We’ve been asked to reflect upon the last eight weeks; what we’ve learned, what’s surprised us, what new connections we’ve made between learning theories and technologies, and how this class will help our professional development as instructional design technologists. I have lots of thoughts, I guess it will be left up to you to decide how relevant they are.
Several things surprised me in this field of learning theories. The first is that the debate we saw reflected in Bill Kerr’s blog is still being waged. Kerr’s observation, ultimately, was that we had to look to, and incorporate bits and pieces of many _isms when implementing learning theories. To me, as we went week by week examining both the major and minor theories and offshoots of theories, I wondered why this wasn’t obvious to everyone. In behavioralism I found credence in the ‘attaboys’ that so many of us strive for. In cognitive theory I appreciated the interplay between long and short term memory. In constructivism I could see how the scaffolding partially built and maintained by instructors helped learners create their own learning. In social learning I intuitively acknowledged the benefit of interaction within both technological and social networks. In fact, I don’t think I was able to leave a single theory without appropriating at least a piece of it for my own gestalt-ian view of education theory. I was like a educational theorist hypochondriac picking up symptoms and illnesses every time I turned the page to a new educational ‘disease.’ How could it be otherwise? I’ve thought. Each theory contains some element of natural human tendency which seems to logically support learning.
Secondly, I was surprised at how relatively new this whole educational theory debate is. It seems that as late as the mid 1950’s there is not much debate about how learners learned. Since then there has been an explosion of theories. I don’t know if this is due to the development of education majors at colleges and universities or just a natural development in a time of increased scholarship. Either way it seems that the last 50 years has yielded a flood of information.
So how have these two surprises affected learning? I think it has made the whole process more difficult … and more successful. I know - a paradox. More difficult in that teachers, administrators and sometimes entire school systems are asked to change teaching methods merely to show themselves as placed on the cusp of educational theory. That kind of change, especially if it occurs with enough frequency to keep anyone from really hitting their stride, can be jarring. But the theories have also opened up teaching opportunities and techniques that have helped many students to find success where before they only found failure.
As I stated above, my journey through the different learning styles brought me more ways to learn. While in the beginning I thought I was a kludge of behavioralism and cognitivism now I find that there are all sorts of ways I can learn. In fact there are ways I haven’t tried that I’m eager to try now. Before, I saw social interaction as just that. Now I see it as an opportunity to network and develop new ideas influenced by the social current I move in. The social learning, constructivist and connectivist theories that stress the multiplicity of storage and development sites for information give me new hope for finding ways to express myself, (to both take in and give out), across a wide spectrum of locations. That’s exciting.
The connection between theory and technology was a harder sell then the connection between theory and motivation. Technology didn’t at first blush lend itself to theory. One is ephemeral, the other grounded in technology. And yet the reading and discussion has shown me that theory has done a good job in wedding the two. I think the reason is that technology is no longer seen as ‘outside’ the human experience. No longer is it the passive, stolid servant of mankind sitting in the corner beaming images into our living room or washing our clothes in the basement. It is speaking to us out of dash-attached Garmins. It’s listening to our speech and transforming it into text. It’s independently seeking out viruses to destroy as in nanotechnology. It is truly part of the human experience now. Technology is no longer our servant, it is our companion. So why shouldn’t theory begin to incorporate our companions into the learning process? No longer does it seem cumbersome letting technology have a place at the educational table (think back to the early to mid 1970’s when the first computers for high school use came out and you had to feed it punch cards. That was cumbersome.) Motivation is an even easier sell when connected to learning theories for there have been theories of motivation around in psychology for as long as there have been psychologists.
This course will definitely have an impact on my career as an instructional technologist. For too long I have been, albeit nicely, a teacher who thought the students needed to keep up with me and my style. I knew how to teach in one way and it was up to the students to figure out a way to learn that style. But now I see there are all sorts of opportunities to incorporate everyday technologies, social interactions and cognitive processes into my teaching line-up. This class has freed me up, with the backing of some impressive theories and researchers, to explore and adapt, rather quickly in some circumstances, to the learning styles of my students. That in turn frees them up to do the learning instead of having to wade through my style, integrating it with theirs, and finally learning after all that. And isn’t that what we’re all trying to do, free the student up to learn?
Bill Kerr: http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Thursday, August 12, 2010
A Look Back At Week One
Things have changed is eight short weeks. While I have taught for some time in the library setting I’ve never had formal teaching training nor read much about educational theory. My week one remarks about my learning style seem now to be a mix of wisdom and naiveté. The wisdom comes from my observation that my learning style wasn’t confined to one theory. My naiveté coming from thinking that how I used to learn is necessarily how I learn now.
All the reading and discussion has shown me clearly that the main theories and all the offshoots have each corralled some useful elements. I might be more comfortable in one, two, or three types of learning styles or strategies but in reality I’m learning in all ways. While I might have been almost exclusively behavioral and cognitive as a kid I am now much more constructivist and connectivist. As a child my sights were set on discrete units of facts and the regurgitation of same. Learning was the acquisition of facts that already existed, retaining them as best I could, and then displaying that knowledge hoping for the ‘attaboys’ that usually came. Now I find that I am fully engaged with the items I investigate. They are no longer facts so much as blocks to use to construct my own understanding of whatever is in front of me. And I don’t just go to the ‘book’ anymore. Technology has allowed me to spread my wings so to speak and find a world of interpretations online. And the confidence of adulthood has opened up the social interaction that often informs those building blocks. Plus, learning no longer occurs solely in the classroom. It is as if I am ‘on’ almost all the time. Whatever scaffolding I and others had used to raise me to the level I’m at is always in need of repair and addition. That kind of work requires constant vigilance and thus the 24/7 learning experience.
I found that I have become inextricably linked to technology. And this applies to my efforts to learn. I take my information everywhere. I carry several flashdrives filled to the brim with all the things that matter. The rationale is that at any time I might need to add to it, or modify it in some way. Carrying my work with me takes me out of the formal setting and allows me to work outside the box. I work now with collaborative software (Teamspot and Google Docs) and find that having instant access to modified work and other’s insight makes me more assured that what I am creating is really taking advantage of every social and technological opportunity. My laptop allows me to access that cloud of computing pretty much at any location. And the web itself, both the academic and peer reviewed sources through my library’s website, and the more, perhaps, opinionated fact out on the unfettered web allow me to look at both the supposed strict science of an issue and the attendant skepticism that comes along soon after. Both are good for forming my own opinions, creating my own work.
This class has helped me to thoughtfully look at the approach I am already taking in my learning and teaching and give it a name. And that name is diversity!
All the reading and discussion has shown me clearly that the main theories and all the offshoots have each corralled some useful elements. I might be more comfortable in one, two, or three types of learning styles or strategies but in reality I’m learning in all ways. While I might have been almost exclusively behavioral and cognitive as a kid I am now much more constructivist and connectivist. As a child my sights were set on discrete units of facts and the regurgitation of same. Learning was the acquisition of facts that already existed, retaining them as best I could, and then displaying that knowledge hoping for the ‘attaboys’ that usually came. Now I find that I am fully engaged with the items I investigate. They are no longer facts so much as blocks to use to construct my own understanding of whatever is in front of me. And I don’t just go to the ‘book’ anymore. Technology has allowed me to spread my wings so to speak and find a world of interpretations online. And the confidence of adulthood has opened up the social interaction that often informs those building blocks. Plus, learning no longer occurs solely in the classroom. It is as if I am ‘on’ almost all the time. Whatever scaffolding I and others had used to raise me to the level I’m at is always in need of repair and addition. That kind of work requires constant vigilance and thus the 24/7 learning experience.
I found that I have become inextricably linked to technology. And this applies to my efforts to learn. I take my information everywhere. I carry several flashdrives filled to the brim with all the things that matter. The rationale is that at any time I might need to add to it, or modify it in some way. Carrying my work with me takes me out of the formal setting and allows me to work outside the box. I work now with collaborative software (Teamspot and Google Docs) and find that having instant access to modified work and other’s insight makes me more assured that what I am creating is really taking advantage of every social and technological opportunity. My laptop allows me to access that cloud of computing pretty much at any location. And the web itself, both the academic and peer reviewed sources through my library’s website, and the more, perhaps, opinionated fact out on the unfettered web allow me to look at both the supposed strict science of an issue and the attendant skepticism that comes along soon after. Both are good for forming my own opinions, creating my own work.
This class has helped me to thoughtfully look at the approach I am already taking in my learning and teaching and give it a name. And that name is diversity!
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Thoughts on the Mind Map
I’m looking at my mind map below and wondering how this network has changed the way I learn. The easy answer is, of course it has. It has only been within the last three years that I’ve been connected to every branch of the Social Networking limb. In fact, within the past 5 years most elements of the mind map were unknown to me apart from Google. My network was comprised solely of physical, brick and mortar connections. Now my search for answers first wanders through a maze of electronic connections, Google scholar, RSS Feeds, informative blogs. I take that information and then present it to and gain feedback regarding it, to my social networks. They are both electronic, Facebook, Wabash, ATLA listserv, and physical, colleagues and friends from my own work environment and the the schools I attended. I take that reworked raw information and run it through my own experiential grid and come to some sort of answer. Once I get an answer I often turn around and teach it to my students using the same networked online tools such as Prezi and Google Docs to start the cycle over again for a whole new set of networked learners. While the route is now more far flung than it ever was before I think I have benefited from a broader perspective. It has made my learning experience a richer one.
If I had to give my digital tools a ranking I’d have to start with Google, in all its iterations. While I know I need to be careful of the mass of un-vetted material it is a great place to start if you are looking for a clue, a starting place for your learning. From there I often taken my clues to online databases that hold thousands of peer reviewed articles ready to be exploited in my learning processes. After that it is a return to the social networks where I can gain valuable experiential insights from past and present colleagues and scholars. As I look at this I see that it is also the way I gain new knowledge. With my ear to the electronic ‘ground’ I catch what’s coming next. But this is only one way to learn and the ranking can fluctuate from day to day. Perhaps I’ll hear something intriguing in a podcast I subscribed to off of iTunes. That will lead me to a blog that has been reliable in such matters in the past. I’ll see what’s been written about what I heard in the podcast and with that information proceed to my listserv and see what the peers in my field are saying. Once I’ve passed all that information through my grid I pass it along. And the cycle begins yet again with something I saw off of one of my RSS Feeds!
Does this aforementioned learning style refute or support the central tenets of Connectivism? I’d have to say that there is much that supports Davis’s (2008) idea that there is some “delicate interplay between complexity and self-organization” in all I do. I do make use of many voices when I seek out my social network. As well I do seem to hop from one specialized node, say Google Scholar, to another, some RSS Feed, to seek, strengthen and support my collection and analysis of raw data. And all these connections, both human and non-human, facilitate continual learning for me. That seems to definitely spell Connectivism for me and my learning style.
Davis, C., Edmunds, E., & Kelly-Bateman, V. (2008). Connectivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Connectivism
If I had to give my digital tools a ranking I’d have to start with Google, in all its iterations. While I know I need to be careful of the mass of un-vetted material it is a great place to start if you are looking for a clue, a starting place for your learning. From there I often taken my clues to online databases that hold thousands of peer reviewed articles ready to be exploited in my learning processes. After that it is a return to the social networks where I can gain valuable experiential insights from past and present colleagues and scholars. As I look at this I see that it is also the way I gain new knowledge. With my ear to the electronic ‘ground’ I catch what’s coming next. But this is only one way to learn and the ranking can fluctuate from day to day. Perhaps I’ll hear something intriguing in a podcast I subscribed to off of iTunes. That will lead me to a blog that has been reliable in such matters in the past. I’ll see what’s been written about what I heard in the podcast and with that information proceed to my listserv and see what the peers in my field are saying. Once I’ve passed all that information through my grid I pass it along. And the cycle begins yet again with something I saw off of one of my RSS Feeds!
Does this aforementioned learning style refute or support the central tenets of Connectivism? I’d have to say that there is much that supports Davis’s (2008) idea that there is some “delicate interplay between complexity and self-organization” in all I do. I do make use of many voices when I seek out my social network. As well I do seem to hop from one specialized node, say Google Scholar, to another, some RSS Feed, to seek, strengthen and support my collection and analysis of raw data. And all these connections, both human and non-human, facilitate continual learning for me. That seems to definitely spell Connectivism for me and my learning style.
Davis, C., Edmunds, E., & Kelly-Bateman, V. (2008). Connectivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Connectivism
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Brain Based Learning Debated
Have two interesting articles on Brain-Based Learning (BBL) that approach BBL from opposite sides of the spectrum. J. Diane Connell (2009) is very positive about BBL. She believes that since the research continues to expand there will be greater and greater opportunities to apply BBL in our local schools (p. 31). In spreading out to local schools educators will now be able to design curriculum around brain functions (p.37). The best thing about her article is a brief annotated list which she refers to as the 11 principles of BBL (p. 30). Unexpectedly, at least for me, were more nebulous principles such as “the search for meaning is innate,” and “emotions are critical to patterning,” among the more concrete statements such as “the brain is a parallel processor,” and “the brain processes parts and wholes simultaneously,” (p. 30).
While Connell is very positive about BBL, Andrew Davis (2004) is a different story. Very succinctly he states that “Neurophysiology cannot tell us what matters in terms of human flourishing” (p. 23). He uses an example of a scientist saying that lifelong learning is limitless because the brain continues to grow dendrites in an enriched environment. The problem with that scientist’s statement avers Davis is that the vision of lifelong learning does not necessarily follow from the observation that physiologically, dendrites grow in an enriched environment (p. 23). In a lengthy article Davis goes on to declare that what BBL supporters have done is to make a category mistake. As he says, “Might it even be the case that they [BBL supporters] believe neurophysiological connections sometimes actually are connections between psychological items such as beliefs? If so, is this not a blatant example of a category mistake?” (p.26).
So the field of BBL does not necessarily have unanimous support. I don’t have the academic chops to be able to make an unqualified decision as to who’s right and who isn’t. So I think I’ll just keep reading both sides of the debate.
Connell, J.D. (2009). The global aspects of brain-based learning. Educational Horizons, 88(1), 28-39.
Davis, A. (2004). The credentials of brain-based learning. Journal of Philosophy and Education, 38(1), 21-
35.
While Connell is very positive about BBL, Andrew Davis (2004) is a different story. Very succinctly he states that “Neurophysiology cannot tell us what matters in terms of human flourishing” (p. 23). He uses an example of a scientist saying that lifelong learning is limitless because the brain continues to grow dendrites in an enriched environment. The problem with that scientist’s statement avers Davis is that the vision of lifelong learning does not necessarily follow from the observation that physiologically, dendrites grow in an enriched environment (p. 23). In a lengthy article Davis goes on to declare that what BBL supporters have done is to make a category mistake. As he says, “Might it even be the case that they [BBL supporters] believe neurophysiological connections sometimes actually are connections between psychological items such as beliefs? If so, is this not a blatant example of a category mistake?” (p.26).
So the field of BBL does not necessarily have unanimous support. I don’t have the academic chops to be able to make an unqualified decision as to who’s right and who isn’t. So I think I’ll just keep reading both sides of the debate.
Connell, J.D. (2009). The global aspects of brain-based learning. Educational Horizons, 88(1), 28-39.
Davis, A. (2004). The credentials of brain-based learning. Journal of Philosophy and Education, 38(1), 21-
35.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Helpful Blogs
I’ve followed an assortment of library and technology blogs for quite some time. They range from the personal to the technical, the outrageously funny to the soberly reflective. Among these are several which look at instructional design technologies and theories which can be of some help in teaching library literacy classes. Not all of them are library specific sites, but all are set up to help teachers stay on the cusp of the technological wave. Here are just a few.
The Learning Circuits Blog, created and maintained by the American Society for Training & Development, centers, mainly, on one big question a month. “Does the discussion of "how the brain learns" impact your eLearning design?” and “What tools should we learn?” are just two such questions posted recently. What follows are postings not only of informed and creative responses but resource links as well. While the blog is current and cutting edge the casual reader can stop anywhere in the archives, going back to 2002 (skipping a few years in between), and find a worthwhile discussion. Learning Circuits contains not only an archive but a helpful blog roll, and an indexed topics list. All this makes referencing different ideas or resources a simple click away.
The blog iLibrarian, maintained by professor, speaker and author Ellyssa Kroski, offers a current look at all manner of software and web enabled strategies to inform our teaching. Often technical when speaking about software resources and software functionality, it is nevertheless a very comprehensive guide to newsworthy technology assists for teaching. From Firefox add-ons to a guide to Twitter in Libraries, Kroski often seems to find creative and in-depth presentations to accompany her own observations. Providing an archive, blog roll, category list and a listing of the most popular articles helps make this blog site a great resource for the librarian trying to enhance her teaching skills.
The Instructional Design for Mediated Education is more commonly known as Instructional Design Open Source, or IDOS for short. IDOS is not really a resource center. While many other instructional design blogs point to many other blogs and useful resources IDOS is definitely on the more cerebral side. You can observe this even if you go no further than some of the blog titles. “The Allure of the Anti-Pattern Concept,” “Transcoding Work,” and “Creating Structure from Formlessness,” are just a few titles that indicate the overall direction of this blog. Not satisfied with just the newest technologies, and they do touch on new technologies, these bloggers take us places we might have forgotten in our rush to enhance everything we do with a technological trigger. In “Establishing Grade ‘Floors’ and Higher Grade ‘Ceilings’” our blogger once again established the need for trust and professionalism to be a cornerstone of any of our teaching efforts. The blog, deep in thought while narrow in resource referencing, is a needed anodyne to the technologically enamored among us who focus too much on the next best thing to come along. IDOS makes us pause and do something we don’t often get a chance to do . . . think.
The Learning Circuits Blog, created and maintained by the American Society for Training & Development, centers, mainly, on one big question a month. “Does the discussion of "how the brain learns" impact your eLearning design?” and “What tools should we learn?” are just two such questions posted recently. What follows are postings not only of informed and creative responses but resource links as well. While the blog is current and cutting edge the casual reader can stop anywhere in the archives, going back to 2002 (skipping a few years in between), and find a worthwhile discussion. Learning Circuits contains not only an archive but a helpful blog roll, and an indexed topics list. All this makes referencing different ideas or resources a simple click away.
The blog iLibrarian, maintained by professor, speaker and author Ellyssa Kroski, offers a current look at all manner of software and web enabled strategies to inform our teaching. Often technical when speaking about software resources and software functionality, it is nevertheless a very comprehensive guide to newsworthy technology assists for teaching. From Firefox add-ons to a guide to Twitter in Libraries, Kroski often seems to find creative and in-depth presentations to accompany her own observations. Providing an archive, blog roll, category list and a listing of the most popular articles helps make this blog site a great resource for the librarian trying to enhance her teaching skills.
The Instructional Design for Mediated Education is more commonly known as Instructional Design Open Source, or IDOS for short. IDOS is not really a resource center. While many other instructional design blogs point to many other blogs and useful resources IDOS is definitely on the more cerebral side. You can observe this even if you go no further than some of the blog titles. “The Allure of the Anti-Pattern Concept,” “Transcoding Work,” and “Creating Structure from Formlessness,” are just a few titles that indicate the overall direction of this blog. Not satisfied with just the newest technologies, and they do touch on new technologies, these bloggers take us places we might have forgotten in our rush to enhance everything we do with a technological trigger. In “Establishing Grade ‘Floors’ and Higher Grade ‘Ceilings’” our blogger once again established the need for trust and professionalism to be a cornerstone of any of our teaching efforts. The blog, deep in thought while narrow in resource referencing, is a needed anodyne to the technologically enamored among us who focus too much on the next best thing to come along. IDOS makes us pause and do something we don’t often get a chance to do . . . think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)