My Personal Learning Network #edumooc

As our attention during Week 6 of EDUMOOC turns to the notion of personal learning networks (PLNs), while there have been many fantastic diagrams and descriptions shared of what PLNs can consist of, I thought I’d share a little of my journey to development my own personal learning network (PLN) as well as the particular tools that I leverage today in building my own PLN.

My interest in the notion of personal learning networks began over a decade ago when as a graduate student I was looking for ways to share what I was learning with others as well as to form a process by which I could continue to build upon my learning after I completed my coursework. My thoughts at the outset were to chronicle my learning and scholarly activities in preparation for the eventual comprehensive exams and dissertation that I new were lying ahead of me but I also saw the opportunity to leverage the newer online technologies that were emerging to expand my own learning beyond the “walls” of the courses that I was taking.

I setup a blog, a rather new tool at that time, and began posting my own insights as well as sharing resources that I came across throughout my studies. Over the years, I’ve continued to build my own personal learning network and while I’m using different technologies and approaches now than when I first began, my underlying purpose remains the same … to continually expand and enrich my network of colleagues whom I can learn from and with as well as share knowledge I’m personally constructing with others.

In my teaching today, I encourage my students to see themselves as lifelong learners and to continually be developing their own individual personal learning networks so that long after they finish my course, they have opportunity to continue to grow and learn while learning from one another. How one

From a professional development angle, the concept of personal learning networks is a powerful one for faculty to grasp as in academia we are continually making new discoveries and through sharing our constructed knowledge, learning from one another. As I work with faculty, my encouragement to them is to continually be looking for ways to expand their horizon and learning network using whatever technology tools are the best fit for them.

My Personal Learning Network – August 2011

Here’s a glimpse at what my PLN consists of currently and the technology tools that at present I’m using.

  • My Twitter Network. When Twitter first came on the scene in 2007, I was among the doubters who wondered how microblogging in such short bytes of information would ever be useful. I’ve since found Twitter to become my primary professional networking tool in building my PLN and keeping current on what is happening in my field. I tweet @jrhode for anyone who would like to connect with me there!
  • My Shared Online Bookmarks (Diigo Library). As I come across online resources that to bookmark for access later, I use the Diigo social bookmarking tool and have found it to be a fantastic tool for not only creating my own personal online library of resources but also in sharing those resources with others. While I initially used Delicious as my social bookmarking tool, I’ve migrated to Diigo and use it instead because of the many added features and specific features for education, like private groups. I have linked my Diigo and Delicious accounts, so that anything I bookmark in Diigo, Diigo will automatically add to my Delicious library for anyone who is still following my Delicious bookmarks. Also, using Packrati, any links I post to Twitter are also bookmarked should I wish to access later.
  • My Shared Academic Resources (CiteULike Library). As I find scholarly resources (ie: journal articles, books, etc.) that I may want to make use of in the future, I bookmark the item in my CiteULike library. CiteULike creates a unique URL for resources for each particular tag used in organizing the resources and users can share scholarly resources in a public or private group. I personally find CiteULike very useful when needing to share a list of scholarly sources I’ve bookmarked on a particular topic, such as social networking (click here).
  • My Facebook Page. While I’m not all that active on Facebook, I do have many students and colleagues who are and would like to connect with me there. Instead of adding acquaintances and students as “friends” in my personal Facebook profile, I’ve setup a separate page at facebook.com/jasonrhodephd where students and colleagues can connect with me. I use Selective Tweets to post select updates from Twitter automatically to my Facebook page.
  • My Google Reader. My RSS subscriptions to blogs and other news sites continues to be my other primary means for keeping current. The Reeder app on my Mac, iPhone, and iPad is currently my preferred way to read and share items from Google Reader. I star particular news items that I may want to come back to later and can easily search from within the app or the Google Reader directly.
  • My Podcast Subscriptions. As an auditory learner with a 40 min. daily commute, podcasts are another tool for me to learn and keep current. I subscribe to a number of podcasts and listen to them to/from work. I prefer audio podcasts since I can speed the playback on my iPhone 2X.
  • My Professional Association Listserv Subscriptions. I am subscribed to the listservs of several professional associations that I am a part of. Email still has a place in my PLN, even in 2011!
  • My Personal Connections (Hashable). With the rise in Twitter, as I’ve met individuals at conferences or other gatherings, I’ve begun using the Hashable app to keep track of who I’m meeting and where. It’s the most recent addition to my PLN and the jury is still out on whether the tool will be around long-term or how long it will be useful. But, for now, it’s been a fantastic tool for helping solidify the connections I’m making with others.

There are other social networking tools that I do use, but these are the ones that have become the primary means by which I am continuing to build my PLN. I’d love to hear what tools or approaches are working for you in building your PLN.

~ Jason @jrhode

Ideal Online Social Networking Course

I’m collecting ideas and suggestions for a 1 month professional development course I’m designing that will cover social networking strategies for distance learning.

Here are a few details about the course…

  • 4 week course taught as an advanced online seminar offered by Illinois Online Network as part of the Making the Virtual Classroom a Reality course series
  • 4 modules, 1 week per module
  • 5 to 10 hours per week of engagement and interaction time to justify 4 continuing education units that would be granted for it
  • all required “textbook” readings should be freely available online
  • Moodle will serve as the learning management system for the course, but other free social networking technologies can be incorporated where they add value to the course
  • target date for course to launch: March 2010

What would the ideal online social networking course consist of? What texts/readings should be included? What technologies should be discussed? What activities should students engage in?

Leave a comment here with your ideas, suggestions, and resources! I’m also collecting suggestions on Google Wave at the wave titled, “Ideal online social networking course?” that is available by searching with:public tag:ion

Growth of Online Learning in Higher Ed

As Allen and Seamen (2008) note, online education has continued to experience steady and sustained growth and shows no signs of slowing anytime soon. I’ve personally found through my own experience that in these particularly challenging times for higher education, institutions are increasingly looking to online education as one way to not increase revenue but also expand course offerings. Allen and Seamen’s findings support the common approach among higher education institutions today to strategically implement online learning in overall programmatic development efforts.

Not only are institutions embracing online education today, but students are also flocking to online modes of learning in record numbers. As noted, over one-fifth of all higher education students are now taking at least one online course (Allen & Seamen, 2008). A primary reason why online education may be so popular especially among adult, non-traditional learners is the flexibility that it affords. The learner can continue his or her education while still continuing a career and maintaining other personal commitments.

What other factors do you suspect may be contributing to the steady growth of online education in higher education? Post a comment with your thoughts!

Reference:

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States, 2008. Needham, MA: Sloan-C. Retrieved June 17, 2009, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/staying_course

e-Learning Interaction Matrix

As part of my dissertation research, I’ve drafted an interaction matrix that helps explain the dynamic variety of interactions that are often considered essential in fostering a socially constructed learning environment. What follows is the rationale for this model that can serve to help guide the design and development efforts of meaningful and memorable learning environments.

At the core of the interaction matrix are the essential elements of the learning environment: content, learner, instructor, collective, and network.

Many learning endeavors commonly are focused initially upon the integration of course content. The content includes the complete assortment of instructional materials, learning objects, assigned readings, resources, etc. that serve as the reference and resources that the both the instructor and learners will make use of. The instructor and learner(s) complete the triad of essential elements commonly understood as foundational to the learning encounter. Yet, two emerging catalytic components should also be included as core elements that learners interact with in informal contexts: the Network and the Collective.

Anderson and Dron (2007) note the distinctive characteristics of each of these granularities of social organization. They define the network as, “a more fluid form of social entity in which members join, create and remove themselves from numerous informal learning and social connections.” The network is personalized for each learner, as s/he has complete control over the composition of their network, the individuals comprising the network, and the degree to which the network is utilized.

The “Network” is further classified by Downes (2006) as being:
diverse, autonomous, open, connective, and distributed. Downes also notes that that networks serve as bridges among individuals and agents in contrast to groups which isolate individuals into restricted units. Networks are fluid and generative as members contribute to create a resource that has greater value than any individual or group can solely construct. Examples of networks in education might include email mailing lists, social networks, or subscribers to syndicated blogs.

In comparison to the Network, the Collective is much more expansive and involves the bottom-up interactions of the many. Anderson and Dron refer to the Collective as, “The largest form of social granularity in which members participate for individual benefit, but their activities are harvested to generate the ‘wisdom of the crowds’.” Anderson and Dron further note that the Collective is, “a kind of cyber-organism, formed from people linked algorithmically…it grows through the aggregation of individual, Group and Networked activities. This distinctive dynamic is one of aggregation, not networking and the clearest way of distinguishing the two is that collective systems do not require a commitment to the Many.” The Collective might include any type of interactions involving individuals indirectly contributing to the many and can involve such items activities as searching, social bookmarking, ranking, reviewing, and voting.

Formal Interaction

Moore (1989) suggested the existence of three main types of interaction within educational contexts: (1) between the learner and instructor, (2) among learners, (3) between learners and the content they are working to master. A host of subsequent typologies have emerged, each seeking to either extend Moore’s basic tenets of interaction or define additional forms of interaction within the instructional context (see, for example, Anderson & Garrison, 1998; Hannafin, 1989; Hirumi, 2002; Juwah, 2006; Jung, Choi, Lim, & Leem, 2002; Wagner, 1997). The Interaction Matrix draws together the dynamic interactions possible in contemporary online learning environments into a single model that can be utilized in the design, development, and facilitation of online learning initiatives.

In accordance with widespread recommendations from the literature and recommendations from learners (Rhode, 2007), the following formal interactions should be considered when designing online learning:

Instructor-Content Interaction. This involves the wide array of interactions that the instructor has with the content and includes activities such as selecting objectives, developing instructional materials, crafting activities for learners to engage in, etc.

Learner-Learner Interaction. This includes any number of interactions designed to encourage learners to interact with one another throughout the course. These interactions could be either synchronous or asynchronous but the parameters for such activities are generally specified by the instructor or the course requirements.

Content-Content Interaction. Rather than offering just a single set of activities or interactions for all learners, content-content interaction can facilitate custom learning paths through course content and activities, displaying content to certain users for a limited period of time or making additional content available based on the a variety of pre-defined or dyanamic content variables.

Instructor-Learner Interaction. Any number of interactions between learners and the instructor are possible. Such interactions may be either synchronous or asynchronous and can be either instructional, supplementary, or evaluative in nature. No matter the specific format of the interactions, learners have reported finding the interactions with the instructor to be essential to the quality of the online learning experience (Rhode, 2007).

Learner-Content Interaction. As learners actively engage with course content, they have opportunity to evaluate, apply, and synthesize course content. Therefore, the interactions that learners have with content should be carefully designed to facilitate meaningful interactions.

Informal Interaction

In addition to the formal interactions that instructors and designers must consider, numerous informal interactions also are possible and should be considered as contributing to the overall success of the learning encounter and may serve as integral to the quality learning experience preferred by both learners and instructors. These interactions, while some at times exist beyond the control of the designer or instructor, should at least be considered as important components to the complete learning experience.

Learner-Learner Interaction. Learners have opportunity to interaction with each other informally outside of the formal learning environment. These interactions may include, but aren’t limited to: email, phone, meeting in person, sharing or compiling bookmarked resources, social networking, subscribing to each other’s blogs, commenting on each other’s blogs.

Instructor-Content Interaction. In addition to the formal efforts of the instructor to design and develop various course content activities, the instructor may come across additional resources or supplementary course content items that may either add to overall understanding or serve as additional resources. The instructor may engage in a variety of ongoing informal interactions with the content, such as bookmarking new resources, subscribing to and commenting on blogs or news feeds, etc. The instructor may choose to incorporate newly-discovered content and resources immediately to the course in-progress or may utilize them when revising the course for the next group of students.

Content-Content Interaction. Consistent with the characteristics of the Collective described above, a wide assortment of informal interactions among content items can contribute to the learning experience and be leveraged. Such interactions could involve organic interactions such as the formation and updating of dynamic information feeds or agents that are developed and updated by other forms of information or content. As the Collective becomes more clever as technology develops, the format and influence of content-content interactions will only further develop.

Instructor-Learner Interaction. Learners may need to reach out to the instructor informally for further clarification or assistance. Or, the instructor may need to contact students outside the formal course environment to share announcements or updates. A myriad of other informal interactions are possible, all of which may help learners feel more connected to the instructor as well as supported throughout the entire learning experience.

Learner-Content Interaction. Learners have opportunity to interact with content informally, which may serve to help reinforce formal interactions and therefore solidify the efficacy of designed formal learner-content interactions. While each learner’s personal learning environment (PLE) whereby many such interactions take place is unique, it is possible to design opportunities in the learning experience for learners to leverage their PLE to extend formal learning content. such activities might include searching online for related supplementary resources and then bookmarking them to share with the class or subscribing to blogs and other feeds that further extend the knowledgebase.

Learner-Network Interaction. As learners develop their own learning network outside the walls of the formal course environment, they have opportunity to form connections that can support interactions on a number of levels.

Learner-Collective Interaction. Learners can access a myriad of additional informal resources referred to as “the Collective” in which the input of the many can have a significant and dynamic contribution. Learners also can share their perspective with the collective, therefore contributing to the success of

Interaction Matrix

Considering the full range of possible interactions that possible, the Interaction Matrix below depicts the essential elements of a socially constructed learning environment as they are involved in various synergistic interactions. As Sims and Stork (2007) recommend, designers should be cognizant of the unique cultural and situational/social contexts of learners that influence the ability for learners to engage in online learning environments. Emergent designs enable learners to integrate their individuality, experience and culture into the teaching and learning dynamic. Such designs leverage the full suite of interactions possible. Therefore, designers should be aware of each of these potential interactions and incorporate as many such interactions as are possible in an effort to provide learners with the maximum level of control in their learning experience.

This model is a work-in-progress and comments, suggestions, and ideas for further development are certainly welcome. It will be included in chapter five of my dissertation.

References:

Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2007). Groups, networks, and collectives in social software for e-learning, 2007 European Conferences on E-Learning. Copenhagen, Denmark. Slides available at http://www.slideshare.net/terrya/ecel-copenhagen-2007-terry-anderson.

Anderson, T. & Garrison, D. R. (1998). Learning in a networked world: New roles and responsibilities. In C. C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance learners in higher education: Institutional responses for quality outcomes(pp. 97-112). Madison, WI: Atwood.

Downes, S. (2006). Learning networks and connective knowledge. Retrieved October 16, 2006, from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper92/paper92.html.

Hanafin, M. J. (1989). Interaction strategies and emerging instructional technologies: Psychological perspectives. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 18(3), 167-179.

Hirumi, A. (2002). The design and sequencing of elearning interactions: A grounded approach. International Journal on E-Learning, 1(1), 19-27.

Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., & Leem, J. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(2), 153-162.

Juwah, C. (2006). Introduction. In C. Juwah (Ed.), Interactions in online education: Implications for theory and practice (pp. 1-5). New York: Routledge.

Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7.

Rhode, J. F. (2007) Interaction equivalency in self-paced online learning environments: An exploration of learner preferences. Unpublished dissertation.

Sims, R., & Stork, E. (2007). Design for contextual learning: Web-based environments that engage diverse learners. In J. Richardson & A. Ellis (Eds.), Proceedings of AusWeb07. Lismore, NSW: Southern Cross University.

Wagner, E. D. (1997). Interactivity: From agents to outcomes. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 71, 19-26.

Critical factors to instructional design

The World Wide Web provides unprecedented access to learning institutions, as learners are no longer inhibited by geographic boundaries (“Culture, cognition and instructional design for the world wide web: An Australian inquiry,” 1998). Technological advancements present political, social, economic, and instructional challenges (Potter, 1990) that designers must address.

“A variety of social factors affect the development, implementation, and spread of technology” (Surry & Farquhar, 1996). Common categories of social factors impacting the adoption of new instructional strategies include: 1) educational need, 2) user characteristics, 3) content characteristics, 4) technology considerations, and 5) organizational capacity (Surry & Farquhar, 1996). These social factors which affect adoption and utilization of instructional strategies should be considered as strongly as the effectiveness of the strategy (Surry & Farquhar, 1996). The time and resources expended toward developmental efforts may be in vain if the social conditions prevent the adoption of a given instructional innovation.

“Instructional design for Web-based learning systems cannot, and does not, exist outside of a consideration of cultural influences” (“Culture, cognition and instructional design for the world wide web: An Australian inquiry,” 1998). These cultural affects parallel the social considerations previously mentioned but can be more specific in nature. A society can contain a multitude of varying cultural norms and mores which undoubtedly influence perceptions and should be considered within the scope of the instructional design.

I agree that cultural, economic, social, and political factors do undoubtedly affect the design and implementation of instructional strategies. The challenge for designers is to identify the factors specific to their application context and to determine what accommodations can be made to ensure accessible instruction.

References

Culture, cognition and instructional design for the world wide web: An Australian inquiry. (1998) Retrieved April 2, 2004 from, http://node.on.ca/networking/july1998/feature2.html

Potter, G. (1990). Computer-related media portability in international distance education: Making informed decisions. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23(2), 284-298.

Surry, D. W., & Farquhar, J. D. (1996). Incorporating social factors into instructional design theory. In M. Bailey & M. Jones (Eds.), Work, Education, and Technology. DeKalb, IL: LEPS Press.