These last chapters (2002 to 2011) from Weller’s (2020) book were the most interesting to me so far. The discussion of connectivism was particularly relevant to my experiences as a learner in elementary, middle, and high school, where I studied almost entirely in traditional classrooms. I was surrounded by other students and had a teacher physically present, so in one sense learning was very social. Reflecting on it, however, I realize that the learning itself felt surprisingly solitary. I would not have known how to describe that feeling at the time, but now I see that we were mostly learning on our own. Much of it involved listening to the teacher, completing our own work, studying, and demonstrating individually what we had learned.
I also remember school and life outside school feeling like two separate worlds. Knowledge belonged in the classroom, while experiences, relationships, interests, and problems outside school seemed to belong somewhere else. That is why I really appreciated Weller’s (2020) chapter on connectivism. From a connectivist perspective, learning occurs through connections among people, information, resources, technologies, and experiences. Both the connectivism and Personal Learning Environments chapters also explore the idea that technology gives learners much greater control over their learning. Learners can determine when, where, and sometimes how they learn, and can draw upon resources beyond those supplied by an educational institution. My school days felt like the direct opposite of that, since we had very little say in what or how we were learning.
This idea has immediate relevance to how I now think about online learning. Learning through an LMS is not isolating because learners are physically separated. What matters is how the learning experience is designed. In fact, online environments can provide opportunities for interaction and social presence even when learners are not physically together (Garrison et al., 2000). I work at a Real Estate Board, where I am responsible for the professional development of our members. While members appreciate the flexibility and convenience the LMS offers, some seem to think that learning through an LMS means they do not need to pay as much attention to what they are doing. In a way, they seem to interpret learner control as reducing the learner’s responsibility to engage. Research on online learning suggests almost the opposite. Fisher et al. (2010) found that learner control can contribute positively to learners’ reactions and satisfaction with e-learning, but their findings also point to the importance of engagement in the learning process. In other words, greater control over their learning comes with a greater responsibility to stay engaged.
This leaves me with an interesting dilemma. I find myself creating self-paced courses where learners cannot move forward until they complete a certain activity or watch a video to the end. Then I ask myself whether that is really what I want to be doing, or whether I should be focusing instead on designing learning experiences that make them want to engage. Am I encouraging learner responsibility, or am I simply finding new ways to control what learners do? I do not have an answer yet, but Weller’s (2020) discussion has made me realize that I have a lot to reflect on and a lot of work ahead of me.
Fisher, S. L., Wasserman, M. E., & Orvis, K. A. (2010). Trainee reactions to learner control: An important link in the e‐learning equation. International Journal of Training and Development, 14(3), 198–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2419.2010.00352.x
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Weller, M. (20200218). 25 Years of Ed Tech. Athabasca University Press.