Running head: USING EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TO BRIDGE THE GAP

Using Educational Technology to Bridge the Gap Between Systems Theory and Connectivism Sherri Harrelson Boise State University

USING EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TO BRIDGE THE GAP Abstract

Systems theory is grounded in the concept of components working together to achieve a purpose or complete a goal. This can be found in everything from a car engine to a large corporation to a traditional classroom; however, unlike the pieces within a car engine, employees in a corporation and students in a classroom bring varying perspectives, backgrounds, experiences, and ideas to the system. By joining together in a learning community, students and trainees alike create a web of interconnectedness, sharing what they know, what theyve learned, making predictions, and completing goals. Rather than operating in isolation, these communities, or systems of learners, operate under different principles than those found within a more mechanical and defined system, like the car engine. This paper seeks to identify how these systems operate, how they are changing with the proliferation of computer-based technologies, like open resources and social media, and how they are moving toward a more interconnected, socially grounded learning model where each individual can participate, provide meaning, and receive insight from a group of learners in a framework known as connectivism. In addition, this paper seeks to address certain implications for instructional designers that are directly caused by these changes in learning system theory.

USING EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TO BRIDGE THE GAP Using Educational Technology to Bridge the Gap Between Systems Theory and Connectivism

While we, as a nation, tend to be seen as an individualistic society, there is currently a greater focus on encouraging collaboration amongst learners, both in traditional environments and in online learning, in order to better participate in a more globally connected society. Part of developing 21st Century learning skills is the incorporation of communication, joint problem solving, and participation in teams conducting investigations and inquiries into learning materials (Sims, 2008). Additionally, participating in an online learning environment is often seen as a collaborative approach amongst a community of learners, or a system of individuals (e.g. components), working together to complete a goal of furthering the collective knowledge. All of these aspects of learning relate to systems theory and are affected by the design of the instructional system in which the learner participates. Traditionally, systems theory has been applied in the field of education through the Instructional Systems Design process (ISD), whereby instructors attempt to create learning environments based on the specific needs and expected outcomes for a particular learning group (Joo, 1998). Although in many ways this has remained a key factor in developing online courses, the proliferation of computer-based training, as well as the move towards a more globally interacting society have pushed the boundaries of previous knowledge with the design of environments that are far more open to participants and exist solely in the virtual realm (Tuomi, 2013).Furthermore, the increased use of internet based technologies, from wikis to social media to blogs, has allowed for greater freedom in communicating with others around the world on a common focus. Whether the change has come primarily from within the system (e.g. directly caused by the individuals) or without (e.g. handed down by administrators within a company or university), it is clear that there have been many modifications in how people currently use technology and social interaction to learn (Tuomi, 2013). Perhaps the biggest change has been the reversal of the roles that members within the learning environment play. No longer is the focus on the instructor and the knowledge that he or she seeks to impart, rather it is on the learners, their interactions, and, more importantly, on the learning process itself (Gorsky & Caspi, 2005). The ways in which the members of the system communicate have changed dramatically from instructor as dictator to instructor as participant, while the learners often assume roles as additional instructors through peer-reviews and grading. These changes have resulted in a less-defined system with parts that dont necessarily make up a whole, but that more or less contribute to the creation of one (e.g. the learning environment) primarily through dialogue via discussion boards, chat sessions, and other electronic exchanges (Gorsky & Caspi, 2005). Indeed, without this dialogue and the technologies available by which to engage in it, this revolution in the ways in which humans learn and collaborate would not be possible.

USING EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TO BRIDGE THE GAP

While such changes in roles and attitudes are somewhat expected given the changing nature of todays students, it seems that even corporate environments are experiencing systemic changes in how training is delivered. From an organizational perspective focusing on human resource development, training is no longer seen as a passive or formal event where trainees take in information (Jones & Hendry, 1994). Much like the changes taking place in other learning systems, those within corporations have also moved toward the delivery of more engaging and personal experiences through the use of simulations and other computer-based training, as well as more meaningful and relevant engagements in communication with others (Jones & Hendry, 1994). This greater degree of self-direction within the learning environment contributes to a greater sense of motivation and is founded on the need for connections, not only to other individuals, but also with the actual materials through which the learning occurs (Jones & Hendry, 1994). An even greater change is currently taking place in some communities of practice where professional development is necessary to further professional growth. This change is the creation of open and informal networks where professionals can exchange ideas, practice new strategies, and discuss relevant topics (Hanraets, Hulsebosch, & de Laat, 2011). Rather than sending employees to seminars provided by leading experts that may or may not meet the specific needs of each individual employee, virtual spaces, available in platforms like Second Life, can be established where participants are safe to discuss concerns and new ideas with their regularly practicing peers who both understand and can relate to questions, suggestions, and potential avenues of growth (Hanraets et. al., 2011). In this way the larger system, or company, benefits from the decreased costs associated with travel expenses and leave time required to attend external training, while the inner system of collaborating professionals develops into a communal system of shared learning and practice. In addition, participants are able to seek out relevant and personally meaningful opportunities for improvements in practice by choosing what they collaborate on and with whom (Hanraets et. al., 2011). Again, this signifies a deeper systemic change of moving from dictation, in this case by administrators, to a more open and undefined avenue of group participation and personal selection in what is learned and how. When considering the changes taking place within these learning systems, several commonalities quickly become apparent. The first is that availability of choice and personal options in learning are swiftly increasing thereby instigating changes not only in what is being learned, but how that learning takes place (Sims, 2008). The second is that dialogue and open communication between instructors, peers, and administrators is rapidly becoming the norm within a variety of educational frameworks (Gorsky & Caspi, 2005). Furthermore, the creation of socially based learning networks, whether professional, personal, or educational in nature, is assuming a strong stance alongside the physically embodied training seminars and events that required significant expenditures of time and resources (Hanraets et al., 2011). This has led to systems that are continuously evolving and which exist in an almost perpetual state of flux as people attempt to harness the newfound interactions taking place, as well as the technologies that

USING EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TO BRIDGE THE GAP

enable those interactions to occur. This can be best summed up by Siemens principles of connectivism, which assist in defining this newly formed and continuously changing state of forming learning environments (Davis, Edmunds, & Kelly-Bateman, 2008). Siemens theory correlates with systems interactions and the ever changing virtual landscape of current, cutting edge learning communities in a variety of ways. His principles incorporate the necessity of a diverse array of opinions within the learning system, as well as the necessity of maintaining connections within the system to ensure continuous learning can occur (Davis et. al., 2008). His principles also incorporate the concept that learning is a process of forming connections between what is known and what is being learned through the connections between people and informational sources (Davis et al., 2008). Furthermore, the principles relate strongly to educational technology in the acknowledgement that information is not always contained within, nor defined solely by humans. Finally, the theory of connectivism posits that the formation of connections is necessary to maintain continuously updated knowledge and that these connections are imperative in increasing the capacity of a system to learn more (Davis et al., 2008). Although the system is comprised of many living, breathing individuals, as well as many non-living machines, this is where we delineate from the concept of learning being an individualistic endeavor in that the networked connections between man, machine, and community form a systemically based organism that is constantly growing, changing, evolving, and consuming new knowledge, while also disseminating this knowledge as the life-blood of the organization. Perhaps the next question is where does that leave the designers, the developers, the engineers and architects of the learning environments that are necessary for the continued growth of mankind? Although the phrasing of this question is somewhat overrated, the concern is valid for those wishing to make the most of these newly developing and swiftly evolving situations. Based on the theory of connectivism, as well as the trends associated within the aforementioned learning environments, it would seem that the best course of action would be to allow learning environments to flourish, much as a wild garden, without attempting to control the system in which they thrive (Davis et. al, 2008). However, much as a wild garden, this could quickly take a nasty turn without some form of intervention on the part of the gardener, or in the cultivation of a learning environment- the designer, due to the perhaps infinite number of ways in which the system could be swiftly redefined. This is where the most obvious interplay between the concepts of systems theory, connectivism, instructional design, learner needs, and technology is observed as instructional systems designers seek to develop environments that allow for the necessary dialogue and creation of connections, but also provide opportunities for autonomous and self-directed learning experiences (Gorsky & Caspi, 2005). With this recognition, it quickly becomes apparent that all the theories and concepts known about the process of learning are not rendered obsolete by a new all-encompassing theory like connectivism, but that they instead become entwined and enmeshed with the continuously

USING EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TO BRIDGE THE GAP

advancing knowledge base formed by the interconnectedness of people, systems, and technology (Davis et al., 2008). Using the ISD process, designers are tasked with developing systems that are far less defined and far more open to self-direction and communication by becoming less an external resource and more an active participant, much as the learners, instructors, and administrators have already become (Gorsky & Caspi, 2005). Rather than seeking to control, designers must embrace the inevitable evolution that will take place within the learning system. They must also consider the newly developing attitudes on behalf of learners in terms of choice in where and how they will learn, as well as the necessity of connections as demonstrated in Siemens theory (Davis et. al., 2008). Although still in relative infancy, this new concept of designing open-ended learning environments is swiftly catching on. The creation of open educational resources, as well as the virtually unlimited access provided by little more than an internet connection, have enabled the expansion of practically unrestricted access to everything from multimedia artifacts to fully created courses (Tuomi, 2013). Instructional designers and other professionals within the realm of education must make use of these materials and encourage learners within the system to seek out knowledge independently. Additionally, designers must encourage and provide for the open conversation amongst instructors, learners, and even subject matter experts necessary for continued advancement through the incorporation of message boards, chat features, and the potential use of social media as a platform for discussion (Scott, Shurville, Maclean, & Cong, 2007). Finally, designers should consider providing links to professional learning communities in order to facilitate further connections outside of the contained learning system. In addition to the changes being adopted within the field of education, designers creating training for the corporate realm must also consider available options and make use of the open nature of resources currently available on the internet. This can be done relatively easily by providing open learning networks for professionals, or at the very least maintaining an updated list of blogs, communities, and resources already available (Hanraets et al., 2011). In addition, perhaps the most basic, and often overlooked, approach is to encourage discussion amongst designers, stakeholders, and participants of the learning system prior to its creation (Weinstein & Shuck, 2011). While stakeholders and designers frequently discuss the needs and outcomes of training, oftentimes the actual participants are not approached to offer specific insight into their needs, perspectives, and methods of thinking (Weinstein & Shuck, 2011). This method of increasing dialogue has the potential, much as in the educational realm, to allow for unexpected changes and advancements within the system as a whole in addition to providing precious insight and perhaps previously unconsidered avenues of growth and development not only with the specified subject matter, but possibly other areas in need of positive change (Weinstein & Shuck, 2011). This is especially apparent in the design of Total Quality Management which seeks to reduce the hierarchy of power inherent in corporate systems while also increasing the conversations, positive relationships, and feedback amongst all components of the organization (Umpleby & Dent, 1999).

USING EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TO BRIDGE THE GAP

If we, as a society, have previously operated on the principles of individualism, then why are all these changes in connections, conversations, and participation amongst learners important? The answer is closely related to the field of teleology, which is the concept that processes within a system are caused, not by past events, but by the future (Umpleby & Dent, 1999). Simply put, the purpose is not to continue designing learning systems and creating workers for jobs and fields that are currently available, but to transform learning environments, not only to incorporate the new developments in learning theory and technologies, but also in order to prepare individuals for jobs and positions that have not yet been created. Part of preparing learners for these new positions is assisting them in the development of a global voice in order to allow for greater participation in the quickly developing, more globally interacting society (Darling & Foster, 2012). Allowing learners to experience conversation in a more openended and less hierarchical environment allows for the development of confidence in sharing ideas and insights with a larger group (Gorsky & Caspi, 2005). Furthermore, this larger group is swiftly becoming a less defined system through the concept of connectivism and the advent of social media (Davis et al., 2008). In short, the purpose here is to create learners and participants within a global society of the future where conversations and debates occur not behind closed doors, but in the open, virtual realms of social media, and where learners are able to constantly revise who they are and the positions they hold based on the continuous stream of feedback from the system within which they operate (Darling & Foster, 2012). Perhaps it seems impossible to prepare learners for future interactions and positions that have not yet been created, much as the act of not only holding a conversation on a cell phone, but using one to find an obscure coffee shop in an unexplored location may have once seemed like science fiction. The truth is that this movement already has momentum in the nature of the system, which in this case is the internet, the participants, the web developers, the learning designers, and truly the interconnected global society, which is already moving forward in the creation of blogs, personal and professional learning networks, and even Facebook accounts as a means of seeking out new information and finding purpose both individually (e.g. as components) and as a formed organization ( Darling & Foster, 2012). The best we, not as instructional designers, but as learning environment architects can do, is to tap into the system, use the open resources, become active participants in social learning and media networks, and to assume a position of connection within the systemic framework. As a part of moving forward and harnessing the power of newfound technologies and the strength and capacity found within a connected system of learners, we must relinquish some control in an effort to be more in tune with the needs of learners and of society as a whole (Davis et al, 2008). Using educational technology to bridge the gap between systems thinking and the concept of connectivism is the next step in the future of learning design and as such is a goal that we, not as individuals or instructional designers or even learners, but as an interconnected socially founded system, must achieve.

USING EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TO BRIDGE THE GAP Resources:

Darling, J. & Foster, M. (2012). Preparing students to join the global public sphere. International Studies Perspectives, 13(4), 423-436. DOI: 10.1111/j.1528-3585.2012.00469.x Davis, C, Edmunds, E, & Kelly-Bateman, V. (2008). Connectivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved November 7, 2013, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/ Gorsky, P. & Caspi, A. (2005). Dialogue: A theoretical framework for distance education instructional systems. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 137-144. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00448.x Hanraets, I. (2011). Experiences of pioneers facilitating teacher networks for professional development. Educational Media International, 48(2), 85-99. DOI 10.1080/09523987.2011.576513 Jones, A. M. & Hendry, C. (1994). The learning organization: Adult learning and organizational transformation. British Journal of Management, 5(2), 153-162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14678551.1994.tb00075.x Joo, Y.K. (1998). Individual, group, and organizational instructional systems development models. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 11(4), 22-50. DOI: 10.1111/j.19378327.1998.tb00105.x Scott, B., Shurville, S., Maclean, P., & Cong, C. (2007). Cybernetic principles for learning design. Kybernetes, 36(9/10), 1497-1514. DOI 10.1108/ Sims, R. (2008). Rethinking (e)learning: A manifesto for connected generations. Distance Education, 29(2), 153-164. DOI 10.1080/01587910802154954 Tuomi, I. (2013), Open educational resources and the transformation of education. European Journal of Education, 48(1) 5878. DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12019 Umpleby, S. A. & Dent, E. B. (1999). The origins and purposes of several traditions in systems theory and cybernetics. Cybernetics and Systems: An International Journal, 30(2), 79-103. DOI: 10.1080/019697299125299 Weinstein, M. G. & Shuck, B. (2011). Social ecology and worksite training and development: Introducing the social in instructional system design. Human Resource Development Review, 10(3), 286-303. DOI: 10.1177/1534484311411074