Not all students in connectivist courses could autonomously direct their own learning, and some felt disconnected and demotivated¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Studies of early connectivist courses found that not all students could autonomously direct their own learning and some experienced disconnection, demotivation and disturbance. → Downes 2019 q2 i? Mackness and Bell (2015), studying the Rhizo14 cMOOC, reported that some students had mixed feelings or felt disconnected, demotivated, demoralized, disenfranchised, and disturbed. → Downes 2019 (2)

Evidence¶

Downes 2019¶

Downes, S. (2019). Recent Work in Connectivism. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 22(2). https://www.eurodl.org/

q2 · i? · review · r2

The survey's criticisms section reports Kop's (2011) study of the PLENK 2010 connectivist course, which concluded not all students could autonomously direct their own learning or master critical literacies. Reported second-hand via the survey.

"Kop (2011), for instance, after studying Personal Learning Environments, Networks and Knowledge (PLENK) 2010, an early connectivist course, concluded that not all students were able to autonomously direct their own learning and master critical literacies."

Downes 2019 (2)¶

Downes, S. (2019). Recent Work in Connectivism. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 22(2). https://www.eurodl.org/

q2 · i? · review · r2

The survey reports, citing Mackness and Bell (2015) via Gonçalves and Osório (2018), that in the Rhizo14 rhizomatic cMOOC some students felt "disconnected, demotivated, demoralized, disenfranchised, and disturbed". Reported second-hand via the survey.

"Although many students experienced the light side of the cou rse, some had mixed feelings and experiences, while some even felt disconnected, demotivated, demoralized, disenfranchised, and disturbed – the dark side."

Studies bearing on this claim¶

How much choice, for whom: what happens when self-direction is wide open? This table gathers the studies behind this claim and the 9 narrower claims that bear on it: 8 distinct studies (2 review, 2 theoretical, 2 qualitative, 1 causal, 1 design), q1–q3, 1 of 8 with an effect size coded. One row per study, codes as each entry records them; no effect is averaged and no verdict is drawn. Built by scripts/synthesize_claim.py from eval/synthesis/; a row that looks wrong is fixed on the claim it comes from.

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Critics argue connectivism cannot explain concept formation or development, invoking the learning paradox — related
• In surveyed recent literature, no evaluative study found evidence against connectivism; outcomes were positive or at worst neutral — reports the opposite
• Autonomy, diversity, interactivity, openness and Web 2.0 showed a positive significant effect on students' achievement in a structural model — reports the opposite
• Self-determination theory holds that autonomy support raises intrinsic motivation, and a meta-analysis finds expected tangible rewards undermine it — related
• Autonomy-supportive teaching contrasts with controlling teaching, and controlled students do poorly compared to autonomous students — related
• Youth motivation to persist in everyday problem-solving is minimal, costing them collaboration and new knowledge — related
• In one extreme case, two sixth-graders with a choice-rich, ungraded STEAM infrastructure extended a game-design challenge into a year-long self-directed project well beyond its designed scope — related
• Moderate learner agency in game-based learning yields better outcomes than no agency or high agency — a broader claim this one bears on