What
new knowledge of learning theory will you take into the classroom with you, and
how will that affect the implementation of technology in your instruction?
Please provide specific theory/theories and specific technology integration
activities.
Throughout
this course, I took the opportunity to look through my reflection journals from
my first year of teacher prep coursework (from many years ago!) whereby we
reviewed various learning theories and established a personal philosophy of
education based on our alignment with certain principles. It was so interesting to consider how my
thoughts have progressed with experience, exposure, and further research. Firstly, this course has reinforced the idea
that there is not a “one size fits all” theory that can be applied to any
educational endeavor. The type of
information, skill-building, and task involved in the process determines the
most appropriate application of theory. That
being said, an educator can adjust their course’s predominant type of
information, skills, and tasks to better fit with a guiding epistemology that they
believe will further the individual, and thus society (still covering all the
required objectives, of course). This kind
of reciprocal instructional design is an important idea that I had sort of forgotten
about. It is okay to mix and match
learning theories. I do not have to
necessarily call myself a “constructivist” educator, as that would be overly
simplistic, unrealistic, and false. Moreover, theory vs. pedagogy does not have
to succumb to the “chicken-or-the-egg” conundrum. They can be happily cyclical
and mutually determined.
Behaviorism,
cognitivism, and constructivism are the standard classic learning theories that
educators look to for justification for their practices or for guidance in
their curriculum design/application. Behaviorist principles of positive
reinforcement and stimuli for memory recall are not outdated and
misguided. They are appropriate for
learning concrete segments of established information and basic skills (e.g.
spelling rules, how to tie a shoe, state capitals, etc.) through
drill-and-practice methods. Arcade-style
games, digital flash cards, and multiple choice quizzes made with Google forms,
for example, would all suit the needs of these learning goals. Cognitivist
ideas of the human brain as a “black box” remind us of the value of students’
prior knowledge and the importance of information processing in changing our
students’ mental structures. We can assist our students’ in their assimilation
and accommodation of new knowledge by teaching them learning strategies through
metacognitive exercises such as problem-solving, systems-thinking, and organization
techniques (e.g. step-by-step modeling and graphic organizers). Interactive idea webs (e.g. bubbl.us),
computer simulations (e.g. SimCityEDU, and online case studies all support the
building of students’ individual understanding. Although not appropriate for all learning goals,
constructivism is appealing in its hands-on, learner-centered perspective. Students are presented with open-ended
questions or goals that require critical thinking and resource harvesting. Higher-order thinking (in the vein of Bloom’s
taxonomy) favors analytic, evaluative, and creative tasks such as designing
programs, debating issues, recognizing trends, or predicting outcomes. The teacher is a facilitator to students’ creation
of their own knowledge, which can be documented in blogs, videos (and other authoring
tools), posters (e.g. Glogsters), personally designed websites, etc. Teachers may also apply constructivist
principles to foster students’ learning creation through microworlds, a term
coined by Seymour Papert, which are virtual realms that students can explore
and manipulate to apply certain principles, discover patterns, and create
fully-functioning artifacts (e.g. Logo).
These types of applications can develop mathematical thinking with
visual objects.
In
addition to purposeful flexibility with learning theory-based pedagogy (the
teacher’s role), I have also taken away from this course a keen awareness of the
learner’s role. Specifically, I have
reflected tremendously on the role of the learner as an individual knowledge
absorber versus a participatory member of collective knowledge aggregation. In
my year one teacher education courses, my journaling indicates my tendency to
favor the “pursuit of the individual” when it comes to creating (or obtaining)
knowledge. I was skeptical of social
theories that aimed to meld individuals’ consciousness into a collective
reservoir of information. I believed
that one’s subjective understanding of the world was precious. Consensus-building and group work were laden
with compromise and wishy-washy decision-making. Back then I felt that educational activities should
focus on preserving each student’s uniqueness and building up their independence. Since embarking in the EdTech program and
delving into readings that promote social learning theories, I have begun to
shift my ideology. I have come to see
how interdependent learning can have a lasting
effect on individual knowledge creation as well as the promotion of
society. When students work in learning
communities or communities of practice, they are part of an experience that
caters to their social and intellectual needs in a way that naturally scaffolds
new skills (based on their current understanding and inherently individualized). Learning isn’t a selfish or competitive activity;
it’s a collaborative and unifying way of life.
A lot
of my research for this course focused specifically on connectivism, a new
learning theory for a new digital age.
This theory essentially takes off where constructivism (specifically
social constructivism) left off.
Connectivism is appropriate for educational technology because it values
interconnectedness. Knowledge lies in
the network of people and machines, which share common “nodes”. Students, as part of this network, are
joining forces not only with their peers but with experts and other real-life
companies or groups to exchange facts, artifacts, and ideas. This Fall I will be beginning a new role as a
Technology Integration Specialist.
Instead of seeking to foster individual growth and independent study, I
will look for technologically enhanced opportunities for students to connect
with each other to solve authentic problems (e.g. PBL), gather resources (e.g.
digital bookmarks), team up with like-minded professionals (e.g. Skype, Google
Docs), and share their work (e.g social
media, Flickr, etc.). Knowledge does not
solely exist in the mind. This powerful tenet of connectivism means that
knowledge can be distributed and equally (and readily) accessible. It is not for one person to own and perfect. Building
trustworthy nodes, or connections, on students’ individual learning networks is
a major aim of education under this theory.
Therefore, Web 2.0 applications that allow for peer collaboration are
ideal for a connectivist learning environment.
Open-ended projects that involve student-directed research also involve
network enhancing. Given my new-found
value of social learning, I aim to discover and promote these pedagogical tools
with my new colleagues (and their students).
