be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the decision (Siemens, 2005, p. 5).
Connectivism focuses on people learning through networks which are “connections between entities” (p. 4). Knowledge begins with the individual. “Personal knowledge is comprised of a network, which feeds into organizations and institutions, which in turn feedback into the network, and then continues to provide learning to the individual” (Siemens, 2005, p. 6). Remaining current in one's field means remaining connected. Online communities of practice may be an example where connectivism occurs. Personal information about an issue may be gained from those in the group. For example, knowledge about how to cope with the loss of a child may be learned from members in an online grief group. This knowledge could be shared with a larger organization and, in turn, the larger organization could provide the support group more knowledge.
MOOCs are an example of the connectivist learning pedagogy. There are two types of MOOCs. xMOOCs (eXtended MOOCs) are designed by companies that collect student data to improve course design (Harasim, 2017). In contrast, Connectivist Massive Open Online Courses (cMOOCs) place the burden of instruction on the participants themselves. There is no course designer. Instead, “network intelligence… would identify the learner's interests, facilitate the learning connections and respond to a learner's questions and needs” (p. 157). The cMOOC is unstructured whereas the xMOOC is more structured but “both promote teacherless courses in which intelligent networks identify the content and connections, making key decisions for the students” (p. 158).
Critics note that connectivism may not be a new learning theory as its limitations are not discussed (Forster, 2007 as cited in Kop & Hill, 2008). Further, the theory is not empirically tested in a variety of settings. Siemens's statement that older learning theories fail to address technology is not exactly correct. Although online technologies did not exist when behaviorism and cognitivism were presented as learning theories, these learning theories responded to the technology of the time (Harasim, 2017). Harasim observes that the learning theories of the 1900s were shaped by automation as demonstrated by “Pressey's Teaching Machine,” which was a machine based on the behavioristic stimulus–response and was meant to “automate the role of the teacher” (p. 135). Verhagen (2006) asserts that connectivism may influence pedagogy but it is not a new theory because people learn as they always have, but they have to adapt to new technologies (as cited in Kop & Hill, 2008). Other criticisms of the theory include the lack of empirical studies on this approach and no “development of a theoretical framework of how people learn connectivist approaches” (Harasim, 2017, p. 149). Kop and Hill (2008) conclude that connectivism may not be a theory but it “continues to play an important role in the development and emergence of new pedagogies, where control is shifting from the tutor to an increasingly more autonomous learner” (p. 11).
Collaborativism or Online Collaborative Learning
Collaborativism, a theory that emerged from 30 years of empirical research, is based on the principles of collaborative learning, which include “1. Positive mutual dependency; 2. Personal accountability. 3. Promoting interaction; 4. Social skills, and 5. Group processes” (Johnson & Johnson, 1999 as cited in Magen-Nagar & Shonfeld, 2018, p. 622). In addition, the teacher's role is important. Collaborativism emphasizes instructor-facilitated student discussions that “lead to both conceptual understanding and knowledge products” (Harasim, 2017, p. 187). The instructor organizes discussions, introduces content, and models “analytic language that represents the discipline” (p. 187). Collaborativism is often used with ODE as it creates a discussion-based experience combined with an “informational study component.” The “flipped classroom” is an example of this (p. 188). Collaborativism focuses on “the key role played by discourse in knowledge creation, sharing, dissemination, application, and critique” (Harasim, 2017, p. 189). Online discourse can occur through texting, chat, forums, webinars, e-mails, forums, and blogs. Discourse is undertaken to “seek common understanding” as opposed to agreement, and to “expand the base of accepted facts” (p. 194). The discussion generated using the collaborativist framework moves groups from generating ideas on an issue (often through brainstorming), to clarifying ideas, to coming to a shared understanding of a “knowledge product or solution” (p. 195). The final product may be in the form of a report, final paper, presentation, or summary statement by the group.
Collaborativist-based online courses meet certain criteria. They include discussion forums where place-independent discourse can occur. Learners can be anywhere and can communicate with each other. People from other cultures and experts from around the world can be invited to contribute to the discussion (Harasim, 2017). Time-independent or asynchronous discourse means students can read and respond to discussion forums at any time. They can reflect and write a thoughtful response. “Collaborativist discourse is primarily text-based, although multimedia tools such as audio, video, animation and even avatars may be incorporated into online course activities and discourse” (p. 210). Writing helps us engage in deliberation, and often we learn what we are thinking in the act of writing. Discourse is mediated through the Internet in a collaborativist framework. This framework gives learners a sense of social presence and counteracts the loneliness that can occur in online courses. Researchers also found that teachers need three things to be successful using the online collaborative learning (OCL) framework: a school or organization that supports creating interpersonal and social relations in courses, a pedagogical understanding of OCL including both the positive and negative aspects, and OCL training for instructors (Magen-Nagar & Shonfeld, 2018).
Blended Learning
Researchers have not only created different learning theories for online learning, but delivery methods also vary. Blended learning has been defined in several ways. It can suggest the use of different technologies or various pedagogies to learn a subject or indicate combining types of technology such as learning information via videos with face-to-face training (Driscoll, 2002 as cited in Alammary, Sheard, & Carbone, 2014). Blended course design means that the course has “face-to-face and computer-mediated components,” which integrates various ways of instruction such as learning through lectures, discussion groups, or small group activities (p. 443). In this section, we discuss blended course design approaches, challenges, and best practices for teaching blended courses.
Alammary et al. (2014) state that there are low-, medium-, and high-impact blended course designs. The low-impact approach adds extra online activities to a face-to-face course without removing any face-to-face components. Although this is a quick and easy way for those who want to try blended learning, the course may seem like two courses—one traditional and one online because there is no reduction in the in-class portion. The medium-impact blend design replaces some face-to-face activities with web-based ones. This method is best for teachers who have taught the course in person several times so they know which in-class components can be replaced (Alammary et al., 2014). Building a blended course from scratch is the high-impact method with course activities that are typically designed around the learning outcomes. There is generally better integration of the online and face-to-face components because a whole course redesign makes teachers focus on the learner's needs in a way that the other designs may not. Teachers might try this method when they have some experience teaching blended courses and have ample time to design the course.
We have looked at the three methods of course design using blended learning, but what are some of the issues associated with teaching this way? Scholars reviewed eight articles from five countries that discussed the challenges of implementing blended learning in higher education institutions and the lessons learned (Ma'arop & Embi, 2016). Institutional concerns included getting students and faculty to adopt blended learning when they were used to teaching courses face-to-face. Instructors often lacked the skill necessary to design a blended course, and finding the balance between online and face-to-face instruction was difficult. The time required to create a blended learning course was also an issue for faculty. Student participation in blended learning required that students be more self-disciplined than in face-to-face courses. Solutions to these issues
