Collaborative knowledge-building (CKB) in online social networking sites is an area of concern among educators and researchers alike. The focus however, seems to be on how social networking sites mediate the process of CKB in informal settings, while neglecting the role of design in making such knowledge-building and collaboration a sustainable activity. The relative lack of attention to design, points to the need for methods to guide the development of CKB environments. Thus on June 17th 2011 I presented my work to some of my colleagues which drew on my experience on an action research study which aimed to establish possible benefits from a framework-driven approach, given that the development of informal online social networking environments are not traditionally driven by any particular theoretical or design frameworks. Using the research findings, guided by activity theory (Leont’ev 1978; Engestrom 1987), group cognition (Stahl 2005; Stahl 2006), community of inquiry (Garrison et al 2001), I advanced a conceptualisation of the CEN e-mediating framework. This framework is presented as a mediating artefact in sustaining CKB in groups within the Caribbean Educators Network. The framework is a focus on processes (what is done) and presences (the environment or condition) and is expressed along 4 themes: community presence, cognitive presence, moderating presence and ‘artefactization’ presence. I share the following slides which formed part of this presentation.

Open education initiatives are becoming popular offerings on the web. Found about this from my Twitter steam and thought it must be worth the look. And a good look it ended to be. From January 10th to February 20th George Siemens, Jon Dron, Dave Cormier, Tanya Elias, and Sylvia Currie are facilitating Learning & Knowledge Analytics 2011. This course is an OPEN course and introduces individuals to the growing field of analytics in education sector.

Topics up for discussion include:

Week 1 (Jan 10-16): Introduction to Learning and Knowledge Analytics
Week 2 (Jan 17-23): Rise of “Big Data” and Data Scientists
Week 3 (Jan 24-30): Semantic Web, Linked Data, & Intelligent Curriculum
Week 4 (Jan 31-Feb 6): Visualization: Tools for, and examples of, Analytics
Week 5 (Feb 7-13): Organizational implementation
Week 6 (Feb 14-20): What’s next for Learning & Knowledge Analytics?

To get started:
Please join this group: https://groups.google.com/group/LAK11/. Once the course begins, daily emails of course activity, readings, and other highlights will be sent to this group.

Course Tag: LAK11 (for tagging resources in delicious/diigo, Twitter hashtag, and tagging blog posts)

I previous blog posts I gave some attention to the social and technological aspects of network learning. This was in no way negating the cognitive aspects of network learning. In fact, perhaps my attention is supportive to the excessive attention given to technology and technological tools that draws attention away from the cognitive aspect learning that takes place within network learning. In the following reflection, I give some attention to distributed cognition and particularly Connectivism as ways of making sense of the cognitive aspect of network learning.

Distributed cognition is linked with the work of Salomon (1997) and others who advocates the idea of distributed resources within the environment mediating the learning process. This is a dynamic, complex process that promotes that learning takes place in a number of ways through collaborative and technological mediating means. Therefore a basic premise of distributed cognition is that learning is something that extends beyond the individual to include complex interaction with other individuals and artefacts within their environment (Hollan et al. 2000). Siemens (2005) takes this further by describing learning in the distributed online setting as something that occurs within networks of human and non-human artefacts where using various tools, individuals establish connections to personal networks and communities of practice (Siemens 2005). This appears however to imply that learning is distributed but also takes on situated characteristics for learners and therefore places the individual as a central part of this process. In Connectivism, learning is defined as:

a process that occurs within nebulous environments of shifting core elements – not entirely under the control of the individual. Learning (defined as actionable knowledge) can reside outside of ourselves (within an organization or a database), is focused on connecting specialized information sets, and the connections that enable us to learn more are more important than our current state of knowing. (Siemens 2005, p.5)

As a developing framework Connectivism has provided much insight into how online environments should be designed to allow individuals to easily form connections. However, knowledge is promoted as the construction of connections to nodes of information (networks) while “learning consists of the ability to construct and traverse those networks” (Downes 2007). Unfortunately, Connectivism is not clear on how individuals actually learn or how individuals make connections between knowledge in the networks, the individual and its application to real world contexts. This I think, remains one if the mysteries of Connectivism particularly since it adopts the radical approach in advancing that knowledge does not reside in human brains. If knowledge and information reside in the network and learning is forming connections, what then occurs in the human brain? What happens to the knowledge and information when individuals form connections? These are some important questions note addressing. Where I think Connectivism gains mileage is on the notion of learning as something that occurs through interaction (connections) with human and non-human artefacts and this seemingly draws on a Vygotskian approach. Downes (2007) however, makes a distinction between Connectivism and other theories:
Where Connectivism differs from those theories, I would argue, is that…these other theories are ‘cognitivist’, in the sense that they depict knowledge and learning as being grounded in language and logic. Connectivism is, by contrast, ‘connectionist’. Knowledge is, on this theory, literally the set of connections formed by actions and experience. It may consist in part of linguistic structures, but it is not essentially based in linguistic structures, and the properties and constraints of linguistic structures are not the properties and constraints of Connectivism.

The statement “…set of connections formed by actions and experience” above, arguably, draws some parallels to other theories and this I think is where some down play Connectivism as a learning theory that deserve to standout on its own. Kop & Hill (2008) for example, ascribes Connectivism as a framework for web-based activity and an epistemological framework for distributed knowledge, but underplays its significance as a learning theory. Kerr (2006) and Verhagen (2006) also argue against Connectivism as a new learning theory. What Kerr (2006) points to is, that the previous works of Vygotsky, Clarke and Lave & Wenger all account to some of what Connectivism alludes to. These arguments have implications for understanding how individuals make decisions on how connections are established or evaluated or, what actions or activity would constitute a connection. It seems to me that individuals must make some choice or decision with what connections they make. And this is not something that is dependent entirely to the network. Am I missing something here? Comments welcomed.

References
Downes, S., 2007. What Connectivism Is. Available at: http://www.downes.ca/post/38653 [Accessed November 12, 2009].

Hollan, J., Hutchins, E. & Kirsh, D., 2000. Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact., 7(2), 174-196.

Kerr, B., 2006. A challenge to connectivism. Bill Kerr: a challenge to connectivism. Available at: http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2006/12/challenge-to-connectivism.html [Accessed November 12, 2009].

Kop, R. & Hill, A., 2008. Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3). Available at: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/523/1103.

Salomon, G., 1997. Distributed cognitions, Cambridge University Press.

Siemens, G., 2005. Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3-10.

Verhagen, P., 2006. Connectivism: A new learning theory. 2006, Available at: http://www.surfspace.nl/nl/Redactieomgeving/Publicaties/Documents/Connectivism%20a%20new%20theory.pdf [Accessed August 8, 2010].