Theory of Cooperative Freedom
Paulsen (1993) states, “Future adult students will seek individual flexibility and freedom. At the same time, they need group collaboration and social unity.” This prediction about the future of adult distance education has certainly come to typify the current state of adult online education. Educational social software (ESS) defines a wide array of new educational online technology…
Paulsen’s (1993) theory of cooperative freedom identifies six aspects of distance education attuned to the characteristics of computer-mediated communication (CMC).
These six freedoms of distance learners include:
Freedom of Time: communicating when it is convenient (either synchronous or asynchronous)
Freedom of Space: studying wherever it is convenient (anytime, anywhere)
Freedom of Pace: proceeding through learning activities at a flexible, individual pace
Freedom of Medium: access to several media or sources of information (print, video, face-to-face meetings, computer conferencing, etc.)
Freedom of Access: elimination of discrimination on the basis of social class, entry qualifications, gender, age, ethnicity, or occupation
Freedom of Curriculum: choosing among a range of courses and to transfer credits between programs and universities
Educational social software (ESS) provides another dimension to CMC and promotes a wide variety of instructional interactions.
Reference:
Paulsen, M. F. (1993). The hexagon of cooperative freedom: A distance education theory attuned to computer conferencing. Distance Education Online Symposium, 3(2). Retrieved February 14, 2007, from http://www.nettskolen.com/forskning/21/hexagon.html
Design ideas from social networking sites?
Rick West makes some great points in this posting concerning the appeal of social networking sites, especially for young adults in contrast to the struggles that are often inherent in cultivating engaging and constructive asynchronous discussion. The major difference that I see between social networking sites utilizing Web 2.0 technology and traditional asynchronous discussion boards in closed learning management system (LMS) is the where the locus of control lies.
Rick asks, “Can we engineer better educational online communities by copying ideas from informal and commercial communities?” I think the answer is obviously yes….by placing the control for the creation of learning communities on the students. In the typical learning management system, the instructor has control over the creation of communication environments and the students contribute on the terms of the instructor. Rather, social networking software puts the author in total control.
Secondly, I see ease of access as another powerful component of all popular social networking software today. Communication isn’t restricted to only the members of the learning community but rather the author can decide who s/he wants to have access to their thoughts and ideas. Solutions like Elgg allow for students to not only control who has access to their ideas but also the ability to invite others to subscribe to their ideas, forming organic communities of inquiry. Again…the control lies with the students rather than the instructor.
Rick cited a couple of articles (below) that I’m looking forward to taking a closer peek at.
References:
Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 567-589.
McPherson, K. (2006). Whose space is it, anyway? Mercury News. Accessed 13 Mar 2006 from http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/business/technology/13840568.htm.
Van der Meijden, H. & Veenman, S. (2005). Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication in a primary school setting. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(5), 831-859.
blogs as a learning space
Chris Sessums’ brainstorming diagram of the function of blogs as a learning space:
The people formerly known as teachers and students
I came across this essay by Terry Anderson entitled, “The people formerly known and students and teachers” in which he explores the changing expectations that Web-connected learners and instructors have today.
Anderson concludes his essay by stating, “The people formerly known as students, taught by the people formerly known as teachers each share a demand for empowerment, technology, community, fairness and support. Since each of us is both formerly and currently a - person currently known as a connected learner and a connected educator of others, we have much to learn and to teach in the connected context of the Web. Can the established educational systems meet these demands?”
http://terrya.edublogs.org/2006/09/21/33/
Anatomy of a Socially Constructed Self-Paced Learning Environment
A wide assortment of approaches are possible when creating self-paced learning environments. Many complaints of self-paced learning emerge from the inherent isolation of the learner from the instructor, other learners in the course, as well as larger communities within the learning environment. With the incorporation of new social networking tools, self-paced learning can be structured to allow for the continued benefits of autonomy and equal access while enabling learners to self-select learning communities within (or outside) the confines of the specific courses being taken.
One model for creating a socially-constructed self-paced learning environment is through the creation of a personalized learning environment (PLE) to incorporate a cohort-based approach whereby learners could begin any given course at a designated regular timeframe (e.g. monthly, quarterly, weekly, etc.). The learner would be placed into a cohort (ie: class) with other learners beginning the course at that given time and at least one instructor. This small group would comprise a restricted Course Community (CC) in which the members of the community would be able to interact throughout the duration of the course. For example, during the first week of the course, the instructor could facilitate some introduction and ice-breaker activities in which the learners and instructor(s) could begin to connect. As the course progresses, learners will begin to advance at individual rates and may choose to remain connected closely with the cohort or may seek support from other communities (either online or face-to-face).
While self-paced learners should have continual access to the CC throughout the course, a true socially-constructed environment should allow for learners the freedom to join interest/subject matter communities to individually construct the learning networks deemed most beneficial. These self-selected and formed communities should provide learners with the opportunity to create, communicate, and collaborate within a context of ubiquitous connectivity (ie: community members should remain connected throughout the duration of the course). Whereas traditional online learning environments built within a learning management system (LMS) are available to learners only for the duration of the course, a socially constructed self-paced learning environment (SCSPLE) should allow for access to designated communities after the course is completed.
I’ve put together the following diagram as a first attempt to illustrate the complexities of SCSPLE’s. Individuals (I) within course communities (CC) have access to both the restricted CC but also to numerous learner-initiated interest communities. An individual can belong to numerous course and interest communities simultaneously and can join or leave these communities at any time. If learners do not find a community for the desired topic/interest, they can create a new community and invite others to join. Each CC is comprised of a specific and defined population (ie: the learners and instructor(s) for the course) while each interest community (IC) is dynamic, allowing for the members to freely join or leave at any time.
Click here for an enlarged version of the diagram
Click here for a grayscale version of the diagram suitable for printing black & white