 | Reality Check |
|
As I come late to this thread, I have had the chance to skim through what has been posted and how few threads there are. It seems to me that many are wanting to debate the ideals of connectivism, but want to discuss the use within today's classroom. I am sorry but I feel a theory is only as good as it can be used or proven effective. If this is not possible or unlikely why have the theory, if it is only limited to a small aspect of society it should be deemed useless. So I ask, does connectivism alter the role of an educator within the K-12 classroom (and no blind YES answers please), and how? Simply telling me students have been online and found an answer to a question is not network learning. In your answers please keep in mind, legal and parental issues. For these are a fact of life, fancy free ideas do not work in this arena. We are not teaching adults, but children that need to be protected and nurtured, not thrown to the wolves... |
 | Re: Reality Check |
|
In Wednesday's Elluminate session, Nancy White spoke eloquently about community roles, and there was a rich discussion on the why and how of change, much of which supported incremental and thoughtful change. You asked does connectivism alter the role of an educator within the K-12 classroom (and no blind YES answers please), and how? My answer would be to turn around the role of connectivism, not theory as master that drives the change but as the servant of needed, iterative and evaluated change. Deciding what needs changing and enrolling support for that is a difficult process and one that needs to be shared by a group of stakeholders (2 forbidden words in one sentence  ).Maybe projects like http://www.globalschoolnet.org/index.cfm could offer opportunities for students to meet others online with a view to sharing knowledge and experiences. |
 | Re: Reality Check |
|
Hi Tom! I found your interesting question, thanks for posting it. I'm not qualified to answer, I don't have online academic background or a wide online teaching experience but I want to receive the answer if it comes and I saw that no one has answered so here I am. I hope people come back to the forums and answer. I think that connectivism cannot be applied with kids, simply because safety comes first. You'll have to place firewalls to prevent them from visiting adult places but they will find a way to overcome them. Your role as K-12 educator remains the same, you're the gatekeeper, guardian angel or whatever name suits you. Let's continue waiting for a practical answer if it exist. Maru :X |
 | Re: Reality Check |
|
> ... simply because safety comes first While I recognize that there is a need to protect children from harm, it should be pointed out that as a matter of empirical fact that safety does not "come first" and that safety is typically balanced with other considerations. For example: if safety came first, children would not be subjected to the risk of motor transport. But we drive children in cars and buses on a regular basis, and every year many children die in motor vehicle accidents. For example: if safety came first, then we would not expose children to advertising that could harm them. However, they are subjected to a wide range of such advertising, from McDonalds to tobacco ads to ads promoting poor body image. For example: if safety came first, students would not play risky sports such as baseball and football. But children do play such games, and many are injured playing them every year. For example: if safety came first, children would not be allowed to live at home, because this is where the greatest risk of abuse, predation and even murder exists. What happens between a parent and a child is essentially a secret, and too many parents take advantage of this. If safety came first, then at minimum there would be video surveillance in every home, if not actual 'home patrols'. Obviously, I do not think that any of these 'safety measures' should be undertaken, even though children are placed at risk. This is because I believe that the risk to the child is outweighed by the thenefits of mobility, of media, of play, of family life. With that in mind, what can be said of the other statements about safety. I would like to ask, what are the genuine risks faced by children in connective situations? What are the actual harms that result, even from exposure to objectionable material (surely, they are not worse than the carnage shown on shows such as CSI)? And do these harms outweigh the benefits obtained form a connective education? I do not agree that children should be exposed to needless risk. But I do not agree that the argument from risk automatically defeats the sort of education postulated by connectivism. |
 | Re: Reality Check |
|
Surely your examples are exaggerated given the statement. Certainly safety should be and is the first consideration. Hence seatbelts, parental guidance to tv, sport precautions etc. I will grant the school bus issue, I don't understand why there are no seatbelts. Can't be a cost issue, maybe there is another safety reason but I haven't heard it. In automobile terms, the child supplies the power but the parents have to do the steering. -Benjamin Spock >...even from exposure to objectionable material (surely, they are not worse than the carnage shown on shows such as CSI)? An ant on the move does more than a dozing ox. -Lao |
 | Re: Reality Check |
|
Tom, Your doubt in this learning theory is obvious ... I wonder how you teach in your classroom and what learning theories underpin your own beliefs. Could you elicit some detail on these please? To respond to your query effectively requires more information about your own beliefs. However, in light of the fact I don't have such knowledge yet (until you share it) I will provide you with a personalised view of connectivism and the impact it has had in my classroom. Firstly, I must say I am a strong advocate for Vygotsky's zone of proximal development, Gardner's Multiple Intelligence theory and Bloom's taxonomy. Whilst all three of these beliefs and theories are aging, what they stand for is still very relevant today. Secondly, I have adopted a combined connectivist and constructivist view of the world as an educator. I plan, design and implement activities which provide opportunities for my students to participate with other students (from within their own class, within the school, within our region, throughout our state and across the world) in online communities of practice whereby they work on both set tasks and open tasks to share and build knowledge and skills. They do this predominantly through utilising blogs, wikis, chatrooms, forums (discussion boards), web quests and podcasts. This scaffolding and array of activities and online learning tools cater for different learning styles and interests, and enables me the opportunity to participate with them in constructing knowledge, and provides me time within my classes to facilitate the building of knowledge (learning) rather than pass it on. At all times my students are engaged in online learning environments that are password-protected and designed to keep students safe from predators on the net. Discussions around the importance of keeping student usernames and passwords to themselves, along with appropriate uses of these tools occur prior to commencing any task (or using any specific tool). It is critical to efficiency and experience that such topics be modelled and discussed. Never has modelling (an age-old concept) been removed from my teaching ... it is one of the core elements of successful teaching from my standpoint. When students are taught about such issues and upskilled in ways to provide constructive feedback to their peers (in real-time that can also be looked back upon to reflect upon at a later time) the engagement level of students and self-awareness of their ideas and writing develop immensely. Well, that has been my experience in a nut-shell anyway. I would be more than happy to discuss this further, with specific examples following the sharing of your own beliefs. No wolves in my learning environments (and I say this instead of classroom on purpose). |
| Re: Reality Check |
|
First off I am not a doubter, I have used this method for awhile for my own professional learning. However I am a skeptic of using any unproven approach within my classroom, I have no problem ensuring that all avenues are analyzed before jumping blindly into it without thinking of the consequences first. Which many a teacher do, then regret their actions afterward. I posted this thread simply because I am tired of the what if's, and the can it be done's, and the discussions of Kant and Thomas and other dead people that do not teach in my classroom. I want to know if anyone is using the pure theory or a modified version of the theory within their classrooms. I commend you on your approach, it is very similar to the ideas I am presenting in my Week 2 paper on how this can be applied. I myself work in a district that would have concerns with your approach (even though they are sound). So while I agree, in practice I must move slowly to have any real chance for change. Even my utilization of Flickr to review math concepts needed to be unblocked for my students to see my individual Flickr account at school. Which required my complete explanation of why this has any educational signficance in the classroom. So I end by thanking you for giving me hope... |
| Re: Reality Check |
|
This is a really good question Tom. Connectivism, as a theory, could be used: 1. to guide an Action research study where the intentions and outcomes were studied 2. As an explanatory theory to analyse a field study. I have been unable to find any documented research/evaluation of either type for connectivism. If there are any such cases, I hope people will share them with us. If not, then this presents difficulties for the theory, and also for any required to produce evidence before doing innovation. |
 | Re: Reality Check |
|
Hi Tom Just the question teachers need answered; the practical application of the theory within the classroom and confines teachers work under. Like Lee, I attempt to use a modified version of connectivism in everyday classroom activities. For example; on Anzac Day students talk online to veterans through the Learning Place (Education Queensland secure site). On another occasion they talked online to different authors. There are also forums, blogs, comic chats, wikis, project rooms and vcr’s (virtual classrooms) available in Learning Place. Currently I have set up a VCR for Teacher PD (also have some face-to-face sessions) and a Project Room for students which are working well. I have joined Global Gateway to create learning partnerships with schools from different countries (currently five; England, Belgium, France, Bulgaria & Brazil). Students do things such as working on a common environmental issue in their local community and exchange progress, ideas, feedback and encouragement. We are also trying to set up an exchange student program between a few schools (older students). It is lots of fun and very interesting. However, I also use technology for concept learning through the use of learning objects (EQ also have their own through Learning Place), online interactives, webquests, games, etc with great success too. Not pure connectivism I know, however the students do autonomously engage in exploring, investigating and evaluating these resources while meeting a specific learning outcome.
|