SynthesispaperJunginger Final

Running head: ONLINE LEARNING COMMUNITIES FOR CHILDREN 1

Creating Online Communities of Learning for Young Children

Anja M. Junginger

Boise State University

ONLINE LEARNING COMMUNITIES FOR CHILDREN 2

Abstract

In designing twenty-first century learning environments, educators need to be cognizant of

learning theories, both established as well as emerging, in order to make sound decisions

about pedagogical practices and the related tools required to implement them. In this paper, it

is suggested that by consciously applying frameworks from several theories of learning that

sound, yet modern, learning environments for young children can be developed. Several

theories are explored including constructivism, situated cognition, and the newer emergent

theory of connectivism, as well as aspects from theories of online learning. These are placed

in the practical context of learning communities, which are considered powerful networks

that can be used to effectively promote learning. The question of what these new virtual

social learning environments should actually look like, aligned with these theories and yet

appropriate for young children, is one that is left open for further exploration.


Introduction

In a post-industrial age ripe with the exponential growth of technologies, our social,

educational, and professional lives are changing unabatedly. As we move from print to digital

media, as well as to information networks, the shape, structure, and therefore function of

knowledge in society is changing. As a result, our traditional epistemologies need to be

reviewed, and possibly changed or combined, to account for how knowledge is created,

learned, and shared in the digital age, and to ensure that our teaching practices are robust

enough to support learners in this endeavor. Learning communities and personal learning

networks (PLNs) are increasingly common in higher education and professional learning

settings to support learners in engaging in such knowledge-building and sharing. However,

as it is our youngest students who will be growing up into this new world, the benefits and

challenges of using technology tools to engage elementary students in such learning

communities need to be considered carefully. By developing virtual situated learning

environments for these students, that are grounded in established and emerging theories of

learning, while still being developmentally appropriate, we can best begin to meet their

current and future needs as digital citizens of the modern age.

Changing conditions

The concept of what constitutes knowledge has been greatly debated over centuries,

but in particular over the past decade. With the rise of the Internet in the 1990s, and the

emergence of Web 2.0, which allows not only for knowledge access but also knowledge

creation by anyone, our notions about true or real knowledge have come into question.

Knowledge and learning have traditionally been seen as transmitted by authorities and as


effecting a lasting change in the learner. However, as Lankshear, Peters, & Knobel (2000)

pointed out over twenty years ago,

we are presently living through a period in which such assumptions have been

undermined to the point that they are no longer tenable. The circumstances,

conditions and the very status of knowledge, learning, teaching and researching are

currently in a state of profound upheaval under the double impact of rapid and far-

reaching technological change. (p. 17)

In responding to this upheaval, which has grown rather than decreased since Lankshear et

al.s assertion, educators are faced with the responsibility of ensuring that both our youngest

and oldest learners can cope with, and benefit from this change and the opportunities it offers.

Whether knowledge is created internally or exists externally, and whether knowledge is

transmitted, created, or found - socially or individually- or all of the above, are current

debates surrounding which theories best reflect how we learn under these new conditions,

and which can best serve us in reaching our desired educational outcomes. A critical

exploration of learning theories can thus be useful in reaching some conclusions about how to

best leverage new tools in modern learning environments. As Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy &

Perry (1992) pointed out, the epistemological assumptions we make and our practices are

reciprocally determined. Most clearly, ones assumptions about learning and knowledge will

reciprocally interact with the design of learning environments and how one participates in

those environments (Barab & Duffy, 2012, p.31).

Learning Theories

There are many theories of learning that exist, which speak to all parts of the

spectrum of how we can define knowledge and learning, and which can help us to address

our tensions about best practices. As technology tools and life on the net are playing a


greater role in our lives, new theories beyond the traditional behaviorist, cognitivist, and

constructivist stances are also evolving. Theories of learning that are particularly worth

exploring in relation to building learning environments for the digital age are variations of

constructivism, situativity theory, and the newly evolving theory of connectivism. In the

same way as Barab and Duffy (2012) discovered great similarities between constructivism

and situativity theory, making a truce as they found that they were continuously forwarding

similar principles and advocating for similar learning contexts (p.29), so too can these

theories and many aspects of the more modern connectivism, be reconciled in one learning

environment. Connectivism was initially proposed by George Siemens in 2005, and has

elucidated an epistemological framework for distributed knowledge (Kop and Hill, 2008, p.

7), however it is not yet a fully recognized theory of learning. Nonetheless, it has much to

offer educators as a framework when it is considered in conjunction with constructivism and

situativity theory.

There are several aspects where constructivist and connectivist ideas diverge, but also

several overlaps. While constructivists see knowledge, and subsequently learning, as a

largely internal and self-driven process, connectivists see knowledge and learning as also

existing in an external network consisting of linked nodes, which consist of groups of

people and information (Kop & Hill, 2008). But like the constructivists, Siemens (2004) also

asserts that the starting point of connectivism is the individual. Personal knowledge is

comprised of a network, which feeds into organizations and institutions, which in turn feed

back into the network, and then continue to provide learning to individual (Connectivism

section, para. 7). Furthermore, Downes (2007b) identifies the core proposition shared

between connectivism and constructivism as knowledge not being acquired, as though it

were a thing. (Kop and Hill, 2008, p. 7). In these ways, both constructivism and

connectivism are radically different than the traditional behaviorist theories of learning. The


recognition of patterns is another aspect that is fundamental to both views. Learners should

be helped to find these patterns, both within their own cognitive development, as well as in

the external networks created on the Internet and elsewhere. The sharpest contrast however,

is that connectivism focuses more on growing these patterns and connections, while

constructivists contend that learners intentionally construct meaning.

Motivation and the context are also fundamentally important to consider when

planning learning environments, especially for a younger age group. These students cannot

be expected to independently find the patterns in the nodes, or elsewhere, without the teacher

paying attention to certain elements that come from a situated learning theory perspective.

Learning and thinking must happen within a context in order to make sense to the learner.

Additionally, a situated learning perspective, according to Brown, Collins, and Duguid

(1989), would imply that meaning does not exist independent of context, but rather context

shapes and defines meaning (Hill, 2012, p.275), therefore these contexts must be provided to,

or created by, the learner. Motivation ensues when learners are able to meet their own needs

and to follow their interests, which can certainly occur within a well-designed teacher-created

context. Once these conditions for a situated environment are met, connectivist and

constructivist frameworks can be useful in finding ways to support learners in accessing and

re-negotiating their learning through social networking and personal learning networks that

are relevant to these defined learning contexts.

The power of learning communities

If our whole paradigm of what constitutes knowledge, where we find it, and how we

use it is shifting and evolving, and our view of theories and frameworks changing, then it

follows that the focus of curriculum development and pedagogy also need re-thinking and

restructuring. Learners are faced with an abundance of information created by others, and


must sift through this in order to create their own meaning upon which they can take action.

This ability is extremely important and as Siemens (2004) states, the capacity to form

connections between sources of information, and thereby create useful information patterns,

is required to learn in our knowledge economy (An Alternate Theory section, para. 4). This

capacity also involves a process of transforming data into knowledge. However the tools that

are increasingly important for learners to navigate and negotiate to do this processing are

rapidly changing. Learning network platforms, both facilitated and autonomous, digital data

repositories, hypertextual organization of text, and multiple media forms are part of our daily

experience. Learners must be able to efficiently, reliably, and quickly access and process new

information in an ongoing manner using these tools. Key skills now are not only the new

basic information literacy skills of questioning and searching, amongst others, but also

perspective, balance, metacognition, and self-efficacy need to be called upon as new

knowledge is assembled socially and individually (Brown, 2000). It is especially the social

aspect of these skills that is becoming increasingly important.

Digital-age learning is at its best when people are learning from one another, offering

different facets of understanding. As Warlick (2009) discusses PLNs, the growing

responsibility of the learner and connectivism come to mind. He writes, Learners become

amplifiers as they engage in knowledge-building activities, connect what they learn, add

value to existing knowledge and ideas, and re-issue them back into the network to be

captured by others through their PLNs (p.16). Another form of social learning happens in

learning communities, which contribute to PLNs. The terms of learning communities,

communities of learners, or communities of practice, are largely attributed to Lave and

Wenger. Despite having slightly different connotations, they all point to learners sharing in

the learning process and building understanding together. Although Lave and Wenger

(1991) originated the community of practice framework as an approach to conceptualizing


learning, they also suggested that this approach could be used to consider new methods of

knowledge generation and dissemination in practice fields (Buysse, Sparkman, & Wesley,

2003, para 9). Further, Hill (2008) quotes from Wenger and colleagues, saying that a learning

community is a group of people who share a concern, a set of problems or a passion about a

topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in these areas by interacting on an

ongoing process (p.269). The idea that learners learn through the participation in

communities, and the connectivist premise of networks is not contrary to constructivist

thinking. According to Buysse, et al. (2003),

The shift involves rethinking the locus of learning from an individual mind to a

process that unfolds within a participatory framework. As a result, learning is viewed

as distributed among many participants within the community in which people with

diverse expertise (i.e., experts, novices, and those in between) are transformed

through their own actions and those of other participants. (para 11)

If we then include principles from situativity theory, such as an authentic context and a

problem to be solved, an ideal learning environment can be created.

While full-fledged communities of practice may be challenging for young children to

thrive in, building other forms of learning communities that can become part of a childs

future PLN would be a first step in helping young students develop twenty-first century skills.

Educators can develop and use learning environments that feature learning communities,

albeit in a scaffolded manner. This gives children the opportunity to experience learning

within appropriate and authentic networks from an early age, thereby allowing them to build

both their basic multiliteracy skills, as well as the more metacognitive and social learning

skills required to access and contribute to individual and group understanding. This approach

is also well aligned to both constructivist and connectivist ideals, as it focuses on building


patterns and connections amongst a community of learners, who can form nodes and

networks for learning according to relevant and authentic learning contexts created within

schools.

Supporting young learners in grounded learning environments

Young learners should be supported in expanding their growing learning-to-learn

skills into the virtual domain by having access to developmentally appropriate online learning

communities in order to further their knowledge-building within an inquiry and connectivist

framework. These online communities, or networks, must be developed and facilitated in

such a way that student learning, both individually and as a group, is scaffolded to be within

the young learners zone of proximal development, yet which allows them to maintain

agency. Scardamalia and Bereiter (1991) describe the spectrum of theories of how this could

be achieved as is done here, but more importantly, they question who is actually in charge of

the zone of proximal development - the teacher or the student? It seems that the age of the

learner, due to prior experience and cognitive development, makes a difference in how this

question is answered, and thus the way virtual or personal learning environments are

designed would be affected.

Thus, how technology tools are designed in constructivist and connectivist learning

environments is of great significance, as it is these tools that can support individuals and

communities in manipulating resources and ideas to build connections and to construct

individual and group knowledge appropriately. However, scaffolding and supporting learners

to have meaningful access to such communities and to be able to go from being novices to

experts within them is a complex educational goal, even for adult learners. As social

constructivist educators, we want to create learning opportunities that occur in a practice field

or, ideally, in a community of practice (Barab & Duffy, 2012) so that learners may be able to


build new conceptual schema through knowing and doing with others. As postulated in

situativity theory, the contention that participation in practice constitutes learning and

understanding (Barab & Duffy, 2012, p. 32) is central to this line of thinking. However

young learners may struggle with too much autonomy as they do not yet have adequate prior

knowledge and skills to navigate such authentic networks and the ill-defined problems that

often underlie constructivist learning environments. It is largely up to the teacher to align the

learning objectives, the students level of prior knowledge, and the nature of the content. If

learning communities, aided by technology tools, are to be an appropriate vehicle in

supporting learning, then ways must be devised to ensure this alignment is made, and that the

experience still adheres to a grounded design within constructivist theory, which means the

learner is still in the center of the learning process, not the teacher or the network.

In order to help achieve this aim, a good continuum of reference would be one that

examines the balance between learner and teacher agency. With young children an approach

such as a negotiated distance learning environment (NDLE), where learning goals and

means are jointly determined, balancing individual priorities with those established by

authority (Hannafin et al, 2003 as cited in Hill, 2012, p. 269) would be appropriate. In this

way, the young learner still has a role to play in shaping their learning, based on interest and

motivation, however the teacher as facilitator would scaffold the environment, and associated

networks, according to curricular aims and perceived learner needs.

In addition to clarifying the balance of power, theories that support effective online

learning also need to be taken into consideration during the design process. These include

social presence theory, social interdependence theory, and situated learning, the latter of

which has already been referred to as inherently compatible with constructivist approaches

(Hill, 2012). If one analyzes these theories and considers the practical implications, the

following criteria should be considered when designing virtual learning communities


grounded in a largely constructivist theory for any age of learner: there should be

opportunities for on-task and off-task discussion, activities should be based on an

interdependence in order to be achieved, there should be practical and meaningful application

possibilities, sufficient support and scaffolding need to be provided in order to support self-

efficacy, learners should feel safe to share ideas and opinions, and there should be a structure

that is intuitive and easy to navigate (Hill, 2012). The skills that learners need to function in

this kind of environment mirror closely the skills that have been put forth earlier as

fundamental for twenty-first century learners.

Designing appropriate tools

Informal PLNs and other forms of learning communities most likely exist in the

physical inquiry-driven classroom already, today, however, you can enhance this PLN with

new tools such as chat, instant and text messaging, teleconferencing (using iChat, Skype,

uStream), Twitter, and virtual worlds such as Second Life. Its like attending a meeting at

work, only better, because the traditional barriers of geography, background, language, and

culture become transparent (Warlick, 2009, p. 13). These tools open up new opportunities

for learning. The power of using technology tools to support such collaboration and

communication has been documented, and examples of effective practices include ask an

expert, epals, Skype Classrooms and others. Currently there are many social networking

tools, mainly designed for adults and older students, such as Edmodo, Twitter, Moodle or

Facebook, to name a few, which can be used to create communities of learners and PLNs

around any topic or interest. The importance for this discussion lies in how these tools are

designed and used to form the facilitated and scaffolded networks that younger children need.

Using what we know about how young children learn, grounded in constructivist and

connectivist frameworks, and using the criteria for effective online learning, these tools need

to be customized to meet the needs of young learners, and possibly new ones created


specifically with this audience in mind. Edmodo, as one example, is a tool that has much

promise for building learning communities amongst young students as it, like many online

platforms, does not stand in the way of constructivist and situated learning environments.

Through further customization for the 5-10 year old, in accordance with the ideas postulated

in this paper, its usability could be greatly enhanced by increasing accessibility and

relevance for this age group, and thus help teachers to prepare these young students for their

future.

Conclusion

As with any tools, it is still the teachers who must leverage what they know about

educational theories and best practices applied in the modern age, and what they know in

particular about how young students learn, in order to create learning environments that

promote self-efficacy and all the associated skills necessary to function as life-long learning

adults. A primary virtual learning community would be a first step towards the greater

challenge of growing learners who can later create their own personal learning networks

where they not only can organize information, but also create, share, seek out and filter

relevant knowledge nodes, which are critical skills for effective decision-making as adult

learners in a modern networked world.


References

Barab, S. A., & Duffy, T. (2012). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. H.

Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp.

29-65). Oxon, UK: Taylor and Francis Group.

Brown, J. S. (2000). Growing Up: Digital: How the Web Changes Work, Education, and the

Ways People Learn. Change: the Magazine of Higher Learning, 32(2), 11-20.

Buysse, V., Sparkman, K. L., & Wesley, P. W. (2003). Communities of practice: Connecting

what we know with what we do. Exceptional Children, 69(3), 263-278. Retrieved

from http://search.proquest.com/docview/201093807?accountid=9649

Hill, J. (2012). Learning communities: Theoretical foundations for making connections. In D.

H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments

(pp. 268-284). Oxon, UK: Taylor and Francis Group.

Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the

past? The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3).

Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/523/1137

Lankshear, C., Peters, M., & Knobel, M. (2000). Information, knowledge and learning: Some

issues facing epistemology and education in a digital age. Journal of Philosophy of

Education, 34(1), 17-39. Retrieved from

http://michaelbatie.com/papers/information_and_knowledge.pdf

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in

knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media.

The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37-68.

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A theory for the digital age. Retrieved from

http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm


Warlick, D. (2009). Grow your personal learning network. Learning & Leading With

Technology, 36(6), 12-16.

Zagal, J., & Bruckman, A. (January 01, 2010). Designing online environments for

expert/novice collaboration. Convergence, 16 (4), 451-470.

SynthesispaperJunginger Final

Documents

Transcript of SynthesispaperJunginger Final