“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
No comments:
Post a Comment