George Siemens: september 28, 2008
Networks have underpinned human learning well before the proliferation
of technology evident in society today. The development of expertise in
hunting, gathering, and farming require knowledge to be shared with
each new generation. Upon inculcation into farming, for example, the
younger generation built on the work of others. Small advances in new
techniques and tools served to continually advance disciplines such as
farming, blacksmithing, soldiering, and more recently, philosophy and
sciences.
Network learning is today more evident because it finds its existence
in explicit network structures: mobile phone networks, the internet,
and the web. Each generation likely views itself as the guardian of new
intellectual insight and scientific advances, overlooking the enormous
progress brought forward by previous generations. When discussing
network learning, we find ourselves on a small pinnacle of a large
mountain. The network structures now prominent in technology were
previously served by social interactions, written scrolls, religious
writings, and the communication structures of generals, kings, and
emperors.
With this slight acknowledgement to the underlying nature of learning
networks in the overall development of humanity, a more considered
discussion of developments of learning networks over the last several
decades follows.
Recent developments in network learning occur against the backdrop of
social learning theory, advanced by the aid of technology. Literature
on learning and networks has progressed over the last decade, as
indicated by university centres such as Helsinki’s Centre for Research
on Networked Learning and Knowledge Building (University of Helsinki,
n.d.), research projects at Open University of the Netherlands (2006)
and Lancaster University (2004), and dissertations (de Laat, 2006)
researching the suitability of networks as a structural underpinning
for education. However, the term network has become somewhat
convoluted, making discussion of networked learning difficult.
Baumeister (2005) echoes this reality:
Within a university setting there is a lot that can be networked: e.g.
within a single course, within a faculty, within a research group and
between academics, institutions or corporations outside. Taking all
this together it will become evident that the term is layered with
meaning, and that is why in use it is seldom free from ambiguity.
(Networking in Practice section, ¶ 7)
This concern is, in part, a consequence of educators/researchers using
the term broadly, without clearly demarcating underlying concepts or
the various meanings the term has acquired in its diverse use to
describe physical infrastructure, social connections, and graph theory
in math. While networks in these domains meet general network
definitions – as two or more connected nodes – discussion of learning
networks in particular is often imprecise, failing to distinguish
between how the term itself has developed over the last several decades.
One of the first references of network models for education can be
found in Illich’s (1970) description of learning webs. Illich suggested
learning webs so “we can provide the learner with new links to the
world instead of continuing to funnel all educational programs through
the teacher” (p. 73). Illich’s view outpaced technology by several
decades. More recently, networked views of education have grown in
prominence with the development of the internet.
Five significant stages can be noted in how networks are viewed within
the educational space can be found in a review of literature:
(a) infrastructure development;
(b) merging with fields which have an existing research base;
(c) theoretical and transformative views of learning, knowledge, and cognition;
(d) practicality and popularization of social network services; and
(e) as a model for detailing the process of education and learning.
Development of network stages generally relies on the formation of
previous stages. For example, while the development of infrastructure
is required before other elements can be considered, the inclusion of
research from existing fields, theoretical, practical, and learning
domains develop in an interrelated manner.
Stage One: Development of Physical Infrastructure
As the internet developed in prominence, educators started to focus on
ways to incorporate the emerging field into educational settings. In
order to participate, classrooms needed to be physically wired. For
example, in 1986, the National Science Foundation Network was created
in order to connect researchers and academics (Harasim, Hiltz, Teles,
& Turoff, 1995, p. 6). While computer networks were used for
teaching and learning as early as 1960 (p. 7), broad use for students
was not possible until computers were prominent in schools (Hiltz,
2004, p. 27) and schools were physically wired to the internet. The
significant investment by schools, colleges, and universities from
1980–2000 in computers, networks, and related technology represent the
view of networks as based in physical infrastructure. As such, early
definitions of learning networks were focused on infrastructure:
“Learning networks are composed of hardware, software, and
telecommunication lines” (Harasim et. al., p. 16) and as “groups of
people who use CMC [computer-mediated communication] networks to learn
together, at a time, place, and pace that best suits them and is
appropriate to the task” (p. 4).
Stage Two: Merging with Existing Fields
As the physical structure of networks developed, connecting schools,
universities, and students to the internet and each other, the
awareness of learning networks increased. Educators turned to
disciplines such as sociology, which had an established research base
on networks. In a 1997 paper on asynchronous learning networks, Hiltz,
cited above in relation to the development of infrastructure,
collaborated with sociologist Wellman, to explore the social networking
implications of computer-mediated communication. Computer networks, in
linking people and computers, “become social networks, or the basic
building blocks of societies” (Hiltz & Wellman, 1997, p. 45). With
Turoff, Hiltz (1981) had previously built on Wellman’s work in
sociology with the 1978 publication of the Network Nation, which
explored the role of computer mediated communication as a
transformative agent in society. Other sociologists, such as Castells
(1996) and Watts (2003) contributed to popularizing network views of
interaction, communication, and social organization through publication
of popular mainstream texts, The Rise of the Network Society and Six
Degrees, respectively. In the field of physics, Albert-László Barabási
chronicles his awakening to the power of networks in the 2002
publication of Linked. Barabási issued the statement: “Networks are
everywhere. All you need is an eye for them” (p. 7), indicating the
increased awareness of networks as an underpinning structure in many
disciplines.
Toward the end of the 21st century, the language and concepts of
networks from sociologists, mathematics, and physics had penetrated
much of society. Network concepts were in common use to describe the
surprise success of a long dormant book on Amazon, the spread of
diseases through sexual networks, the spread of SARS in 2003, and the
1996 power blackout in the U.S. and parts of Canada (Barabási, 2002, p.
119).
Educators began adopting the terminology of networks from research in
fields of sociology, mathematics, and physics. In particular, educators
adopted a relational and community-based focus in the application of
computer networks (de Laat, 2006, p. 75). Hiltz and Wellman (1997), for
example, applied community principles as a means of expressing the
value of networks mediated or enabled by technology.
Stage Three: Theoretical and Transformation Views of Learning, Cognition, and Knowledge
The third stage of development in network views can be found in the
concept of cognition and knowledge distributed across networks of
people, aided by technology. Salomon (1993) suggested the development
of distributed cognition—cognition that occurs “in conjunction or
partnership with others” (p. xiii), is due to three reasons:
(a) the growth of computers as tools to assist in intellectual activity,
(b) growing interest in Vygotsky’s theory of cognition as a product of a particular context or social setting, and
(c) dissatisfaction of the limitations of cognition when viewed as solely “in-the-head” (p. xiv).
Culture and knowledge are distributed as a result of “everyday
interactions among people”, resulting in the “social distribution of
cognition” (Cole & Engeström, 1993, p. 15), again supporting the
importance of social interactions as a means of learning.
Technology aids in the distribution of cognition as it enables us to
“project ourselves outward digitally” (de Kerchove, 1997, p. 38), or,
more boldly, “to treat the Web as the extension of the contents of
one’s own mind” (p. 79). The capacity to form networks with ideas and
other people increases as people project themselves outward. Through
the internet, these networks of external projections can form on a
global level. Wellman (2001) classified the ability to form networks
with others through technology as “networked individualism” (p. 5),
where people use their own networks “to obtain information,
collaboration, orders, support, sociability, and a sense of belonging”
(p. 5). Araujo (1998) similarly suggested that both learning and
knowing reside in “heterogeneous networks of relationships between the
social and material world” (p. 317). In order for individuals to have
access to the knowledge of a particular society or culture, connections
need to be formed with others through the use of mediating artefacts,
like technology, as advocated by activity theory.
Stage Four: Popularization of Networks
Much of the research on networks has, to date, been confined to
discourse among academics, as evidenced by the long history of network
theory in sociology and mathematics, with generally limited public
interest. Until recently, a lack of common public awareness existed on
how networks function and their value for individuals and
organizations. The popularization of social software raised the profile
of networks.
While networked technologies for socialization were already in use in
late 1960s (Scholz, 2007), adoption was hindered until the disparate
tools of communication were brought together in more user-friendly
integrated suites, such as with the development of Six Degrees in 1997
(Boyd & Ellison, 2007). Between 1997 and 2001, as chronicled by
Boyd and Ellison, many companies launched new features and social
networking services. Social networking, however, did not become main
stream until the 2003 launch of MySpace, which lead to the global
phenomenon (Boyd & Ellison) of social networking services including
the launch of Orkut, Bebo, Cyworld, and Facebook. Statistics vary on
the level of adoption of social networking sites, but some suggest over
80% penetration (Salaway & Borreson Caruso, 2007, p. 12) among
students in academic settings. A potential secondary benefit may be the
development of network thinking skills on the part of learners, as they
discover ways of finding information and people, as well as solve
problems through active involvement in a network.
The popularization of networks through social network services relies
on the stages of network views previously considered. For example, the
International Network for Social Network Analysis (INSNA, founded by
Wellman in 1978) has extended its exploration of sociological
interactions to include the networks formed through Facebook, Orkut,
and other networking sites (SOCNET, 2008). Connections, the journal of
INSNA, published several articles on virtual social networks (Petróczi,
Nepusz, & Bazsó, 2007) and blog networks in America (Lin, Halavais,
& Zhang, 2007), indicating the growing awareness of online social
networks by researchers from sociology. Online social networks have
also proven to be valuable for researchers, particularly sociologists,
in understanding how networks form, providing “rich sources of
naturalistic behavioural data” (Boyd & Ellison, 2007, Networks and
Network Structure section, ¶ 1).
Stage Five: Integrated Learning, Knowledge, and Education Networks
By 2005, the definition of learning networks (in this instance,
asynchronous) advocated by experts reflected a greater emphasis on
people: “ALN’s [asynchronous learning networks] are people networks for
anytime anywhere learning” (Hiltz & Goldman, 2005, p. 5). Veen and
Vrakking (2006) also adopted a view of networks as existing in both
technical and human dimensions, with technology serving a dual role of
storing and connecting information and enabling the development and
maintenance of social networks (p. 42). The four stages previously
discussed form the basis for networks to be utilized for teaching and
learning at the fifth stage. Within this stage, educators are beginning
to explore how network models can assist not only collaborative
learning in online and blended environments, but with pervasive mobile
learning (Rennie & Mason, 2004, p. 109), determination of social
network structures from analysis of discussion forums (Gruzd &
Haythornthwaite, 2008) and online community conversations
(Haythornthwaite & Gruzd, 2007). Educators seeking to understand
how learners interact with each other through online forums, email, or
blog networks, can rely on the principles of network analysis developed
by sociologists. Similarly, educators can use data analysis or
visualization tools to evaluate the quality of learner interactions
with each other and with the key concepts of a particular course.
Conclusion
Concepts of networks (summarized in Table 1) are more prominent in
society, due to the rise of networking sites such as Facebook. This
popularization, unfortunately, has led to the term network acquiring a
degree of vagueness with multiple potential meanings. While initially
associated with the physical network of wiring schools or the
organizational networks of schools and universities working together,
such as the Ohio Learning Network (2007), recent discussions of
networks have turned the focus to social software and knowledge and
learning networks. The multiple potential meanings of the term network,
as expressed by the five stages of network development, need to be
recognized and reflected in order for educators to more precisely
communicate concepts of connectivism and networked learning.
Connectivism, as a theory of learning, is developed against the
backdrop of physical network infrastructure, development of the social
learning theory, and distributed conceptions of cognition and knowing.
As presented in the introduction, learning networks have always
accompanied the development of human knowledge. Even when not
explicitly acknowledged, they served as an underpinning structure to
the development of fields of science, literature, and technology. The
advancements of the last several decades have made networks of learning
explicit. Networks are reflected not only as physical information
communication technologies, but as the very means through which
knowledge is distributed for addressing complex challenges.
Connectivism reflects these developments in suggesting the need to
craft new views of learning more reflective of the daily reality of
learners.
Table 1. Five Stages of Network Development
Stage One: Infrastructure
Contribution: Development of the physical structure and connection of classrooms to resources, each other, and the internet
Stage Two: Merging with existing fields
Contribution: Adoption of principles of community from sociology
and use of network elements from mathematics and physics to describe
shape and structure of networks.
Stage Three: Changing views of cognition
Contribution: Situated and distributed theories of cognition
developed based on Vygotsky’s (1986) cultural-historical theories,
inadequacies of established theories of cognition (which exclude
acknowledgement of artefacts and cognition in distributed manner) and
increased emphasis of computer networks.
Stage Four: Popularization
Contribution: Increased awareness of network concepts through
publication of mainstream books, Linked (Barabási, 2002), Six Degrees
(Watts, 2003), Rise of Network Society (Castells, 1996), social
networking sites (SNS), and the development of individual’s network
skills through the use of SNS.
Stage Five: Processes of learning, knowledge, and education
Contribution: Integration of domains one-four in the practice of
education, where learning and knowledge are seen as distributed within
networks, assisted by the use of technology, analyzed with the network
structure principles from related fields, and directed through growth
of network awareness and skills on the part of learners. Connectivism
and networked learning reside at this level.
Works Cited
Araujo, L. (1998). Knowing and learning as networking. Management Learning, 29(3), 317–336.
Barabási, A. L. (2002). Linked: The new science of networks. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.
Baumeister, H-P. (2005). Networked learning in the knowledge economy: A
systemic challenge for universities. European Journal of Open, Distance
and E-learning. Retrieved September 26, 2008, from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2005/Baumeister.htm
Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. (2007). Social network sites: Definition,
history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
13(1). Retrieved September 26, 2008, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html
Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Cole, M., & Engeström Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to
distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions:
Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1–46). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
de Kerchove, D. (1997). Connected intelligence: The arrival of the web society. Toronto, ON, Canada: Somerville House.
de Laat, M. (2006). Networked learning. Retrieved September 26, 2008, from http://www.e-learning.nl/files/dissertatie%20maarten.pdf
Gruzd, A., & Haythornthwaite, C. (2008). Automated discovery and
analysis of social networks from threaded discussions. Paper presented
at the International Network of Social Network Analysis. St. Pete
Beach, FL, USA
Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning
networks: A field guide to teaching and learning online. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Haythornthwaite, C., & Gruzd, A. (2007, June). A noun phrase
analysis tool for mining online community. Proceedings of the 3rd
International Communities and Technologies Conference.
Hiltz, S. R. (2004). The virtual classroom: Learning without limits via computer networks. Norwood: NJ: Ablex.
Hiltz, S. R., & Goldman, R. (Eds.). (2005). Learning together:
Research on asynchronous learning networks. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1981). Network nation: Human communication via computer. Toronto, ON, Canada: Addison-Wesley.
Hiltz, S. R., & Wellman, B. (1997). Asynchronous learning networks
as a virtual classroom. Communications of the ACM, 40(9), 44–49.
Illich, I. (1970). Deschooling society. London: Marion Boyars.
Lancaster University. (2004). The networked learning in higher
education project is concluded. Retrieved September 26, 2008, from
Department of Educational Research Web site: http://csalt.lancs.ac.uk/jisc/index.htm
Lin, J., Halavais, A., & Zhang, B. (2007). The blog network in
America: Blogs as indicators of relationships among US Cities.
Connections, 27(2), 15–23.
Ohio Learning Network. (2007). About OLN. Retrieved September 26, 2008, from http://www.oln.org/
Open University of the Netherlands. (2006). Learning networks homepage.
Retrieved September 26, 2008, from Research and Development Web site: http://www.learningnetworks.org/
Petróczi, A., Nepusz, T., & Bazsó, F. (2007). Measuring tie-strength in virtual social networks. Connections, 27(2), 39–52.
Rennie, F., & Mason, R. (2004). The connection: Learning for the connected generation. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Salaway, G., & Borreson Caruso, J. (with Nelson, M. R.). (2007).
The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology.
Retrieved September 26, 2008, from EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research
[ECAR] Web site: http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0706/rs/ERS0706w.pdf
Salomon, G. (Ed.). (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and
educational considerations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Scholz, T. (2007). A history of the social web (draft). Retrieved September 26, 2008, from http://www.collectivate.net/journalisms/2007/9/26/a-history-of-the-…
SOCNET. (2008). Listserv, January 2008 Archives. Available from http://www.lists.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A1=ind0801&L=socnet
University of Helsinki. (n.d.). Home page. Retrieved September 26,
2008, from Centre for Research on Networked Learning and Knowledge
Building Web site: http://www.helsinki.fi/science/networkedlearning/eng/
Veen, W., & Vrakking, B. (2006). Homo zappiens: Growing up in a digital age. Network continuum. London: UK
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Watts, D. J. (2003). Six degrees: The science of a connected age. New York: W.W. Norton.
Wellman, B. (2001). Little boxes, globalization, and networked individualization. Retrieved September 26, 2008, from http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/publications/littleboxes/litt…
@Kankuchito's Blog 
Sometimes
we post stuff, that may be obscure (yeah, guilty as charged) and
sometimes it feels that sometimes not everyone is aware of how much
BETTER a conversation would be if the research was done before hand……
… not that it’s NOT rude, but perhaps a new way of communicating in these ‘halls’, so to speak?
Candidly
A Google-ator
Searching for Conversation since The Remotest Past
but if the question is made so as to elicit a person’s personal
opinion, the subject matter of which you are both personably
knowledgeable, the person being asked the question is being rude if
they tell you to google it.Or maybe the person isn’t as knowledgable as you thought they were.
And
yeah, some of us may be acting rudely dissmissive; yet, for example,
there’s a bunch of my friends, that for example, keep buggin’ me about
translatin’ what I do here in THEIR language; others, bug me about them
being sometimes in three or more languages…
So if I tell them to go to Google Translate more than once, am I being rude?
See the dilemma?
And
again, as I said earlier: it’s a tab away; I for one, if the synopsis
that is attached to the posting is not enough, given time – and
resources; i.e. sometimes Googling on a phone is painstaking – I will
Google before asking; others? I’ll be on the receiving end, with the
interlocutor on the other end glaring at me, as though we all had the
time, disposition and context to understand everythin’ they’re postin’!
So I think it’s a matter of common sense and courtesy, perhaps? specially when we’re ALL ‘tone-deaf’ in this place?
Tone deafness? May want to review your manners, too!
[ADJUSTS THE PROVERBIAL HEARING AID]
Si?
Ci vedeamo!
[GRINS]
P.S:
BTW, would it be Ok. if I edited this exchange (and what I hope is to
follow) on my blog? it’s precisely centered on the challenges of
computer-mediated communications… Let me know!
Again, salute!
[WINK’N’GRIN]
just send me a link to the blog so I can enjoy reading the fruits of a
conversation. If I could read the entry first, post-editing just so my
perspective is kept in context, if included in anyway, that would be
grand.What does CMAC stand for?
I do wonder tho, for as
many people that ask you to simply translate what you are posting, how
many people on facebook and/or other applications are intuitive enough
to understand what you are doing and ask questions that cause you to
stop and reflect upon some questions in a way that google cannot answer?…
Also,
I must comment on the content that results from a google search. For
instance, I recently google’d The SanRemo Music Festival. I did this
search despite knowing full well that my friend, here on facebook,
Franco Corso, could provide me with firsthand information that would be
exactly the kind of answers I was looking for about SanRemo.
At
the risk of putting myself in a vulnerable position in which my
feelings may have gotten hurt by his lack of response, I googled, and,
of course, the first result was Wikipedia.
There are a lot of
people who have junked up Wikipedia. So, if a person tells me to google
a question, are they purposefully leading me towards false information?
getting better at giving stupid responses to those kinds of questions.
... And yeah, sometimes it's worth to go 'head over heels' for the sake of keeping people engaged in your 'performance'
Not really; once I get permission, as the Clipboardist that I am, I merely move these -as-is/verbatim- over to the blog….
Hence
no need to worry about revisions; it’s as fresh as it was here – and we
‘preserve’ these good conversations, as I understand these are one of
the few items that FB actually ‘shreds’ (I mean, how far back can we go
on the wall? have not checked lately, but a few iterations ago, it was
about 60 to 45 days at the most; hence the start of the series, yadda,
yadda, yadda)That said, your last two entries are 100%
copacetic with the entirety of the thread, and yes, illustrate the
‘Fuzzy Logic” that accompanies live in the Cloud Computing.
CMAC?
Check
this FB Group out; I’ve been researching it for a few years, and have
made it the foundation of the business I recently started.
Most of the links are either academic (proven sources/whitepapers/research papers) or when they come out on e-zines or magazines, I’ve tried to keep them as ‘valid’ as any.
http://groups.to/CMAC
… Grazie!… I will come back and preserve this thread in a bit, hafta complete some event coverage from last night.
Ciao!
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=261260335358… See More
I also ‘tagged’ you so you could find it – and tie the note onto the tread, perhaps?