My favorite course in undergrad (and one of the main reasons I moved from mechanical to industrial engineering) was a manufacturing course taught entirely without technology using the Socratic method. The professor expected us to read the assigned chapters of the textbook before class, and he never lectured. Instead, he had cards with all the students’ names on them, and he’d work his way through the cards asking us questions (so everyone got some questions) and leading us into a discussion. First we’d cover the material from the chapters, then dig deeper into it. If you got it wrong, he’d mock and ridicule you (in a good-natured way), and if you argued with him, he’d offer to take it outside to have a fistfight (again, good-natured). There were no slides, no social media, no computers at all (this was before tablets and touchscreens, so everyone took notes on paper). It doesn’t fit the definition of “connected learning,” but it was definitely the most engaged class I’ve ever taken because the professor had a passion for the subject and imparted that passion to all of us (and because participation was non-optional).

So I agree, connected learning, being so technology-focused, may not be appropriate for all subjects. I think it’s also dependent on the professor. That manufacturing class could have been taught successfully using more technology, but that particular professor was better without it.

LikeLike

I appreciate you taking the time to pick apart the various given definitions of Connected Learning and showing that it is a very broad concept. I think a fairly common trap that many of us who are new to the idea of Connected Learning fall into is that it takes only certain specific forms and can only be done in particular ways. We naturally confine ourselves to the examples we see, but Connected Learning can clearly be adapted to many different situations.

Absolutely. Real world examples provide us with context, something that is tragically overlooked in most classes, especially STEM. Engineers love to teach in a vacuum, relaying just the facts and procedures while leaving out the context and practical applications of said knowledge.

I think the grading is the most important issue. I do not like the traditional way of grading but I know it has a lot of advantages. I look forward to hearing Dr. Nelson lecture about grading.

I share your nervousness about the swiftness with which we’ve embraced the concept of a “digital age.” In The Book of Laughter and Forgetting, Milan Kundera talks about a time when history “moved slowly,” juxtaposing it to “nowadays” when “history moves at a brisk clip.” But while I’m determined to hold on to an expansive understanding of history (one definition of which is simply “change over time”), I’m also compelled to acknowledge that the pace of change has accelerated and continues to do so – whether we are talking about the anthropocene or the digital age.
The “is google making us stupid?” issue is one we take up later in the term (even though it’s so 2009!), but for a valuable (and I think more interesting) perspective on the challenges of dealing with an abundance of information (or “the shallows” as it’s sometimes called), check out David Weinberger’s Too Big to Know. It’s a provocative book, but one that helped me re-frame my approach to a networked world and to the historian’s task in the digital age.

You do have to meet your community where they are, and if “your people” aren’t Tweeters but you’re able to stay in touch through other channels, it’s all good! I think for many scientists, and especially ecology types, the publicity around charismatic mega fauna or cute cubs, or whatever is more of an added bonus rather than the main value of the platform. In lots of small fields (across disciplines) Twitter is really good for connecting people who otherwise might be isolated and for raising the profile of the group’s work (because the tweets are accessible to all). Sometimes just letting the world know you exist can be helpful.

I agree with you. That is a big problem. As I mentioned in my post, I think the connected learning should be used to make students interested in the topics and it should not be used instead of the traditional system. A combination of the traditional system and connected learning may help to eliminate the problem you mentioned here.

I teach this semester for undergraduate students in Econ department. I try to stimulate mutual and connected leaning in my class but for a theoretical course such as microeconomics, it is hard to apply such idea most of the time. Students need to learn concepts and models first and for doing that, I have no tools other than explaining ,defining and clarifying those models and theories for them. In this situation, connected learning is not applicable.

As an English composition instructor, I can definitely see the benefits of blogging regularly in an academic setting. So often, students seem hesitant or intimidated by their own writing. They don’t want to sound stupid or they don’t know what to say. Blogging is a good way, not only to get them writing regularly, but also to get them over the hump of starting the writing process. It also provides them with a means to situate their writing, knowing they will have an audience and that their work will (potentially) be seen by “the world.” It makes them cognizant of what they write and how they sound on the web, which is an invaluable lesson to learn in college before students enter the “real world.” You even said that you saw improvement in your writing by consistently by updating your blog. This the sort of exercise that is good practice for composition students. Thank you for your enthusiasm and for taking the time to be on the web, in front of a screen for a few minutes longer. Keep it up!

Is it better to say “Why everyone cannot be a blogger”?. I think everyone can blog, it is not a big deal as you said just some paragraphs and it is over. Even if he got bad or opposed comments, he can simply ignore them as if he got nothing. Writing a course blog or once every now and then scientific blog does not make you a blogger. On a counter example, some people cannot face the community or other people with their believes or opinions. They find the only way of expressing themselves in using anonymous blogs, tweets or Facebook posts. They are better in arguing about their thoughts behind screens than in a face-to-face conversation. I agree that to be a blogger in the way that you write periodic blogs like daily basis blogs, you need some talent in organizing your ideas or words in a way to attract people. Those type of bloggers try not to repeat themselves by describing only their day but to discuss other popular topics. So, yes not every one is capable to be a blogger, but writing just few blogs is not a problem.