One area that I found interesting is the idea of connectivism and the principles that surround it particularly the ideas that knowledge can be distributed in a network and that learning is messy. The nature of the Internet is characterized, mostly, by its decentralized and ever-changing nature. Because of this decentralization and dynamic attributes, online learning then by default can become chaotic and difficult to manage and navigate.
This brings me to some core issues central to connectivism: self-directed learning, presence and critical literacies. Many years ago, I mentored a cohort of teachers in a two-year university graduate program called T-LITE (Teaching and Learning in a Technological Environment) where the students engaged in almost solely self-directed, self taught digital tool and digital literacy learning. The students needed to be able to aggregate, create and share which digital tools they were using in their pedagogy but also to decide for themselves what to learn, how to learn it and when to use what they had learned in their teaching. Later, they needed to decide if their pursuit of said technology was worthwhile and share that information with others, although this part was done in person with other members of the cohort and myself. From this I ask myself, did this program fail because it became too rhizomatic? Were there too many so-called nodes, too many options, not enough direction? I believe when there is too much choice, too many ways to pursue an interest in a digital tool the learning environment, though not online, became unreasonable. The students did not want to have to construct their own learning environment. Learners need guidance. Goal posts. When the posts are moved around too often, our students can lose the way and will not know where to ‘aim’ next.
Another area I chose to look at which I believe conflicts with my current practice at work is the use of Personal Learning Environments (PLEs). Weller (2020) claims that the PLE largely faded from use in 2014 and was viewed as an extension of the LMS and that people do not often distinguish between digital tools for different settings because the boundaries between personal and professional have been blurred. I disagree. I know very well which tools I use for work and those I use for personal reasons. My students also seem to be aware of the difference.
I have had my students create their own web sites that house what they’ve learned, their assignments and other resources from the three courses I have taught them this past term. Because the LMSs is under the control of the college, leaving hardly any space for my students to manage and maintain a learning portfolio that makes possible to curate own learning activities, I felt that students learning to create their own place to house there work would be beneficial. To them, this is a PLE because it is personal and they have control over its content. Over the last two terms of their diploma program, I am hoping to continue to provide them with meaningful resources, tools and such to add to their website.
References
Pasquini, L. (Host). (2021, January 7). Between the chapters: The LMS (No. 10) [Audio podcast episode]. In 25 Years of Ed Tech. Transistor. https://25years.opened.ca/2021/01/07/between-the-chapters-the-lms/
Weller, M. (2020). 25 years of ed tech. Athabasca University Press. https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781771993050.01