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.
Showing posts with label Constructivism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constructivism. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
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
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
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.
References:
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).
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/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)





