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.
(3rd ed.). Boston, Mass: Pearson Education, Inc.
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.
My network is
illustrated above in the mind map and shows four different categories of
networking that I use.The least used
network for now is in the professional domain.AESOP is my job search engine and correspondence Web-site that supports
my current position as an interim teacher.The other three include my education, social/friends, and
personal/private networks that continuously evolve as I continuously use them.Now for a bit of history.
I learned K-12 studies
in the late 1970s through the mid 1980s.In the early 1990s, I finished my undergraduate studies.95% of my learning during this time was done
independently for efficient channels of communication and collaboration, other
than f2f, really did not exist.Cellular
telephones and the Internet were not developed enough for consumer usage back
then.My how things have changed in such
a short period of time (only two decades, c’mon). ;)
In 2009, I had decided
to further my education in an online format.I opened my first social Facebook page and began exploring online
universities.After picking one out, it
was soon clear that participative technologies for communication and collaboration
were already common and becoming more popular by the day (Siemens, 2008).Furthermore, it was clear that continuous
participation was the key to success in this format of learning.I had to be actively engaged with content-
search, communications, and collaboration with the use of the Internet and the Web
tools that were available then.Most of
the communication and collaboration happened in the university portal.Today, the Walden University Library and Google
are currently my primary networks for the search of content.Most of the communication and collaborative
efforts currently are accomplished using online social-multimedia in and outside
the university portal.Elluminate, chat-rooms,
Wikis, blogs, and Skype are the primary web tools for these efforts.
With the use of all of
these tools, I can get the necessary correspondence from a community of
learners with similar issues.Additionally, it is necessary to point out that course facilitators do
not offer up much information.Instead
of teaching, they are more inclined to help explain, provide context, make
meaning where necessary, and evaluate the information researched (Prensky,
2008).All of the digital tools
mentioned help alleviate pressures of the unknown best in different ways for
they are quite contextual by nature very similar to the nature of the learning.Basically, whoever has access to the same
technology, we will probably use it in some way and for some reason.
I learn new knowledge
today by researching data networks, developing sound questions, and bringing
something to the table of a learning community via one of the five Web tools
mentioned earlier.Don’t forget Email
either.I still use it plenty in my
cyber university, Google/Verizon account, and even more discretely for
Facebook.How ironic.I don’t really think it would be possible for
me to go back to learning strategies of 1992.What a scary thought.Could you
imagine the frustration?Yikes!!
Prensky, M. (2008). Turning
on the lights. Educational Leadership, 65(6), 40–45.
Retrieved from the Walden Library using the Education Research Complete database.
I would say that since the beginning, humans have indeed had to rely on interactions between each other.The sense of community relies on this very primitive nature of us all.With the birth of western civilization, competition took precedence over the sharing of too much information.American K-12 sector of education was soon to follow in these footsteps of competition.Traditional learning promotes a competitive nature for student success and failure that is believed to have major, predictable implications for higher learning, career earnings, hierarchy in the society, etc.Instead of categorizing student potential, wouldn’t it be best to give all students opportunities to flourish in undergraduate studies and real world opportunities?I do think it is healthier for students to interact and work in groups with common goals for solving significant problems.The problem in the past was the dynamics of the differences in young individuals in a face-to-face (f2f) collaborative activity.Student involvement and participation largely depended on social influences.Technology delivers the necessary opportunities for all participants to have equally significant inputs.Beyond this, technology gives equal and ample opportunity for all students to take responsibility for their knowledge and take it as far as they deem necessary.
Constructivist principles rely on inquiry-based learning strategies.Both individuals as well as groups of learners learn by reflection of their own experiences (Driscoll, 2005). Typical learning outcomes are critical thought and reasoning, practical use of knowledge, self-regulation, and mindful reflection (2005). In collaborative activities, constructivism principles get much more contextual so therefore, K-12 blended-learning groups need more than just the allotted time in the classroom to allow for critical thought and response.Technology is capable of supplying the means to organize group activity, deliver content, communicate and socialize amongst members, and present authentic presentations that can be used for assessment.Furthermore, it can be monitored relatively easily by instructors.All in all, the home, classroom, and mobile computer devices have desktops that can be considered broadcasting stations, social communities, market places, storing places, or even a printing press if need be (TED, 2008).All that is really needed is a social arena (wiki, blog, Facebook) to facilitate the organization, deliberation, and presentation of collaborative assignments.Computer and Internet evolution is certainly increasing in velocity (2008), so there are certainly plenty of online collaborative platforms to choose from.
This is a study completed in 2010.It is appropriately called:
According to the authors of this study, it can be assumed that younger students are firmly interested, capable, and willing to use different technologies (Vesisenafo, et. al., 2010).Furthermore, a much larger percentage of K-12 learners are equipped with mobile technology devices that can edit social software anywhere and at anytime.The dilemma is whether or not these devices are appropriate for new tools for learning or if they are a distraction (2010).In my humble opinion, I agree with the researchers there are many challenges on the horizon for collaboration.Contrarily, I also believe that the possibilities overwhelm the hurdles.The researchers elaborate more by claiming technologies and social software allow for the capture of collaborative student contextual, unique ideas and interpretations and using them to advance learning even more (2010).Let’s see K-12, f2f, student collaborations do all of that in the confinements of the traditional classroom and with the use of conventional tools.I don’t think so. J
Vesisenaho, M., Valtonen, T., Kukkonen, J., Havu-Nuutinen, S., Hartikainen, A., & Karkkainen, S. (2010). Blended Learning with Everyday Technologies to Activate Students' Collaborative Learning. Science Education International, 21(4), 272-283. Retrieved from ERIC database in the Walden University Library.
As instructional designers, it is our obligation to accomplish learning goals and objectives to the highest quality attainable.Learning theory (LT) offers the different, primary perspectives in how people learn.When LT and the learning goals and objectives are in alignment, chances for a full and successful implementation greatly increase.I see them as measuring sticks to get to the desired learning for that specific learning population.Also, as an opportunity for a slower, more meaningful learning experience using strategies and practices born out of all of the _ism theories. Kapp (2007) acknowledged that learning is not a singular thing but rather a multi-facetted entity that no one LT can totally support on its own. All of these theories have that certain something that is desirable in a well thought out instructional design (ID).
For example, behaviorism in educational technology can deliver opportunities to find the necessary foundational, yet mundane information for schoolwork.Mobile devices can accomplish this.Couldn’t this be deemed as behaviorism if it becomes a norm of the educational society?I certainly do not see Google going anywhere soon.
How about cognitivism in educational technology which gives students opportunities to write about and present what they have learned.For me, Microsoft and Google tools deliver these opportunities for me to put my cognitive thoughts together, organize them, and make them presentable.
Constructivism in educational technology delivers opportunities for further individual and social learning with the help of Web 2.0 tools for content research, communication, and collaboration.Research of databases, communicating online, and collaborating over distances helps learners construct their own higher quality knowledge.
Connectivism takes constructivism into the social media and networking level.Professionals and students alike can further synthesize and evaluate (argue) what has been learned.Much like the two blogs that are used as resources for this discussion.
It is much like K-12 education is stuck spinning its wheels between cognitivism and constructivism as far as how hard they currently are willing to push technology.It is all about sharing multimedia these days.Are we at the crossroads to a higher learning that pushes the latter of the four primary _isms in K-12 learning theory?It is plain to see they can all be equally important in a learning experience, so I say, why not?
Many might say it is an abandonment of the very principles of learning, but I say let traditional theories of behaviorism and cognitivism be the foundational blocks of higher learning and the attainment of higher levels of the taxonomy.Behaviorism still has solid relevance and that actions with rewards and consequences still occur commonly today (Kerr, 2007).That is to say, let constructive and connective strategies strengthen learning more to the higher levels of cognition that behaviorism and cognitivism could not support otherwise.Sounds like an emphasis on the appropriate standards-based learning to me.What are your thoughts?
Psychologists opened the eyes of educators some decades back about learning theory (LT) as the catalyst that can help explain how humans learn from their societies.According to Driscoll (2005), “The basic assumption…is that effective instruction is informed by theories of learning” (para. 1, p. 24).Therefore, a proper learning theory aids in the development of an instructional design (ID) which inevitably influences the success or failure of the learning event.I do not see any significant differences when exploring learning theory in a digital world as compared to the past.If we could have broken down the walls of the classroom before the Internet, I am sure we as a people would have done so in the name of higher learning.The Internet, and specifically Web 2.0, has accomplished this.Students can now move on to constructive ways with much ease and efficiency like never before.Students can get to the peak of the Bloom Taxonomy in a much quicker fashion since trivial knowledge is available at lightning speed.Participative technologies for communication and collaboration are now quite common (Siemens, 2008).In turn, LT had to evolve to make room for the boom in content, communications, and collaborations.Are all of the primary learning theories of behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, and now connectivism still most relevant in our digitally enhanced learning strategies?You bet they are.
Now that we know we need to be conscious about learning theory, how do people learn best especially now in a digital world.The fact is this very question of how do people learn still spurs-up arguments amongst professionals to this day.Personally, I feel this question is too obscure to accurately answer.Immediately, I thought what people.Tell me about them.Who are they?Where are they from? And so on and so on.Then I asked myself if I was getting away from the ambiguity of the question and if this unknown was its’ purpose for a general response.That is, was the purpose of the question for me to cover humans in general?Because of this lack of confidence, this blog post will speak of human learners in general and then more specifically of what influences adults as compared to youngsters.
In general, humans learn in one of two ways. What influences learning most is formal, instructional settings that are deemed as intentional and incidental, real-world experiences (Driscoll, 2005).In other words, people learn from their surroundings or environment if you will.Whether it is purposeful or just plain coincidence, people learn continuously.Everyone has heard someone say, “I learn something new every day” or “live and learn”.These statements hold more truth than fallacy.I would dare to say learning is as natural as waking-up and going to sleep once a day.Whether it just happens or if it is intentionally put on a person, learning seems unavoidable during the waking hours of most anyone.
To be less general, I would have to believe adults learn much differently from kids.To me, it is reasonable to believe grown adults usually know how they learn best.Visual images, auditory sounds, and kinesthetic feelings or actions all primarily improve behavior and cognition in adults (Regents of the University of Minnesota, 2009).On the other hand, K-12 students seem to need more than generic facilitation of these three information processing modes.They need something that interests them and engages them in some sort of fun.Their attention spans are not as developed as adults.Their motivations to succeed can be considered polar opposites.Adults motivate themselves while kids are motivated by outside influences.Why couldn’t those influences include technology stimulation?
Millennial students that are indeed digital natives are fatigued and flat out bored with traditional learning strategies.They do not know a life without technology, so why must we keep the industrialized status quo of learning when it is plainly obvious that it is ultimately restrictive.We, as a people here in America, could certainly learn a thing or two from our millennial, digital natives.
