During this module, we had three discussions involving three theories of education; sociocultural theory, student centered learning environments, and communities of practice.
In reflecting on my own practice in educating instructors at our college, I learned that much of my practices focuses on lessening cognitive load and trying to teach within instructors zone of proximal development outlined by Lev Vygotsky and his sociocultural learning theory. I do this by constantly integrating technology in the curriculum and lessening the need for instructors to focus their cognitive load on procedural aspects of how to do certain point and click types of trainings. I also found that I utilize the reciprocal teaching methods and the apprenticeship model by allowing instructros to take my seat during trainings as well as allowing them to focus on lesser tasks with follow up trainings until they can perform needed tasks on their own.
As for student centered learning environments, I am starting to wonder how this can be done efficiently without the use of technology. The discussion during this week was very well "attended" with many ideas, opinions, and thoughts about what value for these environments was most valuable over another (prior knowledge, authentic contexts, centrality of learner in defining meaning, etcetera). I started by saying that prior knowledge was most imoprtant but after reading most of the posts this week, I would almost say that they all have equal importance. For instance, authentic contexts are more apt to teach real life problem solving and application of knowledge in the real world. While prior knowledge is important, the experience and itself gives knowledge to build upon. This makes scaffolding (just in time) most important. Educators failing to scaffold students will likely continue to yield those that are ready for a test that measures how the district is doing, but likely not produce learners with a greater ability to problem solve.
In Communities of Practice, I reflected upon my work in the EDTECH GSA. I have thought about how our group has the characteristic of a common history (students and faculty in the EDTECH Program). In our textbook this week, one thing that really stood out to me was the effective community characteristic of an interdependent system. What is this system for the GSA? Well, I have realized the importance of faculty being part of the equation, after all, they are the experienced EDTECHYs within the program that can bring another needed perspective. They will guide our practices and help to shape the rituals that will hopefully continue after I graduate the program. Inclusion of Alumni in the group was reflectively a good idea because it will keep the older generation with the newer to allow us to all learn from each other beyond the classroom in a real life example. We are creating a network of professionals in Educational Technology that will share resources, provide opportunities, and hopefully evolve into an even greater association in the future.
Assignments in this Module
A Brief Reflection
Our assignments in this module were both useful and difficult. I had a great experience infusing a simple theory in rebuilding a lesson plan for the Blackboard Grade Center. I need to redo this workshop with newer faculty with the new approach of guiding their learning using an expert/novice apprenticeship model. Learners will utilize resources that will always be available to them to guide procedures while I can walk around and give specific advice in a situated context. This situated context is not only more productive for our faculty in terms of "doing real work" but also will likely yield in a better understanding and use of the capabilities within the Grade Center. The annotated bibliography, on the other hand, was more difficult. I should have attempted to focus my research on something with a little more ease rather than making it more applicable to my work. I was searching endlessly for online course design articles hoping to make some focused connections with the research. I did my best here, but need to relook at this very useful assignment that can likely be shared in the future with faculty at our college.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Communities of Practice
One community of practice that I have spent the last year and a half building is the EDTECH Graduate Student Association of Boise State University. We just call it the GSA for short. We have been laying the groundwork for this community for the past year and a half for students within the EDTECH program here at Boise State University. In looking at what Barab and Duffy (2000) say about the features that arearguably requisite of communities I see that this consists of a common historical heritage, interdependent system, and a reproduction cycle, I will attempt to explain how these features seem to have naturally occurred in creation of this learning community.
Our common heritage can be seen in the members and officers. We are all students that are currently in or have been in the EDTECH program here at Boise State University. We share an educational background that frames our shared goals, meanings, and practices. Last year, we created our governing documents that outlines how we will do business (conducting monthly meetings with members and bi-monthly meetings within the Executive Committee).
My vision for the association was a shared vision and was aided by faculty, advisors, and other students. The result is becoming an Interdependent System between faculty and students. The students have created a mission and purpose statement. Essentially we are addressing these by creating a network of learners where we share resources both within and beyond the program. One of our members and faculty brought this to light by sharing ideas. One of these were the development of mechanismisms by which students can collectively showcase their work. We have developed a couple of mechanisms that support these shared goals described by Barab and Duffy (2000).
The first was the creation of our Project Sharing Database where members can upload or link to one of their projects that have had an impact in the workplace. The idea with this is that we create a resource that students can come back to at a later time to learn beyond the program. The second mechanism is the current development of a peer reviewed journal where students will be able to submit a research project and have a group of students anonymously peer review an article and publish it in an internal journal. This mechanism of sharing resources will create a shared practice. That practice will be the ability to have resources in the future for faculty, students, lumni, and hopefully students from other colleges and universities.
The Interdependent System as described by Barab and Duffy (2000) states that "individuals are part of something larger as they work within the context and become interconnected to the community, which is also part of something larger." We have realized that we need faculty to be a part of our community in order for it to fully realize the potential of our online peer reviewed journal. As a result, we have included them in our GSA site here on Moodle and we will be having a meeting with faculty on November 8, 2010. The larger picture is to put the pieces of a puzzle together to hopefully form a more cohesive community of learners. The larger community here are all of us within the EDTECH Program utilizing technology to enhance educational experiences within our profession, whether that be teaching, instructional design, professional trainers, or something else. Our inclusion of faculty are to suggest that our initiatives (Project Sharing, peer reviewed journal, mini-grant opportunities, to name a few) are closely tied and connected to what they are doing. Without these puzzle pieces coming together, we will likely not fully become connected to the larger community as faculty have had a breadth of experience within the field of which we are all studying.
The Reproduction Cycle that Barab and Duffy (2000) speak of is something that I have personally been working to achieve recently. We just revised our governing documents (ie, our Constitution and By-Laws) that outline how we do business. These documents will serve to aide in this cycle down the line. In this regard, we have also created a more permanent document storing area and are working on practices that will enable easy transition to officers next year and beyond. We have also began collaborating on the EDTECH GSA Blog at http://edtechgsa.blogspot.com as our common website to show other students within the program the Opportunities available to them if they were to join our association and help in our efforts. The site also outlines how to become a member and much more information to aide in the Reproduction Cycle. Authorship and ownership of this site can be passed down to future officers and members when elections take place next year. Within our Moodle site (where we have meetings), we have practices outlined that can also be passed down to future members, aiding in the reproduction of new members that can engage in and "embody the communal practices," to hopefully replace us "old timers."
I encourage all students within this class to review our website to determine whether an opportunity exists that would support their educational endeavors within or beyond the program. Join us and start sharing your projects for use by current and future students! We would love to have these to share now and in the future. You can see some of the shared projects on our website as well, but if you want a link to a project, you will have to joini our association.
This week's reading was very insightful for me as it provides a framework with which we can learn and utilize in our future careers. It is helping me to rethink who should be able to post blogs on our site (perhaps all members) or participate in our meetings.
Barab, S.A., & Duffy, T.M. (2000) From practice fields to communities of practice. In Jonassen, D.H., & Land, S.M. (eds.) Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Our common heritage can be seen in the members and officers. We are all students that are currently in or have been in the EDTECH program here at Boise State University. We share an educational background that frames our shared goals, meanings, and practices. Last year, we created our governing documents that outlines how we will do business (conducting monthly meetings with members and bi-monthly meetings within the Executive Committee).
My vision for the association was a shared vision and was aided by faculty, advisors, and other students. The result is becoming an Interdependent System between faculty and students. The students have created a mission and purpose statement. Essentially we are addressing these by creating a network of learners where we share resources both within and beyond the program. One of our members and faculty brought this to light by sharing ideas. One of these were the development of mechanismisms by which students can collectively showcase their work. We have developed a couple of mechanisms that support these shared goals described by Barab and Duffy (2000).
The first was the creation of our Project Sharing Database where members can upload or link to one of their projects that have had an impact in the workplace. The idea with this is that we create a resource that students can come back to at a later time to learn beyond the program. The second mechanism is the current development of a peer reviewed journal where students will be able to submit a research project and have a group of students anonymously peer review an article and publish it in an internal journal. This mechanism of sharing resources will create a shared practice. That practice will be the ability to have resources in the future for faculty, students, lumni, and hopefully students from other colleges and universities.
The Interdependent System as described by Barab and Duffy (2000) states that "individuals are part of something larger as they work within the context and become interconnected to the community, which is also part of something larger." We have realized that we need faculty to be a part of our community in order for it to fully realize the potential of our online peer reviewed journal. As a result, we have included them in our GSA site here on Moodle and we will be having a meeting with faculty on November 8, 2010. The larger picture is to put the pieces of a puzzle together to hopefully form a more cohesive community of learners. The larger community here are all of us within the EDTECH Program utilizing technology to enhance educational experiences within our profession, whether that be teaching, instructional design, professional trainers, or something else. Our inclusion of faculty are to suggest that our initiatives (Project Sharing, peer reviewed journal, mini-grant opportunities, to name a few) are closely tied and connected to what they are doing. Without these puzzle pieces coming together, we will likely not fully become connected to the larger community as faculty have had a breadth of experience within the field of which we are all studying.
The Reproduction Cycle that Barab and Duffy (2000) speak of is something that I have personally been working to achieve recently. We just revised our governing documents (ie, our Constitution and By-Laws) that outline how we do business. These documents will serve to aide in this cycle down the line. In this regard, we have also created a more permanent document storing area and are working on practices that will enable easy transition to officers next year and beyond. We have also began collaborating on the EDTECH GSA Blog at http://edtechgsa.blogspot.com as our common website to show other students within the program the Opportunities available to them if they were to join our association and help in our efforts. The site also outlines how to become a member and much more information to aide in the Reproduction Cycle. Authorship and ownership of this site can be passed down to future officers and members when elections take place next year. Within our Moodle site (where we have meetings), we have practices outlined that can also be passed down to future members, aiding in the reproduction of new members that can engage in and "embody the communal practices," to hopefully replace us "old timers."
I encourage all students within this class to review our website to determine whether an opportunity exists that would support their educational endeavors within or beyond the program. Join us and start sharing your projects for use by current and future students! We would love to have these to share now and in the future. You can see some of the shared projects on our website as well, but if you want a link to a project, you will have to joini our association.
This week's reading was very insightful for me as it provides a framework with which we can learn and utilize in our future careers. It is helping me to rethink who should be able to post blogs on our site (perhaps all members) or participate in our meetings.
Barab, S.A., & Duffy, T.M. (2000) From practice fields to communities of practice. In Jonassen, D.H., & Land, S.M. (eds.) Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Student Centered Learning Environments
While I have had the opportunity to do student teaching a few years ago, I moved away from K12 education because of the inconsistencies between pedagogical approaches taught in the University I attended and what truly happens in the classroom. The teacher preparation program was very constructivist in what they were teaching us (manipulatives for math, project based learning approaches, etcetera), but they did try to help us balance what we had to prove up in our portfolio with what the real expectations were in the classroom. After taking and passing all certifications and doing all of the coursework, I decided to change courses and drop the program because of the fact that I would never have the time to effectively teach in many school districts (especially because some schools in our area have become very scripted teaching).
So to answer this question about which value is more important or should be valued higher than another in the constructivist, or student centered classroom as described in a grounded design principles is to say that it is highly unlikely to take place in many schools in part due to the "feasability of implementing emerging learning environments within traditional classroom environments given their conventional assessment priorities." (pg. 1) That aside, in a constructivist classroom, I think the highest value should be student's prior knowledge and everyday experiences. It lays the foundation for the rest of instruction. New understanding cannot be built until prior knowledge has been established and "is assumped to result in more meaningful learning." (pg. 14) The other values are important and I think equally so.
I think that some students definitely struggle with technology aided scaffolding necessary for higher order thinking. I was chatting with our advanced mathematics faculty member just the other day. She has built a relatively student centered learning environment that is information rich. While her assessments are still relatively behaviorist in approach, she does construct videos to help her students learn the technology tools she uses to demonstrate algebraic, calculus, and statistical concepts in her courses. She is finding this semester that many students just love having the scaffolding just in time for them to learn how to effectively utilize the technology to enhance their learning. Unlike other math instructors at our college, after students complete practice problems, she has them participate in reflective activities about what they learned, how the technology aided in their learning, and what they now know about the concept. These learner centered approaches with the balance of the objectivist-type assessment will be more fully realized when the semester ends as this is the first semester she has implemented these technology scaffolds in her course. While we have a helpdesk to assist students with technology issues, this is one of our few instructors who understands that the helpdesk cannot possibly explain to a student how to manipulate variables using the specific mathematics software used within their courses. In other words, in this seemingly constructivist classroom, the pitfall I see is lack of support when it comes to the technology that can "enable learners to represent their thinking in concrete ways and to visualize and test the consequences of their reasoning." (pg. 15)
Jonassen, D. H., & Land, S. M. (2000). Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
So to answer this question about which value is more important or should be valued higher than another in the constructivist, or student centered classroom as described in a grounded design principles is to say that it is highly unlikely to take place in many schools in part due to the "feasability of implementing emerging learning environments within traditional classroom environments given their conventional assessment priorities." (pg. 1) That aside, in a constructivist classroom, I think the highest value should be student's prior knowledge and everyday experiences. It lays the foundation for the rest of instruction. New understanding cannot be built until prior knowledge has been established and "is assumped to result in more meaningful learning." (pg. 14) The other values are important and I think equally so.
I think that some students definitely struggle with technology aided scaffolding necessary for higher order thinking. I was chatting with our advanced mathematics faculty member just the other day. She has built a relatively student centered learning environment that is information rich. While her assessments are still relatively behaviorist in approach, she does construct videos to help her students learn the technology tools she uses to demonstrate algebraic, calculus, and statistical concepts in her courses. She is finding this semester that many students just love having the scaffolding just in time for them to learn how to effectively utilize the technology to enhance their learning. Unlike other math instructors at our college, after students complete practice problems, she has them participate in reflective activities about what they learned, how the technology aided in their learning, and what they now know about the concept. These learner centered approaches with the balance of the objectivist-type assessment will be more fully realized when the semester ends as this is the first semester she has implemented these technology scaffolds in her course. While we have a helpdesk to assist students with technology issues, this is one of our few instructors who understands that the helpdesk cannot possibly explain to a student how to manipulate variables using the specific mathematics software used within their courses. In other words, in this seemingly constructivist classroom, the pitfall I see is lack of support when it comes to the technology that can "enable learners to represent their thinking in concrete ways and to visualize and test the consequences of their reasoning." (pg. 15)
Jonassen, D. H., & Land, S. M. (2000). Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Monday, October 11, 2010
Sociocultural Theory
Use of Technology to Support Social Constructivist Theory and ZPD
I have a relatively unique classroom. My students are instructors at our community college that come to our technology trainings (related to a variety of different tools) willingly with no incentives. That said, I tend to have smaller classrooms, and am able to work closely with each instructor or staff member. One way I utilize technology to provide the "cognitive mediators" (page 247) involves the use of scaffolding. "Schunk (2008) states the five major functions of scaffolding includ "providing support, functioning as a tool, extending the range of the learner, permitting the attainment of tasks not otherwise possible, and using selectively only as needed." In this regard, I typically start and end my training sessions by reminding participants of my supportive role in the college and provide my contact information. During the training, I use Powerpoint where I introduce the learning objectives, provide common uses of the tool and links to further their learning beyond our session (based on my audience, I would say classroom or in the work place), review best practices in using the tool, review the steps to achieve the use of a technology tool (the point and click), and finally demonstrate the same steps (modeling). To extend the range of our learners, I record our sessions (voice and computer) to allow learners to focus on what is being learned as opposed to taking notes or placing thier cognitive load on other aspects. I feel this allows my training to function as a tool and extend the range of the learner by ensuring they have the steps it will take later in order to perform the task on their own.
"Reciprocal teaching comprises social interaction and scaffolding as students gradually develop skills." After my training demonstration, I allow time for discussion about how my "students" will use the newly acquired knowledge in their course of work (or why they would not). Often times, this entails students practicing using the tool on my computer where others can see the same process a second time or setting up follow-up trainings where I can work more closely within the student's zone of proximal development. Depending upon the training itself, many times I set up environments where my students can create and utilize a tool with other attendees. For instance, when training on using blogs in a classroom, I often focus my training on common uses in the classroom, then quickly demonstrate how to set one up. I then have attendees utilize this as a student (posting content in the session) before setting one up in their own course shell (or a training shell depending upon the situation). This is almost the situated cognition as I am socially guiding practices and uses within our college (cultural institution). In addition to the discussions in the training, we also have follow up surveys and discussion boards where my students can take what they learned beyond the classroom while still having an area to ask questions.
While I have the advantage of constantly teaching technology uses in distance-based and classroom-based instruction, these are just some of the ways that I use technology to enhance instruction (media, screen recording software, discussion boards, and using technology within the learning environment). I also use the Internet and recorded lectures to facilitate training or further a learner's knowledge about a specific subject. For instance, I recently trained on classroom best practices of whether lecture capture technology can enhance teaching practices (or make for better instructors). Because I did not have a strong grasp on faculty perspectives and lecture capture, I found a good recorded presentation where an experienced faculty member had presented her challenges and successes with the technology in her classroom. This became central to my "presentation" and was the spark for many comments, questions, and discussion items afterwards.
Schunk, D. H. (2008). Constructivist theory. In Learning theories: An educational perspective (5th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
I have a relatively unique classroom. My students are instructors at our community college that come to our technology trainings (related to a variety of different tools) willingly with no incentives. That said, I tend to have smaller classrooms, and am able to work closely with each instructor or staff member. One way I utilize technology to provide the "cognitive mediators" (page 247) involves the use of scaffolding. "Schunk (2008) states the five major functions of scaffolding includ "providing support, functioning as a tool, extending the range of the learner, permitting the attainment of tasks not otherwise possible, and using selectively only as needed." In this regard, I typically start and end my training sessions by reminding participants of my supportive role in the college and provide my contact information. During the training, I use Powerpoint where I introduce the learning objectives, provide common uses of the tool and links to further their learning beyond our session (based on my audience, I would say classroom or in the work place), review best practices in using the tool, review the steps to achieve the use of a technology tool (the point and click), and finally demonstrate the same steps (modeling). To extend the range of our learners, I record our sessions (voice and computer) to allow learners to focus on what is being learned as opposed to taking notes or placing thier cognitive load on other aspects. I feel this allows my training to function as a tool and extend the range of the learner by ensuring they have the steps it will take later in order to perform the task on their own.
"Reciprocal teaching comprises social interaction and scaffolding as students gradually develop skills." After my training demonstration, I allow time for discussion about how my "students" will use the newly acquired knowledge in their course of work (or why they would not). Often times, this entails students practicing using the tool on my computer where others can see the same process a second time or setting up follow-up trainings where I can work more closely within the student's zone of proximal development. Depending upon the training itself, many times I set up environments where my students can create and utilize a tool with other attendees. For instance, when training on using blogs in a classroom, I often focus my training on common uses in the classroom, then quickly demonstrate how to set one up. I then have attendees utilize this as a student (posting content in the session) before setting one up in their own course shell (or a training shell depending upon the situation). This is almost the situated cognition as I am socially guiding practices and uses within our college (cultural institution). In addition to the discussions in the training, we also have follow up surveys and discussion boards where my students can take what they learned beyond the classroom while still having an area to ask questions.
While I have the advantage of constantly teaching technology uses in distance-based and classroom-based instruction, these are just some of the ways that I use technology to enhance instruction (media, screen recording software, discussion boards, and using technology within the learning environment). I also use the Internet and recorded lectures to facilitate training or further a learner's knowledge about a specific subject. For instance, I recently trained on classroom best practices of whether lecture capture technology can enhance teaching practices (or make for better instructors). Because I did not have a strong grasp on faculty perspectives and lecture capture, I found a good recorded presentation where an experienced faculty member had presented her challenges and successes with the technology in her classroom. This became central to my "presentation" and was the spark for many comments, questions, and discussion items afterwards.
Schunk, D. H. (2008). Constructivist theory. In Learning theories: An educational perspective (5th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Negotiated Meaning and Constructivism
Johanssen (1992) notes that goals would be "negotiated and not imposed" on the learners in a course, I do not know how this would apply in this situation. The instructor does not use a formative evaluation or survey to my knowledge. The course does not use discussion boards or other tools to ask students what they hope to get from the course to formulate questions. There simply exists a lot of (I might add, very interesting) text for students to read, pictures for students to view (which support the text quite well), and music or sound clips for students to listen to. It ia almost like an experience of the instructor's life and the great travels the instructor has had. The instructor writes a lot of good information about the different cultures around the world; however, I do not think students really know where to go first, then second. This might suggest that, while somewhat constructivist in it's appearance, it is more due to poor course design and communication of expectations.
Also, Johanssen (1992) states that task and content analysis focus less on prescribing a single correct answer. "These tools, and the environments containing them, should not only accommodate but also promote multiple interpretations of reality." In my opinion, discussion boards and essay tests that are typically scored low do not necessarily invite multiple interpretations. This instructor is looking for specific answers to essay questions as opposed to an interpretation of the content (at least in my mind). This might also suggest that the course is not necessarily constructivist in design nor in assessment practice, but appears that way due to the information rich environment.
In his third example, Johanssen (1992) asserts that a constructivist approach with instructional technology, "Rather than presenting instructional treatments, designers would provide generative, mental construction "tool kits" embedded in relevant learning environments that facilitate knowledge construction by learners." I assume mental tool kits might be a summary of key ideas our instructor is trying to convey with his text, images, sounds, and videos that learners can use as a basis while they are reading. I suppose the announcements serve this purpose to some degree, as do discussion posts and the summative essay questions.
In his final example, Johanssen (1992) is arguing for a less goal oriented assessment and utilization of practices that value a wider variety of responses. Due to low test scores, it appears that this too is not what this instructor is attempting to do. Based on these examples, perhaps Johanssen's suggestions on what a more constructivist approach might look like does not seem to apply in this particular course. The instructor has stringent requirements on assessments, but provides little or minimal guidance for students (one of the factors asserted by Kirschner, Sweller, Clark (2006) that are typical of constructivist approaches).
Thank you Dr. Ching for helping me think this through a bit more and come up with a more reasonable explanation for the low success rates. Perhaps the low success rates have more to do with instrutional strategies (scaffolding or study guides), poor course design, poor communication, and cognitive overload as opposed to labeling it a constructivist environment. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how I might approach and encourage this instructor to make some changes to the course? We are dealing with a very old school instructor that has a hard time even developing a Powerpoint without someone holding the hand!
Jonassen, D. (1992). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? ETR&D, Vol. 39, No.3, pp.5-14.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Also, Johanssen (1992) states that task and content analysis focus less on prescribing a single correct answer. "These tools, and the environments containing them, should not only accommodate but also promote multiple interpretations of reality." In my opinion, discussion boards and essay tests that are typically scored low do not necessarily invite multiple interpretations. This instructor is looking for specific answers to essay questions as opposed to an interpretation of the content (at least in my mind). This might also suggest that the course is not necessarily constructivist in design nor in assessment practice, but appears that way due to the information rich environment.
In his third example, Johanssen (1992) asserts that a constructivist approach with instructional technology, "Rather than presenting instructional treatments, designers would provide generative, mental construction "tool kits" embedded in relevant learning environments that facilitate knowledge construction by learners." I assume mental tool kits might be a summary of key ideas our instructor is trying to convey with his text, images, sounds, and videos that learners can use as a basis while they are reading. I suppose the announcements serve this purpose to some degree, as do discussion posts and the summative essay questions.
In his final example, Johanssen (1992) is arguing for a less goal oriented assessment and utilization of practices that value a wider variety of responses. Due to low test scores, it appears that this too is not what this instructor is attempting to do. Based on these examples, perhaps Johanssen's suggestions on what a more constructivist approach might look like does not seem to apply in this particular course. The instructor has stringent requirements on assessments, but provides little or minimal guidance for students (one of the factors asserted by Kirschner, Sweller, Clark (2006) that are typical of constructivist approaches).
Thank you Dr. Ching for helping me think this through a bit more and come up with a more reasonable explanation for the low success rates. Perhaps the low success rates have more to do with instrutional strategies (scaffolding or study guides), poor course design, poor communication, and cognitive overload as opposed to labeling it a constructivist environment. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how I might approach and encourage this instructor to make some changes to the course? We are dealing with a very old school instructor that has a hard time even developing a Powerpoint without someone holding the hand!
Jonassen, D. (1992). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? ETR&D, Vol. 39, No.3, pp.5-14.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Reflection on Module 2 (part 3 of 3)
During the last part of Module 2, we looked at key differences from behaviorist (objectivist) and constructivist approaches to education. We also looked at articles that were meant to discredit constructivist approaches to education.
Providing an environment for learners to construct their own knowledge is a challenge...a balancing act. Johanssen (1992) talks about the challenges that constructivism as a theory and what it brings to instructional design and provided four examples of what this might look like. He contends that goals might be negotiated rather than imposed, that task analysis might look less at single correct answers, that mental tool kits to help students generate knowledge might be the focus as opposed to instructional presentations, and that assessments would utilize practices that value a wider variety of responses.
While very intertwined with cognitivism, constructivism as a practice has some merits in that it can allow learners to delve deeper into content and think about constructing their knowledge about that content. What did you know, what do you know now, and how does that apply to a problem, might be the answers that a constructivist approach to teaching and learning might take. Helping learners construct deeper understanding and the ability to problem solve with content is the real challenge, especially due to time and the demands of standards in the K-12 environment, and learning outcomes imposed upon colleges by accreditation agencies. How else will we measure how students are constructing knowledge if we cannot observe it on a standardized test? A key challenge even for me in my own career.
Most instructors at our college are required to teach to the learning outcomes and assess them at different points in time for each course they teach. Perhaps the infusion of rubrics and more self/peer assessment and project based learning might be a good way to have a measure of how students are doing and a new way of writing learning outcomes that are in line with the way our college is doing business. One thing that I find difficult is how to approach this given the climate that seems to be pervasive for staff and faculty that seems very top down in some respects. Nonetheless, I can introduce the concepts to faculty and provide some resources about infusing more constructivist assessment practices and teaching strategies in their online courses. Wikis can be great tools for collaborative learning projects. Self and Peer Assessments are tools that allow learners to tie in their assessment with their work by grading themselves and developing metacognive skills necessary in this type of environment. Blogs and Journals also provide alternate ways to assess student's learning that are less behaviorist approaches. I realize there will always be a need to have a behaviorist approach in online courses, but after having been in a more constructivist environment, I do feel more engaged and more able to grasp the knowledge I need to gain to do my job well. One of the key arguments I can see is that this approach lends itself well in a graduate program, but how well can it serve community college students often taking survey courses that are requirements (they are just trying to get through the course as opposed to gaining more understanding of the content).
Jonassen, D. (1992). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? ETR&D, Vol. 39, No.3, pp.5-14.
Providing an environment for learners to construct their own knowledge is a challenge...a balancing act. Johanssen (1992) talks about the challenges that constructivism as a theory and what it brings to instructional design and provided four examples of what this might look like. He contends that goals might be negotiated rather than imposed, that task analysis might look less at single correct answers, that mental tool kits to help students generate knowledge might be the focus as opposed to instructional presentations, and that assessments would utilize practices that value a wider variety of responses.
While very intertwined with cognitivism, constructivism as a practice has some merits in that it can allow learners to delve deeper into content and think about constructing their knowledge about that content. What did you know, what do you know now, and how does that apply to a problem, might be the answers that a constructivist approach to teaching and learning might take. Helping learners construct deeper understanding and the ability to problem solve with content is the real challenge, especially due to time and the demands of standards in the K-12 environment, and learning outcomes imposed upon colleges by accreditation agencies. How else will we measure how students are constructing knowledge if we cannot observe it on a standardized test? A key challenge even for me in my own career.
Most instructors at our college are required to teach to the learning outcomes and assess them at different points in time for each course they teach. Perhaps the infusion of rubrics and more self/peer assessment and project based learning might be a good way to have a measure of how students are doing and a new way of writing learning outcomes that are in line with the way our college is doing business. One thing that I find difficult is how to approach this given the climate that seems to be pervasive for staff and faculty that seems very top down in some respects. Nonetheless, I can introduce the concepts to faculty and provide some resources about infusing more constructivist assessment practices and teaching strategies in their online courses. Wikis can be great tools for collaborative learning projects. Self and Peer Assessments are tools that allow learners to tie in their assessment with their work by grading themselves and developing metacognive skills necessary in this type of environment. Blogs and Journals also provide alternate ways to assess student's learning that are less behaviorist approaches. I realize there will always be a need to have a behaviorist approach in online courses, but after having been in a more constructivist environment, I do feel more engaged and more able to grasp the knowledge I need to gain to do my job well. One of the key arguments I can see is that this approach lends itself well in a graduate program, but how well can it serve community college students often taking survey courses that are requirements (they are just trying to get through the course as opposed to gaining more understanding of the content).
Jonassen, D. (1992). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? ETR&D, Vol. 39, No.3, pp.5-14.
Reflection on Module 2 (part 2 of 3)
Cognitive approaches were also discussed this during Module 2.
Winn (2004) discussed the significance of inclusion of the mind as part of learning and not just measurable, scientific observations available through behaviorist approaches. He also reiterated what Gestalt Psychological principles have taught in that students must learn all of the parts before they learn the whole. These parts are often affected by their prior experiences that are a reality of the mind (as opposed to behaviorists that tend to ignore the mental part of reality).
In my practice, I think cognitive processing theories are still very relevant and a key consideration in how I design materials for use with instructors and students where I work. While I tend to ignore kinesthetic practices on a regular basis, I do make sure that I present or provide opportunities for hands on practice of what I teach as well as a pictoral model of the information I'm trying to convey. I use images, clip art, videos, and record my voice (or others) that are readily available on the web today. I allow learners to choose which way they would like to receive information before I send it their way. I also provide training materials both as visual/auditory in a video and as a step by step document. This allows our instructors or students to choose a path that will suit their own learning style and ways they process information best.
Cognitive learning theory is still very relevant, especially what we now know about how the brain reacts when different types of stimulus is given to humans. Anything that designers or instructors can do to play to the cognitive processing theories and preventing overload can only enhance student's learning. Most learners can relate to instruction that has useful images and relevant audio that have enhanced their absorption of content and thus, learning and construction of knowledge. In addition to designing content that is conducive to the way humans process information, also important considerations are other aspects that often interfere with learning.
Online approaches to education can play better to other interferences in learning. One example is the idea that learners login to class when they want to, thus assuming that this is mostly when they are ready to learn content. The mind must be ready to take in new information and doing this at a time that is convenient for students can only enhance the affective domain in learning. Another example is in the design of a website. Nothing is more frustrating in an online class than trying to figure out how to do what it is you need to do. Hsu (2006) states that "instructors and educational website designers may want to use nonlinear navigation as the major mode for intended websites and linear navigation when a fixed linear learning sequence is deemed necessary regarding the content being delivered." I would argue that a consistent path to the linear learning sequence is what we are aiming at. Frustration, like affective domain issues, and cognitive processing all play the same role for learners in that, when designed poorly, they prevent learners from learning (processing) information.
Winn, W. (2004). Cognitive perspectives in psychology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology
Hsu, Y. -C. (2006). Better educational website interface design: The implications from gender-specific preferences in graduate students. British Journal of Educational Technology 37(2), 233-242..
Winn (2004) discussed the significance of inclusion of the mind as part of learning and not just measurable, scientific observations available through behaviorist approaches. He also reiterated what Gestalt Psychological principles have taught in that students must learn all of the parts before they learn the whole. These parts are often affected by their prior experiences that are a reality of the mind (as opposed to behaviorists that tend to ignore the mental part of reality).
In my practice, I think cognitive processing theories are still very relevant and a key consideration in how I design materials for use with instructors and students where I work. While I tend to ignore kinesthetic practices on a regular basis, I do make sure that I present or provide opportunities for hands on practice of what I teach as well as a pictoral model of the information I'm trying to convey. I use images, clip art, videos, and record my voice (or others) that are readily available on the web today. I allow learners to choose which way they would like to receive information before I send it their way. I also provide training materials both as visual/auditory in a video and as a step by step document. This allows our instructors or students to choose a path that will suit their own learning style and ways they process information best.
Cognitive learning theory is still very relevant, especially what we now know about how the brain reacts when different types of stimulus is given to humans. Anything that designers or instructors can do to play to the cognitive processing theories and preventing overload can only enhance student's learning. Most learners can relate to instruction that has useful images and relevant audio that have enhanced their absorption of content and thus, learning and construction of knowledge. In addition to designing content that is conducive to the way humans process information, also important considerations are other aspects that often interfere with learning.
Online approaches to education can play better to other interferences in learning. One example is the idea that learners login to class when they want to, thus assuming that this is mostly when they are ready to learn content. The mind must be ready to take in new information and doing this at a time that is convenient for students can only enhance the affective domain in learning. Another example is in the design of a website. Nothing is more frustrating in an online class than trying to figure out how to do what it is you need to do. Hsu (2006) states that "instructors and educational website designers may want to use nonlinear navigation as the major mode for intended websites and linear navigation when a fixed linear learning sequence is deemed necessary regarding the content being delivered." I would argue that a consistent path to the linear learning sequence is what we are aiming at. Frustration, like affective domain issues, and cognitive processing all play the same role for learners in that, when designed poorly, they prevent learners from learning (processing) information.
Winn, W. (2004). Cognitive perspectives in psychology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology
Hsu, Y. -C. (2006). Better educational website interface design: The implications from gender-specific preferences in graduate students. British Journal of Educational Technology 37(2), 233-242..
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Reflection on Module 2 (part 1 of 3)
During our first week, we read about Epistemologies by reviewing several open resources including Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/education-philosophy/. It was interesting reading about the various origins and know that this is an open resource for anyone wanting research related to education. Prior to this week, I could barely define epistemology. It was good that the module started here to enable me as a learner with little prior knowledge about the subject to put the major theories of educational philosophies (behaviorist/objectivist, cognitivist, and constructivist) theories discussed later in the module into perspective.
The You Tube video we watched this week was a good preview of the different views of learning.
After reading about behaviorism, I learned that it is based on only observable behavior and ignores the incorporation of the mind. It does this because of the epistemological differences in whether the mind can indeed be observed. Technological advances in brain scans have actually made observation of the mind in specific contexts (the brain itself) more empirical and scientifically based than was previously possible. I also learned that behaviorist approaches are seen in common true/false multiple choice (drill/practice) approaches to education.
While I realize that behaviorist approaches to educational assessments are more measurable and are still pervasive in many colleges, I have come to learn that my role at our college is to seek out more ways to introduce alternative types of assessment that are from another theoretical approach. This coming Friday, I am doing a presentation on using the Self and Peer Assessment tool in Blackboard 9.1. I have found myself researching various disciplines and their approaches to these more open ended approaches that engage students in online course content in a different and deeper way. I very much intend to place some discussion on the difference between assessments that are behaviorist in approach and those that are constructivist. This peer assessment tool uses rubrics and more open ended questions to allow students to rate their peers and themselves on coursework. Given we are a community college, many students are used to the same behaviorist approaches to assessments, so I'm interested to see how the use of this tool challenges traditional approaches to assessments (drill/practice, true/false, multiple choice style questions that tend to be mostly factual), and more importantly, how many instructors will begin to use a different approach to helping students control their learning.
The You Tube video we watched this week was a good preview of the different views of learning.
After reading about behaviorism, I learned that it is based on only observable behavior and ignores the incorporation of the mind. It does this because of the epistemological differences in whether the mind can indeed be observed. Technological advances in brain scans have actually made observation of the mind in specific contexts (the brain itself) more empirical and scientifically based than was previously possible. I also learned that behaviorist approaches are seen in common true/false multiple choice (drill/practice) approaches to education.
While I realize that behaviorist approaches to educational assessments are more measurable and are still pervasive in many colleges, I have come to learn that my role at our college is to seek out more ways to introduce alternative types of assessment that are from another theoretical approach. This coming Friday, I am doing a presentation on using the Self and Peer Assessment tool in Blackboard 9.1. I have found myself researching various disciplines and their approaches to these more open ended approaches that engage students in online course content in a different and deeper way. I very much intend to place some discussion on the difference between assessments that are behaviorist in approach and those that are constructivist. This peer assessment tool uses rubrics and more open ended questions to allow students to rate their peers and themselves on coursework. Given we are a community college, many students are used to the same behaviorist approaches to assessments, so I'm interested to see how the use of this tool challenges traditional approaches to assessments (drill/practice, true/false, multiple choice style questions that tend to be mostly factual), and more importantly, how many instructors will begin to use a different approach to helping students control their learning.
Constructivism
Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) contend that discovery learning, experiental learning, and constructivist learning, while appealing, do not work well. They provide a rationale for this argument based on what is known about working memory (or long term working memory) and it's limitations in certain contexts. Environments that are information rich, with little structure, where learners have to navigate through the environment in search of an answer puts a load on working memory, thus making this type of instruction less effective.
We have a particular online course at our college that is very information rich. The instructor has worked for years developing photos, videos, and images in his, mostly text based course. He has short clips of various multimedia in his course including music, comedy, and videos all relating to cultural geography. Students have to navigate through all of his content and then receive an exam and discussion board with a very open ended topic. His grading seems extremely subjective in nature. One might describe the course as being very constructivist in nature because students are given very little information, except a weekly announcement as to what they should do in his course. The course has very low success and retention rates and the sheer size has been a cause of problems from our end for many years (even prior to my employment there). This particular course is very much what Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) might describe as being ineffective because of the small number of elements working memory can handle and because students have very little direction as to what they should do to prepare for the exam. It is information rich, but I do not think students taking their first cultural geography course are ready for the sheer overload of information they receive each week and are expected to retain in order to answer open ended exam questions.
This is but one example of where a constructivist approach has proven to be ineffective given the low success and retention rates in this course.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
We have a particular online course at our college that is very information rich. The instructor has worked for years developing photos, videos, and images in his, mostly text based course. He has short clips of various multimedia in his course including music, comedy, and videos all relating to cultural geography. Students have to navigate through all of his content and then receive an exam and discussion board with a very open ended topic. His grading seems extremely subjective in nature. One might describe the course as being very constructivist in nature because students are given very little information, except a weekly announcement as to what they should do in his course. The course has very low success and retention rates and the sheer size has been a cause of problems from our end for many years (even prior to my employment there). This particular course is very much what Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) might describe as being ineffective because of the small number of elements working memory can handle and because students have very little direction as to what they should do to prepare for the exam. It is information rich, but I do not think students taking their first cultural geography course are ready for the sheer overload of information they receive each week and are expected to retain in order to answer open ended exam questions.
This is but one example of where a constructivist approach has proven to be ineffective given the low success and retention rates in this course.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)