What is the connectivism ,critically analyze that how can cooperative classroom activities result in

student’s striving for mutual uplift?

Another epistemological position, connectivism, has emerged in recent years that is particularly

relevant to a digital society. Connectivism is still being refined and developed, and it is currently
highly controversial, with many critics.

In connectivism it is the collective connections between all the ‘nodes’ in a network that result in
new forms of knowledge. According to Siemens (2004), knowledge is created beyond the level
of individual human participants, and is constantly shifting and changing. Knowledge in
networks is not controlled or created by any formal organization, although organizations can and
should ‘plug in’ to this world of constant information flow, and draw meaning
from it. Knowledge in connectivism is a chaotic, shifting phenomenon as nodes come and go and
as information flows across networks that themselves are inter-connected with myriad other
networks.

The significance of connectivism is that its proponents argue that the Internet changes the
essential nature of knowledge. ‘The pipe is more important than the content within the pipe,’ to
quote Siemens again.

Downes (2007) makes a clear distinction between constructivism and connectivism:

‘In connectivism, a phrase like “constructing meaning” makes no sense. Connections form naturally,
through a process of association, and are not “constructed” through some sort of intentional action. …
Hence, in connectivism, there is no real concept of transferring knowledge, making knowledge, or
building knowledge. Rather, the activities we undertake when we conduct practices in order to learn are
more like growing or developing ourselves and our society in certain (connected) ways.’

For Siemens (2005), it is the connections and the way information flows that result in knowledge
existing beyond the individual. Learning becomes the ability to tap into significant flows of
information, and to follow those flows that are significant. He argues that:
‘Connectivism presents a model of learning that acknowledges the tectonic shifts in society where
learning is no longer an internal, individualistic activity….Learning (defined as actionable knowledge)
can reside outside of ourselves (within an organization or a database).’ 

Siemens (2005) identifies the principles of connectivism as follows:

 Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.

 Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.
 Learning may reside in non-human appliances.
 Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known
 Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.
 Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.
 Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities.
  Decision-making is itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of
incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. While there is a right answer
now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the
decision.

Downes (2007) states that:

‘at its heart, connectivism is the thesis that knowledge is distributed across a network of connections, and
therefore that learning consists of the ability to construct and traverse those networks….
[Connectivism] implies a pedagogy that:

(a) seeks to describe ‘successful’ networks (as identified by their properties, which I have characterized as
diversity, autonomy, openness, and connectivity) and

(b) seeks to describe the practices that lead to such networks, both in the individual and in society – which
I have characterized as modelling and demonstration (on the part of a teacher) – and practice and
reflection (on the part of a learner).

2.6.3 Applications of connectivism to teaching and learning

Siemens, Downes and Cormier constructed the first massive open online course
(MOOC), Connectivism and Connective Knowledge 2011, partly to explain and partly to model
a connectivist approach to learning.

Connectivists such as Siemens and Downes tend to be somewhat vague about the role of teachers
or instructors, as the focus of connectivism is more on individual participants, networks and the
flow of information and the new forms of knowledge that result. The main purpose of a teacher
appears to be to provide the initial learning environment and context that brings learners
together, and  to help learners construct their own personal learning environments that enable
them to connect to ‘successful’ networks, with the assumption that learning will automatically
occur as a result, through exposure to the flow of information and the individual’s autonomous
reflection on its meaning. There is no need for formal institutions to support this kind of learning,
especially since such learning often depends heavily on social media readily available to all
participants.

There are numerous criticisms of the connectivist approach to teaching and learning (see Chapter
6, Section 4). Some of these criticisms may be overcome as practice improves, as new tools for
assessment, and for organizing co-operative and collaborative work with massive numbers, are
developed, and as more experience is gained. More importantly, connectivism is really the first
theoretical attempt to radically re-examine the implications for learning of the Internet and the
explosion of new communications technologies.
Activity 2.6 Defining the limits of connectivism

1. What areas of knowledge do you think would be best ‘taught’ or learned through a connectivist
approach?

2. What areas of knowledge do you think would NOT be appropriately taught through
a connectivist approach?
3. What are your reasons?

You might like to come back to your answer after you have read Chapter 6 on MOOCs.
This paper examines the possible characteristics and the value of designing learning activities grounded
in

connectivism—an emerging learning theory. It is an exploratory attempt to connect the theory to the

prevailing technology adoption archetypes used in African contexts with the aim of extracting influences

that could shape pedagogical technology adoption in African higher education contexts. A reflection on

the process of designing learning activities that employ blogging in an experimental training intervention

provides a unique context in which to try and infuse connectivist principles while outlining the
challenges

that surface. The questions driving the argument in this paper include: What do connectivist
perspectives

offer learning activity design and practice? What can the prevailing technology adoption models used in

African contexts offer to learning activity design? Can we combine connectivist perspectives and African-

based technology adoption models to inform pedagogical technology adoption in African higher
education

contexts? These questions are exploratory and are based on one single subjective experience of the
author.

They are part of an argument put forward as a proposal which is yet to be tested in practice.

Keywords: learning activity design, connectivism, pedagogically-based technology adoption, african

higher education contexts

Introduction

For more than two decades, institutions have been searching for ways that could shape pedagogical

technology1 adoption in African higher education contexts. These are contexts largely portrayed as
having

1 The term technology as used in the context of this paper refers to technological tools used for learning
with

blogging taken as a specific illustrative example for advancing the discussions in the paper. limited
resources (Harley, 2011; Sapire & Reed, 2011) and restricted access to affordable, high quality

technological teaching tools (Mtebe, Dachi, & Raphael, 2011). Despite the progress made in some

institutions, there persists an incongruity between the possibilities found through research and the
implementation of this research by higher education practitioners. Even after years of advocacy and

advancement, pedagogically-based technology adoption is still very much in its embryonic stage in much

of Africa (Hellman, 2003; Au, Lam, & Chan, 2015; Harris, 2015).

The reasons for non-adoption are varied and depend on the teaching contexts. The organizational
culture

of the institutions, where staff are not willing to change their practices, can make technology integration

into teaching and learning problematic (Awidi, 2008; Ramos, Tajú, & Canuto, 2011). In addition, there

are virtually “no records of success to build on” (Awidi, 2008, p. 66). A paucity of trained and motivated

staff and the lack of effective technical support are also hindrances (Awidi, 2008; Harley, 2011; Sapire &

Reed, 2011; Mtebe, Dachi, & Raphael 2011).

In a study analysing relationships across issues dealing with institutional policy, organisational culture,

and e-learning use in four South African universities, Czerniewicz and Brown (2009) cite inadequacy of

teaching facilities and lack of staff training as barriers to technology espousal. To that list of obstacles
they

add unrealistic expectations and unsustainable costs. Furthermore, they see “no evidence of critical
mass

being achieved” nor indication “of the requirements for scalability” (p. 130). Many technology-
supported

initiatives tend to remain in the early adoption stages, unable to develop from experimental to
sustainable

models (Harley, 2011). Socio-economic constraints and resources that could drive pedagogically-

supported teaching are also limited (Harley, 2011). There also seems to be limited understanding of

technology affordances and how they could be exploited to improve teaching practice (Sapire & Reed,

2011; Veletsianos, 2010). This could be attributed to a shortage of African-grounded research in this
field

(Botha et al., 2010 Harley, 2011). It could also be due to a lack of strategic direction and leadership

resulting in innovations remaining unrecognised or unsupported (Ng’ambi & Bozalek, 2013).

On the whole, African higher education is yet to develop ample, systematic, and coordinated policies
and

strategies that use technologies to support teaching (Sife, Lwoga, & Sanga, 2007). Apart from

infrastructural restrictions, some of the challenges experienced during technology-enhanced learning

are
linked to underdevelopment of learning activity design skills (Nagunwa & Lwoga, 2012. At times, there is

a focus on technology rather than on quality teaching (Mtebe, Dachi, & Raphael, 2011). Only a few
higher

education practitioners are able to use technology in transformative ways (Ng’ambi, 2013). Adoption of

transformative ways could bring about meaningful or “transformative learning which is an outcome of

interactions with people and others” (Ng’ambi, 2013, p. 654).

With the proliferation of emerging technologies (ETs) for teaching, especially in the social networking
and

online space, a new learning theory—connectivism—could offer means of creating and evaluating
learning

in social networks where knowledge is distributed across networks of connection nodes (Siemens, 2004;

Downes, 2007). The point at issue is whether connectivism can provide a theoretical lens for creating

effective technology-enhanced learning environments in African higher education contexts. The

questions driving the argument in this paper include: What do connectivist perspectives offer

learning activity design and practice? What do the prevailing technology adoption archetypes used in

African contexts offer learning activity design and practice? Can we combine connectivist perspectives
and

African-based technology adoption models to inform pedagogical technology adoption in African higher

education contexts?

This paper is an epigrammatic response to these questions. First, the author’s interpretation of the
central

principles of connectivism is presented. Second, a reflection on the author’s attempt to embed

connectivist principles in a training intervention for science graduate teaching assistants is presented.

Blogging is used as a technology example. Third, the prevailing technology adoption archetypes used in

African contexts are examined in relation to how they could be used to support the construction of

connectivist learning environments. The belief is that if aligned, the possibilities and capabilities afforded

by technology adoption could influence how connectivist perceptions about teaching and learning
become

operational. Finally, the process is appraised to identify the possibilities, problems, and limitations

imposed on teaching and learning during pedagogical technology adoption.

The attempt to connect the four major strands of the paper (an African context, blogging, connectivism,
and the framework for interaction) is an idealised proposition which could prove untenable if tested

experimentally.

What is Connectivsm?

The theory of connectivism (Siemens, 2005) is characterised as the learning theory of the digital age.
One

underlying assumption in this theory is that knowledge is distributed and “can reside outside of
ourselves”

(Siemens, 2005, p. 8). Downes (2007) contends that “knowledge is distributed across a network of

connections, and therefore learning consists of the ability to construct and traverse those networks”

(para.1). This actionable knowledge is assembled from a network of connections arising from experience

and interactions within a community (Garcia & Ferreira, 2014). This is a different assumption from that

used, for instance, in constructivism where knowledge is constructed by the learner (Piaget, 1976).

Collaboration whereby members of a group collectively help each other towards achieving a pre-

established goal is a key concept in connectivist learning. “In this form of learning knowledge is acquired

through interaction” (Garcia & Ferreira, 2014, p. 81). Collaboration makes the process of learning

efficicent and relevant because of an assumption that knowledge and expertise reside in the networks.

There is room for individual and group learning in these interactions.

Siemens (2004) outlines eight principles of connectivism:

 Learning and knowledge rest in a diversity of opinions.

 Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources. Learning may reside in
non-human appliances.

 Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known.

 Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.

 Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.

 Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities.

 Decision-making is in itself a learning process.

The connectivist principles outlined suggest new roles for the teacher or instructor. One role involves

assisting each learner to build and make the relevant connections in their learning networks. The other

roles include directing students to appropriate resources and other experts, as well as creating
experiences
that stimulate continual learning.

Technology has a pivotal role in this learning process as it influences cognitive operations previously

performed by the learner such as retrieving, organising, and storing information, through multimedia

forms and platforms (Siemens, 2004; Garcia & Ferreira, 2014). Designing connectivist learning

environments that enhance interaction and cognitive engagement requires a framework.

A Framework for Interaction and Cognitive Engagement in Connectivist

Learning

Wang, Chen, and Anderson (2014) have developed a framework for creating and analysing interaction

and cognitive engagement in connectivist learning contexts. In this framework, the interaction occurs

“between other humans and network resources and is critical for connection building and network

formulation” (Wang, Chen, & Anderson, 2014, p. 122). Learning occurs as the learner engages in
different

forms of network formation at the neural (cognitive), concept, and social levels (Siemens, 2005; Wang et

al., 2014). For transformative learning to occur, each learner’s depth of cognitive engagement should

increase as the learner pushes their way through levels of interactions. The four levels of interactions
are

as follows: operation interaction, wayfinding interaction, sensemaking interaction, and innovation

interaction (see Figure 1) The interactions are extensions of Moore’s (1989) and Anderson’s (2003)
models of learner interactions

in distance learning (student–teacher, student–student, and student–content). They are also an

evolutional stride above Chen’s (2004) hierarchical modes of instructional interaction which consists of

the following: an operational interactional phase in which the student interacts with the technology; an

informational interactional phase whereby the learner links with information nodes located in human
and

non-human resources; and a concept interactional phase where old concepts become new concepts in a

process of increasing levels of abstraction and meaningful learning.

In a connectivist learning context, each learner should be assisted by a facilitator, peers, experts, and
non-

human support mechanisms to create and maintain a personal learning network (PLN) immersed in
other

networks. This could develop through the four phases of interactions namely operation, wayfinding,
sensemaking and innovation:

 In the operational interaction phase, the learner uses technological tools such as blogs, wikis and

social networks to participate in learning.

 During the wayfinding phase, learners learn how to navigate the networking terrain by identifying

the right resource nodes (people or information). Actual connectivistic learning begins here in the

learner-content and learner-group interactions.

 The sensemaking phase is a stage where learner–content and learner–group interactions occur at

a deeper level. In this phase, the technological, social and conceptual grid is tightened as learners

aggregate, make decisions, reflect, and build a coherent understanding of information

collaboratively. The highest level of cognitive interaction and engagement occurs at the innovation
interaction

stage when learners are able to create or modify artefacts, and engage deeply with others while

reflecting on these artefacts.

Connectivism in Learning Activity Design

Similar to constructivism, the learner is central to the learning process in connectivism. However, the

networking processes in connectivism adds a dimension to the social context in which the collaborative

activity enhances knowledge construction (learning) in a slightly different way. In constructivism,

learning is “determined by the complex interplay among learners’ existing knowledge, the social
context,

and the problem to be solved” (Tam, 2000, para.14). In connectivism, the concern is more with an

understanding of the distribution of expertise and intelligence over the learning network, and the role of

technologies in assisting the learner to construct knowledge (Ng’ambi, 2013). In my view, the
connectivist

theory and the framework for interaction (from Wang et al., 2014) open up a way of thinking about the

object of learning differently. The object of learning becomes distributed across human and non-human

resources. This in turn affects the way one thinks about designing learning activities and how they are

enacted in technology-supported learning environments.

When designing a learning activity, identifying the rationale for learning can be a challenge. Dewey’s

(1938) view was that the problematic or context was the driver behind the design of any learning
activity.
From a connectivist perspective, the driver is the activation of learner participation in interactions

resulting in the formation of different types of networks (cognitive, concept, and social) supported by

technology (Siemens, 2004; Wang et al., 2014). The learning activity should therefore be designed in a

manner that develops, supports, and maintains network formation and human connections.

Two characteristics seem to be central to a connectivistic notion of learning activity design:

 A simulating and motivating learning activity that asks of and allows for learners to create

artefacts in personal networks linked to other social networks.

 A technogically-supported environment that supports meaningful dialogue and collaboration.

In this study, an attempt is made to link the connectivist theory to the prevailing technology adoption

models used in African contexts with the aim of extracting influences that could shape pedagogical

technology adoption in African higher education contexts. This is done through a reflective review of the

process of re-designing learning activities that use blogging in an experimental training intervention for

teaching assistants. The pilot programme provides a unique context to try and infuse connectivist

principles while outlining the challenges that surface during the process.

The Context: a Teaching Assistant Training Programme

The teaching assistant (TA) training programme was established in 2013 from an alliance formed
between

the Manufacturing, Engineering and Related Services Sector Education and Training Authority(merSETA)
and the University of the Western Cape (UWC). The TAs who were post-graduate students in

the Faculty of the Natural Sciences assist lecturers in providing additional learning support to

undergraduate students enrolled in the Extended Curriculum Programme (ECP). Students in the ECP

have their first year curriculum extended over two years allowing them to complete a 3-year BSc degree

over a 4-year period (Table 1) for the ECP course structure. They receive tuition in mathematics, physics,

life sciences and academic literacies.

Table 1

ECP Course Structure

The first part of the TA training programme comprised eight sessions of five hours each in which the

following elements were required by participants: explore the UWC teaching and learning context; learn

to design appropriate learning activities, facilitate learning, and mark and assess student work; and
identify a small researchable project. Each session consisted of a face-to-face component and an online

component. All of the assignments were posted on to a collaborative blog space but each participant
had a

personal blog space for uploading responses to the assignments. In the second part of the programme,
the

focus was on assisting participants to collaboratively work on a small research project. The programme

was not compulsory and non-credit bearing.

An initial evaluation of the TA programme revealed that students found the blog a worthwhile tool to
use

in supporting learning. However, participants raised three concerns: (a) the programme workload was
too

demanding considering that participants were post graduate students with additional teaching roles, (b)

the learning activities could have been made more practical and aligned with their TA roles, and (c) that

participants did not receive sufficient feedback during the course to help them improve practice (Kizito,

2014). These issues were considered when selecting a methodological approach to use in the study.

Methodological Approach

A qualitative review approach used in this study is a reflective description of the author’s attempt to use

connectivist principles to re-design learning activities in the TA training programme. The approach is part

of an iterative refinement process using design-based research (DBR) to improve teaching and learning

practices (Kali, 2008). In the first phase of the process, the design principles are identified and

articulated. The second phase involves enactment and refinement, while the third phase is about
revising

the pragmatic principles. This paper is a report on the first phase. The TA training programme has
provided a unique context in which to try and infuse connectivist

principles. Blogging is used as the main supportive technology. Data sources have included the design

document containing the learning outcomes and the original learning activities (see Appendix), blog

entries of the 11 students who participated in the first round of the programme, and 11 articles written

about technology adoption in African contexts. Permission was sought from the participants to use their

data. Ethical clearance to conduct the research was granted by the research committee of the university

involved. The conjectures made in this study will require further exploration with more respondents to

make a significant contribution to this area of research.

This review was accomplished in three stages. In the first stage, learning activities were appraised in

terms of how they aligned (or not) with connectivist principles. The role of the blog in the learning

transactions was accentuated. In the second stage, technology adoption archetypes (or models)
emanating

from African-based research were identified and possible linkages to a connectivist approach to learning

activity design were made. In the third and final stage, the two have been combined to inform a process

that could contribute to informing pedagogical technology adoption in African higher education
contexts.

The technology adoption archetypes used in the study were identified through a Google Scholar search

using keyword searches including technology adoption, technology-based learning, and African higher

education. The search was restricted to the period from 2000 to 2014. About 20 articles were selected
but

only 11 articles have been used in the study. These articles were listed according to study title,
technology

archetype solution, and possible linkages to connectivism.

Data Analysis

There are two basic units of analysis: the learning activity and the technology-adoption archetypes. To

address the first research question—what do connectivist perspectives offer learning activity design and

practice?— Wang, Chen and Anderson’s (2014) framework of the four interaction phases has been
applied

to one of the learning activities to establish the extent to which connectivist perspectives could be
utilised.

To address the second question—what do the prevailing technology adoption archetypes used in African

contexts offer learning activity design and practice? —a constant-comparison approach promoted by
Guba

and Lincoln (1994) has been used to review the selected articles. The various categories emerging

inductively through the author’s interaction with the two sets of data have been used to address the
third

question—how can the two combine to inform the process of transforming pedagogical technology

adoption in African higher education contexts?

Findings

Even though the blog was introduced to the learning environment, the modes of instruction remained
largely untransformed and were predominantly affirmative (expository and demonstrative; Goguelin

[1994] as cited by Garcia & Ferreira [2014]), with facilitators mainly presenting content or demonstrating

aspects in the face-to-face sessions followed with some student participation. Gogulein (1994) in Garcia

and Ferreira (2014) groups pedagogical methods into three categories: affirmative (expository
anddemonstrative), interrogative, and active. Both the affirmative and interrogative methods are
strongly

teacher dependent. In the expository method, learners are exposed to learning content sequenced and

structured by the teacher or expert. The teacher showcases practical aspects required for competent

performance in the demonstrative method. During the interrogative method the teacher probes and
asks

leaners to respond to pertinent questions. The active learning method is more student centred and
focuses

on engaging students meaningfully in learning tasks (Prince, 2004).

The TA training programme included demonstrative sections in which participants were exposed to

technological tools. Participants also designed and presented short teaching segments and received

feedback from the facilitators and peers in the face-to-face sessions. With very short notice, participants

were expected to participate in a collaborative environment to share their assignments. The blog was

mainly used as a space for depositing instructions and responses to assignments. Table 2 is a summary
of

the pedagogical methods used and the levels of success with the blog.

Table 2

Summary of the Pedagogical Methods Used

An Analysis of Student Responses in their Blogs

On analysing student responses to the activities in the programme it was evident that the way the
learning

assignments had been designed did not stimulated sufficient interest or motivation. Nine (81%) of the
11

participants completed the first assignment, while eight (73%) completed the second and third

assignments. There were neither blog posts nor responses for the fourth and fifth assignments.
Facilitator

feedback was only provided for the first assignment. Peer commentaries were minimal with only three

participants (27%) making attempts to comment on other participant blogs. Low participation could
attributed to the fact that the programme was not compulsory and there were no credits nor incentive

attached to TA participationOne of the tasks (Task 1a) in the first assignment was the following:

Briefly describe your teaching context by identifying factors which characterize teaching and

learning at UWC. After writing your description, solicit input and comments from one colleague

(a TA). Also comment on one other TA description.

The expectation was that participants would work together to identify factors that characterized
teaching

and learning unique to the UWC context and then use the blog to come to a shared understanding of

teaching and learning at UWC.

There were three categories of responses: those viewing the context in terms of how they approached

teaching, those who rightly identified UWC factors influencing the teaching and learning context, and

those who combined both perspectives. Four of the respondents provided descriptions of how they

approached teaching such as Respondent 1 who stated that, “when I develop a lesson plan outcomes for
a

certain topic, I try to apply the skill levels outlined by Blooms’ taxonomy and build activities that can
stimulate

student understanding.” To them, the context seemed to be a manifestation of individual actions. Three

respondents appropriately outlined UWC factors that shaped the UWC teaching and learning context as

exhibited in their responses. Respondent 5 stated that, “The teaching method aims to ensure that the
classroom

is an interactive learning environment and encourages students to engage with the course materials”.
Respondent 6

stated that, “Alignment of Graduate attributes is one of the factors.” Respondent 7 stated that, “building

leadership and collaborative skills is important in this module.” The last respondent (Respondant 8) had
a

combination of university-led and individual contributions: “I see my job as trying to cultivate the work
ethos

I needed to posses to complete my degree. … Teaching and learning at UWC is defined by the charter of
UWC

graduate attributes.” Had there been sufficient time, the responses could have formed the basis for
further

exploration within the technology-enhanced learning environment.

Levels of Interaction

A mapping of the interaction developments for one task to Wang, Chen and Anderson’s (2014)
framework

revealed that only the first level of interactions were being addressed (see Table 3). Not enough

scaffolding and feedback was evident in the blog space. The peer support was not enough encouraged
and

enabled. In short, not enough was done to build a collaborative and learning community. The same

arguments could be applied to all the tasks the participants completed. On the whole, there were too
many

tasks with no underlying theory holding the tasks together.

Table 3

Levels of Interaction in One Task Based on Wang, Chen, and Anderson’s framework (2014) The
framework for interaction and cognitive engagement provided a structure for analysing interactions

and a possible unifying theory. The author felt this could be better achieved in the broader context of

pedagogic technology adoption in African learning environments to make the adaptation process more

meaningful. The next section is an exploration of that process.

Some Pedagogical Technology Adoption Models in African Context

The studies involving pedagogical technology adoption models reviewed here are analysed in terms of

how they could contribute to two aspects of potential connectivistic learning activity design: (a) creation

of learning environments to support technologically-enhanced collaboration and (b) the design of

learning activities having the potential to stimulate meaningful dialogue and learning in connectivistic

environments.

The studies were varied in their foci of exploration. Some of them focussed on infrastructural

requirements (Awidi, 2008; Singh, 2011; Nagunwa & Lwoga, 2012) while others concentrated on

processes needed to support (Mtebe, Dachi, & Raphael, 2011; Adedoja, Adelore, Egbokhare, & Oluleye,

2013) and sustain pedagogic technology adoption (Harley, 2011). In these deliberations, the role of

institutional culture was underscored (Czerniewicz & Brown, 2009; Harley, 2011). Inevitably, there were

studies that attended to both aspects such as Singh (2011). Of particular interest to this study are the

studies that addressed practical issues of adopting technologies in African contexts (Adedoja et al.,
2013;
Roberts & Vänskä, 2011; Rambe & Ng’ambi, 2014). Most profound was the study with an actual model
for

learning activity design (Ng’ambi, 2013).

Table 4 summarises five studies that could contribute to the creation of learning environments to
support

technologically-enhanced collaboration and network formation. Technology adoption works better in

environments where there is a supportive infrastructure, clear policies, strategies, and buy-in from

management (Awidi, 2008; Singh, 2011; Nagunwa & Lwoga, 2012). However, being cognisant of the role

of staff mind-sets about technology adoption processes is critical to successful adoption (Mtebe et al.,

2011). A collegial environment where academics are allowed to innovate and experiment is crucial

(Czerniewicz & Brown, 2009). In addition opportunities for both academic and technical staff training are

limited (Awidi, 2008; Mtebe et al., 2011; Nagunwa & Lwoga, 2012). Studies that Could Contribute to
Supporting Technologically-Enhanced Collaboration and Network

Formation

Studies related to the process of learning activity design which could stimulate meaningful dialogue and

learning are presented in Table 5. One has to be cognisant of “trade-offs between extra workload and
the

educational benefits” (Harley, 2011, p. 224) when adopting the new technologies. The initial inputs in
the

re-design process must be weighed in terms of later potential benefits. The value of technology-
enhanced

activities to participants should be balanced with ease of technology use (Adedoja et al., 2013).

Table 5

Studies Related to Learning Activity Designpractical operational model of delivery with a mixture of face-
to-face components (at the beginning and

at the end of the programme) together with online components interspersed across the delivery time

(Ramos et al., 2011) is a good model for programmes such as the TA programme where actual learning

time is limited. Where resources are scarce, there is the option of sharing or allowing participants to

borrow rather than own devices (Roberts & Vänskä, 2011). The shift in learning activity design is towards

practical, targeted tasks in which participants “actively reflect on experience, rather than receive

disembodied knowledge in workshops and online training” (Singh, 2011, p. 240). Vital to this process is
the creation of an effective peer review process (Singh, 2011) and a focus on artefact creation (Ramos et

al., 2011: Ng’ambi, 2013).

Ng’ambi (2013, p. 659) has introduced a 5-phase learning activity design process with elements which

could be adapted in the TA training programmePhase 1—Establish an educational goal (object of

learning activity);

 Phase 2—Creation of an artefact (individually or collaboratively);

 Phase 3—Students present outcome of Phase 2;

 Phase 4—Students reflect on the presentation (Phase 3) and artefact design (Phase 2) and obtain

visible feedback

 Phase 5—Students write and submit a reflective essay or assignment based on the assigned task.

In the next two sections the author elaborates on how the blog-supported learning activities in the TA

training programme have been re-designed as a part of a connectivist learning context and how this
could

be construed as one mechanism for pedagogical technology adoption in African higher education

contexts.

The Re-Configured TA Training Programme

The TA training programme has now been re-configured to involve two learning activities encompassing

shorter learning tasks with more time allocated to each task. The first learning activity involves the
design

and development of a tutorial learning activity in one of the ECP courses and is compulsory for all

participants. This activity, which runs over a 4-week period, includes both individual and collaborative

tasks (the majority of which are completed online). To link the assignments to practice, the TAs are given

an experiential footing for understanding UWC contextual issues that shape teaching and learning, as

they develop one tutorial activity in a real or simulated teaching context. Participants have to present
the

task, mark and assess actual student work, and reflect on how their tutorial activities could be improved

for effective learning delivery. In the second optional learning activity, TAs work collaboratively on a
small

teaching and learning research project of their choice in a seminar-like environment. The TAs have 12

weeks to work on these group projects and are required to produce a conference presentation, poster,
or
paper.

Prior to the beginning of the TA training, facilitators are introduced to the programme structure, to

connectivism, to blog technology, and to what they are expected to do as facilitators. All the sessions are

designed around learning tasks related to learning activity design and delivery. Students are presented

with these tasks as challenges they need to address. They are directed to sets of initial learning
resources

but are expected to find their own additional resources. Facilitators are expected to assist students

navigate the blog terrain by providing information, scaffolding, and feedback to student contributions.

Each of the two main programme learning activities begins with a contact session to discuss the work to

be done and ends with another contact session to present and discuss work completed.

Connectivism is used as a unifying underlying theory with three of its principles functioning as major

tenets for this programme (Siemens, 2004): Learning and knowledge rests in a diversity of opinions, in
both human and non-human

resources.

 Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources. It is critical that

students build skills to discern what is important and are able to make appropriate connections as

they construct their individual networks while learning.

 Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning at a personal,

social, and technological level.

Using the framework for interaction and cognitive engagement in connectivist learning contexts,
students

will be led through the four interaction levels, operation, wayfinding, sense-making, and innovation,as

they work towards developing the two artefacts. The first artefact is a tutorial activity. The second
artefact

is a collaboratively developed research project. Ng’ambi’s (2013) 5-phase process is used to

operationalise

the process.

Included in the first session are practical introductions to blogging for participants and a simple online

peer review mechanism for evaluating the completed artefacts. The peer evaluative activity is a simple

online rubric allowing participants to evaluate each other’s artefacts in an objective manner. The
assessment criteria for each learning activity will be jointly developed by the facilitators and
participants.

The evaluation process will be anonymous to avoid bias. Participants will be given guidelines to ensure

that online etiquette is followed and personal boundaries are respected. Figure 2 is an illustration of the

programme operational model for each learning activity.

Figure 2. Operational model for a learning activity3434Each iteration of the TA training programme will
be followed by an analysis of evaluation data and

refinement to its design based on the outcomes of the analysis. Data sources will include the following:
the

created artefacts, peer evaluation data gathered in the blog space, facilitator and participant reflective

contributions to the blog space, and the author’s reflective journal with remarks about events taking
place

during the training session.

Implications for Pedagogically-Based Technology Adoption in

African Higher Education Contexts

Although this is the beginning of the re-design of a programme and the model has yet to be fully tested,

the process has shed some light on what could lead to successful pedagogically-based technology
adoption

in an African higher education context. These considerations could also be applied to the Latin American

and Caribbean regions.

First of all, the chances for successful adoption are reduced if there is no clear strategy for adoption,
with

provision for a supportive infrastructure and a maintenance plan backed by the institution (Awidi, 2008;

Singh, 2011; Nagunwa & Lwoga, 2012). Factors which could diminish the uptake of a programme have to

be considered, and responses to challenges explored, prior to adoption. For example, in the case of this
TA

training programme, there was no real consideration of the workload of the participants (the TAs) or the

facilitators prior to its adoption. Another limiting factor was the lack of a policy guiding its

implementation. Issues such as where the programme would fit in the faculty time table or how the

facilitators were to be remunerated were not considered beforehand. Issues of successful uptake and

scalability as demonstrated by the mobile learning project (Roberts & Vänskä, 2011) are possible only if
there is proper planning and funding to sustain and maintain a programme. For this particular

programme, access to the technology was not a real barrier as was indicated in some earlier studies

(Mtebe et al., 2011).

Second, the central role of the facilitators (or instructors) cannot be over-emphasized. It is important to

understand staff attitudes to any technology adoption process as they are the ones responsible for

maintaining and sustaining the project. Czerniewicz and Brown (2009) demonstrate that a collegial
rather

than a strictly bureaucratic environment will help innovations thrive. Staff and participant training is

critical (Awidi, 2008; Mtebe et al., 2011; Nagunwa & Lwoga, 2012). That is why in the operational model

of learning activity design (Figure 2), the first task is staff training.

Third and lastly, the most important contribution to pedagogical technology adoption emanating from

this study is an exploration of how connectivism as a theory could be used to transform learning activity

design. The theory posits that learning and knowledge is distributed in both human and non-human

resources and it is the notion of connectivity. However, from a learning design perspective this emerging

theory introduces a dimension for inclusion of a digital networking component which makes it more

suited to the design of technology-enhanced learning environments than the other dominant learning

theories (behaviourism, cognitivsm, and constructivism). Wang, Chen and Anderson’s (2014)
frameworkfor creating and analysing interaction and cognitive engagement in connectivist learning
contexts can be

used to both design and analyse learning interactions. Together with Ng’ambi’s (2013) process, the

framework can be used to structure and operationalise learning activity design such that the learning

tasks are practical, aligned with professional roles but are also cognitively challenging. Furthermore,

opportunities for peer assessment and facilitator feedback are critical.

Can we combine connectivist perspectives and African based technology adoption models to inform

pedagogical technology adoption in African higher education contexts? Yes, the linkages between
African-

based technology adoption models to connectivism present very fundamental issues about design, the

models that can be used, and what one should be aware of during the design and delivery processes.
The

first requirement is in ensuring that there is an infrastructure to support technologically-enhanced

collaboration and individual learning. A connectivistic perspective offers the second requirement—that

there is an underlying theory to buttress and support design the provision of learning activities having
the

potential to stimulate meaningful dialogue and learning. The test as to whether the emerging
connectivist-

inspired model is flexible enough to adjust to diverse local contexts and levels of technological

infrastructure or institutional culture is yet to be tested. The implications for applicability can only be
fully

drawn after that exercise is carried out in at least one context.

This paper is just a proposition which will still need to be tested and either accepted or rejected.
Knowledge has many authors, knowledge has many facets, it looks different to
each person, and it changes moment to moment. A piece of knowledge isn’t a
description of something, it is a way of relating to something.” – Stephen Downes
It's the digital age. In a world with Google Assistant, Siri, Alexa, and other digital
information assistants, people have come to rely on technology to seek answers and
find information. It’s no different for today’s students. Twenty years ago, students might
go to an encyclopedia for answers; now they can simply ask their smartphones or type
the question into Google.
It’s clear that technology is changing how students learn in and out of the classroom.
Rather than learning from teachers and textbooks, smartphones and laptops serve as
hubs of information for today’s students. In fact, according to a 2015 study, 87% of
college students reported that they used a laptop every week for schoolwork,
while 64% reported using their smartphone for schoolwork.
The increasing use of technology as an educational tool has changed the learning
landscape. With it came gaps in traditional ideas of teaching and the need for new
methods to keep up. The theory of connectivism seeks to be the modern-day solution to
those gaps. Whether you’re already a teacher or aspire to be one, understanding this
theory can give you additional tools and strategies to create a learning environment that
sets your students up for success. This guide will help you dive deeper into the
connectivism learning theory and provide tips on how to implement it in your own
classroom.
 

What is Connectivism Learning Theory?

Connectivism is a relatively new learning theory that suggests students should combine
thoughts, theories, and general information in a useful manner. It accepts that
technology is a major part of the learning process and that our constant connectedness
gives us opportunities to make choices about our learning. It also promotes group
collaboration and discussion, allowing for different viewpoints and perspectives when it
comes to decision-making, problem-solving, and making sense of information.
Connectivism promotes learning that happens outside of an individual, such as through
social media, online networks, blogs, or information databases.
History of Connectivism Learning Theory
Connectivism was first introduced in 2005 by two theorists, George Siemens and
Stephen Downes. Siemens’ article Connectivism: Learning as a Network Creation was
published online in 2004 and Downes’ article An Introduction to Connective Knowledge
was published the following year.
The publications address the important role technology plays in the learning process
and how the digital age has increased the speed at which students have access to
information. Since then, both Siemens and Downes have continued to write and speak
on the subject. However, each has slightly different viewpoints. While Siemens tends to
focus on the social aspects of connectivism, Downes focuses on non-human appliances
and machine-based learning.
 

What are Nodes and Links in Connectivism?

According to connectivism, learning is more than our own internal construction of
knowledge. Rather, what we can reach in our external networks is also considered to be
learning. From this theory, two terms—nodes and links—have been commonly used to
describe how we gain and connect information in a network.
In connectivism, students are seen as “nodes” in a network. A node refers to any object
that can be connected to another object, like a book, webpage, person, etc.
Connectivism is based on the theory that we learn when we make connections, or
“links,” between various "nodes" of information, and we continue to make and maintain
connections to form knowledge.

What are the Principles of Connectivism?

Connectivism builds on already-established theories to propose that technology is
changing what, how, and where we learn. In their research, Siemens and Downes
identified eight principles of connectivism.
Those main principles of connectivism are:

 Learning and knowledge rests in the diversity of opinions.

 Learning is a process of connecting.
 Learning may reside in non-human appliances.
 Learning is more critical than knowing.
 Nurturing and maintaining connections are needed for continual learning.
 The ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.
 Accurate, up-to-date knowledge is the aim of all connectivist learning.
  Decision-making is a learning process. What we know today might change tomorrow.
While there’s a right answer now, it might be wrong tomorrow due to the constantly
changing information climate.

Before these principles came on the scene, many theories positioned students solely as
receivers of information. However, connectivism supports the theory that knowledge is
distributed across networks where connections and connectedness inform learning

Connectivism in the Classroom

It’s one thing to understand what connectivism is and another to actually incorporate it
in the classroom in learning activities. Remember that in a connectivist viewpoint, the
new learning responsibilities shift from the teacher to the learner. Unlike traditional
teaching methods and other theories like constructivism or cognitivism, the educator’s
job is to guide students to become effective agents for their own learning and personal
development. In other words, it’s up to the learner to create their own learning
experience, engage in decision making, and enhance their learning networks.
Connectivism relies heavily on technology, so the first step to creating a connectivist
classroom is to introduce more opportunities for digital learning—like online courses,
webinars, social networks, and blogs.
Here are more ways to incorporate connectivism in the classroom:
Social media
One way teachers implement connectivism is through the use of classroom social
media. For example, a class Twitter account can be used to share information, engage
in discussion or announce homework tasks. This can help boost class engagement and
open the lines of discussion among students and teachers.
Gamification
Gamification takes assignments and activities and puts them into a competitive game to
make learning more of an interactive experience. There are many learning-based apps
and instructional technologies teachers can use to add an element of gamification to the
classroom. One example is DuoLingo, an online learning tool that helps students learn
languages through fun, game-like lessons. Teachers can track students' progress while
students can earn “points” for progressing through lessons. Other examples include
apps like Brainscape, Virtual Reality House, and Gimkit, just to name a few.
Simulations
Simulations engage students in deep learning that empowers understanding as
opposed to surface learning that only requires memorization. They also add interest and
fun to a classroom setting. Take, for example, a physics class where students create an
electric circuit with an online program. Instead of being instructed via a book or
classroom lecture, they’re learning about physics by simulating an actual physical setup.
Incorporating some or all of these examples is a great way to allow your students more
control over the pacing and content of their learning. It also provides opportunities for
individualized learning to match each student’s unique needs and strengths.

What are the Pros of Connectivism?

Both the student and the educator can benefit from connectivism in the classroom. If
you’re considering adopting this theory in your current or future classroom, consider the
following benefits:
It creates collaboration.
Within connectivism, learning occurs when peers are connected and share opinions,
viewpoints, and ideas through a collaborative process. Connectivism allows a
community of people to legitimize what they’re doing, so knowledge can be spread
more quickly through multiple communities.
It empowers students and teachers.
Connectivism shifts the learning responsibilities from the teacher to the student. It’s up
to the learner to create their own learning experience. The role of the educator then
becomes to “create learning ecologies, shape communities, and release learners into
the environment” (Siemens, 2003).
It embraces diversity.
Connectivism supports individual perspectives and the diversity of opinions,
theoretically providing for no hierarchy in the value of knowledge.
If you're a current educator or aspiring to be one, it's important to understand how
different learning theories can benefit your classroom and help your students find
success. Get more tools and knowledge about teaching and education with a degree
from WGU.

Connectivism in the Classroom

It’s one thing to understand what connectivism is and another to actually incorporate it
in the classroom in learning activities. Remember that in a connectivist viewpoint, the
new learning responsibilities shift from the teacher to the learner. Unlike traditional
teaching methods and other theories like constructivism or cognitivism, the educator’s
job is to guide students to become effective agents for their own learning and personal
development. In other words, it’s up to the learner to create their own learning
experience, engage in decision making, and enhance their learning networks.
Connectivism relies heavily on technology, so the first step to creating a connectivist
classroom is to introduce more opportunities for digital learning—like online courses,
webinars, social networks, and blogs.
Here are more ways to incorporate connectivism in the classroom:
Social media
One way teachers implement connectivism is through the use of classroom social
media. For example, a class Twitter account can be used to share information, engage
in discussion or announce homework tasks. This can help boost class engagement and
open the lines of discussion among students and teachers.
Gamification
Gamification takes assignments and activities and puts them into a competitive game to
make learning more of an interactive experience. There are many learning-based apps
and instructional technologies teachers can use to add an element of gamification to the
classroom. One example is DuoLingo, an online learning tool that helps students learn
languages through fun, game-like lessons. Teachers can track students' progress while
students can earn “points” for progressing through lessons. Other examples include
apps like Brainscape, Virtual Reality House, and Gimkit, just to name a few.
Simulations
Simulations engage students in deep learning that empowers understanding as
opposed to surface learning that only requires memorization. They also add interest and
fun to a classroom setting. Take, for example, a physics class where students create an
electric circuit with an online program. Instead of being instructed via a book or
classroom lecture, they’re learning about physics by simulating an actual physical setup.
Incorporating some or all of these examples is a great way to allow your students more
control over the pacing and content of their learning. It also provides opportunities for
individualized learning to match each student’s unique needs and strengths.

What are the Pros of Connectivism?

Both the student and the educator can benefit from connectivism in the classroom. If
you’re considering adopting this theory in your current or future classroom, consider the
following benefits:
It creates collaboration.
Within connectivism, learning occurs when peers are connected and share opinions,
viewpoints, and ideas through a collaborative process. Connectivism allows a
community of people to legitimize what they’re doing, so knowledge can be spread
more quickly through multiple communities.
It empowers students and teachers.
Connectivism shifts the learning responsibilities from the teacher to the student. It’s up
to the learner to create their own learning experience. The role of the educator then
becomes to “create learning ecologies, shape communities, and release learners into
the environment” (Siemens, 2003).
It embraces diversity.
Connectivism supports individual perspectives and the diversity of opinions,
theoretically providing for no hierarchy in the value of knowledge.
If you're a current educator or aspiring to be one, it's important to understand how
different learning theories can benefit your classroom and help your students find
success. Get more tools and knowledge about teaching and education with a degree
from WGU.
 References
 Adedoja, G., Adelore, O., Egbokhare, F., & Oluleye, A. (2013). Learners’ acceptance of the use
of mobile
 phones to deliver tutorials in a distance learning context: A case study at the University of
Ibadan.
 The African Journal of Information Systems, 5(3), 80–93.
 Anderson, T. (2003). Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments and
research
 questions. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.) Handbook of distance education (pp. 129–
 144). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.