Research

Theoretical Framework A

Connectivism - a ‘round up’

Connectivism is associated with Siemens (2005), operating on the principle that modern day learning is mediated by the distributive nature of integrating technology with the learning experience. As a result of this learning becomes interconnected with emotions, personal expectations and participatory communities, however, unlike the traditional communities of practice as identified by Lave and Wenger ( ), the connectivist community are mediated and enabled by social media technology and the drive to share, discuss and access information instantaneously as and when needed.

Key Principles of connectivist design become:

Technology: Its ubiquitous, instantaneous nature and the ability to access it independently.

Individual: Their drive and desire to learn and to share what they learn with others.

Dalziel (2016) Identifies the need for connectivist learners to be able to be:

Reflective, Dialogic, Personally in control (Dalziel, 2016, p.52)

Which he links to the ability to integrate social media into learning

Preece (2001) also identifies the participatory nature of the distributed community again identifying the need for a participatory learning environment and structured guidelines for assessment and usage.

Design Framework implications

Siemens identifies nodes that connect parts of the network, these nodes are connections that connect a multitude of resources, which can be databases, social media, search engines and any number of web based information sources. The expansive nature of a connected network ensures a diversity of views, autonomy for user and connectivity that allows user to develop communities and connections on an incremental basis Goldie (2016, p.1065).

So: A connectivist framework is looking at connections, links, integration of purpose and autonomy of decision making on the part of the learners, Anderson and Dron (2011) describe it as ‘building learning paths’ that are designed to support learning actions and allow ‘learners to make connections with existing and new … resources’ ( Anderson & Dron, 2011, p.88).

References

Anderson, T. and Dron, J. (2011) ‘Three generations of distance education pedagogy’ International review of research in open and distance learning Vol. 12, no. 3 pp. 80-97 [Online] Available at http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/890/1826 (Accessed 06.06.2019).

Dalziel, J. (2016) Learning design conceptualizing a framework for teaching and learning online, Routledge New York.

Goldie, J. (2016) ‘Connectivism: A knowledge learning theory for the digital age?’ Medical Teacher vol. 38, no. 10, pp.1064-1069 [Online] Available at http://web.b.ebscohost.com.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=f1ba2553-8ae5-47d5-8cce-85c6936da2f0%40sessionmgr103&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=118586828&db=ehh

(Accessed 06.06.2019).

Preece, J. (2001) ‘Sociability and usability in online communities: Determining and measuring success’ Behaviour and Information Technology vol. 20, no. 5, pp 347-356 [Online] Available at

https://www-tandfonline-com.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/doi/abs/10.1080/01449290110084683 (Accessed 06.06.2019).

Siemens, G. (2005) ‘Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age’ International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning vol. 2, no. 2, pp.3-10 [Online] Available at http://www.itdl.org/journal/jan_05/article01.htm (Accessed 06.06.2019).

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK B

SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVIST VIS-A-VIS SOCIAL SHAPING OF TECHNOLOGY

Name of the framework = Social constructivist vis-à-vis Social shaping of Technology as Theoretical Framework(s)

Its origins (history, key figures, academic sources, web address, etc.)

Kim, B. (2001). ‘Social Constructivism’ In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Zurich: Jacob’s Foundation. Posted on: https://textbookequity.org/Textbooks/Orey_Emergin_Perspectives_Learning.pdf Retrieved 25/June/2019.

Williams, R, and Edge, D.,‘The Social Shaping of Technology’ In Research Policy Vol. 25, (1996) pp. 856- 899. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222482133_The_Social_Shaping_of_Technology Retrieved 27/June/2019

Key ideas, concepts and principles

- Kim argues that social constructivism is based on specific assumptions about reality, knowledge, and learning.

- Social constructivists believe that reality is constructed through human activity. Members of a society together invent the properties of the world.

- To social constructivists, knowledge is also a human product, and is socially and culturally constructed.

- Social constructivists view learning as a social process. Meaningful learning occurs when individuals are engaged in social activities.

- Social meanings and knowledge are shaped and evolve through negotiation within the communicating groups. Any personal meanings shaped through these experiences are affected by the intersubjectivity of the community to which the people belong.

From social constructivist to Social shaping of technology

According to Robin Williams and David Edge (1996), the social shaping perspective emerged from a long-standing critique of crude forms of technological determinism which held: i) that the nature of technologies and the direction of change were unproblematic or predetermined (perhaps subject to an inner `technical logic' or `economic imperative'). ii) that technology had necessary and determinate `impacts' upon work, upon economic life and upon society as a whole: technological change thus produces social and organizational change.

Based on the principles of social constructivist, social shaping of technology (SST) research investigates the ways in which social, institutional, economic and cultural factors have shaped: i) the direction as well as the rate of innovation ii) the form of technology: the content of technological artefacts and practices iii) the outcomes of technological change for different groups in society. SST studies show that technology does not develop according to an inner technical logic but is instead a social product, patterned by the conditions of its creation and use. As technology evolves, we this get social shaping of information technology on which our Covent Garden project is based.

Implications for your project.

Based on the objectives of the Blue Team project on the Covent Garden, we need to put into consideration not only the education technological innovation, but the design should also consider cultural and socio-economic dynamics of the users. This means we should attend to issues of: i) narratives behind the convent garden, ii) user- ability of the innovation (information should all varied devices) iii) diversity of users iv) evolution of technology v) global/international issue and vi) room for varied research forms and designs.