Module Six Blog Responses

Classmates to whom I have responded for Module Six:

1. Alexandra Salas at http://edutechtalk.blogspot.com/

2. Lou Morris at http://educ7015.blogspot.com/

3. Keith Klein at http://kklein66.wordpress.com/2011/08/21/module-6-learning-in-a-digital-world/

4. Claude Chavis at http://ndnweb.wordpress.com/

5. Michael Kirsch at http://edtheory7105.blogspot.com/

Personal Persective on Learning and Instruction

Technology is having a tremendous impact on the way our students learn and how we
teach in the traditional and (especially, since it is derived from technology) the distance learning setting. In traditional environment, the students meet with the instructor f2f at a specific time in a specific place to accomplish a specific set of tasks. These tasks may take on an extended persona by becoming homework or by being initiated during one meeting and finished during another. Materials for the class are usually contained within the classroom setting and students have access to them only when attending the class. Learning is subject to the knowledge of the instructor and often lacking in depth and points of interest. The online environment is not limited to specific times or places. The instruction is at a comfortable pace for the learner because the learner participates in a self-tutorial, pursuing information that seems appropriate to the requirements as presented by the instructor (Selim, 2007). The material presented in the class is of a nature that prompts inquiry and investigation on the part of the student, meaning that the class is definitely student (rather than instructor) oriented. The learning becomes more meaningful because it is more relevant to the discoveries and interests of the learner. Time and venue take on new dimensions with online learning in that limitations for both are greatly reduced. One may study, research, and prepare materials whenever individual learning styles find it most convenient. The only timeline that must be rigorously observed is the due date, which often may be amended due to difficulties with the technology (European Commission, 2010) (Babb, 2011).

As with so many other factors that are critical to positive human development, certain elements in learning and instruction are necessary and often similar, if not identical. There must be a safe, comfortable, positive environment in which teaching and learning take place. The material to be presented must be pertinent, relevant, and interesting to learners, while familiar and thoroughly understood by instructors. It is of tremendous value for the instructor to be forthcoming, honest, and genuine with students. Of equal importance is the truthfulness that students reflect toward instructors concerning levels of understanding, acquired skills, and areas of interest for future exploration. In both instances, there must be elements of trust and respect that form a foundation for learning to occur. My personal theory of learning concerns a consuming curiosity

lending itself to discovery learning. Originated by Jerome Bruner, Discovery Learning is inquiry-based instruction that is considered a constructivist theory. Learners incorporate past experiences and already acquired knowledge to help fit new information into new understandings about the world around them. With this method, truthfulness and trust are key concepts to presenting and learning new information (Learning Theories, 2011).

References:

Babb, D. (2011). Online Learning – Critical success factors. Online Education with a Personal Touch. California Southern University. Retrieved from http://www.calsouthern.edu/content/articles/online-professors-guide-to-higher-education/online-learning-critical-success-factors/.

European Commission Directorate-General for Education and Culture (19-21 May 2010). Peer Learning Seminar: Critical Factors for the Implementation of Lifelong Learning Strategies and Policies. Retrieved from http://www.kslll.net/Documents/Summary%20report%20-%20seminar%20critical%20factors%20for%20LLL%20implementation.pdf

Learning Theories (2011). Discovery learning (Bruner). Knowledge Base and Webliography. Rtrieved from http://www.learning-theories.com/discovery-learning-bruner.html.

Selim, H. (2007). Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models. Computers and Education 49, pp396-413. Retrieved from http://www.qou.edu/arabic/researchProgram/eLearningResearchs/criticalSuccess.pdf.

Blog Responses for Module 5

Classmate Blogs responded to for Module 5:

Toney Toni - http://toneyt.blogspot.com/

Sara Becker - http://edtechblogwaldenu.blogspot.com/

Lou Morris - http://educ7015.blogspot.com/

Technology Giveth, and Technology Taketh Away!

One of the most disappointing episodes in my teaching career occurred about twelve years ago when my school established a school-within-a-school scenario. The newer model was a technology academy that attracted middle school students from all over the district. With this innovation came the development that all instructors had to be technology proficient to facilitate optimum student learning with the equipment that would be present in each classroom. One of my partners, a very capable history teacher, decided that she was ill-equipped for the incorporation of technology into her regular classroom routine. After a very tough school year, she decided that an early retirement was her best option. She made this decision despite my best efforts to familiarize her with the Internet, word processing, and email. The district lost a fantastic educator and we lost a very productive and personable work mate who regularly made a very real difference in the education of our students.

Without realizing it, I was actually using elements of Keller’s ARCS (Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction) model of motivational design may have made a difference in the decision made by my friend. I did appeal to her sense of exploration in expanding her own abilities in order to help her students. We all tried to build her confidence in using the technology through active participation, but soon discovered that without someone sitting next to her and coaching her through the steps, these actions were useless. When asked about her lack of utilization of the technology in her room, her response was that she had been teaching for many years and was too far along in her career to learn new methods now, especially those involving something as alien as computers. Hearing this, I dwelt on the relevance of the Internet in making history more exciting and real for her students. She agreed that the tools were formidable and would probably make a real difference, but in the classrooms of others and not her own. I often wonder how many other educators have removed themselves from teaching because of some development in classroom methodology that seemed unattainable to them. It seems a great waste to have these educators no longer making positive contributions to the lives of our students.

References:

Instructional Endeavors (2011). Keller’s arcs model. Retrieved from http://www.indeavors.com/resources/arcsmodel.htm

Keller, J (2008). Keller’s arcs model of motivational design. Retrieved from http://www.arcsmodel.com/

Learning-Theroies.com (2008). Arcs model of motivational design (Keller). Retrieved from http://www.learning-theories.com/kellers-arcs-model-of-motivational-design.html

Module Four Blog Responses

Blog responses made to classmates for Module Four:

Lou Morris - http://educ7015.blogspot.com
Sara Becker - http://edtechblogwaldenu.blogspot.com
Alexandra Salas - http://edutechtalk.blogspot.com
Deborah Forest - http://waldenforestintrospect.blogspot.com/

Learning with Mind Maps

Mind Map Reflection:

Early in my own learning experience, I remember being told that I was responsible for my own learning and no one was going to just give me the answers or allow me to slide on through. This seems like a very harsh thing to tell a five year old just starting the first grade, but it acts as a sign of the times. Learning was to be a singular endeavor that I could have assistance with, but had to accomplish on my own. Networking gives me a feeling of support and helps me focus on what I should be getting out of the instruction. It makes learning an event that is much more tolerable and valuable as a positive experience.

The tools that serve me best as facilitators of learning are the computer and the Smart phone (only because I can access the Internet with the Smart Phone). Other pieces of technology (television, radio, calculator, etc…) are also valuable as learning tools of specific types of information. The Internet is the most valuable tool in answering specific questions about disparate topics. Running a search using key

words with a search engine has become second nature. New information is learned by asking other individuals or running a computer search, dependent on the type of information required and the time frame within which it is required.



The mind map below is an example of what my information network may look like in graphic form. It is a very dynamic entity and shifts as the need for specific types of information changes. If you have difficulty reading the labels, please click on the image for a larger version.

References:

Bayne, G. (Producer). (2008, January 29). Connectivism [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/blog/gbayne/ELIPodcastConnectivism/167445

Chatti, M. & Jarke, M. (2007). The future of e-learning: A shift to knowledge networking and social software. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 3(4/5), pp 404-420. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=connectivism+learning+as+network+creation&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

Kop, R. & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? The International Review of research in Open and Distance Learning (IRRODL), 9(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/523/1103%22

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: Learning as network-creation. ASTD. Retrieved from http://www.astd.org/LC/2005/1105_seimens.htm

Siemens, G. (2006). Knowing Knowledge. Copyright 2006 by George Siemens. Used by permission.

Blog Contacts for Module 3

Class mates I have responded to for Module 3:

Kimberly Dean: http://educ7105kimberlydean.blogspot.com/
Alexandra Salas: http://edutechtalk.blogspot.com/
Toni Toney: http://toneyt.blogspot.com/
Deborah Forest: http://waldenforestintrospect.blogspot.com
Michael Kirsch: http://edtheory7105.blogspot.com/
Keith Klein: http://kklein66.wordpress.com/

A Constructivist Perspective of Learning, Technology, and Collaboration

In my regular interaction with students in my classes and peers on my school faculty, as well as peers from other schools, I have encountered a general understanding that supports collaboration in the workplace. It seems that what was considered “cheating” 40 years ago is now considered “networking” and becoming more familiar with information through peer tutoring and cooperation. This may very well reflect the concept of self-enrichment (in lieu of altruism) as presented by Rheingold’s video.

For quite some time now, I have worked with the concept that all of us know and are capable of more than just one of us. This has been shared with my students and co-workers, resulting in higher returns and richer final projects in all of our classes. It is especially helpful when facilitating cross-discipline instruction, involving individuals of varying core subjects working with technology to enrich and reinforce lessons presented in other class rooms. Students are also encouraged to assist one another when conducting research or preparing materials for projects. This assistance is understood to be “focus and guidance with information sharing”, but not to the point that the work of one student is taken and used by another. This method has been used with my classes for about 15 years with varying levels of success. However, the most successful results have been within the last two years. I attribute this to the fact that I now work in a single-gender school (all girls). Repeated research studies have reported that girls and young women learn best in collaborative situations. This reinforces my belief that all humans have a basic need to extend the clan or tribe mentality (strength and safety in numbers) to collaborative problem solving.

Principles of Constructivist learning include the following:
1. Learning environments provide multiple representations of reality.
2. Representations reflect complexity of the real world.
3. Knowledge construction is emphasized over knowledge reproduction.
4. Authentic tasks are emphasized in meaningful context.
5. Real world settings or case-based learning is provided.
6. Thoughtful reflection on experience is encouraged.
7. Enable context- and content- dependent knowledge construction.
8. Supports collaboration and social negotiation among learners.
9. Discovery learning
10. Collaborative activity
11. Integration and activation of prior knowledge
12. Opportunities for hands-on activities

All of these principles are supported by the use of technology in the classroom. Research, collaboration with class mates, interaction with others in remote locations, and cross-discipline instruction answer the principles of constructivist theory. Students are often able to use acquired knowledge to affect their own environments and others in a positive, productive manner.

Three articles of interest concerning education, learning, and collaboration are listed below. They may all be located for review in the Walden library.

Craig, J., Poe, M., & Gonzalez Rojas, M. (2010).Professional communication education in a global context: A collaboration between the massachusetts institute oftTechnology, instituto tecnológico y de estudios superiores de monterrey, mexico, and universidad de quintana roo, mexico. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 24(3), pp. 267-295. Retrieved from the Sage full text data base at http://jbt.sagepub.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/content/24/3/267.full.pdf+html

Meittinen, R., Lehenkari, J.,& Tuunainen, J. (2008). Learning and network collaboration in product development: How things work for human use. Management Learning, 39(2), pp. 203-219. Retrieved from the Sage full text data base at http://mlq.sagepub.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/content/39/2/203.full.pdf+html

Powell, F., Fields, L., Bell, E., & Johnson, G. (2007). Manhood, scholarship, perseverance, uplift, and elementary students: An example of school and community collaboration. Urban Education, 42(4), pp. 296-312. Retrieved from the Sage full text data base at http://uex.sagepub.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/content/42/4/296.full.pdf+html

References:

Ghezzi, P. (2008). How girls learn. SchoolFaily.com. Available from http://www.schoolfamily.com/school-family-articles/article/855-how-girls-learn

Jonassen, D. (1994). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist design model. Educational Technology, 34(4), pp. 34-37.

TED (Producer). (2005). Howard rheingold on collaboration [Video program]. Available from http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html

Blog Contacts for Module Two

Class mates I have responded to for Module 2:

Kimberly Dean: http://educ7105kimberlydean.blogspot.com/
Alexandra Salas: http://edutechtalk.blogspot.com/
Toni Toney: http://toneyt1.blogspot.com
Deborah Forest: http://waldenforestintrospect.blogspot.com
Michael Kirsch: http://edtheory7105.blogspot.com/
Sabrina McDow: http://smcdow.blogspot.com/
Keith Klein: http://kklein66.wordpress.com/
Claude Chavis: http://ndnweb.wordpress.com

Cognitivism as a Learning Theory

Cognitivism is a step up from behaviorism in that it stimulates and supports higher level thinking in learners. But as a stand-alone methodology, cognitivism, just like behaviorism and constructivism, must be considered as a practice that is incomplete. Behaviorism is a stimulus-response type of instruction, while constructivism outlines the process of putting it all together.

Cognitivism strives to understand what happens in the human mind in terms of learning, thinking, remembering, retaining (knowing) and using (problem solving) (Arinto, 2010). How the mind learns and what is learned in a certain context is more important than the behaviorist aim of observing and prompting a stimulus-effect scenario. Changes in learner knowledge can still be seen in individual behavior, however variances in responses are expected due to prior knowledge and experience. Cognitivists see the process of learning very much like the information acquisition of a computer: new information is introduced to the working memory, is processed with relation to existing information, and is stored into long-term memory for later use (Driscoll, 2005).

The analogy of the similarities of information processing between humans and computers notes that the information (in a classroom or other learning environment) is delivered, accepted, and processed for later use by individuals within the group. This is a standardized situation in which the same information is delivered to everyone in a common environment using delivery methods that are also common. However, the information students receive is not always accepted with the same levels of import, understanding, and relativity by different individuals. The analogy breaks down at this point because the information is combined with other knowledge bits (prior information) to perform tasks or to form concepts concerning the world around the learner. These differences are due to varying learning styles, intelligences, and prior information. In this manner, the learning becomes subjective because individual learners reach different combinations and conclusions using the common information that has been shared. This understanding establishes the necessity for incorporation of elements of the different learning theories (Kapp, 2007).

Kerr (2007) mentions concept of “Connectivism”, a creation of George Siemens and Stephen Downes. Connectivism is seen as an ideal theory for learners of the digital age, combining the strongest points of behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism. It Connectivism is thought by some to be the learning theory for the digital age in that it seems to be an appropriate vehicle for the explanation of the effects of technology on how we all live, learn and communicate.

Several interesting sites containing further information on Connectivism are listed below.

 Constructivism and Connectivism in Education Technology: Active, Situated, Authentic, Experiential, and Anchored Learning http://www.joaomattar.com/Constructivism%20and%20Connectivism%20in%20Education%20Technology.pdf

Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

What is Connectivism? http://education-2020.wikispaces.com/connectivism

References:

Arinto. P. (2010).Handbook on instructional design for the academy of ict essentials for government leaders. APCICT. Retrieved from http://www.unapcict.org/academy/academy-modules/english/Handbook_on_Instructional_Design-v2.pdf

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

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/

Learning and Learning Theory

What are your beliefs about how people learn best?

Learning is best accomplished when individuals and groups are motivated to learn and the presentation of information addresses individual learning styles and intelligences. This motivation includes the desire to accomplish a goal, or respond to an interest (something that is enjoyed), or a combination of factors that (often) leads to the most effective learning. The logical, orderly manner in which information is usually presented is sometimes not adequate to allow student mastery. Learning styles (visual, kinesthetic, auditory, etc…) must also be considered when preparing information for presentation.  Learning styles often overlap with and are thought to be closely related to individual types of intelligence. There are eight different types of intelligence, seven originally observed by Howard Gardner (linguistic, musical, spatial, etc…) and an eighth established by Jane Goodall’s work with primates (interspecies or naturalist intelligence).

What is the purpose of learning theory in educational technology?

Learning theory in educational technology serves as a set of guidelines for the establishment of effective practices in the presentation of information. These guidelines are meant to optimize student knowledge acquisition by answering individual learning needs. The elements of motivation and inspiration within students are often ignited by instructors who have addressed individual learning styles and requirements, making the learning process much more palatable.


References:

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

Fleming, G. (2010). Know and use your personal learning style. Homework/Study Tips. Retrieved from http://homeworktips.about.com/od/homeworkhelp/a/learningstyle.htm.

Smith, K. (2008). Howard Gardner, Multiple intelligences and education. The Encyclopaedia of Informal Education. Retrieved from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm.

Wilson, L. (1997). The eighth intelligence :Naturalistic intelligence. Newer Views of Learning. University of Wisconsin at Steven’s Point. Retrieved from http://www.uwsp.edu/education/lwilson/learning/natintel.htm.

Wilson, L. (1998). What’s the big attraction? Why teachers are drawn to using multiple intelligence theory in their classrooms. New Horizons for Learning. John Hopkins University. Retrieved from http://education.jhu.edu/newhorizons/strategies/topics/mi/wilson1.htm.