Sunday, November 13, 2011
Impact of Technology on Life and Learning
Friday, August 26, 2011
Philosophy of Learning Digitally…
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Adoption of New Technologies and the ARCS model…
Friday, July 29, 2011
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Calling for Collaboration...
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Conversation Concerning Cognitivism…
The most important contribution to learning theory that Computer Information Processing (CIP) theory, schema theory, situated cognition, and Piaget’s cognitive development theory is that the emphasis on the research is focused on how learning occurs within the learner rather than just on the observable behavior that is seen after learning has taken place. Helpful insights from cognitivism that informs teacher pedagogy include the emphasis on activating prior knowledge, anchoring ideas, and organizing knowledge such as in Meaningful Learning and Schema theory, apprenticeships and communities of practice, and focusing on developmental and cognitive stages as in Piaget’s cognitive development theory (Driscoll, 2005).
Any technology that is used in the teaching and learning process can be categorized under a theory. Cognitivism is one theory that uses the analogy of information processing and computers to understand what goes on the human brain as people learn. Therefore cognitivism definitely is connected to technology as sis connectivism and others. Behaviorism is also connected to learning machines but does not attempt to use an analogy of a machine or computer in the learning processs. Whatever the theory, technology should play a prominent role in discussing it because technology is taking a very large place in K-12 and higher education. Kerr (2007) highlights in his blog post that each learning theory, or _ism, “…is offering something useful without any of them being complete or stand alone in their own right.” Kapp (2007) also reinforces this statement in his response, “We need to take pieces from each school of thought and apply it effectively because…Cognitivism doesn’t explain 100% how humans process information and neither does Constructivism or Behaviorism. What we need to is take the best from each philosophy and use it wisely to create solid educational experiences for our learners.” Both perspectives are important and encapsulate much of the realities in educational research and the discussion of learning theories. The learning process is complex and it takes more than one theory to articulate it. Each theory has its place in education and has its application in the classroom. It reminds me of a good quote, "There is nothing so practical as a good theory" (Ludwig Boltzmann, 1844-1906).
References:
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Hauser, L. (2005, July 19). Behaviorism, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/behavior/
Kerr, B. (2007, January 1). _isms as filter, not blinker [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html
Kapp, K. (2007, January 2). Out and about: Discussion on educational schools of thought [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.kaplaneduneering.com/kappnotes/index.php/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational/
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Musings on the Many Metaphors for Educators…
Regardless of what metaphor educators and researchers use to describe the learning process it is important to understand that the learning process is complex. No metaphor is able to truly encapsulate teaching and learning, after all even researchers and educators are still attempting to understand and measure the learning process. Siemens (2008) highlights Brown’s idea of Educator as a Master Artist, Fisher’s view of Educator as a Network Administrator, Bonk’s description of a Educator as a Concierge, his own understanding of Educator as a Curator (p. 15-17). All of these metaphors are informed by “a common attribute of blending the concept of educator expertise with learner construction” which includes both “instructivist/constructivist” ideas (Siemens, 2008, p. 17). All of these metaphors have inherently theoretical orientations based on current educational philosophies that are connected to the increasingly important role technology is playing in our educational process. These metaphors also lend themselves to a student-centered educational process, particularly Bonk’s Educator as a Concierge and Educator as a Network Administrator. Fisher’s Educator as a Master Artist and Siemens’ Educator as a Curator also highlight the idea of an educator creating and/or selecting displays for the audience, or students.
All of the metaphors are shaped by two important forces in our current educational milieu, technology and student-centered instruction. Are any of these metaphors better than the other? Well, it depends on what your educational philosophy. I like the idea of an educator as a curator by Siemens because I spend a lot of my instructional planning time finding digital resources that are relevant to my instructional unit that introduce and reinforce my essential questions and daily instructional goals. I select, create, display, and revisit important media selections in a certain order to drive instruction so that my students are exposed as many times as possible and in different ways to maximize learning. The students demonstrate knowledge through carefully selected activities that introduce and reinforce the essential questions and daily instructional goals so that they can be assessed. My idea of the learning process based on my current teaching context and my educational philosophy lead me to agree more with Siemens Educator as Curator metaphor. Others may reflect on their current teaching and learning process and agree with another metaphor that Siemens introduced, or create another metaphor that more closely describes their teaching. Is there a right or wrong answer? Of course not, it is merely a difference of educational philosophy. Researchers and theorists will always explore which educational philosophy works better than others, but there will always be different opinions in education. I can say that confidently because in the history of education, educational theory, and educational technology there always has been different opinions. What do you think?
References:
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Siemens, G. (2008, January 27). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educators and designers. Paper presented to ITFORUM. Retrieved from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/Paper105/Siemens.pdf
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Static & Dynamic Learning Technologies Continuum…
Static technology examples for the area of communication include web pages, emails, podcasts, videocasts, screencasts, and other forms of static text. Collaboration in static learning technologies are not interactive and include email and text as examples. Content is disseminated through static learning technologies such as web pages, eBooks, and podcasts or videocasts to name a few. These technologies are used to disseminate information and are not easily adapted towards constructing new knowledge for students but rather are ways to disseminate knowledge. Dynamic learning technologies for the area of communication, collaboration, and content exchange include blogs, wikis, voicethreads, and discussion boards. By design these technology tools are intended to be shared, interacted with, created and co-created. In other words these technologies enable students to use, manipulate, and add to so that individuals can collectively create, share, and construct knowledge. Middle technologies between these two areas include the limited ability to use, remix, or expand in a limited way.
Since the goal of education is for students to construct their own knowledge dynamic technologies provide ways for meaningful interactions of content, collaboration, and communication. However static technologies are necessary to provide a basis for knowledge construction that is guided by and anchored in accepted knowledge. Without this background subjective and potentially useless knowledge could be generated that cannot be used for any industry or learning community. Both ranges in the continuum are necessary and should be considered components in the overall learning process.
References:
Fahy, J. (2008). Characteristics of interactive online learning media, (pp. 143-166). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.
McGreal, R., & Elliott, M.(2008). In Anderson, T. (2nd ed.), Technologies of online learning (e-learning), (pp. 167-200). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.
Moller, L. (2008). Static and dynamic technological tools. [Unpublished Paper].
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Final Wikis in Distance Online Education Video Presentation
http://voicethread.com/share/1760665/
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Engaging Learners with New Strategies and Tools…
Monday, January 17, 2011
Assessing Collaborative Efforts in Online Learning Communities…
The most essential responsibilities of the members in a learning community in my opinion comprise of participation, interaction, and motivation. Swan (2004) describes the interactions in online learning environments in the following categories; interaction with peers (social presence), interaction with content (cognitive presence), and teaching presence (interaction with instructors). Palloff & Pratt (2007) discuss the technological changes that have taken place in society and the need for recontextualizing community and distance education "…attention need so t be paid to the developing sense of community within the group of participants in order for the learning process to be successful (p. 40). The tools for collaboration in an online course according to Palloff & Pratt (2005) are explanation of teams, setting guidelines and expectations, team agreements, and buy-in. I believe that the most important to all of these tools and responsibilities is buy-in. If the student buys in to the online learning experience, then s/he is intrinsically motivated to complete the responsibilities of the online course and utilize the collaboration tools that are implemented in the classroom.
In reference to the "fair and equitable assessment" of learning it makes sense to use a rubric to measure learning tasks. Collaboration should be defined in rubrics and expectations must be set at the beginning of the learning module. For example in order to get full credit for the discussion forum and interacting with your peers every week you must write your posting and respond to at least two other students with substantive comments or questions. Collaboration in this learning task is defined and quantified and thus can be used to assess in a fair and equitable manner. Collaboration on web 2.0 tools such as wikis, blogs, and GoogleDocs, etc… for assignments can be done by tracking the editing history of the assignment or other technological innovations that allow for tracking of individuals as they collaborate to complete the learning task together. As long as it is based on a rubric, expectations are set at the beginning of the learning module, and the learning tasks are quantified than "fair and equitable assessment" can be attained.
Guidelines for successful online communities include flexibility, patience, experience, openness, understanding and communication. Students in distance learning education have chosen this unique learning option for many reasons which may include family and professional responsibilities, work schedules, etc…All of these qualities must be internalized and used if an online community is to be created, maintained, and enhanced. Members of the online learning community have different times of availability, may be international, and have local and regional calendars to follow that can be very different from others in the online communities. Due to these unique circumstances if a member is not participating up to the expectations for the online community then communication must take place to inform the member of these perceptions in a way that is appropriate for the context. That is part of the communication and experience of the learner in an online community.
References:
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Swan, K. (2004). Relationships between interactions and learning in online environments. The Sloan Consortium.