edtech504 - final synthesis paper - erica fuhry

Running head: CONNECTIVISM AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIAL MEDIA 1

The Networked Learner: Connectivist Motivations for the Educational Use of Social Media

Erica J. Fuhry

Boise State University

CONNECTIVISM AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIAL MEDIA 2

Abstract

The connectivist learning theory has emerged as a response to technology's effect on how people

communicate and learn in our modern society. It emphasizes the significance of networked

information as well as social connection and collaboration. Web 2.0 tools are appropriate for

learning under this educational ideology. In fact, social media (such as Facebook and Twitter)

promote learning that is diverse, critical, interdisciplinary, continual, up-to-date, and

interconnected, which are all tenets of connectivism. By participating in networked

communities, students are motivated to construct and share knowledge and perspectives. This

paper will begin with an overview of social learning, followed by an examination of

connectivism in particular. Next, this paper will look at the relationship between connectivism

and networked learning communities in general. After that, it will define social media as a

virtual space and point to ways in which social media can be used as a tool to blur the boundaries

of formal and informal learning. Finally, this paper will discuss how connectivist ideology can be

practically applied to K-12 learning via community-focused social media.

Keywords: Web 2.0 technology, connectivism, social learning, networked communities,

social media, formal and informal learning


The Networked Learner: Connectivist Motivations for the Educational Use of Social Media

Today’s generation of K-12 students have been learning in the digital age for their entire

school careers. They communicate, research, work, entertain, and express themselves with

technology tools that have become increasingly inclusive and collaborative. As a society, we’ve

transitioned from Web 1.0’s “classical” cognitive perspective of acquiring knowledge from

others to Web 2.0’s participatory nature (Transue, 2013). Students are using these “read/write”

programs in different contexts to extract, create, and share information. The modern internet

promotes users, knowledge, and all their interconnections (Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes,

2009). Students connect to a rich array of information sources, such as open access publications,

databases, RSS feeds, media tools, social bookmarks, and cloud-based publication programs.

They can publish, post, and share artifacts from these sources as well as their own repertoire of

products and perspectives. With tremendous potential for information access, educators should

design experiences for digitally literate and networked learners.

Transmitting stagnant information from “expert” teacher to “novice” student is an

outdated model. Because they participate in the same networked academic space, opportunities

for interaction are more abundant than was previously possible with traditional methods of

dialogue and discourse (Ravenscroft, 2011). We are erasing the boundaries of formal education

so that learning in school is replaced by learning initiated in school. One way to make school

more relevant, versatile, and engaging is to incorporate social networking (e.g. Facebook) and

microblogging programs (e.g. Twitter), which connect to news feeds, podcasts, blogs, wikis, and

discussion forums. They can help establish supportive and interactive social learning

communities while simultaneously promoting individual learners’ quests for knowledge,


identity, and a sense of belonging. By using these digital tools, learning is embedded into a

larger, personally meaningful context.

This paper highlights a theoretical justification for the pedagogy of using social media for

instruction. Connectivism, a relatively new theory of learning, pairs well with these relatively

new networking tools (Tinmaz, 2012). The motivation for educational social media lies in the

potential for learning environments that are communal, knowledge that is interconnected, and

students that are self-motivated and lifelong learners.

What is Social Learning?

Many educational theorists look to social perspectives to explain knowledge-building and

understanding, believing there is more to learning than one’s experience with the physical world.

To them, this act is not internal and individual but rather interconnected and pluralistic. We learn

from and with others. Learning as social participation is at the core of Lave and Wenger’s (1991)

theory of situated learning, wherein the context (who, what, where, why, when, and how) is

embedded into the learning, and vice versa. Pettenati and Cigognini (2007) note that knowledge

sharing is similarly featured in Wenger’s community of practice vision and in Lévy’s collective

intelligence work. Hill (2012) values learning communities for their collaborative, scaffolded,

context- and process-driven, and socially motivating nature. They feature shared expertise and

negotiated meaning, and use communal resources including routines, tools, actions, words, and

symbols (Boitshwarelo, 2011). Knowledge is distributed; no one person or device has all the

information needed, so a community must pool information and resources to complete a task.

Plus, because there are many meanings or perspectives for a concept, there are many ways to

structure the world.


Objectivist knowledge transmission models are less applicable to modern, active learners.

Interconnectedness is a paradigm for 21st century learning. “Conceptually, learning involves the

connecting and strengthening of links between concepts and ideas; socially, learning involves

interacting with other individuals across technological networks” (Dunaway, 2011, p. 676). The

benefits of socially interactive learning include more time for synthesizing and integrating ideas

and concepts, and the promotion of problem solving and critical thinking skills (Hrastinski,

2009).

Social constructivism, a theory promoted by Vygotsky (1978) also looks at education

from a sociocultural perspective. According to this ideology, knowledge exists as a cultural

artifact associated with groups in a specific context (Bell, 2011). Social constructivism features

teacher-as-facilitator, collaboration, problem-solving, and learner autonomy. It looks to the

internalization of external dialogue, leading to the formation of psychic tools that support higher

mental processes (e.g. reasoning, reflection, critical thinking). Language and discussion are

pivotal in this process. Ravenscroft (2011) believes this theory should inspire approaches to

technology-enhanced learning that emphasize collaborative, argumentative, and reflective

discourses. According to Vygotsky (1978) this is engineered by setting up a zone of proximal

development (ZPD) that connects a learner with a more learned other. By interacting with

someone who is more experienced, a student can complete more advanced tasks thereby learning

more than could otherwise be done independently (Hrastinski, 2009). In a similar way Siemens

(2004) recommends we associate with well-connected people on a social network (called hubs)

who can promote and sustain the flow of knowledge.

George Siemens launched a new theory of learning called connectivism based on a

critique of behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. To him, learning in the digital age


merited a new theory that acknowledged the influences that information and communication

technologies have on human cognition. Whereas the three established theories describe learning

as occurring within a person, they do not recognize that knowledge, learning, and meaning can

be conceptualized as networked elements existing external of human beings (Dunaway, 2011).

Bell (2011) argues that connectivism has broader scope than other learning theories, such as

behaviorism and constructivism, which emphasize learning as an individualistic pursuit of a

“thing” to be gained.

A Closer Look at Connectivism

In this technology-focused social learning theory, learning, itself, is the network.

Therefore learning is primarily a network forming process. We should aim to make lots of

connections because “owning” a given piece of information is less important than knowing

where to retrieve it (Siemens, 2004). According to Siemens, technology is rewiring our brains;

the tools we use define and shape our thinking. Engaging in higher-order learning, the brain

must recognize patterns, synthesize ideas, and evaluate information (Dunaway, 2011; Tinmaz,

2012). To be lifelong learners we must prepare for rapid obsolescence of knowledge. If a student

must “continuously update his/her knowledge, this cannot happen as a process of progressive

‘knowledge accumulation’; instead, this can occur through the preservation of our connections”

(Pettenati & Cigognini, 2007, p. 44).

A connectivist learner seeks relationships over facts. Learning means linking ideas,

concepts, and perspectives located throughout one’s personal network. Networks consist of

numerous interdisciplinary resources called nodes, which can be individuals, groups, systems,

fields, ideas, or communities (Siemens, 2004). Teachers should guide students to connect to

reliable hubs, and navigate and grow their networks.


Siemens put forth a set of principles to define connectivism, and Stephen Downes

contributed much to the discussion. The original tenets of this theory are (Siemens, 2004):

● 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.

Although connectivism recognizes the paradigm shift that is taking place in learning,

some critics do not accept it as a new and free-standing theory. Kop and Hill (2008) believe it

lacks applied, empirical research to support its hypotheses. By citing others’ analyses, they

suggest that traditional theories, behaviorism (objectivism), cognitivism (pragmatism), and

constructivism (interpretivism), already cover its principles. Not only that, but the authors cite

Kerr’s (2007) discussion of overlap with Vygotsky’s social constructivism, Papert’s

constructionism, Clark’s embodied active cognition, and Lave and Wenger’s communities of

practice models. Even if it is still in the hypothetical stage, connectivism is a motivating ideology

which speaks to the rapid growth of information, ever-advancing technologies, and modern

learners’ needs.

Connectivist Communities


Connectivism’s social context promotes community building. According to Siemens

(2004), communities are learning organisms; they grow, change, and develop in ways that cannot

always be predicted or controlled. In Downes’ discussion of connective knowledge (2005), he

states that if the “human mind can come to ‘know’, and if the human mind is essentially a

network, then any network can come to know, and for that matter, so can society” (as cited in

Thomas, 2010, p. 508). In the connectivist framework, a community exists at a joint point of

many independent networks (Boitshwarelo, 2011). Ideally, socially networked communities are

inclusive, democratic, assistive, and participatory.

Networked communities are inclusive because they always incorporate new users and

resources, and they are diverse because they are formed by learners, practitioners, professionals,

and other interest groups. For example, in an analysis of Twitter case studies by Gao, Luo, and

Zhang (2012), an instructor’s tweets in a consumer behavior course received attention from

several companies who then followed the class Twitter account, ultimately expanding the

learning community (Rinaldo, Tapp, & Laverie, 2011). In another case, students used social

media to practice a foreign language in authentic environments (Borau, Ullrich, Feng, & Shen,

2009).

Virtual learning communities are also assistive, in that members and technologies share

the cognitive load. Distributed knowledge makes working with information more efficient,

effective, and productive (Tinmaz, 2012). Teachers and classmates can collaborate and offer

cognitive scaffolding to bridge the zone of proximal development gap (Boitshwarelo, 2011).

Hill, Song, and West (2009) emphasize the value of modeling as well as peer assistance in online

discussions.


Affective “feel good” qualities of a community also promote learning in the connectivist

model. Young adults are drawn to social media because they can connect with peers, test out

identities, and portray their interests, talents, social connections, and personal issues (Greenhow

et al., 2009). According to these authors, “Facebook increases learners' sense of social belonging,

and it is well established that learners who feel socially connected to their communities perform

better academically” (p. 251). This sense of group membership is supported by sharing interests

on a topic, regardless of one’s expertise (Pettenati & Cigognini, 2007). In a case discussed by

Gao et al. (2012), Waller (2010) reported that students who struggled with writing were

motivated by having a real audience that enjoyed reading their work. In addition, positive results

come from being useful to community members. Helpfulness increases one’s self-esteem,

improves their reputation, and motives them to produce and/or propose new contents (Pettenati

& Cigognini, 2007). Kirschner (2004) notes that e-learning environments can create a “strong

group cohesiveness, feelings of trust, respect, belonging and satisfaction, and a strong sense of

community” (p. 43).

Learning communities are participatory in that members are continuously doing, talking,

thinking, feeling, and belonging (Wenger, 1998). Everyone participates as information provider,

consumer, or constructor (Gao et al., 2012). Students must be taught to synthesize, create,

publish, and provide feedback to complete the cycle of participation (Transue, 2013). Dialogue

can be used to promote a culture of active inquiry. By questioning and reasoning, students can

negotiate (express, clarify, contest, and refine diverse opinions) or evaluate (assess, reflect, and

recognize the meaning and value of information sources) (Ravenscroft, 2011). With social

media-driven learning communities, students can encounter new perspectives and potentially


shift their mindset as they exchange up-to-date knowledge. They can make decisions about what

it is they want or feel is important to learn (Ravenscroft, 2011).

It is important to note that teaching students to be critical consumers and distributors of

information media is part of being a responsible digital citizen. Zhang (2009) critiques Web 2.0

tools by pointing to issues of quality control in the knowledge being disseminated on the internet

and the bias towards popular information. Students must be explicitly taught and encouraged to

seek out reliable nodes that offer deep and progressive knowledge. Tinmaz (2012) agrees, and

feels instructors must promote information literacy skills so that social media users can

determine the credibility, relevance, accuracy, and authority of information. These

metacognitive and higher-order thinking skills are in line with connectivist principles.

A New Kind of Learning Space

Del Moral, Cernea, and Villalustre (2013) categorize Facebook and Twitter as

connectivist tools. They recommend social media for encouraging greater participation among

students, who perceive it as a familiar and meaningful environment. Learners can communicate

and exchange comments on shared resources. It also serves as an online meeting space for

experts and students, who can utilize a range of external applications and tools from different

fields.

Social networks are inherently student-centered. In self-organizing social systems,

participants are guided by their own preferences and priorities when accessing content (Thomas,

2010). These naturally-evolving virtual spaces are like ecologies in that they tend to develop

beyond external organization, control, and design. Siemens (2005) defines an ecology as a

dynamic domain of knowledge, whereby learners pursue their own objectives through their


network’s nodes and connections. As authentic, appealing, and ready-to-use platforms, Facebook

and Twitter can extend educational activities beyond the classroom.

Learning does not only take place in schools within set times and specific conditions, but

also in nonformal, informal, and lifelong settings (Pettenati & Cigognini, 2007). Lai et al. (2013)

point out that in a formal setting technology use is structured, supervised, directed and mostly

individual. It is a tool to perform curricular work in a public space. However, in informal settings

(such as home), technology use is non-supervised, social, collaborative, and unstructured in time,

objectives, and support. It helps young adults pursue personal interests in private spaces.

Informal learning can be experiential or accidental. Greenhow et al. (2009) suggest an ecologies

perspective to connect these two settings, because networked learning involves contexts and

relationships rather than just individuals’ minds. To blend formal and informal learning through

social media it is essential that students have access to the internet both at home and school. In

terms of institutional policy, this may require one-to-one computing initiatives and/or Bring

Your Own Device (BYOD) programs.

Constructivism and Social Media Application

A connectivist educator must model the development of personal learning networks and

assist students in making connections. Instead of controlling learning behaviors, teachers should

influence them through context, attitude, and actions. Understanding how students learn is also

an important piece in designing effective instruction. Pettenati and Cigognini (2007) have

proposed conditions and stages of learning in a connectivist environment (Figure 1).


Figure 1. Connectivist knowledge process (Pettenati & Cigognini, 2007, p. 53)

The authors explain that certain enabling conditions frame the learning process: basic

skills (technological and communicational), generation and support to motivation (fun,

pleasurable activities with constructive interaction among people), meaning perception

(usefulness of knowledge as well as the collaborative process), group culture (positive group

membership), and social climate (mutual understanding and trustworthiness). This context

facilitates the stages of the learning experience, which are:

1. Awareness and receptivity (e.g. handling data with available tools and resources)

2. Connection forming and selection filtering (e.g. creating a personal network of resources)

3. Contribution and involvement (e.g. creating and contributing as a network node)

4. Reflection and metacognition (e.g. modifying one’s network by considering processes

and products)

Activities designed for learning in this way must be open-ended and adaptive, resonating

with the learning ecologies model. A teacher’s role in this space should not be as passive

observer of the process, but rather as an active node on the social network (Tinmaz, 2012).

Sistek-Chandler (2012) summarized a case study conducted by Stansbury (2011) about


educators’ use of social media in U.S. schools, which included integrating real-world

connections into teaching, networking with colleagues, collaborative learning, cross-cultural

communication and language learning, assessments, polls and surveys, distance learning, parent

communication, course assignments, announcements to students, and community outreach. Class

discussion is also a prominent application.

Microblogging allows users to publish updates of up to 140 characters for real-time and

asynchronous communication. This brevity requires a student to think critically about the

efficiency of their messages. Connected peers may explore, follow, reply to, or forward each

other’s posts. As Cohen and Duchan (2012) show in their research, some of Twitter’s

educational functionalities include: raising ideas, questions, and answers; sharing materials for

group work; organizational management through scheduling, notifications, and reminders; and

social support, including feedback and encouragement (as cited in Del Moral et al., 2013).

Practices such as backchanneling entice participation from speakers who would otherwise be

reticent in a formal setting.

Dunlap and Lowenthal (2009) offer the following guidelines for educational

microblogging: establish relevance for students, define clear expectations for participation,

model effective Twitter use, build Twitter-derived results into assessment, and continue to

actively participate in the Twitter community (Gao et al., 2012, p. 792). Utilizing social media

in the classroom will extend discussions into informal settings. In addition, user generated

contents inherently become locations of knowledge, and according to the connectivist

framework, such resources serve as nodes in students’ personal networks.

Conclusion


Connectivism is a relevant learning theory that should motivate educators to embrace

social media in their teaching practice. It emphasizes the distribution of learning across networks

of people and machines, and features the activity of learners (Bell, 2011). According to

Kirschner (2004), learning should involve meaning negotiated through interactions with others,

reflexivity, and ill-structured domains. The educational use of social media can bring these goals

to fruition.

Currently there are issues of adoption preventing social media from becoming

commonplace in K-12 settings. Most schools ban it to avoid potential negative consequences

such as unproductive interactions, harmful public scrutiny, and threats to privacy (Greenhow et

al., 2009). Efforts must be taken to address these concerns as well as educate stakeholders on

safe and effective practices. For example, classroom-friendly social networking with Edmodo is

a viable option for younger learners.

It is a crucial time to take education in a new direction. Kop and Hill (2008) deliver a

powerful reminder that educators must follow the trends of their students or else they be replaced

by new “experts”. This emerging epistemology and technology are a perfect fit for social

learning in a digitally networked, global society.


References

Bell, F. (2011). Connectivism: Its place in theory-informed research and innovation in

technology-enabled learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance

Learning, 12(3), 98-118.

Boitshwarelo, B. (2011). Proposing an integrated research framework for connectivism:

UtilisingTheoretical Synergies. International Review of Research in Open and Distance

Learning, 12(3), 161–179.

Del Moral, M. E., Cernea, A., & Villalustre, L. (2013). Connectivist learning objects and

learning styles. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 9, 105-

124.

Dunaway, M. K. (2011). Connectivism: Learning theory and pedagogical practice for networked

information landscapes. Reference Services Review, 39(4), 675-685.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00907321111186686

Gao, F. (2012). Tweeting for learning: A critical analysis of research on microblogging in

education published in 2008-2011. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5),

783-801.

Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a

digital age Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now?.

Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246-259. doi:10.3102/0013189X09336671

Hill, J. R. (2012). Learning communities: Theoretical foundations for making connections. In D.

Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments (pp. 268-

285). New York, NY: Routledge.


Hill, J. R., Song, L., & West, R. E. (2009). Social learning theory and web-based learning

environments: A review of research and discussion of implications. The American

Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), 88-103. doi: 10.1080/08923640902857713

Hrastinski, S. (2009). A theory of online learning as online participation. Computers &

Education, 52(1), 78-82.

Kirschner, P. A. (2004). Design, development, and implementation of electronic learning

environments for collaborative learning. Educational Technology Research and

Development, 52(3), 39-46.

Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past?.

The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3), 1-13.

Lai, K. W., Khaddage, F., & Knezek, G. (2013). Blending student technology experiences in

formal and informal learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(5), 414-425.

doi: 10.1111/jcal.12030

Pettenati, M. C., & Cigognini, M. E. (2007). Social networking theories and tools to support

connectivist learning activities. International Journal of Web - Based Learning and

Teaching Technologies, 2(3), 42-60.

Ravenscroft, A. (2011). Dialogue and connectivism: A new approach to understanding and

promoting dialogue-rich networked learning. The International Review of Research in

Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 139-160.

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of

Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3–10.

Siemens, G. (2005). Designing ecosystems versus designing learning. Retrieved from

http://www.connectivism.ca/blog/ecosystem


Sistek-Chandler, C. (2012). Connecting the digital dots with social media and Web 2.0

technologies. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching, 5(1), 78-87.

Thomas, H. (2010). Learning spaces, learning environments and the dis ‘placement’of learning.

British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 502-511.

Tinmaz, H. (2012). Social Networking Websites as an Innovative Framework for Connectivism.

Contemporary Educational Technology, 3(3), 234-245.

Transue, B. M. (2013). Connectivism and information literacy: Moving from learning theory to

pedagogical practice. Public Services Quarterly, 9(3), 185-195.

doi:10.1080/15228959.2013.815501

Williams, R., Karousou, R., & Mackness, J. (2011). Emergent learning and learning ecologies in

Web 2.0. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3),

39-59.

Zhang, J. (2009). Comments on Greenhow, Robelia, and Hughes: Toward a creative social web

for learners and teachers. Educational Researcher, 38(4), 274-279.

doi:10.3102/0013189X09336674

edtech504 - final synthesis paper - erica fuhry

Documents