As a learner, participation in NGL was useful to me

In any subject area that I have been involved in I don't think I have experienced as much transformation as I have in NGL. The subject has not only changed my learning routine, such as developing a PKM process or using new tools, like Mendeley and Feedly, to complete my work, but it has also encouraged learning and knowledge sharing, particularly through sharing what I am learning on my blog, thus creating my own "knowledge base" that combines everything that I learn in a process that is made public, and also providing opportunity to clarify my ideas and receive feedback from others (Jarche, 2012). Through NGL I have also learnt how connected learning - the use of digital and networked media - enables learners, such as myself and my students, to engage in learning that is "socially embedded, interest-driven, and oriented toward educational, economic or political opportunity" (Ito et al. 2013). All this makes for the most transformational learning.

Through engaging with Web 2.0 tools via a PKM process I have shifted from primarily consuming information to "produc[ing], remixing and sharing" (Goodyear, 2014, p. 41). This is a major cognitive and behavioural shift. Since 1998 I have had access to endless sources of information, much more than I could ever hope for or need, but I was not collaborating or developing knowledge on the web (Kligyte, 2009). If I was collaborating or creating it was within the confines of formal educational environments or within institutional frameworks. At the end of 2013 I realised that I could no longer be only a consumer, I needed to become an active producer, particularly if I was going to move beyond my role of teaching within institutional walls. I came to this realisation because many writers and entrepreneurs (i.e. from Richard Branson to Derek Sivers) would assert that through contributing to the world they grew exponentially, far more than they could have ever anticipated. In each successful individual that I read about there tended to be a feedback loop, the more they gave, the more they got back - monetary or otherwise. This is definitely not what my formal education had taught me but seems to be built in the ethos of NGL.

The process of participation in NGL, via writing on a blog and participating in online networks, is in stark contrast to traditional classroom learning. Within the discourse of the classroom, as I have expressed in previous blog posts, learners' thoughts can be lost within the "ongoing dialogue between learners." Although group discussions can be beneficial, and I have argued in another post about the importance of face-to-faceinteraction, the act of having to articulate one's ideas in an online format encourages greater learning, and also avoids the phenomena known as "echo-chambers." In fact, according to Vygotsky (1987) as cited in Bell et al. (2010) reflective writing that encourages dialogue between learners’ acts as a "catalyst for greater cognitive development ... that is more considered and intellectual." Networked learning also provides access to knowledge that is "distributed in different minds" (Goodyear, 2014), rather than being limited to the 15 - 20 people in a discussion group or forum, thus generating more opportunities for new ideas.

Networked learning achieves this diversity through its potential for learners to develop "weak ties," relationships that have an "important role in distributing new knowledge," rather than relying on the "strong ties" that one is embedded in or that one develops in on-campus courses (Goodyear, 2014). In my undergraduate degree I became a member of a "tight-knit" network of teachers (i.e. my strong ties), who shared views of the world that were relatively consistent or "stable" (Goodyear, 2014). The only way new information or insights penetrated our world was through "distant parts of the network" (i.e. through teachers or Professional Development). Whereas, in an online network learners can gain access to new information that is not hierarchal (Podolny and Page, 1998 as cited in Goodyear, 2014) and offer alternative points of view, something that was very limited during my undergraduate experience. Like the coffee houses that brought together disparate individuals with a common interest in the late seventeenth century, online networks bring a diversity of individuals to share insights into practice issues through "interactive discussion, joint problem-solving and trust" (Goodyear, 2014), at a fraction of the cost that on-campus learning opportunities provide.

Although being connected in an online network can lead to many enriched learning experiences, I have learnt that just being connected is not going to ensure connectedness or interactivity (Mackness et al. 2010). As a learner in NGL I have been able to find "informational supports for my specialised interest" – writing but only through actively seeking out networks that I could engage with. What I did not expect was to find so many willing collaborators, who embraced interaction. This is fortunate as in my day-to-day life I am not surrounded by many people who share my interest in writing but online, I am able to reach out and form a new peer group that has the knowledge and expertise that I am seeking to develop (Goodyear, 2014). I can then use these skills and knowledge to share with my students, and with my community, thus increasing my potential to create high-quality work. 

Nevertheless, despite the many benefits of networked learning, as a learning coach, I still believe that forming offline study opportunities also offers powerful learning opportunities (as espoused by Harold Jarche), such as receiving guidance from a knowledgeable other or participating in groups and workshops, as I have done on numerous occasions and found to be very productive. Bell et al. (2010) highlight how the future of networked learning should not only focus on "text becom[ing] the medium of mediation between learners and their resources," but also the "robust voice dialogue" that enables learners to "feed off others' energy" and enthusiasm for the learning process, improvise in a non-linear cognitive process, as through discussion. It is these important in-person features that are also pivotal to learning, particularly for self-declared extroverts like myself.

Thus, through engaging in a an online network through NGL (and I would add being guided by a “knowledgeable other”) the learner is invited to enter a "portal" that will transform how they learn, and ultimately how they live their lives (Kligyte, 2009). At least, that is what being a part of NGL has done for me.

References:

Glastra et al. (2004). Lifelong Learning as Transitional Learning, Adult Education Quarterly, 54, p. 291-307.

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.

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

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

Kligyte, G. (2009). Threshold concept: A lens for examining networked learning. In Proceedings of the Ascilite 2009 Conference (pp. 540–542). Auckland, NZ.

Menchaca, F. (2012). The Future Is in Doubt: Librarians, Publishers, and Networked Learning in the 21st Century, Journal of Library Administration, 52(5), 396-410.

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

How NGL can inform my role as teacher

How does one enhance learning through technology? This is the question that guided my enquiry in the subject NGL with USQ. Through my journey in the course, I learnt that, regardless of the realm an educator may identify with, he or she needs to re-examine or redefine his or her practice in light of emerging technologies that have provided learners with an "explosion of resources" and options (Kop, 2012, p. 2). Educators, in contrast to their traditional role as "knowledge providers," are now required to help learners adapt in the changed environmental realities of the new information landscape, thus transforming into guides or coaches (Kop, 2012, p. 2). This is the fundamental realisation that will guide the redefinition of my practice.

These realisations about the transformation of my role - changing from a provider of information to a guide on how to find information - evolved as I progressed through NGL. As a learning coach, I was most interested in how my role would look like in the future, and in particular, whether there would be a need for educators (Kop, 2012), regardless of which institution or environment they traverse. If learners are able to engage in online networks and gather their own information, what role would an educator have. Like I highlighted in a fewposts about my concerns about what will happen to knowledge, embedded within this concern was my fears about what would happen to education providers, particularly as MOOCs were providing "free" education (Mackness et al., 2010 as cited in Goodyear, 2014). It was not until I came across the writings of David Weinberger, author of Too Big To Know, and others that I began to realise, as did Anne, one of my peers, that although learners have access to a plethora of information, they will always need help from "knowledgeable others," particularly those providing the skills they seek to obtain (Kop, 2012).

It is these knowledgeable others who have experience in navigating an environment that is "characterised by many technological variables and contexts," and are then able to help their students to make sense of the multitude of resources offered on the web (Kop, 2012), not to mention providing encouragement and mentoring along the way. In other words, it is one thing to offer "free" information (Mackness et al., 2000) but another to apply that information to the individual's life, perhaps illustrating why the completion rate for MOOCs or xMOOCs is very low (Goodyear, 2014, p. 42). I also know this from my undergraduate experience. Although I was curious and very enthusiastic about what I was learning, I needed guidance. I did not have the knowledge or skills to know where to look, how much to look and then to go through the process of having to articulate what I am learning into some coherent format. I could only do this with the guidance of teachers (i.e. historians, sociologists, lawyers, political scientists, anthropologists, English literature and Education teachers and tutors). Each of these individuals outlined pathways and the offered the guidance, as asserted by Siemens as even necessary, to seek, explore and consolidate knowledge.

As someone who now has experience in navigating the intricacies of networks, particularly how to negotiate within a "new culture of learning" (Menchaca, 2012) and not become overwhelmed by the vast disparate information networks that are available, I see my future role as providing my learners with the tools on how to navigate through the "sea of information" (Seitzinger, 2014) they face when even thinking about learning. Thus, through NGL I have realised that it is my role not to merely deliver information but to develop the "critical capabilities" in my students to access information and resources and then help them turn the "unfixed information" they find "into meaning that can be acted upon" (Menchaca, 2012). This is particularly so if I want to prepare them for success in the twenty-first century (Seitzinger, 2014, p. 412).

With the skills acquired through NGL I also see the potential to stimulate "serendipity" in the learning process, as espoused by Kop (2012), who highlights as essential to creativity and innovation. Through navigating extended online information networks I’ll encourage my learners to pursue "unexpected, surprising, interesting" (Kop, 2012) information rather than relying on what algorithm-based search engines and recommenders provide (Jarche, 2012). My learners will then apply this to what is already known, or what they already now, in order to produce novel or new ways of seeing the world. I believe this is pivotal to any transformation, whatever realm they belong to. For this reason, as a learning coach my role will be to help my learners with "information literacy" - that is the skills to analyse what is essential through advanced information gathering, and then applying that information in a format to develop knowledge, or in a novel way to transform the way they see the world.

In order to discern what is important and worthy of consideration, I, along with any educator, will need to develop in my learners the skills to view their learning through a critical lens. It is through the use of "ideology critique," a method espoused by Friesen (2008), that one is able to imagine alternative ways of knowing or being, a skill that is pivotal if one is to succeed in the twenty-first century, whether it is in the "knowledge" or "service" industries (Friesen, 2008), and perhaps most importantly, as an employee or entrepreneur (Preece, 2006). I illustrated this in a previous discussion about the importance of critical thinking, and how using a "historicising" and "denaturalising" technique the individual can question "common sense" ideas, even within the realm of technology, where ideas about technology can be used to perpetuate specific ideological agendas (Friesen, 2008). This can be seen in spheres that seek to perpetuate institutional paradigms, thus perpetuating pre-existing models, such as conventional educational institutions. Thus, it is critical thinking, and its demythologising potential, that enable the realisation of alternatives - the imagining of new realities - such as can be achieved through "progressive research design" (Friesen, 2008).

As an educator who is primarily concerned with how my students learn, I, as well as my peers, found that using new technologies in a networked world for teaching and learning not only enhances the acquisition of knowledge, but also the skills to locate information and then use that information to fulfil individual needs. NGL achieves this through providing learners with the opportunity to become active, self-regulated participants in a networked environment (Glastra et al. 2004). After participating in NGL I see learning, now more than ever, as not restricted to formal education courses but as encapsulating "informal, self-directed, vocational and/or interest-based learning" (Goodyear and Carvalho, 2014, p. 139), as well as learning that is required for individual transformation, particularly for individuals wanting to re-skill in a new area or even change their lives.

For this reason, in reference to the SAMR model that I have previously discussed in reference to my fourthcoming design-research project, I have been modifying my practice through applying what I have been learning about networked learning and encouraging my students to do the same. A few of my senior high school students have embraced creating their own blog as a way of writing about a subject they are interested in (i.e. I have a few gamers that have created gaming blogs) whereas some are not as interested in writing, and have expressed their desire to not engage in blogging. This is just one way that I am seeking to redefine what I do, and I can imagine will lead to all sorts of new possibilities, beyond just using technology just to substitute, augment or modify my practice.

At this stage of the teaching process I have realised that I am at the "integrative" stage of networked learning (Kligyte, 2009). I have transformed the way I live and work through the use of digital technologies and the online connections that I make or maintain, often blurring the line between my professional and personal identity. This is espoused by Harold Jarche, a personal knowledge management leader, who writes about his blog permeating both his professional and personal life (Jarche, 2012). This type of interaction is becoming more valued in a world where authenticity is the key to success (Glastra et al., 2004) rather than perpetuating the artificial professional/personal divide. Indeed, I have noticed how individuals who reveal their humanity through their practice are most alluring.

References:

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

Friesen, N. (2008). "Critical Theory Ideology Critique and the Myths of E-Learning," Ubiquity, 9(22), p. 1-12.

Glastra et al. (2004). Lifelong Learning as Transitional Learning, Adult Education Quarterly, 54, p. 291-307.

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

Kop, R. (2012). The Unexpected Connection: Serendipity and Human Mediation in Networked Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 15 (2), 2-11.

Menchaca, F. (2012). The Future Is in Doubt: Librarians, Publishers, and Networked Learning in the 21st Century, Journal of Library Administration, 52(5), 396-410.

Preece, J. (2006). Beyond the learning society: the learning world? International Journal of Lifelong Education, 25(3), 307-320.

Seitzinger, J. (2014). Curate Me! Exploring online identity through social curation in networked learning, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Networked Learning 2014, Retrieved from http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/abstracts/pdf/seitzinger.pdf

Teachers in the blame game

One of the most troubling narratives that I have noticed, even amongst teachers, is the idea that teachers/academics "reject" any attempts to incorporate new technologies into their teaching. Although there are some individuals that are unfamiliar with new technologies and do not feel comfortable using them, I think the reasons why many choose not to engage in networked learning and networked literacy is much more complicated than reverting to the: "they are lazy," "archaic" or "they simply don't care" diatribe.

Within high school, in particular, what I found was a "crowded curriculum," where there was a seemingly never-ending sea of content that needed to be delivered, and some students would even protest when asked to actively engage in an on-line capacity, even to the degree of asking to return to paper and pencil. Some posited that having "everything online" caused them to not be able to "give excuses" for not having completing the work. The issues with technology within the schools I worked was also a daily issue, with laptop and connectivity issues. There were frequent problems with student laptops, to the degree that in each lesson there would be at least five students with some issue that prevented them accessing the materials. These all relate to systemic issues rather than individual faults.

The "Threshold concept framework" by Kligyte (2009) that provides a "useful lens for academics," regardless of their setting, to explain "why it has been so difficult to inspire" teachers to "embrace" new technologies into their teaching and learning practice suffers from one fundamental flaw. It does not illustrate the aforementioned issues that I have experienced. It outlines how networked learning can seem to be "troublesome, discursive, irreversible, liminality and integrative" by teachers but does not highlight the other factors that can hinder the integration. However, I am talking from a high school setting perspective and the paper is based on the university setting where I did not experience the same issues. As a university lecturer I just found LMS to be clunky and outdated.

I'm definitely not saying that I disagree that each of the thresholds are not happening as I can see that they are very much a reality for teachers, regardless of what age group they are teaching. I have seen teachers talk about how the new technologies can seem "alien," "counter-intuitive" or " incoherent."  I have also seen many embrace the technologies because they believe them to be "irreversible," as I do, something that cannot be "unlearned" and will "inevitably" lead to improved teaching and learning practices. However, I think where I see teachers mostly sitting within the framework is in the "liminality" threshold, "shifting back and forth," some even hoping that it will "go away" or they will "retire" and not  have to worry about it, but many feeling impacted by the issues I previously mentioned, so they either do not act at all or try their darnedest to incorporate it.

I have recently worked with a student who is completing his PhD in technology integration within schools. Through using the TPACK model he is exploring how the model can help teachers and students experience the benefits of using new technologies in their teaching and learning. What is good is that his proposal, at this stage, does not focus solely on teachers as being the issue and does take a systemic view. After to getting to know this student and his cultural background, I have learnt that teachers are highly respected in his country. There is a lot of understanding of why technologies are not begin integrated from a systemic level. What I have found in the Australian context is that there is an alarming discourse that seems to target teachers as being the reason why technology is not integrated effectively within schools, or even seem to condemn teachers as being too ignorant of the new technologies, or even of "good" teaching itself.

What the experience made me wonder though was whether accountants, lawyers, doctors and all the other professions would engage in this type of behaviour. They may, but it is not my experience to say. What my experiences do make me wonder is why would a profession, that is all about learning and becoming the best person you can be, revert to making others in the same profession appear ignorant and "lazy." Does this not contribute to the denigrating of a profession, a profession that I went into because I believed, and still do, that it is all about nurturing human potential. A recent article published in The Atlantic online called Why Do Americans Love to Blame Teachers? illustrates my point. Although a North American example it highlights the same issues that I think is happening in Australia and other similar cultures. The article illustrates the "good teacher/bad teacher dichotomy," where an entire profession is painted as full of "lazy" and "stubborn" teachers.

A recent post by Tracey, "Blame, boundaries and 'hating teachers'" reveals how I am not alone in recognising this phenomenon. Tracey writes that there is a "popular tendency to make teachers accountable for 'all things,'" including "many things that are beyond their control." I agree, as it is not only the myriad of day-to-day events but also the integration of technology that is certainly, and often times, out of their control. 

What I think is dangerous is reverting to the blame game, where teachers, in my opinion, are often the scapegoat, blamed for what is a much more complex issue. What I do know is that teachers are facing a "new ontological (nature of reality) destination" that will "transform the way learning is understood [and] teaching is practiced." This will take some resistance, as Dave Snowden explains is due to "peoples perceptions and memories of the past." But, as with all change, there will always be resistance, particularly when individuals become disempowered by prevailing dogma.

   by  NWABR 

References:

Kligyte, G. (2009). Threshold concept: A lens for examining networked learning. In Proceedings of the Ascilite 2009 Conference (pp. 540–542). Auckland, NZ.

Is assessment an essential process for learning?

What I've noticed is that I'll experience the most meaningful learning curves after encountering a problem or issue that has ruffled my feathers. I often picture it like I am a brightly-coloured bird singing at the top of her capacity, everything is very sweet, as she surveys the horizon upon just landing after an enjoyable exploration, only to be toppled off by the predatory swipe of a hungry cat's paw. Although initially frightened she uses the experience to teach her where she should sing next time. Why does she not stop singing? She knows that if she does, she would no longer be a free bird, and she would not become wise.

   by  Don McCullough 

One event where I experienced being toppled off .... well, not quite, but enough to ruffle my feathers a little, was in the last week with two formal assessments due, and an increased workload, plus some of the trials and tribulations of running a household. As much as I love the writing process I found that the requirements of the two assignments, far outweighed the time I perceived I had to devote to the tasks.

In a previous post I wrote about how I saw the whole assessment process as problematic. I deemed it to be based on the old "learner-as-processor" metaphor, where assessment practices focused on the individual, or what was in the individual's head, as the "unit of analysis" (Barab & Plucker, 2010). I felt frustrated about the issue, as I did not see how assessment, as traditionally conceived, reflected the real-world.

I, like Mari, was beginning to really enjoy the interactive and participatory context of blogging. Through ongoing participation, rather than having to develop "hypothesises" and "mental representations evidenced on post-assessment measures" (i.e. traditional assessment tasks that evaluate what has been learnt) I was enjoying the new style of instruction and assessment (Barab & Plucker, 2010). Although participants are still being assessed, they are evaluated in the context of real-world participation. This is a motivating form of assessment, as Mari highlights, as it is something that the learner feels is authentic to his or her needs, particularly how the assessments are "marked," through an automated marking process, and through the sheer fact that the posts are opened up to the world to read.

Mari outlines how, in contrast to the connectivist environment that the course espouses, there is the expectation for students to write three formal essays (summative academic papers). She refers to Goksu's point about how NGL is a "hybrid of connectivism and traditional education," rather than a true connectivist environment. Goksu's posts highlights how the incorporation of both the conventional of the past, such as including formal assessments but also elements of MOOCs can also be more time consuming, and I've certainly experienced this, as there is much to write about and only so much time. Mari rights how it is also "stressful" to have to switch to a different style of assessment, particularly a form that is constrained by convention. I also thought that it felt like overkill, on top of everything we had already been doing.

Nevertheless, after spending some time researching and writing a major assessment for the subject Theories of Learning Futures, what I found was that through writing an essay one is almost "compelled" to make the conceptual shifts that would not occur through only reading, or writing short blog posts. Not that posting ideas is not a constructive process, as it lends itself to many insights, however, through essay writing, a deeply reflective activity due to its length, one engages in higher-order thinking over a prolonged period of time, particularly if he or she desires to really know the area they are investigating. Through this extensive process the learner will experience changes in their schematic structure, something I think blogging will take longer to do, particularly as each blog post has a limited aim, and does not require the construction of a thesis (albeit very limited), or an extensive research process.

The changes to conceptual frameworks is due to the complex forms of thinking, reasoning and knowing that will occur as the learner attempts to "grasp disciplinary epistemologies" and apply these to a phenonema in the world (D'Agostino & O'Brien, 2010). It is through the construction of one's ideas, the learner begins to make conceptual shifts, one's they would not have made had they only read the content, or made comments along the way. I noticed that as I re-read previous journal articles and webpages, and ascertained their relevance to my thesis, I began having epiphanies, and even creative and innovative ideas developed, as I construed the theories application to my practice.

What I also noticed is that once one starts writing he or she can experience "flow," a state of "cognitive absorption" (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; 1990 as cited in Goel et al., 2010). I began to lose track of time, was enjoying myself, immersed and curious about what I was exploring and the potential the exploration offered me. Through having to persist in my attempt to not only understand the information but also how I would harness what I knew to create a thesis that encapsulated all I knew about the topic and how it applies to my teaching context, I developed a thesis that felt transformative. Through evaluation and judgement, and the re-articulation of ideas, I began to make mental model changes (Goel et al., 2010), and realised that I would not have made the conceptual shift without having to apply many theories, through a compare and contrast process, to a real-world scenario.

Upon reflection, and a deeper analysis of educational assessment, I realise that some form assessment may be necessary, although as I move further in NGL and throughout my career I will continue to question the process. Assessment as an authentic real-world task does provide educators with some kind of marker about what the student can do and how effective the learning process is. It also enables others to see what type of skills a person has. As Weinberger, in Too Big To Know, outlines, although credentials in some spheres of the online world are not as important as in the past, in some areas, such as being a surgeon or an engineer, individuals want to be able to see that the practitioners have achieved some form of credential, and a credential involves an assessment process.

As David highlights, "we are constrained by our schemata," the schematic framework we have shapes how we see the world. My experience with assessment throughout my high school years still permeates as an adult, not only in myself with many of the adults that I come into contact with on a day-to-day basis. Goel et al., states that, as our mental models are implicit, they "typically resist change, until they are externalised by articulation through statements" (Schaffernicht, 2006 as cited in Goel et al., 2010), as I am doing via this blog. When asked what is at the heart of their fears, many adults tell me that it is the assessment process. They "hate" being assessed and it feels "too stressful." It feels like one is being "judged" as either worthy or unworthy. Unfortunately, I believe that this is a product of the traditional schooling system, and prevails today. I also believe, like I have stated in a previous post, that the experience of the traditional schooling experience prevents a lot of learners from pursuing further education.

Although I still find traditional assessment processes problematic, particularly how they impact on an individual's desire to continue learning, what is beneficial about the two assessments that I'm completing in NGL and Theories of Learning Futures is rather than take place in a "laboratory-like situations," "disconnected from the community of practice," the assessments enable course participants to demonstrate his or her knowledge in their area of work (Romer, 2010). Having this real-world application makes them both valid and authentic to not only my needs but to my students. For this reason, like the brightly-coloured bird, I'll keep singing despite the occasional feeling of being swiped down along my journey.

I'm interested to hear what other's think about the assessment process, or any of my comments.


References:

Barab and Plucker. (2010). Smart People or Smart Contexts? Cognition, Ability, and Talent Development in an Age of Situated Approaches to Knowing and Learning, Educational Psychologist, 37(3), p. 165-182).

Goel et al. (2010). Situated Learning: Conceptualisation and Measurement, Journal of Innovative Education, 8(1), p. 215-240.

O'Brien, M. and D'Agostino, F. (2010). Disciplinary-based approaches to curriculum, learning and teaching: extending project findings, Retrieved from http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/329776/Disciplinary-based-approaches.pdf

Romer, T. A. (2010). Situated Learning and Assessment, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(3), p. 233-241.

Learning to fall and rise in the 21st Century

When I first began NGL I was concerned about juggling the course along with all my other commitments. My concern was exasperated by my belief that I needed to use all the tools and read everything, assuming the conventional approach that I experienced as an undergraduate. Stephen Downes dubs this as the "industrialist consumption-based model of learning." Due to being used to "impossible external standard[s]" I was concerned about failing the course, or at least, just passing.

Now, in hindsight, and with my knowledge of the industrial era, and in particular how the modern schooling system came to be, I realise how indoctrinated I was in the traditional paradigm of schooling. Prior to completing my Masters, if a teacher/lecturer provided resources, I would use them all. If I didn't, I assumed, and it was emphasised periodically, I wasn't engaging with the course. Due to this I felt the fear that if I did not do it, I would "fail," or not get a job because I wasn't fully completing "course requirements."

Nevertheless, upon engaging in the literature about Connectivism, particularly the posts by Stephen Downes, I have learnt that the traditional paradigm that shaped my thinking does not empower the learner, teaching him or her to master their lives. Indeed, it can do the opposite. Downes highlights in his critique of traditional schooling that "whether the students wants to learn is irrelevant." He writes how the current model of primary and secondary education is based on a "coercive premise," and that there is a façade, or should I say an "elephant in the room," where schooling is made to appear "voluntary," but really is "compulsory." A quick look at the definition of compulsory is: "having the power of forcing someone to do something." This definition made me ponder, what would be the consequences of forced education?

The consequences of using force reveals to me why many people feel powerless as adults. As children I believe that their experience of being coerced to learn, rather than receiving guidance to develop into who they have the potential to be (which encourages autonomy and responsibility) contributes to feelings of powerlessness. This is particularly so in traditional schooling where learning is scaffolded to such a repetitive degree that the learners' become dependent on the teacher, leading to passivity, or even worse, to a lack of self-confidence. When one believes that they must rely on authority to tell them what to do, they silence their inner voice and rely of the voices of others.

I think the inequality of schooling that Downes refers to (and it's not referring to the economic inequality, but the inequality between the student and teacher) is the reason why the majority of adults experience a low "self-efficacy." Many have lost a belief in themselves to learn, let alone succeed. Many also end up trying to avoid "failure," and in this avoidance also avoid living - where they are merely existing, or at least, this is how it was for me and many individuals who have shared their story with me.

This brings me to something that I found problematic in Brennan's critique of Connectivism. It wasn't his critique per se, as there are many valid points, it was his consistent reference to failure and the need to avoid it. The fear of failiure, I believe, causes individuals to avoid taking risks, and to avoid risk is to avoid life. By not participating in activities where there is the potential that one will not succeed, he or she will indeed not get uncomfortable (they will avoid feelings of failure or even ideas of failure) but, as a consequence they will not learn.

I think, as a mother and an educator, we have to keep trying things until we find things that fit, and even then, when things do fit, if we remain the same we won't grow. I, like Downes, "blame," for want of a better word, "traditional" systems of education (not the teachers as they become enculturated into the system, as I was).

I also think it is unwise to believe that an individual has failed if they do not achieve immediately what they have set out to do. Richard Branson, in an article about why entrepenuers struggle with formal schooling, says that traditional schooling makes "mistakes" look like failure rather than an opportunity for learning and growth. I know in my own experience that when things did not go as planned or I did not achieve what I set out to achieve, I learnt the most, I also learnt what I did not want. In other words, I learned more about who I was. It has taken me many years to understand that it is okay to "fail," or at least fall so that I can pick myself back up. This is an allusion to one of my favourite superhero films, Batman Begins, where Master Wayne says to a young Bruce, who is recovering from a fall into a deep well:

"Why do we fall Bruce? So we can learn to pick ourselves up."

   by  Hot Rod Homepage 

Superheroes and snippets of wisdom aside, I think it is this fundamental belief that enabled me to continue in NGL, despite at first feeling like I was falling and thinking that I wouldn't be able to prevent myself plunging head-first to the ground. However, if the course had been less immersive, and tools were introduced one at a time, or even limited, I think it would have frustrated learners who were already "experts" with online tools and navigation. I think NGL, in accordance with Downe's argument, enabled learners of all experience and levels to participate.

Does this mean that I don't think there were any problematic issues. Definitely not, and this is where a critical perspective is essential, particularly when ascertaining alternative models of education. Mari writes how her "stress levels have risen over the past week," as mine have due to trying to complete the course requirements of two subjects as well as juggle an increasing workload. Mari also highlights how the incorporation of traditional assessment in a Connectivist subject that emphasises authentic learning experiences is problematic, and in stark contrast to the types of activities that the course participants have been engaged in.

What Mari's post, and many of other posts from other peers, illustrates is although there are challenges, everyone is learning how to conquer his or her fears. Through allowing ourselves the possibility of falling we are also learning how to rise, and do it all over again.

Challenging assumptions in NGL

A major assumption of mine when I became a high school teacher was that as my learners have only ever known the Internet and computers - they would be "naturally" good at it, or at least well-advanced than older learners. This was one of, amongst many, beliefs that were turned up-side-down in my early years of teaching. I realised, through my explorations in NGL and the many discussions on the use of technology in learning and teaching, that many of my assumptions about learning are still being challenged, and in some cases overturned.

One recent assumption that was challenged was the idea that conventional literacy was the most important, and everything else was in addition to. Although I still see literacy as paramount, I realise the necessity of digital literacy skills, particularly if I am to prepare my students for participation in the 21st Century's rapidly evolving landscape. I now see the potential of networked learning to engage learners in the active co-creation of knowledge.

Does this mean that engagement in digital literacy could be the panacea for all learners? Certainly not, as there are, as Keith Brennan highlights in his critique of Connectivism (a learning theory where the role of the teacher is to be a facilitator or guide in a digital world) intrinsic factors (i.e. motivation to learn the subject) that are unique to each learner and will influence his or her perception in how he or she engages with the learning process. However, just as with any learning tool, it is how it is applied and the learner's perception of what they are learning that will influence their engagement.

Stephen Downe's article on "Connectivism and the Primal Scream" responds to Brennan's critique of Connectivism, where Brennan highlights the importance of teachers nurturing motivation, something, he says, that Connectivism does not consider. Downe's asserts:

I have often argued, you only need to motivate people when you're trying to get them to do something they don't want to do. Think how much damage is done to the cause of learning when education begins with that premise. My attitude is that the objective of an educational system is to help people do want they want to do, for themselves, rather than a mechanism that gets people to do what we want them to do, for us.

Although I do agree that external incentives to motivate are limiting, as a learning coach, I have noticed, in all my learners, regardless of their age group, my enthusiasm for what I am learning and my genuine interest in them does influence their perception of what they are doing and, as they see me modelling a skill, they can see how it is not some magical process, and that they too have the potential to write well.

The old expression that "enthusiasm is infectious" holds some truth, I think. This was most explicitly illustrated to me when my two son's, both not cooking enthusiasts, were watching two Italian cooks on SBS (Two Greedy Italians) who clearly loved everything about food. My youngest said, "Mum, these guys make me want to cook." I laughed, "Yeah, me too!" Therefore, although intrinsic motivation does come from within, our interaction with others can influence our motivation to some degree. Brennan also highlights how our perception of our past experiences with digital technologies influences how we learn.

Mari points out how there are issues with the application of the Connectivist learning environment in NGL, such as the incorporation of summative assessment in the traditional form of a formal written academic paper. She cites Brennan's article where he highlights several issues with Connectivism in its conventional form. Again, referring to Downes, who confirms Mari's critique of traditional, formalised assessment, assessment should be self-assessment, where the individual engages in learning experiences within their network. I agree with Mari as I began preferring the alternative mode of assessment, as it is more in alignment with how I think assessment should be.

Goksu highlights in her reflection on Brennan's article (and Downes response to the claims Brennan makes about Connectivism) how NGL may be trying to "reconcile both approaches," the conventional Connectivist approach (although a relatively young model) with the constructivist/cognitivist approaches that have dominated learning for quite some time. In the Information Processing model (cognitivist) approach learning was "acquired and measured and tested" rather than "... practiced, lived and experienced," as we are doing with NGL, and as I am doing in my practice as a learning coach. I, like Goksu, experienced the "time" issue, as I was already completing another Master's subject, running my own business (trying to develop that at the same time) and juggling family and friends in the mix, as I have commented in a previous post.

Fundamentally, in alignment with Goksu, there is a constructivist element to NGL. Although there is relative freedom to pursue areas of personal interest (i.e. writing a novel and applying what is learnt to one's own field/passions) there is also some scaffolding that is provided about what to learn, what tools to use and how to engage. The relative freedom of NGL is what will shape my design-based research project. If the course structured learning to such an extent that I was confined to creating a project that was applicable to a particular setting, one that I was not working in, then I would experience the frustration that Brennan highlights.

All in all, I think Connectivism suits the entrepreneurial mindset. A major turning point for me was when I started to see the potential of NGL to develop creative and innovative thinkers rather than individuals' who think according to the status quo. The learner, inside a network, learns how to navigate through a networked environment, picking and choosing a variety of tools and platforms, to become masters of organising their own learning. The goal of the teacher, or coach, in this process is to be a "participant" or a "facilitator," all the while nurturing self-managing learners that are pursuing what is most meaningful to them.