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