Learning Network

Personal Learning Network

In high school, the time it took to complete a course was a drawn-out perception. Motivation, extrinsically influenced, relies on a facilitator’s role in direct information processing (Cercone, 2008). As a student, I was more internally motivated to get to the next summer/holiday break. The days went by slow, and the ability to cognitively process knowledge limited by forced engagement resulting in generalized storage of the experience. As we age, the perception of time shortens. “Where has all the time gone” a frequently used saying that directly correlates with this belief. As an adult learner, the processing time for knowledge is shortened; As we have little “time” to commit to the learning process and ability to infer internal and external experiences to reduce overwriting previous LTE storage (Cercone, 2008). Knowledge facilitation evolves to become quick, direct factual information that requires self-direction (Conlan, Grabowski & Smith, 2003). The rise of technology allowed advancements in multi-media facilitation in a virtual environment built to expand one’s learning network. 

Personal Learning Networks (PLN), challenge learning interpretations by engaging in a social presence, both physical and virtual. Connectivism, theorized by George Siemens in 2005, hypothesizes continuous learning using personal informational structures is most effective when looking beyond the traditional settings to support an advanced level of understanding (Andriotis, 2017). Developing a network of learning requires a PLN comprising three elements: connection building, connection maintenance, and connection activation (Gutierrez, 2016). As these three components express similarities in personal learning environments (PLE), PLN is rooted in self-directed learners (Gutierrez, 2016). PLNs focus on adding new people or resources, keeping resources fresh, and activating these connections in the relevant context (Gutierrez, 2016). As demonstrated in many different attempts to solve how learning occurs, a PLN is only a portion of one’s PLE. One’s PLE can be comprised of like-minded peers. However, a PLN requires unique constructivist views that challenge fundamental understandings using active engagement through technological advancements in social and educational platforms (Gutierrez, 2016). In summary, PLNs are self-constructed extensions of one’s PLE (Andriotis, 2017).

The time constraints and changing demands, professional and personal, on an adult learner help define the need for a PLN, especially in the workplace. To address sustainability, and relevant both an employer and employee must develop a learning-centric culture starting with one-on-one interaction. As job expectations advance form generalized stimulus-response, cognitive processing is required to remain at the forefront of learning initiatives. The need for “expert” learning is crucial to stay innovative. PLNs answer concerns with implicating traditional learning approaches in adult learning. Formal education can negatively impact the ability to juggle “life,” the time spent constructing interpretation, and financial obligations (Andriotis, 2017).  

When reflecting on your PLN, you need to understand the benefits. PLNs are self-directed/self-constructed. They offer the learners a choice in what they learn and the resources that create active engagement in the learning process, personalizing the learning experience (Lynch, 2017). Formal and informal resources allow insight from multiple backgrounds and or experience, levels of understanding, technological facilitation methods, i.e., blogs, scholarly articles, discussions, social networks, and internal knowledge reflection (Gutierrez, 2016).  

Final Thoughts:

If the ability to absorb knowledge is infinite, only confined by how the brain processes, store, and retrieves knowledge, can a personal learning network be infinite?

Resources:

Andriotis, N. (2017, October 23). Why and how to create successful personal learning networks. TalentLMS Blog. Retrieved June 8, 2020, from https://www.talentlms.com/blog/why-and-how-to-create-a-personal-learning-network-in-the-workplace/

Cercone, K. (2008). Characteristics of adult learners with implications for online learning design. AACE Journal, 16(2), 137–159. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Reader.ViewAbstract&paper_id=24286

Conlan, J., Grabowski, S., & Smith, K. (2003). Adult learning. In M Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching and technology. Retrieved from http://textbookequity.org/Textbooks/Orey_Emergin_Perspectives_Learning.pdf

Gutierrez, K. (2016, June 21). What are personal learning networks? SH!FT eLearning. Retrieved June 8, 2020, from https://www.shiftelearning.com/blog/personal-learning-networks

Lynch, M. (2017, August 3). What is the importance of a personal learning network? The Edvocate. Retrieved June 8, 2020, from https://www.theedadvocate.org/importance-personal-learning-network/

flash-port-3

Social Enviroments implications on learner

To address if the element of “social” environments, impact on learning environments is the same, you have to understand the role of social behavior and the implications on learning. Constructivism view humans construct knowledge by adapting meaning from a previous stimulus-response in the current relevant context (Jenkins, 2006). The process of knowledge is interpreted as a “personal world” or by “mind’s adaptations” that is all internally driven (Jenkins, 2006). Piaget furthered constructivist reach by describing biological readiness, life experiences, and structures that play a crucial role in self-constructing information (Jenkins, 2006). Social environments offer the transference of an individual’s prior skills or processes, allowing learners to voice their point of view and influence the organization of information.  

In my opinion, online pedagogy can offer the same “social” environment as a traditional classroom setting but hinder the ability to advance to the next level of understanding. Howard Gardner stated there are three types of learners, native, traditional, and expert, and if the misconceptions are not challenged, the level of understanding will remain the same. The zone of proximal development describes the kind of learning environment that enables effective knowledge transfer and cognitive development (Laureate Education, n.d.). In applying both approaches, one can produce an active learning environment that is conducive to both external experiences and cognitive processing (Ormrod, Schunk, & Gredler, 2009). When looking at learning strategies and styles that each _ism favors, it doesn’t hinder the ability to influence learning, just merely suggestions that favor memory storage and organization. In the Constructivist point of view, a learner can construct their understanding based on the social environment (Ormrod, Schunk, & Gredler, 2009) ; the variable to me would be the learner’s level of understanding. Instructional settings typically viewed as social offer groups, activities, feedback, and open dialogue between leaner that foster intuitive thinking. However, emerging technology now gives us the ability to see them still visually and communicate openly in realtime, creating the same atmospheric factors. To help guide instruction, facilitators must demonstrate the ability to create a social presence, or the ability of learners to project personal characteristics, experiences, and influences into a community presenting as if “real people” (Kilgore, 2016).

Resources:

Jenkins, J. (2006). Constructivism. In Encyclopedia of educational leadership and administration. Retrieved from http://knowledge.sagepub.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/view/edleadership/n121.xml

Kilgore, W. (2016, November 14). Social Learning in Online Environments – Humanizing Online Teaching and Learning. Retrieved May 28, 2020, from https://humanmooc.pressbooks.com/chapter/social-learning-in-online-environments/ 

Laureate Education (Producer). (n.d.). Theory of social cognitive development [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Ormrod, J., Schunk, D., & Gredler, M. (2009). Learning theories and instruction (Laureate custom edition). New York, NY: Pearson.