I have enjoyed to read the article of Jenny Mackness and Carmen Tschofen “Connectivism and dimensions of individual experience”, published in IRRODL Jan 2012. You can read the article here.
The idea is to enrich connectivism by giving some psychological content, it is needed I think 
So I am happy that Jenny and Carmen have begun this project. I want to understand what they have done, what are their findings and open questions. They observe ‘a growing tension between the elements of connectivity believed to be necessary for effective learning and the variety of individual perspectives both revealed and concealed during interactions with these elements.’ As a mirror they use the main principles of connectivism and they bring two personality theories beside the principles, they juxtapose three conceptualizations.
I gathered a simple picture about this:
They suggest that together these three concepts offer a lens through which we can explore dimensions of individual experience in connectivism open courses.
They want to explore the meanings and compare, analyze freely the concepts.
The Big five personality theory describes personality via traits – every individual is an unique combination of these traits. The Self-determination theory examines human growth and initiative as a form of dynamic potential and is closely linked to understandings of psychology and motivation. I could ask why these theories but I leave it later, first I try to follow their findings. This is one possible way to go further, I do not doubt it.
All elements, they suggest, are significantly related to the interactions of connectivist learning and connectivist principles both in terms of gaining a broader understanding of the vocabulary and semantic nuances of terms used to explain connectivism and in understanding factors that affect how and why individuals may choose to engage with connectivist learning. Boldings are mine.
I try to understand the research method they use by giving an example.
Their exploration begins from autonomy. It means choice, control, independence. It is known (proven in some research) that all educated people are not autonomous learners, some of them want control and guidance. Psychological autonomy is a broader concept: acting from own interest and integrated values, expression of self. In psychology there is no contradiction in maintaining self-expression and a community orientation simultaneously, they develop together. An autonomous individual is defined by commitment to three values and the ability to realize them: self-knowledge, self-direction, self-expression. So what?
A question from practice: How about lurking, is it selfish or free-riding or a free individual choice?
And the answer after expanding the concept to psychology: “With this understanding, the interpretation of certain types of participation (or perceived non-participation) as selfishness and the denial of community values seems to reflect a personal worldview and may fail to acknowledge the complexity of individual engaged in virtual spaces.”
This is the way Jenny and Carmen proceed with questions. I consider this very interesting. They expand the given principles by combining to psychological dimensions. I appreciate their contribution in the discussion part of the article:
without this augmented recognition, there is the risk that connectivism will serve as another educational prescription or as a description of information and knowledge flow, rather than a theory of learning and a conduit for growth and even transformation ..
This is part one, I shall continue tomorrow about connectedness, diversity and openness and their links to personality theories. I need more images or diagrams or whatever my pictures are (tired now to use this foreign language, have to rest). See you!
Hi Heli,
I am so pleased you enjoyed our paper, and I very much appreciate your work in creating an initial image to facilitate understanding! I am looking forward to the insight you can bring to our introductory thoughts– in reading your previous post, I know you have a rich background for these ideas! You asked in this post why we chose these particular theories, and I will spend a bit of time writing about this (I am a slow blogger:-))… while looking forward to your next post!
Carmen
Thanks Carmen,
I am going to draw another picture around connectedness .. these are not simple concepts. It was important to hear that you ‘accept’ my image. Visualizations help me to understand better, I hope.
PS I thought you live in Spain (remember your name and I’ve visited your blog) – but Google told you live in USA. You are native English speakers both, sometimes I hope I were, too
Heli
Hello Heli – like Carmen, I am so appreciative of the time you have taken to read our paper with such care. It is great to have another person to discuss our work with. I like your diagram – wish we had thought of doing that
I look forward to seeing if you come up with any more helpful diagrams.
It’s good to know that our point about the meaning of autonomy came across in the paper, i.e. that it’s possible to autonomously want control, and that ‘lurking’ may be a way of expressing autonomy. But, the idea that I took away for myself from our work on this paper is that autonomy is an expression of the self. This seemed to me an important idea that I hadn’t fully realised before, and, I think, accounts for some observable behaviours (such as lurking) that we see in MOOCs.
I think Carmen is going to reply to you on her blog – so I’m looking forward to reading her blog post, as well as your next ‘installment’.
Thanks so much Heli,
Jenny
[...] Carmen’s paper on Connectivism and Dimensions on Individual experience and now Heli’s post, I would like to reflect on what those three theories mean under Networked Learning and [...]
[...] In his view connections, supportive human relations are crucial to autonomy. Heli: Psychological autonomy is a broader concept Connectivism needs an ethics on connectivity and participation. I do not want to reopen a [...]