“I don’t think education is about centralized instruction anymore; rather it is the process of establishing oneself as a node in a broad network of creativity.”
– Joi Ito, Director of MIT Media Lab
Connected learning is an emerging, progressive approach to education designed for the digital, networked age. It aims to develop a unique learning pathway for each student, focusing on learner success through connections and collaboration between students, teachers and community. In its fullest form, CL principles work to address the shortcomings and inequalities of our current educational system by opening up access to opportunities through technology, giving priority to both formal and informal learning experiences, cultivating student interests, and building networks of teachers, mentors, contacts and community to support students in their journeys to learn.
Watch this video to find more about why Connected Learning is relevant to 21st Century learners:
On the surface, CL seems promising, innovative, and evolutionary, but CL also seems fluid, organic, and messy. But, in order to change how we think about learning, this could be a game changer that is needed. I am eager to learn about how CL would work for primary grade students, especially Grades K and 1 where learning is engaging, social, and participatory. But, in terms of equitability, perhaps this is where it begins to fall apart because, even at the K Grade, we assess students using certain assessment tools that guide our teaching practice by beginning to identify students who fit in the current learning context (i.e., the classroom) and those who do not.
Right now, I see four pressing issues regarding CL: Who or what is going to close the digital divide so that all learners have access to computer-Internet technology outside the classroom? Who is going to support CL outside the classroom? Will the toughest stakeholder, the parents, buy in to CL if both parents are working “endless” hours at work? Who is going to pay for the initial infrastructure and the ongoing costs associated to the technology needed for CL?
Although the status quo of education is the subject of debate, there are so many social, cultural, economic, and political factors involved. Also, greed and secret/private interests prevent radical or evolutionary changes in education. Also, when it comes to using educational technologies and to embracing learning movements, stakeholder fear becomes an obstacle.
In all, CL is “an emerging, progressive approach to education” that deserves an opportunity to prove its value and worth at a time when the world is moving faster than ever before. Students deserve a new way of learning in order to increase their chances of success.
This is a really interesting take on the difficulties with implementing CL. I appreciate that you highlighted that not all parents would support a complete shift to CL. The current system is so rooted in our traditional outlook of education, that it is difficult for those without a background in educational theory to fully understand the benefits of Connected Learning. Many view the practice of allowing students to connect, work freely, and explore their own interests through technology as an unnecessary distraction, especially during classroom time. Traditional methods are generally still looked upon as tried and true, even if many parents have begun to realize that the system needs fixing. As you seem to suggest, perhaps a piecemeal integration is the best approach to incorporating CL further and further into current educational practices and pedagogy. That way, the shift comes more gradually and the costs associated with a complete overhaul could be minimized.
Thanks for your thoughts, bmehregani. The team really appreciates your conscientious engagement. You bring up a lot of good points. As with any disruptive system, the full-scale change required to implement them is overwhelming. My feeling is that movements like these are best served by a kai zen approach: slowly, bit by bit but with a persistence and continuity. Eventually, the job gets done.
My other thought is around the technology piece, which you mention is expensive and could lead to inequality. These are very valid points, and indeed, the full connected learning experience is facilitated by sophisticated technology; for example, systems that can predict student success and map out a lifetime of learning for them. It’s not cheap and it takes a lot of work. The tagline of the CL public school Quest to Learn (in our Ventures section) has the tagline, “For digital Kids.” However, it’s really interesting because if you watch the video with the founder Katie Salen, she says that was a mistake, because it’s not really about the digital. It’s about the thinking that the digital facilitates. So, while all of our examples have a digital element, you can still bring connected learning to your classroom using little or no technology. I love the HIVE venture for this reason: although they use technology, it’s not entirely dependent on it. And it illustrates something that is possible to set up in any community as it involves combining kids with their peers, a common academic interest and a mentor.
I’m not sure what K-Grade 1 would look like if it was more connected. As you say, it is already social, participatory and engaging. In my son’s grade 1 class (my only point of reference), I’m pretty sure it would include fewer worksheets and more hands-on activities;-) Maybe it would also include more ways of connecting to the surrounding community. Or perhaps it would look more like the Montessori classrooms discussed in our Foundations section, but with a digital element? Thanks for the thoughtful question. Cheers, Jen
Hi Jen,
Thank-you for the insight! I appreciate it. My comments here are based on the information on this page only. I move section by section so that I can take my time to read, to reflect, and to post. So, I have yet to move to the next sections of your team’s OER.
Interestingly, I am not a worksheet teacher. Instead, I convert worksheets into individual or group projects and portfolios. The learning is greater and more exciting for the students.
My classroom is hands-on, field-based, project-based, and portfolio-based, and I take a so-called constructivist approach (so I am told) to learning and to teaching (which is really coaching/monitoring/facilitating). As for technology, I have my students use iPads and a SmartBoard to learn, and I use my laptop, iPhone, LCD projector, and a document camera to teach. In all, I teach the way I would have wanted to learn. So, I have just as much fun as my students. Sometimes, I even become one of them!
As for CL, the human factor always gets in the way. Having teachers consider, let alone embrace, CL will be difficult. After all, they are a tough group when it comes to small or to big changes. Just like teenagers, teachers think that they know it all. In my defence, perception is in the eye of the beholder.
Dana
Hi Dana,
What a fabulous learning environment you’ve created for your students. I wish I could see it in action. It sounds like there are many CL principles already at work. Cheers, Jen
BTW, in my original post, I wasn’t suggesting that you use worksheets 😉 Cheers, Jen
I viewed the video on Connected Learning and my thoughts were…” Hmm..perhaps..”
You see there is a downside; the danger of ‘group think’ as the opposite of ‘thinking outside the box’ and the danger of cultural annihilation as the world becomes ‘twitterized’ (my term) and digitally standardized.
I see more value in teaching individualized access to information and learning, to evaluate information from a defined perspective. This could be in isolation as well as networked. I fear a standardized world as bland and not very creative.
Hi David,
I agree with your comment of the “group think” concept, I too question it’s effectiveness. I see group work in my classroom as not always being adequate or engaging all the students equally, how much is each student in the group getting out of the assignment… sometimes I’m just not sure.
Hi David:
Thanks for your thoughts on this.
I don’t see us moving in the direction of cultural annihilation nor digitally standardized. In fact, I would argue just the opposite: that the ‘production’ of the younger members of society is more divergent than ever.
I find the youth of today, when engaged, as CL is intending to enhance, far more creative and thinking outside the box than was encouraged when I was in high school or a young adult. I wonder if others have thoughts on this, Diane
Great video!
So from what I understand is that CL is similar to Makerspaces but done online and within multiple spaces at the same time, not neccessarily the same time and space.
In this case, a few questions come to mind when thinking about CL? If CL is fluid (as bmehregani sugest, good word by the way), then how do we, as educators keep track of what the students are learning? Maybe keeping track will no longer become part of our job description? How do we make sure that the students have the right “equipment” to function in society if they have all learned different things?
I have a very hard time picturing CL in the classroom, maybe there won’t even be a room, and what does this mean for my kindergartener at home? I still have hopes for him to graduate high school, go to university and get a good job, but maybe that’s not what I should be concerned with?
CL sounds scary and unpredictable. But I’m interested to learn more.
You raise excellent points, mdetharet!
What’s that phrase..to get to the top of the stairs, you don’t have to see the top stair, you just need to see the one above your foot….Or something like that.
The point I’m trying to make is that there is a great deal of uncertainly around the corner for everything, from the state of education to your child’s future career options. It is a wild ride!
You are correct, though, that assessment of learning will need to change if connected learning takes hold. Perhaps it needs to anyhow, with the focus shifting to 21st century skills. With any luck the research going on at Quest to Learn will start to highlight important methods of assessing connected learning activities.
From my perspective, I do not see connected learning as being any scarier or less predictable than the changes discussed in previous OERs this term. Perhaps more is at stake for the classroom teacher?
The ducks are not in a row yet, I don’t think wholesale changes are taking place just yet. Which should give us all time to take a deep breath and prepare for changes ahead.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts, Diane
Public education represents lots of $$$ and I fear that with little growth to be had elsewhere in the economy private industry wants that public money and thus repackages old ideas and tries to sell more stuff that doesn’t address the real problem. To me, the greater societal problem is that the role of schools, universities and other educational institutions has completely changed. They’re not where you go to learn rather they’ve become what you suffer through to get credentialed. For example this course’s materials are all available without paying. The only benefit to paying tuition and participating each week is the credential I’ll get at the end. For most learners it would be considerably more efficient to look through another year’s site or if it’s really new to come back after this course is over and read everything at once.
At the same time I recognize schooling greatest educational value can be introducing and exposing individuals to things they otherwise likely wouldn’t inquire about. They can also force students to exhibit some degree of social skills by making them work together. Unfortunately, all too often this becomes the part that feels like suffering.
The challenge for me is that I think organizing schools by time is outdated. The traditional model means that time is fixed and how much any student can or does learn in a course is variable. Rather I think schooling should be organized by content in models based on levels of conceptual understanding. This model would allow us to analyze, rank and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the tools and methods we use to achieve learning outcomes.
Anyways, until funding models change it’ll never happen. But eventually someone will clue in that there’s more measurable system and change their funding model to pay based on efficiently delivering learning outcomes rather than enrolments.
You raise a really interesting point about the effect of private industry on educational practices. Undeniably, the almighty dollar heavily influences the choices of stakeholders and policy makers. However, I see hope on the horizon. If alternative learning methods such as CL continue to yield positive learning outcomes, and are able to produce students that are both prepared and empowered to compete in the modern world, then the balance will shift. There are a number of countries, particularly in Europe, that have become a testing ground of sorts for alternative learning methods. Should countries such as Finland, Denmark and Norway continue to produce the creative and innovative thinkers that power today’s idea-based economy, then other countries will likely follow suit. That’s not to say that economics will cease in playing a significant role in education, but rather that they may start packaging new concepts, rather than “repackaging” old ones.
Thank-you, globetrotting4life and brendangalexander.
Your comments speak for themselves. I appreciate the new ideas you are bringing to the discussion, Diane