You are here:

A framework for interaction and cognitive engagement in connectivist learning contexts
ARTICLE

, , Beijing Normal University ; , Athabasca University

IRRODL Volume 15, Number 2, ISSN 1492-3831 Publisher: Athabasca University Press

Full Text

Abstract

Interaction has always been highly valued in education, especially in distance education (Moore, 1989; Anderson, 2003; Chen, 2004a; Woo & Reeves, 2007; Wang, 2013; Conrad, in press). It has been associated with motivation (Mahle, 2011; Wen-chi, et al., 2011), persistence (Tello, 2007; Joo, Lim, & Kim, 2011), deep learning (Offir, et al., 2008) and other components of effective learning. With the development of interactive technologies, and related connectivism learning theories (Siemens, 2005a; Downes, 2005), interaction theory has expanded to include interactions not only with human actors, but also with machines and digital artifacts. This paper explores the characteristics and principles of connectivist learning in an increasingly open and connected age. A theory building methodology is used to create a new theoretical model which we hope can be used by researchers and practitioners to examine and support multiple types of effective educational interactions. Inspired by the hierarchical model for instructional interaction (HMII) (Chen, 2004b) in distance learning, a framework for interaction and cognitive engagement in connectivist learning contexts has been constructed. Based on cognitive engagement theories, the interaction of connectivist learning is divided into four levels: operation interaction, wayfinding interaction, sensemaking interaction, and innovation interaction. Connectivist learning is thus a networking and recursive process of these four levels of interaction.

Citation

Wang, Z., Chen, L. & Anderson, T. (2014). A framework for interaction and cognitive engagement in connectivist learning contexts. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(2),. Athabasca University Press. Retrieved November 29, 2023 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/149/230.
  2. Anderson, T. (2009, June). The dance of technology and pedagogy in self-paced distance education. Paper presented at the 17th ICDE World Congress, Maastricht.
  3. Anderson, T. (2012).”Connectivying” your course. Retrieved from http://terrya.edublogs.org/2012/12/18/connectivy-your-course/
  4. Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2007). Groups, networks and collectives in social software for e-learning. Paper presented at 2007 European Conference on E-Learning, Copenhagen, Denmark.
  5. Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/890/1663
  6. Anderson, T., Dron J., Poellhuber, B., & Upton, L. (2013, October). Beyond the learning management system to support networked distance education. Paper presentated at The 25th ICDE World Conference, Tianjin, China.
  7. Anderson, T., & Garrison, D.R. (1998). Learning in a networked world: New roles and responsibilities. In C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance learners in higher education (pp. 97-112). Madison, WI.: Atwood Publishing.
  8. Ally, M. (2004). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), Theory and practice of online learning (1st ed., pp. 3-31). Edmonton :
  9. Belshaw, D. (2013). First draft of Mozilla’s web literacy standard now available. Retrieved from http://dougbelshaw.com/blog/2013/04/26/first-draft-ofmozillas-web-literacy-standard-now-available/.
  10. Cheng, G., Yu, S.Q., & Yang. X.M.(2009). Design and implementation of runtime environment for learning cells. Open Education Research, 15(2), 27-36.
  11. Chou, C., Peng, H., & Chang, C.-Y. (2010). The technical framework of interactive functions for course-management systems: Students’ perceptions, uses, and evaluations. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1004-1017.
  12. Clarà, M., & Barberà, E. (2013). Three problems with the connectivist conception of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, n/a-n/A. Doi:10.1111/jcal.12040.
  13. Conole, G., Galley, R., & Culver, J. (2010). Frameworks for understanding the nature of interactions, networking, and community in a social networking site for academic practice. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/914/1666.
  14. Couros, A. (2010). Developing personal learning networks for open and social learning. Emerging Technologies in Distance Education, 109-128.
  15. Downes, S. (2005). Connective knowledge. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/cgibin/page.cgi?post=33034
  16. Downes, S. (2006). Learning networks and connective knowledge. Discussion paper #92 (online document). Instructional Technology Forum. Retrieved from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper92/paper92.html.
  17. Downes, S. (2007). What connectivism is. Retrieved from http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-connectivism-is.html
  18. Dron, J. (2013). Soft is hard and hard is easy: Learning technologies and social media. Form@ re-Open Journal per la formazione in rete, 13(1), 32-43.
  19. Dunlap, J.C., Sobel, D., & Sands, D.I. (2007). Designing for deep and meaningful student-to-content interactions. Tech Trends, 51(4), 20-31.
  20. Fonseca, D.E.L. (2011). EduCamp Colombia: Social networked learning for teacher training. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/884/1677
  21. Garrison, D.R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge/Falmer.
  22. Granovetter, M.S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 1360-1380.
  23. Hillman, D.C.A., Willis, D.J., & Gunawardena, C.N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 3042.
  24. Hirumi, A. (2002). A framework for analyzing, designing, and sequencing planned elearning interactions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 141-60.
  25. Hirumi, A. (2006). Analysing and designing e-learning interactions. In C. Juwah (Ed.), Interactions in online education: Implications for theory and practice (pp. 4671). New York: Routledge.
  26. Joo, Y.J., Lim, K.Y., & Kim, E.K. (2011). Online university students' satisfaction and persistence: Examining perceived level of presence, usefulness and ease of use as predictors in a structural model. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1654-1664.
  27. Kay, A. (2006). The dynamics of public policy: Theory and evidence. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  28. Keegan, D. (1993). Reintegration of the teaching acts. Theoretical Principles of Distance Education, 113-134.
  29. 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/523/1103.
  30. Laurillard, D. (2000). A conversational framework for individual learning applied to the ‘learning organization’ and the ‘learning society’. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 16(2), 113-122.
  31. Littlejohn, A.(2013). Understanding massive open online course. Caledonian Academy Glasgow Caledonian University, UK.
  32. Lynham, S.A. (2000). The development of a theory of responsible leadership for performance (Tech. Rep.). St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Human Resource Development Research Center.
  33. Lynham, S.A. (2002). The general method of theory-building research in applied disciplines. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(3), 221-241.
  34. Mahle, M. (2011). Effects of interaction on student achievement and motivation in distance education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(3), 207215,222.
  35. Malliga, P. (2013). A survey on MOOC providers for higher education. International Journal of Management & Information Technology, 7(1), 962-967.
  36. Martindale, T., & Dowdy, M. (2010). Personal learning environments. Emerging Technologies in Distance Education, 177-193.
  37. Moore, M. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6.
  38. Nandi, D. (2013). A comprehensive framework with design principles for supporting interaction in fully online courses (Doctoral dissertation). Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University.
  39. Offir, B., Lev, Y., & Bezalel, R. (2008). Surface and deep learning processes in distance education: Synchronous versus asynchronous systems. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1172-1183.
  40. Ostashewski, N., & Reid, D. (2010). Networked teacher professional development: Applying the networked learning framework to online teacher professional development. Proceedings EDGE, 12-15.
  41. Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating : The key to teaching and learning online. London: Clays Ltd. Siemens, G. (2005a). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3-10.
  42. Siemens, G. (2006). Knowing knowledge. Lulu. Com.
  43. Siemens, G. (2009). What is connectivism? Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/document/d/14pKVP0_ILdPty6MGMJW8eQVE Y1zibZ0RpQ2C0cePIgc/preview
  44. Siemens, G. (2011). Orientation: Sensemaking and wayfinding in complex distributed online information environments (Doctoral dissertation). University of Aberdeen.
  45. Siemens, G., & Conole, G. (2011). Special issue-Connectivism: Design and delivery of social networked learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/issue/view/44
  46. Sewart, D., Keegan, D., & Holmberg, B. (Eds.) (1983). Distance education: International perspectives. London: Croom Helm.
  47. So, H. (2010). Towards rigor of online interaction research: Implication for future distance learning research. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 256-263.
  48. Taylor, J.C. (2001). Fifth generation distance education. Retrieved from http://www.usq.edu.au/users/taylorj/conferences.htm
  49. Tello, S.F. (2007). An analysis of student persistence in online education. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 3(3), 4762.
  50. Verhagen, P. (2006). Connectivism: A new learning theory? Surf e-learning themasite. Retrieved from http://elearning.surf.nl/e-learning/english/3793
  51. Wagner, E.D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6−26.
  52. Wang, Z.J.(2013). A new perspective of instructional interaction research in distance education: Structuralism. Morden Distance Education Research, 5, 28-33.
  53. Wen-chi, V.W., Yen, L.L., & Marek, M. (2011). Using online EFL interaction to increase confidence, motivation, and ability. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14(3), 118-n/A.
  54. Woo, Y., & Reeves, T.C. (2007). Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: A social constructivist interpretation. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 15-25.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Links

Also Read

Related Collections