Thinking about theoretical frameworks: Back to the drawing board

My MALAT studies have taught me the (sometimes difficult) lesson that learning at the graduate level is a journey that includes side quests, wandering down rabbit holes, and dead ends. Given the widespread criticism of connectivism and non-use in the MALAT program (personal communication, November 30, 2022), my dance with this debunked theoretical framework has come to an end.

Interestingly, Bates released a review of Downes’s most recent contributions to the theory of connectivism (Bates, 2022) which was then repudiated by Downes (2021). You can take a look at this debate here. While Bates’s criticisms were somewhat scathing, he ended his review with the comment “I do believe Stephen Downes is right in saying that we need a theory of learning that reflects the massive changes that have occurred over the last 30 years, and I feel very uncomfortable in criticising his theory” (para. 32). This is a good reminder that although connectivism may not have had the uptake originally hoped for, there is value in understanding the impact of the digital age on learning and theories of learning.

Time to turn around, head back to the main road, and refocus the focus.

Leaving the text of my original blog post is intentional on my part as I took value from my explorations of connectivism and its potential connection to my ARP focus. However, as I turn my gaze forward I acknowledge the importance of having a tried-and-true theoretical foundation for my research. In this case, the theoretical frameworks that will better support the proposed focus of my ARP are constructivism and complexity theory.

According to Dron and Anderson (2014), “all forms of constructivism share a belief that individuals construct knowledge dependent upon their individual and collective understandings, backgrounds, and proclivities” (para. 24). Complexity theory “views whole systems based upon the links and interactions between the component parts and their relationship to each other and the environment within they exists” (Cham & Johnson, 2007, para. 4). Dron and Anderson (2014) outlined two major implications of complexity theory on learning and education. First, “complexity theory, like constructivist theory, supports learners’ acquisition of skills and power such that they can articulate and achieve personal learning goals” (para. 55) and second, “complexity theory points to the social structures that we create to manage that learning” (para. 56). Critical digital pedagogy operates under the assumption that “increasingly, the Web is a space of politics, a social space, a professional space, a space of community. And, for better or worse, more and more of our learning is happening there” (Morris & Stommel, 2018, para. 18). Given the inextricable relationship between learning, technology, and culture it is clear that constructivism and complexity theory will provide a more solid foundation given the proposed focus of my research.

References

Bates, T. (2021, February 7). A review of Stephen Downes’ latest contribution to the theory of connectivism. Online learning and distance education resources. https://www.tonybates.ca/2022/02/27/a-review-of-stephen-downes-theory-of-connectivism/

Cham, K., & Johnson, J. (2007, June). Complexity theory: A science of cultural systems?. Media Culture Journal, 10(3). https://journal.media-culture.org.au/mcjournal/article/view/2672

Downes, S. (2021, February 28). The cognitive level. Half an hour. https://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2022/02/the-cognitive-level.html

Dron, J., & Anderson, T. (2014). Social Learning Theories. In Teaching crowds: Learning and social media (pp. 35-70). Athabasca University Press. https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781927356807.01

Morris, S. M., & Stommel, J. (2018). Critical digital pedagogy: A definition. In An urgency of teachers: The work of critical digital pedagogy (pp. 2-11). Pressbooks. https://pressbooks.pub/criticaldigitalpedagogy/chapter/chapter-1/ 

The proposed focus for my ARP is to investigate how critical digital pedagogy might contribute to the preparedness of Alberta’s teachers. Given the desired direction of my research, the theoretical framework that piqued my interest is connectivism, described by Siemens (2005) as “the integration of principles explored by chaos, network, and complexity and self-organization theories” (para. 23). Connectivism, a relatively new theoretical framework, operates under the assumption that “information is plentiful and that the learner’s role is not to memorize or even understand everything, but to have the capacity to find and apply knowledge when and where it is needed” (Anderson & Dron, 2011, p. 87). The principles of connectivism outlined by Siemens (2005) are:

• Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.
• Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.
• Learning may reside in non-human appliances.
• Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known
• Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.
• Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.
• Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities.
• Decision-making is itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the decision. (para. 25)

The connectivist view is one in which “knowledge emerges from an individual’s learning network as she recognizes connections between concepts, opinions, and perspectives that are accessed via Internet technologies such as electronic databases, web search engines, and online information resources” (Dunaway, 2011, p. 676). Given that “the digital has become ubiquitous and both the practices and possibilities around youth meaning-making have flourished and become increasingly heterogeneous” (Garcia and de Roock, 2021, p. 188), connectivism as a theory of knowledge rather than a theory of learning and teaching (Anderson & Dron, 2011) may play an important role in ensuring public education systems remain relevant institutions of learning. The alternative is a reality in which public education loses relevance by failing to recognize the changes necessitated by the shift to a digital age. As Kop and Hill (2008) argued, if “learners’ worlds inside and outside education become too disparate, new learners who are familiar with the opportunities for learning on the Internet will be able to find their experts elsewhere” (p. 11). Ultimately, connectivism may be a worthwhile framework to consider for my ARP in that it recognizes the necessity of enabling learners to seek knowledge and understanding while navigating the complexities of a life increasingly lived in digital spaces.

References

Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 80–97. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i3.890

Dunaway, M. K. (2011). Connectivism: Learning theory and pedagogical practice for networked information landscapes. Reference Services Review, 39(4), 675–685. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907321111186686 

Garcia, A., & de Roock, R. S. (2021). Civic dimensions of critical digital literacies: Towards an abolitionist lens. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 16(2), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2021.1914058

Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 9(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v9i3.523

Siemens. G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. 2(1). Retrieved from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm