as within technological appliances. Siemens (2005) explains, “Over the last twenty years,technology has reorganized how we live, how we communicate, and how we learn. Learningneeds and theories that describe learning principles and processes, should be reflective of underlying social environments.” Like connectivism, rhizomatic learning looks to networks of personal connections in creation of knowledge and meaning as a negotiated process.
Suggesting that a distributed negotiation of knowledge can allow a community of peopleto legitimize the work they are doing among themselves and for each member of the group, the rhizomatic model dispenses with the need for external validation of knowledge, either by an expert or by a constructed curriculum. (Cormier, 2008).
These models address the complex nature of collaborative knowledge creation betweennetworked individuals.Critics of both theories claim they bear too much resemblance to classical social learningtheories, and that technology has little influence on social learning processes. Without a clear definition of knowledge, theorizing about learning becomes a complex endeavor.
The increasingly transitory nature of what is lauded as current or accurate in new and developing fields, as well as the pace of change in Western culture more broadly, hasmade it difficult for society in general and education in particular to define what countsas knowledge. (Cormier, 2008)
One interesting development in the vetting of new learning theories is the affordance of newmedia to facilitate conversation and debate around the concepts. Jenkins (2008, p.52) warns,“Cyber communities often bring together groups that would have no direct contact in the physicalworld, resulting in heated conflicts about values or norms.” The individual, meaning-making process is aided by collaborative discussion tools, where participants contribute in ways thatassist others in creating context to support personal opinions on new learning theories. Thisessentially brings life to the theories, in the form of continuous discussion and debate, where allare welcome to contribute opinion and document research and practice. This process, however,leaves some critics concerned with the accuracy and quality of the collaboratively generatedcontent.In addition to discussion of emerging trends in learning models, we should also consider institutional culture. There is a wealth of published literature on institutional culture and changemanagement. Every organization has a unique culture that should be addressed when developing programs that will affect change. Part of the institutional culture includes the learning ecology.Siemens (2003) defines the learning ecology as, “an environment that fosters and supports thecreation of communities.” Supporting and nurturing informal professional development requires promotion of a healthy learning ecology.
Creating, preserving, and utilizing information flow should be a key organizational activity. Knowledge flow can be likened to a river that meanders through the ecology of an organization. In certain areas, the river pools and in other areas it ebbs. The health of the learning ecology of the organization depends on effective nurturing of information flow (Siemens, 2005).
Instructor professional development includes a history of formal workshops, courses, seminarsand conferences. Professional Development Plans (PDP’s) vary by institution and are sometimesdriven by state standards. Often, these plans include a review process on a multi-year cycle.Professional development activities are usually aligned with specific goals as part of aninstructor’s PDP, which is used for promotion, evaluation, and certification. Many of these policies neglect to acknowledge forms of informal learning where instructors collaborate and
Leave a Comment