After reading a selection of the venture case studies and the CL SWOT, please respond to the following:
As a means to connect our topic with the OERs of previous weeks, we ask that you comment on how the ventures you have explored can contribute, or not, to the implementation of connected learning.
If someone from your OER team has entered content, please respond within that thread.
My group focused on Learning Analytics and to be honest to took me a while to think about the answer to this question. If we see CL as a life long journey, I could see the potential of using learning analytics to “track their lifelong learning” (from your SWOT table). However, this bring us back to how are the students being graded in order to get the data we need analysis the students growth. If CL is a move away from standardized testing, collecting data becomes a new challenge. Please note, I’m all for the eradication of standardized testing, I’m just looking at this from a Learning Analytics view point.
Good call, agfarooq. Some emerging learning analytics technologies are considered to be facilitators of CL. For example, earlier this year, Desire2Learn aquired Degree Compass, a predictive course recommendation system that uses similar algorithms as Amazon and Netflix. It can predict a student’s success on a course or degree path with surprising accuracy (apparently, it has about a 90% success rate), and so can be used, not just for selecting courses, but to design personalised learning pathways over a degree or even over a lifetime of learning. Obviously, the more data it gets, the more accurate its predictions and there appears to be a fairly robust grade reporting system for institutions, so they can see if student success rates are actually improving–it was originally designed at a a university in Tennessee to try to combat abysmal retention and completion rates. But you’re right…there needs to be hard data (grades/test scores) to enter in the system for it to work.
Have a look at these two articles: http://ow.ly/qXqnu and http://ow.ly/qXr0M, they describe the product and acquisition by Desire2Learn in more detail.
Thank you, Adeel for your contribution to the discussion. Yes, connected learning is less sequential in nature and more free-form, isn’t it? Which does not lend itself to the affordances of learning analytics.
Do you think that this may deter the widespread implementation of Connected Learning in the K-12 setting? Or do you think CL may succeed despite the lack of congruency with Learning Analytics?
Do you think that CL’s potential to be more engaging, leading to more success in “hooking” hard-to-reach learners will ‘trump’ the benefits of Learning Analytics?
Diane
Social Media : I think that the idea of connected learning would not be able to exist without the use of social medias. It would allow everyone to connect, including students, professionals, educators and post secondary institutions. One caveat of this situation would be that everyone would need to be connected and remained connected so that when individuals need to get in contact or be contacted, those lines of communication are open. Additionally educational institutions would need to change their views about social media and ensure that all forms of social media are open an accessible. This would also require additional training for staff and students.
You make a good point. Institutional bias is a huge problem with connected learning. There needs to be the will to implement it and to embrace social media as a learning tool, not an easy thing to do for most schools.
In ‘App Week’, we talked about creating your own apps and learning to code. These are natural fits for Connected Learning. Both of these activities result in multiple connections to peers, families, communities and society in general.
The principles of CL are demonstrated as follows:
Personalized/interest-powered
• The popularity and flexibility of these activities make them desirable participate in.
• The type of app and functions of the code arise out of personal interest or need.
Collaborative/Interconnected/Equitable
• There are online forums with participants, of any age or background, from around the world to support skill development in both of these areas.
• Social networks allow developers to use, share, evaluate, and suggest improvements for these apps. They also provide inspiration for designing (and coding) new apps as they demonstrate that ‘coded’ apps are generally more robust – they don’t break down as easily and have a greater variety of features.
Authentic
• Apps enjoy widespread use and popularity.
• These are multidisciplinary and highly marketable skills.
Academic
• These activities involve learning new and complex concepts and integrate critical thinking, systems thinking and problem-solving.
Apps do fit well in the Connected Learning model. The process of creating your own app is just that. Well detailed above.
Thanks for sharing your ideas, jldr! You are correct, creating apps and learning to code are two excellent methods for promoting connected learning. These are two excellent examples of academic/authentic/equitable/interconnected/collaborative and interest-powered activities.
As I was researching the Hive Network (out of school) offerings I noted many, many programs offering assistance with both these ideas. They even offered programs to specific groups, as noted by one program title: Black Girls Code
Makerspaces:
I can see a number of ways in which the use of makerspaces can contribute to the implementation of connected learning. I’ll group these by the headings that were provided on the definition page.
Personalized (interest powered):
Personalization is one of the primary tenants of makerspaces where innovators are free to explore ideas of interest in a more or less free form environment, depending on the rules attached with their makerspace. Certainly the parameters provided in many of the makerspaces that our group looked at, sought to provide freedom over structure.
Collaborative (Peer Supported):
Makerspaces are about sharing both costs but also ideas and mutual support for those pursuing those ideas. In this respect they offer a good forum for communication and sharing of ideas.
Academically-oriented:
The definition page states: “Importantly, CL must centre around meaningful subjects that require deep thinking, such as traditional academic or vocational subjects, civic engagement, or social responsibility.”
Makerspaces can be academically-oriented or not depending on their theme. I would imagine that the type of makerspace would dramatically impact whether or not that space contributed to connected learning.
Authentic:
The definition page states: “CL relies on learners working with each other, instructors, family, community, workplaces and mentors to make meaningful connections and solve authentic, real world problems. Relevant content and hands-on activities, which often involve engaging or creating with digital media, create a participatory, engaged learning environment.”
This definition could easily be affixed to makerspaces. The makerspace group highlighted the controversy regarding whether a makerspace had to be physical space or if a physical + virtual space would qualify. I would be interested in hearing the cohort’s opinion on this physical versus virtual with regard to connected learning.
Interconnected:
If connected learning “involves exploiting the connections between a learner’s formal and informal learning experiences and their long-term goals in order to expose opportunities and tailor future learning experiences” it seems that again makerspaces may contribute more or less to connected learning based depending on the type of makerspace and makers within that space.
Equitable:
Like connected learning that “is available to anyone, regardless of economics, educational, demographic or cultural background”, a key premise around makerspaces is the sharing of resources. In this sense again, implemented correctly, I believe that makerspaces have potential to greatly contribute to connected learning.
Thanks for posing such a great question that encourages consolidation of our course topics. – Terri
It’s going to be hard for me to add to this because Terri was so thorough, but here it goes:
Personalized:
As Terri mentioned, makerspaces are innately personalized, people are simply free to make whatever they want.
Collaborative:
Often makerspaces will arrange classes, so that everyone in the community has a chance to be educated by an expert in a particular area. I can’t think of any better example of collaboration then fellow members teaching other fellow members new skills (whether or not that involves a fee)
Academically-oriented:
As Terri mentioned, depends on the type of makerspace and the type of projects people take on.
Equitable:
This is a tough one, depends on the makerspace, but I could see this one being a hard one to ensure. Makerspace membership fees are normally quite high. Of course there are possibilities for making them more equitable.
That’s all I can add for now, again thanks for starting us off Terri.
Dave
Thank-you Dave and Terri for starting off the discussion of Connected Learning and Makerspaces. Certainly, makerspaces can enhance the connected learning within schools and out of school programs. I found an article about 1 organization that hopes to bring makerspaces to more than 1000 schools, inside and outside the US. Now, how to get our schools on that list?!?
Greater financial support from organizations like DARPA may ease the equitability concern Dave raises.
http://makezine.com/2012/04/04/makerspaces-in-education-and-darpa/
‘The DARPA award challenges us to establish the practices of making in high schools, reaching 1000 schools over four years.’
Thanks again for your thoughtful contribution to the discussion. Diane
Wow! Dave and Terri have done a very good job on this topic. I’ll try to add a couple of pieces.
Personalized
As Dave and Terri said, Makerspaces are all about personalization. People choose what they wish to make or design and if they need help take the classes or ask for assistance they need.
Collaborative
Makerspaces are designed to support collaboration. Many workspaces are in open areas to promote collaboration, and all have areas designated for socialization. Aside from classes, many makerspaces host special events to get members interacting. Many products and small start-ups were born out of these opportunities.
Academically oriented
As Terri said, academic orientation depends on the purpose of the makerspace – educational, for-profit, nonprofit etc, but I would argue most makerspaces have an element of academic orientation. Almost all makerspaces offer classes to help develop some type of vocational skill, some offer classes on business skills such as how to market products and all have a sense of social responsibility – they are trying to provide a service to the community.
Authentic
Terri brought up the question of physical vs. virtual makerspaces, but I think based on the CL pages definition of authentic learning both types of makerspaces provide authentic opportunites for connected learning. The point of makerspaces is to make something that can be used in the real-world. Many of these products or services are solutions to a perceived problem, absence of a product etc. Both physical and virtual makerspaces have members collaborating, sharing and creating – all elements of a participatory learning environment.
Interconnectedness
I can’t really add to Terri’s comments on this subject, other than people join makerspaces to achieve some kind of goal, whether its to make something, learn to use a tool, pursue a hobby etc.
Equitable
Makerspaces may not always be that equitable. As David says, pricing may be a factor, but I can also see the purpose of the makerspace, the size and the equipment it has playing a role. Some makerspaces, such as school makerspaces restrict membership for the sake of security, privacy etc. Space size and laws pertaining to safety restrict how many people can be in the space, thus most makerspaces have membership caps and some have long waiting lists. Equipment is a big factor- hackerspaces will only appeal to those interested in computing, and people interested in sewing wouldn’t necessarily want to access a makerspace dedicated to woodworking.
That’s all I have for now. Thanks Dave and Terri for starting this discussion.
Game Based Learning is, in my mind, closely related to CL. What better way to have people work together than to have them play a game. Games are educational while being fun at the same time.
Engagement is the key component of any game. My students constantly play Call of Duty or Assassins Creed, and although I have not yet played either game, it amazes me how much they know about geography and vocabulary from these games, although they may not be very appropriate, I’m not sure.
Having the ability to play online after school to defeat the bad guy is also a form of CL, giving the students the ability to feel in control and positive about themselves in a world that doesn’t always accept them especially at 13 and 14 years old.
Excellent point, mdetharet, about the CL affordances of video games.
Interest driven, collaborative, interconnected – yes.
Equitable, academic, authentic – not in all instances.
My view of CL is that it does not have to check all the boxes, just the more, the better the learning is likely to be.
Thanks for your thoughts, Diane
I agree M-A. Game-based learning is very close to CL. I have started to use certain games with students with disabilities. An example are students with dyslexia where I recommend that they improve their vocabularies going to http://www.vocabulary.com. As well with the paramedics and EMTs that I suggest various A&P games to get a better understanding for the material in their programs.
Thanks for the insight M-A
The continued success of GBL ventures such as Quest2Learn is key to determining the place of GBL methods in programs that implement connected learning. The similarities between the two theories are significant and overlap seems to be all but ensured going forward.
As Diane adroitly points out, the main contrasts between GBL theory and the principles of CL are that the learning are that using games for learning is not always academic. I would add that certain games don’t feature a shared purpose either. A group of five students could all be playing a game together through a network and still experience the game in a very individualized way. For example, a group of students playing Minecraft may be playing in the same environment but still be limited to a single player perspective.
PS: Just now noticed that your initials are M.A.D. – so cool!
3D Printing:
3D printers are more of a tool to enhance education and just as they are an essential part of a makerspace, they can be effective in promoting CL.
3D printing promotes personalized learning through opening the ability to build and create to anyone. The act of creation is very personal and the possibilities of what to produce are limited only by the ideas within the individual or group.
Collaboration is supported by the large amount of skills necessary to create a successful product. It is unlikely someone will understand the rules of 3D space, ratios, design, functionality to effectively use all the technology involved. Troubleshooting, sharing and engaging with others is necessary and proven by the strong online presence of networks dedicated to 3D printing.
Successful usage requires dedication to STEM subjects. When designing successful products, form must receive equal attention as function (Apple’s rise to power) and as such requires dedicated math nerds to open their mind to understand the principles of design and aesthetics.
Products made through 3D printing can easily be used to solve real-world problems. Need a new plastic thing on the end of that weird springy thing that stops the door handle from hitting the wall? Yep. Printing artificial limbs (hands) is an effective tool to engage students in an activity that can have real benefits for classmates, friends or someone they’ve never met. The ability to solve meaningful problems can increase a learner’s desire to seek knowledge outside of traditional school environments.
As a tool to promote integration of disciplines and enable people to think about and improve upon their environment or that of others, 3D printers are effective for connected learning. The cost is rather prohibitive for the majority of the world, however, limiting its power.
Digital Textbooks: I like the way that others have laid out their thoughts in relation the to the CL Principles section, so I will do the same!
Personalized: DT are a great way to help students explore areas of interest. DT can have embedded links to all sorts of related content that involve other areas of interest. Students can then report back on areas of interest that other students may not have had a chance to explore. Personalization of DT means that the resources need to be more evolved than a pdf of an existing print based textbook.
Collaborative: DT can include different options for collaboration. Links to social media, blogs or comment spaces can provide students with the opportunity to share their thoughts, feelings and questions within the learning resource itself. This breaks away from the traditional print text which often relies on students moving through them on their own.
Academically oriented: This could be the big criticism of textbooks in general! They are very, perhaps at times rigidly academically oriented. Herein lies the potential for DT. The ability to connect academic content, with opportunities for collaboration and personalization help to provide a well-rounded learning experience that is more than just a vehicle for delivering content.
Authentic: Learning using DT needs to be complimented by other learning activities in order to be truly authentic. Textbook learning alone does not provide all students with the levels of engagement and authenticity that real-world and face-to-face learning opportunities can provide. With that said, DT can connect individuals to video and other digital learning experiences that can help to bridge the gap between text based and experiential learning.
Interconnectedness: Providing a sense of interconnectedness through DT could be tricky. Authors of DT would have to be conscious of different long term goals that students are striving towards and provide opportunities to connect with different experts and mentors. DT could learning activities that provide real-world problems or issues to explore and include relevant media and social networking opportunities.
Equitable: Not all DT are created equal and not all students have access to DT technology. This is the reality of our uneven educational playing field. DT version 1.0 was often exact digital copies of print based resources. These resources do not necessarily provide much more flexibility than print based resources, with the exception of access to accessibility features such as text-to-speech options. As more DT become available, hopefully prices of these materials as well as the technology needed to access them will become less expensive and more accessible to larger numbers of students around the world.
I think it is brilliant to provide us with an opportunity to connect our EMT “expertise” to the content you are sharing with us this week! Well done group 12!
Great response Alex! I couldn’t really say it any better. To me, digital Textbooks seem to have been created for connected learning. They can serve as a Launchpad to bring different media together. As you mention it would require careful engineering to overcome some other their obstacles (continuity between books) but if planned out properly there is such great potential!