This course has been an interesting experience for me. I regularly joke that I have another degree (which is true), but I typically downplay it because it is a niche degree. However, 6040 really highlights how much theory I was introduced to in that degree. I covered the first example when I was placed in the Zone of Proximal Development group and was surprised that I was the only person in the group who was already familiar with ZPD. I took it for granted that other people in this level of study would have been exposed to this concept, but my colleagues were from corporate education where that is not utilized as an education theory as often. My education degree (the Ed.S.) has provided me with a solid foundation for educational theory, and a combination of that degree and the MLIS from University of Washington (which had a strong research focus for a master’s degree) has given me a foundation for the research components.
However, I have struggled with feeling like I am not sure how much the online learning conversations pertain to elementary education. We provided initial definitions for online learning (or distance education) at the start of class, and our definitions did include digital learning activities such as flipped, blended, and online learning in more traditional classroom spaces. At times, the class conversations can focus more on online learning in the form of distance and hybrid education, rather than more general online education. It is wonderful to see that the same theories that drive quality in-person education apply online, and the skills and methods simply need to be tweaked.
However, I do like diving into the theories. Connectivism is not the theory I chose to focus on this semester – but it is the one that I was the most interested in. One of the administrators at my job is anchoring her work with faculty in self-determination theory so I have focused my research on that. However, it was interesting to hear the feedback that practitioners see connectivism as a practical framework, but researchers say that it lacks rigor. When I reviewed the notes from Ian, Prerna, and Cassandra, I agree with both sides of the feedback. I have an alternate argument: connectivism is better suited as an information theory versus a learning theory. The idea that disparate resources can be networked together to create a cohesive, informative learning experience is the hallmark of library services and lateral reading is a key information literacy skill. One key phrase from my library science degree is “everything is information” and that is what I think of every time we talk about connectivism.