Collective and connected learning: implications for open, distance and e-learning


In a position paper by Allison Littlejohn on “Connected knowledge, collective learning” (#change11), she states that “… real-world problems are now too complex to be solved by a single person” and that we therefore have to look for collective solutions. And this is where collective learning comes.

With the increase in the range and use of a variety of technologies; networked and collective learning and problem-solving become increasingly valid and necessary options.  Littlejohn further states that “Our grand challenge is that people have to learn to solve real-world problems faster and more effectively to keep up with demand”. If I understand Littlejohn correctly, she does not question under which circumstances collective learning is possible or appropriate; but rather interrogates “how people learn by navigating the collective knowledge”.

The position paper raises some interesting questions (at least for me):

Firstly, is it really true that “Our increasing reliance on technology has led to an unstoppable demand for new knowledge”? Is it our reliance on technology that has led to this demand for new knowledge, or does technology assist us in constructing and contributing to new knowledge? I am afraid I do not buy into the notion that our reliance on technology increases our demand for knowledge – this is simply too simplistic. The demand for knowledge is the result of interdependent but different factors such as the fact that technology makes access to already-produced knowledge possible. I am furthermore not sure that having access to ‘knowledge’ that is available on the internet necessarily results in the creation of ‘new’ knowledge. Having access to the abundance of data on the Internet is (most probably) related to the consumption of knowledge, but I am not sure it necessarily results in the creation of new knowledge. [Maybe an interesting question is to xplore the notion of ‘originality’ in a digital age…]

When students use a variety of Internet resources to reflect on or achieve individual, collective or commissioned learning goals, does it really constitute the creation of new knowledge? Yes, it may be ‘new’ for them, but original knowledge, I am not sure. Yes, if individuals or a collective intentionally act on knowledge found on the Internet and reframe, adapt or critique the ‘found’ knowledge, then we are moving from consumption to production. But this is not always the case.

My second concern is that the notion of “collective learning” is disembedded (if I understand Littlejohn correctly) from socio-economic, gender and geopolitical power relations. Knowledge consumption and production are not neutral acts. These acts of knowledge consumption and production do not take place in a vacuum but are in service of established power relations between individuals and groups, whether formed on the basis of socio-economic, geopolitical, cultural or gender criteria. In following Gray (2004), I believe that there is no basis for the wide-spread belief that progress in knowledge and science will necessarily result in a more just and compassionate society. Gray (2004, p. 70) warns that knowledge and science cannot (and will not) “end the conflicts in history. It is an instrument that humans use to achieve their goals, whether winning wars or curing the sick, alleviating poverty or committing genocide”.

Accepting therefore that “knowledge [production and consumption] is not an unmixed good; it can be used as much as a curse as a blessing” (Gray 2004, p. 70), the important question is whether collective or connected learning will serve justice and compassion, or selfish interests and injustice.

The use of ‘collective learning’ to spread and create lies and stereotypes resulting in the massacres in Nazi Germany and in Rwanda are eerie reminders that ‘collective learning’ is not a panacea. It often (mostly?) serves dominant ideologies. But it can also be used to confront and question dominant ideologies as in the recent example of the Arab Spring.

Which brings me to my third point regarding Littlejohn’s position paper, namely the assumption that collective and connected learning is ‘new’. Although technology and access to technology do increase the possibilities for collective and collaborative learning; it is not necessarily ‘new’. Humans, throughout the ages, have always shared knowledge production, albeit based on class, gender, tribal or geopolitical criteria.

Whether in communal gatherings on the African plains, or in the great libraries of Timbuktu or Alexandria, knowledge was shared and disseminated. Existing knowledges were critiqued, endorsed, adapted and shared. Yes, institutional and personal online learning environments do create more opportunities for collective learning than ever before, but it is not ‘new’.

Notwithstanding the comments above, an important issue for those of us in higher education on the African continent is “how” to utilise the potential of collective learning on a continent where the digital divide is slowly being eroded by the immense increase in mobile technologies. Yes, there are vast parts of the African continent where the digital divide still reigns supreme, but access to mobile telephones and internet access through mobile technologies do necessitate that we urgently engage with the ‘how’.

And finally, are we ready for assessing and accrediting ‘collective learning’ or is most of the learning in higher education still in service of our obession with individual performance? Or maybe the question should rather be in which cases are individual performances and evidence of competence still appropriate and when and where can (and should) we encourage, enable, accredit and celebrate collective learning?

About opendistanceteachingandlearning

Research professor in Open Distance and E-Learning (ODeL) at the University of South Africa (Unisa). Interested in teaching and learning in networked and open distance and e-learning environments. I blog in my personal capacity and the views expressed in the blog does not reflect or represent the views of my employer, the University of South Africa (Unisa).
This entry was posted in Change.mooc.ca, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Collective and connected learning: implications for open, distance and e-learning

  1. Irene Gould says:

    I like your comments on Collective learning; I agree completely with your points of view. Collective learning is of course not new, it may not have had a name as such, but it has always been there/here….And technology makes it only easier to see the “collective” in the knowledge. I finally understand it a lot better, Thanks, Irene Gould

  2. Pingback: Collective and connected learning: implications for open, distance and e-learning | E-Learning-Inclusivo | Scoop.it

  3. Pingback: Collective and connected learning: implications for open, distance and e-learning « juandon. Innovación y conocimiento

  4. Dear Paul

    Thank you for your considered response.

    Collective Learning is an ‘old’ idea which has found new relevance as we gain the ability to connect with the collective knowledge (via social media) in ways that were previously impossible. The learners is now constantly positioned within the collective knowledge space, ctrating new relationships and (perhaps) redefining what is an individual and what is the collective.

    You are right to raise the importance of questioning under which circumstances collective learning is possible or appropriate. Most examples are from the corporate world, in the area of knowledge work, where problems and learning tend to be unstructured, or from ‘interest’ groups. No single approach to learning is universally applicable to all context, disciplines or with all learners. The possiblity of collective learning is tempered by many factors. One of which is the pre-requisite that learners have to be self regulated to engage in and benefit from collective learning by setting their own goals and structuring their own learning pathways. Another is that learners have to have the literacies and competencies to source and manipulate knowledge. Alongside these are a multitude of cultural and technical factors. Not to mention the ethical issues you raise. Nevertheless, collective learning exists and by not engaging in it learners could be limiting their potential.
    When I say “Our increasing reliance on technology has led to an unstoppable demand for new knowledge”, I mean, for example, our dependence on fossil fuels which mitigates technological solution to extract what the energy sector calls the ‘difficult oil’. Similarly in healthcare we demand improved solutions, which invariably call for technological solutions. Building these new technological solutions requires solving novel problems which, in turn, necessitates the development of new knowledge – or reuse of existing knowledge in new contexts.
    You say that ‘having access to ‘knowledge’ that is available on the internet necessarily results in the creation of ‘new’ knowledge”. This is true. While there are clear examples of creating novel solutions through collective knowledge building, not all (re)creating knowledge will result in original knowledge. Is this really a problem? Suppose many learners with a similar learning goal follow an almost identical learning pathway. The recreation of this pathway creates – and verifies – a valuable resource for others (ie the traces of how people learn).

    The point you make about the limitations of considering collective learning – or any form of learning – separate from socio-economic, gender and geopolitical power relations is extremely interesting. Some of our research has taken into consideration the power dynamics between novices and experts within a large organisation. This area is fascinating and difficult to research. Id be interested in any work you have carries out in this area.

    I appreciate the time you’ve taken to question my ideas, value your feedback and look forward to further responses. #change11 #collective

    Allison

  5. Pingback: Collective and connected learning: implications for open, distance and e-learning | Teaching in the XXI century | Scoop.it

  6. Pingback: Collective and connected learning: implications for open, distance and e-learning | Educación a Distancia (EaD) | Scoop.it

  7. kevin says:

    Yes , i agree with you,and when we address an learning approach,we often like to suppose some condition beyond the fact.but i believe that social media can result in vast change in the social learning.

    • Kevin, thanks for the response. I don’t think anyone in his or her right mind (maybe it is an overstatement for some :-)) would disagree with the fact that social media is changing the way we learn, what we learn, and more importantly, why we learn. I just have a suspicion that much of the debate on the impact of Web2.0 technologies on learning, underestimate the fact that technology often (mostly) “amplifies and deepens existing power differentials between the information rich and the information poor” (Mayer-Schonberger in ‘Digital’, 2011:197). He suggests that the use of digital technologies “solidifies and deepens” existing power relations.

  8. Pingback: Week 4 Mooc: more reflection and synthesis #change11 « Learning in the workplace

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s