my use of advancing technologies, enabling me to choose where, when, how, what and with whom I learn (Mackness et al. 2010). This approach to learning, I believe, encourages autonomy through enabling the individual to self-direct his or her learning in open networks, as it certainly did that for me as a student. As opposed to traditional courses, like Theories for Learning Futures, despite its name, is modelled on the "traditional, closed group" and "highly structured" course design (Mackness et al. 2010), where students are dependent on the course lecturer and peers that are enrolled in the subject, whereas in NGL there are no limitations to learning, also espoused by Brendon, one of my peers.

Despite assuming online learning to be an isolating process, as a student I learnt that the level of collaboration online was largely determined by my own actions. Rather than be immediately connected to a group of learners by default, as happens in traditional coursework, NGL, or at least in my experience, required me to actively seek other learners, and to be a contributor in the learning process rather than just a user of others material (Riel & Polin, 2012). I can see how this can be problematic for some learners, particularly those with less familiarity with using online tools, and a preference for engaging in spoken conversation. Although I initially believed this to be my only preference, and it still highly desired as I thrive on interpersonal conversation, I found that the connections one makes on the web, known as "weak ties" by Goodyear (2014) can provide unforeseen opportunities that would be constrained if just relying on conversations that one can have in person. In fact, I would argue that many of my transformations came from the people in my weak ties rather than those that I associated with on a day-to-day basis, thus making networks essential for learning beyond one's field of reference.

Thus, although I initially found it challenging to begin participating in active dialogue with both course and non-course participants, the challenge, like all challenges in life, did prove worthwhile. Through active participation I developed connections with others through online forums, websites and social media platforms, such as Google+. Through sharing work and ideas, via online forums, learning was achieved through "voyeuristically" observing the work of other learners (Bell et al. 2010). It is this modelling of practice, combined with opportunities to participate in the process that enabled me as a student to learn how to participate in the process (Dyke et al. 2007 as cited in Bell et al. 2010). Although initially concerned about sharing my writing process, and in particular my story writing ideas, I found that sharing my ideas enriched the learning process, to such an extent that I could never go back.

References:

Barab, S. A. (2012). Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning. In M. Riel & L. Polin (Eds.), Online Learning Communities (pp. 16-51).

Bell, A. et al. (2010). Undergraduate experiences of coping with networked learning: Difficulties now, possibilities for the future. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning 2010. Retrieved from http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fss/organisations/netlc/past/nlc2010/abstracts/PDFs/Bell_2.pdf

Bigum, C., & Rowan, L. (2013). Ladders, Learning and Lessons from Charlie: exploring the potential of public click pedagogy (No. 2).

Goodyear, P. (2014). Productive Learning Networks: The Evolution of Research and Practice. In L. Carvalho & P. Goodyear (Eds.), The Architecture of Productive Learning Networks (pp. 23–47). London: Routledge.

Jarche, H. (2012). Seek Sense Share, Retrieved from http://www.jarche.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/seek_sense_share.pdf

Ito et al. (2013). Connected Learning: an agenda for Research and Design, Retrieved from http://dmlhub.net/sites/default/files/ConnectedLearning_report.pdf