Impact of Technology on Life and Learning

Click on the link here to view my prezi on the impact of technology on life and learning then reflect on the role technology plays in your life as a student and a person. Then think about what is it like to learn online and/or using technology? How is it alike and different than learning in a face to face environment? How can you utilize technology in a balanced way that utilizes the anytime anywhere aspects of online learning with a traditional classroom setting? Create a two paragraph response that discusses the statistics reflected on the videos in the prezi and discuss how technology is shaping your life now and how you plan on using it as a future teacher and learner. Post your response on this blog and then respond to another student in the online mini-course.

Philosophy of Learning Digitally…

“If we teach today as we taught yesterday, we rob our children of tomorrow.” John Dewey

As demonstrated in the idea represented in the quote above, learning is dynamic and changes with the shifts based on changes in society. A seismic shift has taken place over the past decade due to the technological advances that have taken place and their implications for education. Distance and online education has seen enormous growth due to the technological advances that have led to what we now see as web 2.0 tools. Walden University’s success serves as a strong example of an organization that is thriving in this new era of education and technology combining to increase learning opportunities for society. These technology tools can be used in a face-to-face, distance/online, and hybrid/blended learning environments. The big three of educational philosophies of learning (behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism) have a presence despite the many changes that have taken place in education due to technology and new philosophies such as connectivism are being proposed to address these changes in learning. With this introduction let us remember what is embodied in a learning theory. Driscoll (2005) states, “A learning theory, therefore, comprise a set of constructs linking observed changes in performance with what is thought to bring about those changes” (p. 9). She summarizes the three components of a theory as, “The results…The means…The inputs.” (p. 9). In other words, what were the results of the experience (change in the performance), what were the means of getting those results (the processes that occurred to get the results), and what were the inputs (what circumstances, experiences, and resources were used in to get the results). With this definition a personal philosophy of learning will be briefly explored based on the impact that technological changes have had on learning in this digital age.

My previous leanings in regards to my philosophy of education has been to agree with the basic premises of cognitivism, however this class has made me rethink this and have found that Vygotsky’s social constructivism is a very way to frame digital learning. A series of illustrations demonstrating Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development and More Knowledgable Others includes the role that computers can play alongside of others in his Social Development Theory is below (Galloway, 2001).

Due to the ability of variations of current educational theories such as Vygotsky’s Social Development Theory, which social constructivism utilizes, I think that current theories at this time still apply, albeit they need to broadened, refined, defined, or explored to take into account the vast changes in technology. In reference to other theories I do not think connectivism is a new learning theory, although it seems to be a sort of evolution of constuctivism. It seems that J.A. Matter’s (2010) seems to summarize it best when she relates connectivism to constructivism, stating, “it is possible to position it as the development of constructivism to the current scenario of the use of technology in education, functioning though as a philosophy of education.” Downes’s epistemology of distributed learning seems to be a great foundation for a future learning theory that can still be formed, however connectivism as described by Siemens seems to be more of an extension or evolution of constructivism rather than a new learning theory, albeit his description and critique of knowledge in our current milieu seems to be relatively accurate. The limitation of connectivism is that it takes our current educational, technological, and societal context and provides a metaphor of a network. It seems like this analogy is on point currently, but the test of a true learning theory is to see if this metaphor and the connectivism learning theory that it hinges upon can withstand the test of time and the inevitable evolution of people, society, technology, and its implications for teaching and learning. Calvani’s statement is justified even if the rest of his critique of connectivism falls short. “A wild transfer of connectivism to school would lead to think that putting students on the net is enough to produce knowledge, thus consolidating that widespread harmful cliché according to which the more technologies we use, anyway we do it, the better it is for learning” (p. 251). My philosophy of learning digitally is constantly being challenged and changing, however utilizing Vygotsky's and social constructivism at this time seems a good foundation for a digital philosophy of learning. 

References:

Driscoll, M.P. (2005). Psychology of Learning for Instruction.

Galloway, C. M. (2001). Vygotsky's Constructionism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, amd technology. Retrieved (insert date) from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

Learning Theories Knowledgebase (2011, August). Social development theory (Vygotsky) at Learning-Theories.com. Retrieved August 27th, 2011 from http://www.learning-theories.com/vygotskys-social-learning-theory.html

Mcleod, S.A. (2007). Vygotsky. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/vygotsky.html.

Adoption of New Technologies and the ARCS model…

“Teachers need to integrate technology seamlessly into the curriculum instead of viewing it as an add-on, an afterthought, or an event.” Heidi Hayes Jacobs

Technology adoption is a challenge for many industries due to its rapid pace and constant evolution. In the education sector technologies are constantly being purported by corporations and organizations as tools to increase student achievement. The reality is that many technologies that are being sold to educational organizations are only as good as the training and implementation strategies that go with technology tools. Teachers are used to trendy initiatives that are not implemented that come and go frequently. There is usually initial resistance by educators concerning new technologies due to the consistent changes that take place on the educational landscape.

In a previous post in an elementary school last year I attempted to share with teachers the use of wikis in the classroom. I shared how I used wikis in my classroom. There was an interest by a few teachers and I attempted to contact the administration to volunteer for doing professional development on the use of wikis in the classroom. The principal was new to his post and was absolutely uninterested in this type of technology training for the staff. Due to the lack of interest that the principal had on using wikis in the classroom the teachers did not receive any training on wikis in the classroom. I changed to a different position in November last year and by February I was training all staff monthly on technologies such as wikis and blogs in the classroom, digital storytelling, podcasting, and cartoon creation. By the end of the June teachers in all the content areas and the technology coordinators in my current settings use wikis in different ways both in and out of the classroom. What was different about the two scenarios? The administration made all the difference.

Following Keller’s ARCS model (see below) in the first situation I could have done the following things and had a different result. First, I could have presented wiki integration in a formal way to first the administration and then the staff about how it could be used in instruction and provided peer-reviewed articles that reinforce the effectiveness of wikis in the classroom across content areas. That would have fulfilled the A (attention) in ARC. The second part is the R (relevance) and I could have provided personal examples of how I use wikis in the classroom, share other stories and examples of how teachers in similar situations use wikis, and conduct a survey of how students in my classroom appreciate wikis and present it to the administration and staff. The third step is C (confidence), and I could have a few teachers be trained and pilot the use of wikis in their classrooms to show the staff and administration how it can be used successfully in the classroom in this setting. Then the second part of C is to train all teachers on creating and maintaining a wiki in the classroom and have them track student survey and student work data to track its effectiveness. The fourth and final step, S (satisfaction), is have the students at the end of the first implementation cycle to reflect on their growth and uses of wikis in their classrooms. If these steps would have been taken there would have been a better likelihood of the administration and teachers motivation to use wikis in the school setting in different ways.

References:

Keller, J.M. (2006). What is the ARCS model? Retrieved from http://www.arcsmodel.com/Mot%20dsgn%20A%20model.htm

Learning Theories Knowledgebase (2011, August). ARCS Model of Motivational Design (Keller) at Learning-Theories.com. Retrieved from http://www.learning-theories.com/kellers-arcs-model-of-motivational-design.html

Image 1 Retrieved from http://www.growthengineering.co.uk/admin/uploads/Arcs%20method%20of%20engagement.png

Image 2 Retrieved from http://idtheory.pbworks.com/f/1271655312/arcs.jpg               

Communicating Connectivism in a Mindmap...

Calling for Collaboration...

I think the span of human history has demonstrated there is a basic instinct to interact and work together as a group. It is as intrinsic to our survival and identity as being recognized as an individual. Both collaboration and individuality are represented in our instinct and in our past. Many times these two basic instincts clash. Our collective history includes cultures continually asking what role does the community and/or government have on the lives of individuals. Each culture balances collective experiences collaboration with individual choices.  There is a spectrum of how each culture and country have manifested these two opposite instincts. All of us want to be accepted by a group or community, which is the prerequisite for collaboration. Also each of us wants to be seen as distinct from others in a group or community. Both tendencies have endless demonstrations in both history and educational theory.

Vygotsky, Dewey, Bruner, Piaget, and other prominent constructivists understood the role that social/cultural context play in learning (Driscoll, 2005). The read write web, web 2.0 tools, social networks, professional learning communities (PLC), personal learning networks (PLN), and other evolving tools and relationships demonstrate the strong tendency to collaborate on issues and disciplines. These tools allow for collaboration that happens anywhere at anytime without the limits of time and space. Constructivist principles lend themselves quite easily to these technology tools because of the ease of collaboration that can take place that takes into account the social aspect of learning and collective knowledge. There is a large amount of literature inside and outside of the field of education that demonstrate the role and importance the social aspect of learning is and how collaboration is considered to be an essential skill in both learning and work.

Hughes & Narayan (2009) highlight wikis in their article in The Journal of Interactive Online Learning particular as a way to increase collaboration for postsecondary students. Their study highlighted the use of wikis as a “students used their wiki as a course content glossary for posting and editing original contributions” (Hughes & Narayan, 2009, p. 63) in one course and as a “develop, share, and edit project assignments” (Ibid.) in another course. Faculty in higher education considered curriculum mapping as a great way to collaborate according to Uchiyama & Radin’s article in Innovative Higher Education in 2009, which can be accessed here.  Their observations reflect on the lack of collaboration in many Higher Education circles despite the fact that “Organizations beyond higher education have shifted toward cultures where the norms of autonomy and independence are replaced by the norms of collegiality and collaboration” (Uchiyama & Radin, 2009, p. 272).  These are two sources that communicate the effectiveness of collaboration and how technology tools can be used in the process of collaboration.

References:

Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Hughes, J.E., & Narayan, R. (2009). Collaboration and learning with wikis in post-secondary classrooms. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(1), pp. 63-82. Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/8.1.4.pdf

Uchiyama, K.P., & Radin, J.L. (2009). Curriculum mapping in higher education: a vehicle for collaboration. Innovative Higher Education, 33(4), pp. 271–28. doi: 10.1007/s10755-008-9078-8. Retrieved from http://www.lehman.edu/research/assessment/documents/curriculum_mapping_article.pdf

Conversation Concerning Cognitivism…

Cognitivism began as an alternative theory to behaviorism (Hauser, 2005). Driscoll (2005) compares behaviorism with information processing, a form of cognitivism. Driscoll has an advanced organizer that compares the black box metaphor, where environmental stimuli going into the black box and leading to observed behavior, with the computer metaphor, that input, or sensory stimulation, goes through the human cognitive processes and leads to output, or learned capabilities (2005, p. 142). A set of visuals about these theories can be viewed on the side of this blog post that demonstrates aspects of 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/

Musings on the Many Metaphors for Educators…

So what metaphor would you use to describe how you view teaching and learning? This discussion is cliché in many educator circles and can be envisioned in conversations for pre-service teacher candidates in an introductory educational methods course as well as teacher interviews. As a matter of fact I posed this question to my graduate pre-service M.A.T. students this week in my social studies methods course. One particularly enthusiastic student brought up the teacher as a gardener metaphor, which comes up frequently in education. Each metaphor that teachers and teacher candidates come up with reveal an approach, or philosophy, of education. It can provide a snapshot for how an educator will approach teaching and learning. It provides a definition of learning and the role the teacher plays in the learning process. Driscoll (2005) highlights two important aspects of the definition of learning. The first is, “they refer to learning as a persisting change in human performance or performance potential” (Driscoll, 2005, p. 9), which leads to how do students demonstrate a change in performance. The second aspect of learning according to Driscoll (2007) is that, “…a change in performance or performance potential must come about as a result of the learner’s experience and interaction with the world” (p. 9).

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

Wikis in Online/Distance Education Presentation...

Static & Dynamic Learning Technologies Continuum…

There is a range of learning technologies within the areas of communication, collaboration, and content in education. The spectrum includes dynamic, middle, and static technologies. Technologies that are included in these areas are found in the concept map on the previous posting. Both types of technologies are used and needed in education, the important choice from a pedagogical perspective is what type of technology is appropriate for the learning outcomes of the learning activity or series of activities. A balance must be struck between the purpose and uses of the static and dynamic learning technologies and their instructional benefit for what needs to be learned.

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].

Static vs Dynamic Technologies Concept Map

Final Wikis in Distance Online Education Video Presentation

Click on this link or look above to view this presentation.

http://voicethread.com/share/1760665/

Engaging Learners with New Strategies and Tools…

New tools and strategies must be used to ensure that the quality of online distance education continually improves and provides for the needs of the learner. The mind map in the previous post provides a visual that demonstrates the tools that can be utilized to engage online learners and maximize the learning that takes place within the online learning environment. Content, communication, and collaboration provide the basic framework for online learning. The tools and how they are used provide the strategies for increasing learning outcomes for students. Asynchronous communication tools are necessary for anyone to participate in online learning. Examples are included in the mind map below but include discussion boards, ideas exchange via blogs and wikis, and taking advantage of the many web 2.0 tools that do not necessitate synchronous communication and collaboration. However it is important to provide the opportunity to interact synchronously through video conferencing with tools such as Skype, texting, and real-time collaboration via GoogleDocs or a similar read-write-web tool that provides chatting and collaborating at the same time. I want to emphasize that the tools for engagement on the mind map are purposely as broad as possible to the actual software that can be used as the tools. For example, Skype is one way to interact and have a video conference live through the webcam, however other tools such as Google’s video chat provide the same type of interaction. The web tools can be more useful than specific applications that meet the needs of the tools.

Durrington, Berryhill, and Swafford (2006) highlight three important strategies in online teaching which include a learning environment that is set up to be supportive and open with clear learning tasks and assessments communicated effectively, asynchronous learning tasks such as discussion boards that are clear and designed to create virtual conversations that are connected with the learning  objectives for the course, and creating a series of learning tasks that are problem-based and can be displayed and communicated within the online classroom environment. Palloff & Pratt (2007) state that, “collaboration and the ability to promote interdependence is a critical element in the formation of an online learning community…it is important that the instructor in an online course pay close attention to ways collaboration can be incorporated and facilitated throughout the course” (p. 183). It is essential that the e-teacher must be technically competent and capable of learning new technologies as well as resilient and adaptive to the new and emerging technology tools in online distance learning (Anderson, 2008).

All of these ideas convey two important things about the online learning environment. One is that despite the context of learning, whether face-to-face synchronously or virtual asynchronously, that the students must be set up to include idea exchange, collaboration, communication, and adequate ways of demonstrating and assessing knowledge that is connected to the learning outcomes of the course. Second, good teaching is necessary in both face-to-face and virtual learning environments but the strategies and learning tasks that make up good teaching must be modified to meet the needs of the learning communities in the two different contexts. Each learning environment must include a different set of teaching and learning tools that meet the needs of the classroom community in its context.

References:

Anderson, T. (2008). In Anderson, T. (2nd ed.), Teaching in an online context, (pp. 343-365). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Durrington, V. A., Berryhill, A., & Swafford, J. (2006). Strategies for enhancing student interactivity in an online environment. College Teaching, 54(1), 190−193. 

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.

Siemens, G. (2008, January). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educators and designers. ITForum.

Distance Education: Engaging Learners with New Strategies and Tools

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.