TWeaver – Mod 6: Learning in a Digital World

During my undergraduate studies, there was only one way to learn.  Face-to-face (f2f) instruction is all I ever knew until I enrolled in my first online courses for a Master’s Degree in instructional design/technology.  I was sure that online education is quite different than f2f learning environments, but I really did not know that the two formats are more like polar-opposites.  Before the online courses started, I could not for the life of me understand why there was only one hour of actual live chat time between my instructor, peers, and myself.  I thought to myself, “How in the world am I going to learn anything without “proper” instruction?”  It really did not take too long (about the length of one term) to figure out that the proper instructional methods did not include instructors supplying information, but rather that their facilitative roles are to basically be just another resource towards finding formidable and practical information to be used for knowledge construction.  In my second go around in online studies, there was even less time set aside for student-instructor interaction.  In fact, there was/is actually no scheduled time for live class or chat.  But by this time, I had already had it instilled in my educational upbringing that this is a commonality in online studies.  Learning in an online learning environment has had a significant impact on the way I learn as well as the way I prefer to learn. 

 Before online learning, I independently studied to pass tests and rarely created anything to prove what I had learned.  Today, it is the exact opposite.  I do not take quizzes and tests for assessment.  Rather, I motivate myself to research content, synchronously/asynchronously communicate and collaborate with class participants, and develop authentic productions to prove I have been diligent in my efforts to learn.  The lights have turned on so to speak for I now feel inquiry-based learning is indeed a necessity to really learn, and in fact, teach as well even if in a limited capacity.  The K-12 public sector of education is where I currently am employed and I officially support change towards a blended (hybrid) learning environment.
 

Constructivism learning and teaching strategies in my online education has opened my eyes towards my own personal learning theory that somewhat exists in K-12 blended-learning environments.  My intuitive theories towards learning and instruction have indeed changed in alignment with my past, and especially with my most recent, learning and teaching experiences (Driscoll, 2005).  Constuctive-cognitivism is the combination theory I will support and hopefully use as everyday practice in my professional hybrid K-12 future, that is, if I am allowed to do so.  Only time will tell.  Good luck to others who feel the same way I do and my advice to you is to keep the fire burning.  I feel that eventually, the necessary changes for “higher learning” in K-12 education will come around.  I just hope it is during the employed years of my life.  Thanks for reading.         

References

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

TWeaver – Mod 5: New Technology Skepticism

New Technology Skepticism

Prior to the purchase of my first laptop computer in early 2007, I would unfortunately have to consider myself a laggard in the digital world of technology.  During that first year and in 2008, I moved at a snail’s pace in the development of my own digital skills.  This all changed drastically in 2009 when I committed myself to getting further educated in an online setting.  I opened my first Facebook account and enrolled myself into a cyber university.  Since then, I firmly believe that I have made the transition from a laggard to an early adopter of new innovation.  In just under three years, I have skilled myself in many different digital technologies to network with content and significant people vital to the success of my studies.

Considering this short amount of time and that I am relatively new to the field of public education, I have yet to significantly attempt to encourage folks I work with to use digital technologies.  On the other hand, I have encouraged people outside of work and who are close to me to purchase smartphones with data plans and to create their own Facebook accounts. 

The resistance by most of the laggards I push technology on is plainly evident.  It is plain to see that what I believe to be as necessity, they believe to be an unnecessary convenience.  My approach is probably to blame for most folks do not like to be preached to.  They demonstrate behaviors of annoyance and are argumentative about the significance of technology needs for society.  I should probably take on a role of an instructor for pressing motivation to accept these ever-increasingly, more popular technologies.  My motivational strategy should resemble an approach by John M. Keller that use strategies to gain attention, enhance the relevance, foster confidence, and ensure satisfaction (Driscoll, 2005).
 

Their motivation to enter the transition is lacking.  For instance, older people around me are holding on to their ancient flip-phones because (though they would never admit it) they are scared of smartphones.  To help them, I could create some attention through visual arousal (ARCS Motivation Model, n.d.) by showing some video of their favorite singer on you tube using my smartphone.  I could then give them a goal (n.d.) and “coincidently” let them type up a different artist and make a selection.  I would then give them a success opportunity with the attainable challenge (n.d.) of picking out a desired video and playing it.  I would suggest that maybe it could be one they has not been seen in years or even decades.  Finally, I would measure their satisfaction through feedback (n.d.) by asking them what they thought of the ease of the activity of finding a video they liked or have liked in the past.

Usually, it is hands-on experience and positive feedback that speaks louder than words when pushing technology and it seems to me the ARCS model is practical enough to stimulate curiosity and encourage success about new technology, whatever it may be. 

I relied to Melinda Sroeders' blog @ http://schroederedtech.blogspot.com/2012_05_01_archive.html

I also replied to Sherri Careys' blog @ http://theoryandeducationaltech.blogspot.com/2012/05/moodle.html?showComment=1336744884951#c6012489073327950648

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

ARCS Motivation Model. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://sites.google.com/site/motivationataglanceischool/arcs-motivation-model