Learning in nets (networks)
These notes are part of a series for the book.
Outline
- Defining the network
- Many learners are loosely tied
- Cooperative freedoms in networks
- Transactional distance and control in networks
- Network toolsets
- Value of networks in formal education
- Groups emerge as networks grow
- The value of diversity
- Context in networks
- Ownership of network artifacts
- Identity in networks
- Membership in networks
- Networks and social capital
- Designing network applications
- Conclusion
Notes
Nets (networks) are a type of social form less commonly used in formal education than groups. Nets are about individuals (not the collective group) and how each individual is a node with connections to other individuals. As a result, while the members of a group may do things for the betterment of the group, this is not true with nets: ‘We do not do things for the good of the network as we do for the good of the group because this makes no sense — it is not an object as such. It is simply the description of our many connections with others, and with the visible limits of these connections’ (Dron and Anderson, 2014, p. 133).
In a network, the number and direction of connectors between people vary. Activity also varies sporadically as sometimes an article or other item strikes many people as a topic they are interested in discussing, or an idea becomes one that people want to pursue (while at other times nothing will seem interesting to the people in the net).
People in a network may have little in common except the reason for the net itself. This makes nets different than groups, in which members may have goals and norms in common.
For distance education, some people prefer the group because it helps them build the trust needed to support learning. Others find the homogeneity in groups leads to boredom, and those people prefer nets.
See also: I think there may be some interesting overlap between nets and Andriessen’s (2005) taxonomy of communities.
Nets and learning theory
With groups, the tools and ways to go about social learning are proscribed. With nets, the individual defines the tools and ways for themselves, and that requires another skillset. Within Connectivist learning theory, this is the idea of meta-skills, which Siemens (2005) defines as being able to evaluate whether something is worth learning.
‘[T]he networked learner must discover sources of inspiration from within the network through role models, or discover the learning design in some other way. Typically, the process of doing so will mean discovery of instructional resources in the loosest sense of the word, leaving the networked learner in a hybrid position: employing behaviourist/cognitivist tools yet at the same time engaging in authentic social practice’ (Dron and Anderson, 2014, p. 136).
Nets and technology
Technology can support nets, but technology is not required to have nets. That is, technology is not part of the definition of a net.
Technology used with nets include instant messaging systems, social networking apps and sites, and RSS feed aggregators. These technologies usually also have features for the individual to share their identity and self, such as profiles, avatars, and online status indicators. Profiles and avatars help people identify others to include in their nets. Online status indicators increase presence.
Another aspect of Connectivist learning theory that relates to learning with nets is the idea that one key to learning is creating artifacts and using artifacts created by others — what Toffler (2006) called being a “prosumer” (producer and consumer). Because this is key, it’s important that the technology supports these activities. ‘The creation of content is one of the central requirements of connectivist learning pedagogies, and the means to create shared content is thus pivotal in providing tools for knowledge construction and tools for sharing and expanding on that knowledge’ (Dron and Anderson, 2014, p. 144).
Because participation ebbs and flows in nets, the technology also should support notification tools that allow for notifications. These make sure that people in the net are aware of the new contributions. ‘Contributing to a learning network and not receiving feedback or acknowledgement of that contribution quickly discourages further participation’ (Dron and Anderson, 2014, p. 146).
Usually, nets form separately from the design of any tools it may use to facilitation communication and sharing, so ‘it is therefore important for any software and surrounding systems designed to support networks to pay close attention to making participation (as well as ending participation) as easy and painless as possible’ (Dron and Anderson, 2014, p. 163). This means making it easy to:
- Sign up and sign in
- Stay connected to the conversation, by getting notifications of new interactions and making content easy to find
- Change the size and direction of the net as it evolves
Ownership
Part of learning in nets and connectivist learning is producing and consuming artifacts, so this leads to the question of who owns the artifacts. This discussion ties in with the debates about OERs and openness in general. Learning in groups is predominately learning in institutions such as universities, and issues of ownership and copyright are more clearly (or at least traditionally) established. So, the rise of nets has been disruptive.
Identity
How much to share with the net is a concern of each member as they negotiate revealing who they are and who they want to be, and grapple with other issues of identity and presentation.
Weak and strong ties
Unlike with groups, with nets we are not forced to interact with anyone. Our connections with other people in the net may be strong or weak ties, both of which have their good and bad points. For example, if you have strong ties to another person then you have more closeness to that person and probably more interactions, but you may also have inertia or you may not reach out to others outside the net. If you have weak ties to another person, you may be more willing to take risks when sharing ideas, but there is more risk because you may not have the same ideas about privacy.
Diversity
When you are a member of a net, you can be exposed to a diversity of thought, experiences, and skills. The greater diversity among members of a net can have benefits and problems. There are multiple perspectives and so there is the possibility of conflict, for example. But, nets provide people with a way to forge relationships and develop social capital outside their normal circle, and to come up with new and novel approaches to problems.
Filters and filter bubbles
Nets can help route key information to you, serving as a filter through important information bubbles up to you. This is valuable, but also has a down-side.
Sometimes nets create filter bubbles, in which a person only sees information that they are inclined to believe because the sources of that information (other individuals in the net) follow the same philosophical bent. From the perspective of learning with nets, the issue is that ‘a filter bubble in which social capital rather than pedagogy becomes the guiding principle’ (Dron and Anderson, 2014, p. 140).
Freedom of choice
Because nets lack formal structures, the individuals have the freedom to choose learning paths, tools, materials, etc. This can be difficult when using nets for learning because you may not known enough to make good choices. But with nets, you also have more freedom to learn on your own timescale (as it fits with others, though) and location.
Examples of learning nets
Nets exist in the workplace and can be a means to increase social capital.
Another example of learning nets is MOOCs, because the typical class (which is a group) is expanded to include a wider audience, and this improves the discussions, etc., that are the learning activities. ‘Even when the primary source of learning is the closed group, networks can be used effectively to expand learning beyond it. This expansion easily includes students enrolled in the program who have already completed a course of studies, and these alumni add experience and diversity to networked deliberation’ (Dron and Anderson, 2014, pp. 149-150).
Network teaching, connectivist learning
Depending on your perspective, nets may be putting a wrench in things for formal education. Nets are cheaper and more convenient for the learner; for the instructor involved in network teaching, it means a loss of control.
Connectivist learning doesn’t have formal learning objectives and assessments. Instead, an individual can make use of learning contracts and portfolios. A learning contract is negotiation with an expert, and it defines the outcomes and a learning path. A portfolio is evidence of learning and competence.
Emergence
Learning nets need to emerge. The instructor can’t just design activities and then assess network participation and expect that to work. To emerge, the individuals need to be empowered to create the net, and need to have supportive tools. As with communities of practice, the idea of how, if, and to what extent a person can create or shape a net is debated.