SWOT & CL Ventures

The focus of this OER centers on investigating connected learning’s potential as a viable educational reform. With that in mind, this section will explore the social value of K-12 CL ventures.

As with any venture, many factors come in to play when evaluating the potential success of a CL initiative. Although many CL ventures are not born out of a search for profit, they still have to  be sustainable through existing modes of financing. Given its collaborative nature, a big advantage for most CL initiatives is that they can collaborate rather than compete with similar enterprises.  The biggest hurdle facing the promoters of CL is likely to be the rigidity of the existing system. While classroom teachers may easily implement any technology to grow community and knowledge, and thereby foster small-scale connected learning, it cannot be implemented on a large scale without causing major disruption. That being said, the movement to transform our outdated model is getting momentum, and groups of educators as well as researchers, such as those behind connectedlearning.tv, Connected Educators, and the  Connected Learning Research Network are at the forefront.

Stakeholders

School boards, administration, teachers and parents all have a say in the practical implementation of CL, and they each have complex and competing interests. Administrators would need to rework school visions and goals as well as the professional development of their staff. Teachers may be challenged with temporarily increased workloads while CL systems are introduced.

Additionally, parent expectations may clash with learning objectives. For example, imagine a parent who has enrolled their child in a CL school like NYC’s Quest to Learn, a public middle/upper school that prioritizes collaboration, student interests and game-based learning. Due to state and federal regulation, Q2L students are subject to the same standardized testing as students enrolled in traditional public education. If a Q2L student scores low in standardized testing, their ability to gain admission to a university may be compromised. Faced with these results, parents may put pressure on Q2L to teach more traditionally in order to enhance higher education opportunities for their child, even though they deliberately chose the program because it doesn’t teach to the test. Complex situations like this highlight the necessity for a systems-wide connected learning reform.

Cost

The entire cost of CL must take into account.   There are considerable costs associated with new computers and technology infrastructure upgrades. Cost also comes in the form of societal and personal investment in existing systems and ideologies, and what it would mean to fully or partially abandon these structures and ways of thinking. On the other hand, to many who believe our education system is broken, the opportunity cost of waiting to take up a new system that offers a possible solution, however risky, may overwhelm any short-term cost concerns.

Competitors

Alternative schools abound, each offering a panacea to today’s educational ills. Just as elements of Montessori, Waldorf, or other alternative approaches to education may be integrated into traditional classrooms, so may elements of CL. And indeed, for the most part, this is what connected learning looks at a “typical” school today: teachers implement CL to a degree dependent on their educational beliefs and professional knowledge, the needs of their students, demands of the curriculum and availability of resources. However, the strength of CL’s approach, besides being of our time via technological tools, may be that it is applicable to lifelong learning, and is not, like many other alternative options, confined to childhood education or other formal learning opportunities.

SWOT

This SWOT provides a more focused view of the most significant features of connected learning.

STRENGTHS
  • Interest-driven approach is more engaging than traditional approaches and is more successful in “hooking” hard-to-reach learners.
  • Personalized and customizable.
  • Focus is on student success vs. institutional or system needs.
  • Available to anyone, regardless of economic, cultural, demographic, background.
  • Can happen 24/7, in formal and informal learning contexts.
  • based on theories for and of our time,
  • Enhances independence and creativity
  • Hands-on and action-oriented, which addresses different learning styles and encourages deeper learning regardless of learning preference.
  • May be seen as a ‘natural’ way to learn for digitally savvy learners.
  • Teaches the 21st-century skill of collaboration and making connections.
  • Can lead to enhanced citizen engagement and leadership.
  • Open, shared environment offers increased opportunity for knowledge building.
  • Meets the learning needs of a greater number of learners
  • Focus on civic engagement could  create a positive social impact locally and globally
  • Gives students control and responsibility for their own learning.
  • Enhances collaboration, initiative, global awareness, critical thinking and perseverance.

WEAKNESSES
  • Commonly requires access to devices and Internet.
  • Will require a great deal of technological upgrading by educators and administration
  • Requires major educational restructuring and ideological change for wide implementation.
  • Assessment can be more challenging.
  • Not consistent with standardized testing models
  • Continuously changing demands make the identification of essential knowledge and skills complex
  • Unequal distribution of technology could lead to increased inequality between “have” and ‘have-not” learners.
  • Not all activities may not be facilitated by educators, leading to safety and quality concerns.

OPPORTUNITIES
  • Presents a real model for educational transformation.
  • Enhances 21st century skill development.
  • May be able to address the inequality in educational opportunities and achievement.
  • Radically improve student success rates among learners at risk in traditional school systems.
  • Students can track their lifelong learning and unique potential via e-portfolios.
  • Legitimizes informal learning opportunities, changing the way we think about learning and education
  • Enhances real-world experience, creating a more aware and better prepared for real workforce opportunities.
  • Opens the door for educational entrepreneurs to create social innovations that expand the array of CL resources and opportunities
  • Research and development efforts will be needed to evaluate CL impact.
  • The role of educators will change significantly.

THREATS
  • Challenging to implement without increased staffing levels
  • Unlikely to be supported by traditionalists, therefore a target for those seeking to keep the status quo.
  • Potentially competing priorities; need to ensure that learning remains the central focus.
  • Performance-based assessments required to evaluate CL activities have yet to be created.
  • Teacher’s role in state of flux may feel threatening to educators.
  • New inequities, as yet unanticipated, may emerge.

Now it’s time to take a look at a few of the connected learning case studies. Then we will ask you to visit our Activities page and respond to discussion questions 3 & 4.

←Ivan Illich                                                                          Quest to Learn→

Leave a Reply