Synonyms

Affordances; Connectivist tools; Higher education; Social media

Introduction

Connectivism is a learning theory which has been gaining ground in higher education in recent years. Its currency could be attributed to the rapid development of emerging technologies, which has impacted on the ways in which knowledge is produced and accessed (Downes 2005; Siemens 2004, 2009). As a theory, connectivism is often referred to as networked learning involving more than just the technology used to achieve the end result (Darrow 2009). Connectivism assumes that “knowledge is distributed across a network of connections and knowledge nodes” (Downes 2012). Social media can be used to connect to some of these nodes of knowledge and facilitate further knowledge development on the premise of collaboration and sharing.

Although much has been written about connectivism since it was first coined by Siemens (2004) and Downes (2005) as a new learning theory, not much has been written about the affordances of connectivist tools for educational purposes. One of the problems with introducing connectivist tools into higher education is that academics are often not au fait with their use for educational purposes (Johnson et al. 2014; Seaman and Tinti-Kane 2013). In order to use these tools for educative purposes, higher educators would have to be inducted into their use in teaching and learning (Johnson et al. 2014; Stevenson and Hedberg 2011). To disseminate knowledge about connectivist tools, it is necessary to provide professional development for academics on the use of these tools for pedagogical purposes (Ng’ambi et al. 2013) and in reporting on how the academics experience these endeavors. As Anderson and Garrison (in press) note, the support needed to help teachers access and organize instructional content through the www is very important. “Teaching in a global, information-rich environment is a very different experience from teaching in a closed classroom.” Unfortunately, academics remain uncertain and even fearful about the use of connectivist tools such as social media in their pedagogical practice as doing so requires them to abandon many conventional teaching and learning practices (Adria and Rose 2004). There is thus a need to investigate the use of connectivist tools such as Google Drive, WhatsApp, and Skype from the learner’s perspective (Rambe and Nel 2014; Stevenson and Hedberg 2011).

This entry reports on the experiences of a group of university lecturers who were enrolled in an interinstitutional Postgraduate Diploma in Higher Education Teaching and Learning. The group of participants in the study was involved in an assessment task which entailed investigating a specific learning theory and developing a collaborative assignment on this theory. Our particular group was allocated “connectivism” as their learning theory. During the process of completing the task, the group researched on connectivism as a learning theory and used connectivist tools such as Google Docs, Google Slides, Google Forms, WhatsApp, and Skype to investigate and develop their assignment. It was decided during the course of completing this assignment that group members were interested in disseminating their experiences of doing this task and their views on the pros and cons of connectivist tools. Toward this end, auto-ethnographic data were collected through a Google Forms where the participants shared their experiences and perceptions of connectivist tools and their various affordances.

This entry provides a brief overview of connectivism, connectivist tools, and the affordances of the specific tools which are considered in this entry. This is followed by a description of the methodology used, after which the findings are presented and discussed, as well as their implications for the higher education context.

Connectivism

In proposing connectivism as a learning theory for the digital age, Siemens (2004) characterizes it as a successor to behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism (Bell 2011). These antecedents to connectivism had their limitations in the form in which they viewed intrapersonal learning; their failure to address the learning that is located within technology and organizations; and their lack of contribution to the value judgments that needs to be made in knowledge-rich environments (Siemens 2004). Connectivism offers the platforms to shift teaching and learning practices in the twenty-first century.

In connectivism, learning takes place when learners make connections between ideas located throughout their personal learning networks, which are composed of numerous information resources and technologies (Dunaway 2011). One of the underlying principles of connectivism is that the capacity to know is more critical than what is currently known (Siemens 2008; Wang et al. 2014). Connectivism is driven by the understanding that decisions are based on rapidly altering foundations, where new information is continually being acquired and shared (Siemens 2004). From an epistemological point of view, learning in connectivism takes place by connecting to different nodes of knowledge across cyberspace, objectively analyzing and reviewing the gained knowledge. This process is aided through critical discussions and social interactions using social media. Technology used was blended in the form of cloud, social network, online voice integration, in this entry enhanced real time communication among participants and provided a platform for social creation of knowledge (Callaghan and Bower 2009; Rowe et al. 2013).

Connectivist Tools

Connectivist tools are used for learners to interact by creating and sharing knowledge, and are based on emerging or Web 2.0 technologies, made possible through the social web (del Moral et al. 2013). Shared working spaces for collaborative projects such as Google Drive and its various tools, such as Google Slides, Chat, Docs, Forms, etc., and WhatsApp and Skype for communication are some examples of connectivist tools which can be used for teaching and learning purposes. Through these connectivist tools, the learner is able to become an active and visible node in the learning network, contributing resources and ideas and participating in the collaborative creative process (Pettenati and Cigognini 2007). A clear implication of using connectivist tools and other social media is that the learners should be “active co-producers” of knowledge rather than “passive consumers” of content and subsequently that learning should be participatory (Selwyn 2012). Establishing how higher educators and learners perceive connectivist tools and how they understand the affordances of these tools is important for enhancing their use for educational purposes (Rambe and Nel 2014).

Affordances and Connectivist Tools

In recent years, the term “affordance” has increasingly appeared in educational literature, especially related to the use of online technologies in education (Bower 2008; Conole and Dyke 2004; Day and Lloyd 2007; Gee 2014). In order to understand how attributes of online technologies interact with other elements of a learning context, including learners, teachers or educational practitioner, and the physical environment, it is necessary to understand affordance theories (Day and Lloyd 2007).

“‘Affordance’ refers to the perceived and actual properties of a thing, primarily those functional properties that determine just how the thing could possibly be used” (Salomon 1993 cited in Conole and Dyke 2004). When considering how to match learning tasks with technologies, it is useful to have a knowledge of the affordances of the technologies (Bower 2008). The term “affordance” was coined by the ecological psychologist Gibson (1977) and adapted by Norman (1988) for the design of everyday objects who distinguished between “real” and “perceived” affordances (Day and Lloyd 2007). In the original description that Gibson provides, an “affordance” is present as long as the organism is physically able to undertake the required action and as long as the possibility of executing that action is present (Bower 2008). In other words, affordances relate to the action possibilities (Gee 2014) that exist for connectivist tools. Affordances are therefore relational in that they concern the opportunities a connectivist tool offers and provides for action and how these qualities are taken up by the person using it.

Real affordances are not nearly as important as perceived affordances which signal to the user which actions can be performed and how they may be accomplished (Bower 2008). Gibson (1979) and James Paul Gee (2014) take this important point on perception of affordances forward by observing that unless an individual can perceive the possibilities connectivist tools provide, these tools are unlikely to be used effectively. In order to take advantage of the affordances or possibilities of a connectivist tool, “effectivities” are necessary (Gee 2014; Gibson 1979). Effectivities are “the set of capacities for action that the individual has for transforming affordances into action” (Gee 2014). These effectivities are thus necessary for academics and students using connectivist tools in educational contexts so that they can be used in ways which take the learning forward. This is why it is important to engage with academics and students around the use of these tools for pedagogical purposes. Thus, the concepts “affordances” and “effectivities” are relational in that they are dependent on both connectivist tool and the ability and perception of the academic or student to use the tool for educational purposes.

This study sought to investigate was how the affordances of connectivist tools for teaching and learning were perceived by a group of learners who were educators in institutions of tertiary education. Specifically, the tools under examination were Google Drive, WhatsApp, and Skype.

During the course of engaging with the task, the group members became interested in the efficacy of utilizing connectivist tools to prepare and complete their assignment, particularly since they were located in geographically disparate spaces. The formal work of the assignment was conducted on Google Slides presentation, with collaborative writing and posting of graphics from group members and feedback to each other in the comments and chat boxes on the side. A Google folder for readings was uploaded for any useful texts that group members and the facilitator were able to source. In order to gather data for the study, a Google Forms questionnaire was sent to all group members, including the facilitator. At the same time, through the narrative, the participants were able to reflect on the experience. Auto-ethnography is defined as a qualitative research method that uses data about self and its context to gain an understanding of the connectivity between self and others within the same context (Ngunjiriet al. 2010). The auto-ethnographic researcher strives to examine his or her experiences in relation to others who have encountered similar circumstances as a way to identify a pattern, theory, or thread inherent to the group (Raab 2013).

The responses from the participants resulted in the close scrutiny of the affordances of the connectivist tools used in the assessment task, in terms of what the possibilities that various tools were able to provide or not provide for the purposes of completing the assessment task given to the group.

Collaboration

The use of social media was perceived as enabling group collaboration and the ability to complete tasks assigned to group members, particularly since members were geographically separated. Rambe and Nel (2014) also noted that educators in the South African context reported on the opportunities that social media present for collaborative purposes. One of the participants commented, “from my experience, the use of these social media (i.e., WhatsApp, Google Docs) was an important aspect for the successful completion of the assignments (1&3).”

Familiarity with Connectivist Tools

One of the participants, who came from fields such as Information Sciences, indicated his familiarity with the use of social media: “Exposure and deep knowledge of IT made it easy for me to use social media.” Another participant found Google applications to be well designed from a technical viewpoint and was able to express this eloquently:

Google drive, presentation and docs are very user friendly. Google has been great by not attempting to redesign the interface, but rather use an interface that is familiar to most users. This makes all google applications easy to figure out and follow. The use of a great, simple intuitive interface is in my mind the key to their success and why I like using those platforms.

Participants found the use of tools for educational purposes to be more conducive when they were familiar with them, “WhatsApp was easy as I am familiar with it.” Conversely, when participants had not used the tool before or were unfamiliar with it, they found that their participation in the group activities was impeded, “Google presentations was not as easy to use as PowerPoint (which I am used to) as it was a bit slow and froze at times which was frustrating and it was unfamiliar.”

The Personal and Professional Boundaries with WhatsApp

The fact that participants found WhatsApp an easy connectivist tool to use did not mean that there were no problems with its application for educational purposes. Because participants were used to using this tool for social and personal purposes, participants found it more difficult to confine the discussion to educational matters. Rambe & Bere (2013) and Madge et al. (2009) have also noted the difficulties in traversing personal and professional boundaries in relation to mobile learning, similarly with Facebook for learning. One participant observed:

When it comes to WhatsApp use, it was the easiest of the tools as most people who own smartphones would utilise it on a day to day basis. That being said, the fact that it was easy to use, does not mean that it was not challenging to control what was being discussed.

Google Docs and Presentations, on the other hand, were not familiar to all participants, and they related these tools more with the tasks at hand than with socializing with their peers:

Google Docs and Presentations were new media platforms for me. I truly enjoyed learning about their potential use. Between the two I would say that Google Presentation was the most challenging as there are many options one could make use of.

Skype was also a familiar tool to most participants who had used it to communicate with others across geographical distances. Skype is a familiar social media platform for me, although I rarely use it.

Uneven Communication Through Social Media

Participant 1 and Participant 2 were great at communicating and interacting and drove our group assignments – I am grateful for this. Due to the distance, it was not easy to interact with Participant 3.

As can be seen in the above quote, some participants took more responsibility than others and made far more use of the connectivist tools to work on the task, ‘I tend to take the reins of group work when things are not going according to the original plan.’ Two group members took a leading position when working on the assignment - as one of them noted:

We had frank conversations about the course and the assignments. I always felt we had a good synergy. The other two members were a bit more distant in terms of the way we engaged but towards the end of Assignment 3 we had managed to establish a good rapport

Affordances of Tools as Perceived by Participants

The affordances of the different connectivist tools which were used regarding matching the teaching and learning tasks which the group members had to complete, and the processes involved in doing them, were commented on by the participants. They examined the attributes of the connectivist tools and what they made possible in terms of the group communication and abilities to collaborate on the course assignments.

Social Media

Group members were working academics who had little time to meet face-to-face with their work and family responsibilities, and social media provided a flexible platform for communication under these circumstances.

We only met face-to-face a few times, most communication was done via WhatsApp and the Google drive. There were times I realise I could have been better at communicating, this was due to pressures relating to work, home responsibilities and the course and having to prioritise each of these at different times.

WhatsApp

WhatsApp was seen as providing group members with immediate notification (Church and De Oliviera 2013) and coordination of upcoming deadlines: “With WhatsApp, the messages are instant although there is no face to face.” Another member commented on the fact that WhatsApp was not used to engage with the task but to arrange meetings and alert people to what was happening currently and what was being planned in the group:

WhatsApp was mainly used as an organizational tool with little to no interaction about the topic or task at hand. This I mainly ascribe to the laborious nature of entering text on a cellphone. But WhatsApp did provide social interaction promoting motivation and group coherence.

Google Drive

The Google Drive was used for working collaboratively on the task at hand both synchronously and asynchronously. The Google platform provided a much better platform for task-oriented interaction. The interaction taking place while all simultaneously working on the same project was amazing as interaction and comments in real time. However, our interaction was also asynchronous via comments and replies. Similar affordances of Google Drive were found by Rowe et al. (2013). Participants were highly enthusiastic about the affordances of Google Drive for the educational task:

The best platform for interaction was Google presentation with the built-in chat facility for task orientated learner-learner interaction. The reason it is so effective is because it has the chat function which allowed real-time chats, input, I think the true reason it was the most effective tool is because we were actually working on the task, thereby the conversations were guided to be task orientated and generally didn't shift into the social paradigm like WhatsApp for example. In addition, Google presentation allows for the asynchronous communication in the form of comments and input to which one can respond to at any time removing the time constraints. Furthermore, the comments are left directly on the task, making it easy to follow the meaning. Often in emails it becomes difficult to figure out exactly to what the comment pertains in particular if its attempting to address issues of formatting.

Google Drive was seen as the most useful tool for a number of different aspects of the task. In the participants’ descriptions below, the accessibility, view-ability, read-ability, write-ability, share-ability, collaboration, move-ability, large size-ability, upload-ability, dialogue-ability, accessibility, synchronicity, revision-ability, browse-ability, search-ability, build-ability, communicability, and interaction-ability are mapped out:

We could access the material from any location as well as share information among the rest of the peers.

Google drive allowed for uploading of large file sizes and instant feedback that involved commenting electronically. There was online collaboration of work activities among the group members involved in the project.

I think Google Drive was great to build and develop learner-content interaction. We could access the material from any location as well as share information among the rest of the peers

Google Drive was great to build and develop learner-content interaction. We could access the material from any location as well as share information among the rest of the peers.

For some participants, while Google Drive had many affordances, it was not sufficient altogether to accomplish what needed to be done. Some participants noted that they needed to do individual work to prepare for the collaborative work in groups:

group engagement with the content occurred in the creation phase on Google presentation, but it was often not in depth. The more in depth discussions occurred face-to-face.

Some form of content interaction occurred on Google presentation, but I think the majority of interaction with the content in my case occurred by reading and analysing pdf and word documents myself, in other words individual content engagement.

Google drive was where we could access useful and relevant content. I did however find a lot of articles and papers through my own searches online.

Skype

Skype was the choice of tool to have more extended conversations between group members who were distantly located geographically: “I used Skype for conferencing with group members at a distant away from the physical venue.” However, Skype was not perceived by participants as being reliable in its communicative affordances:

Skype is a platform I find least useful. There are always problems with connection particular when more than two people want to engage in the conversation. Often it is difficult to hear and there is always someone that is not sure on how to connect. Therefore, I rate Skype as being a difficult platform and avoid using it as a tool unless there is no other option.

Participants perceived connectivist tools used in this study, viz., WhatsApp, Google Drive, and Skype, to have various media, spatial, temporal, navigational, and accessible affordances for the task they were required to complete. These tools provided different affordances needed to complete the task – WhatsApp for alerting members to what was happening, Google Drive for collaborative work on the task, and Skype for verbal conversation and planning regarding the task.

Conclusion

This entry aimed to explore the perceived affordances of connectivist tools for a Higher Education Postgraduate Diploma course. The auto-ethnographic data of the author of this entry corroborate Bryant et al.’s (2014) observation that the use of connectivist tools can make a significant contribution to learning through their affordances which enable social interaction, connectivity, and support of collaborative practices. However, the adoption of connectivist tools may be thwarted on both an institutional and individual level if the perceived affordances of these tools are not made explicit and if personal and professional boundaries become too blurred (Bryant et al. 2014; Madge et al. 2009). The core assignment on this course was designed in such a way as to encourage the creation of a product by the group of higher educators who were part of the interinstitutional PG Dip teaching and learning course through the use of social media platforms such as Google Drive. However, if the affordances of connectivist tools such as WhatsApp, Google Drive, and Skype are to be actualized for educational purposes, they must be accompanied by effectivities of academics and students in terms of their abilities to recognize and use the tools for teaching and learning.