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.

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.

Gestalt Psychology

Gestalt psychologists consider learners that know the "whole" (or the highest level of Bloom's taxonomy) in terms of the parts that make it up. Winn (2004) states that " Technology has advanced to the point where we can construct complete environments within which students can learn." Technology can provide the tools necessary to create both interactive and immersive learning environments that are consistent with Gestalt psychological theories; however, I no longer believe that this can be accomplished in the K-12 environment (and many college courses) just by a classroom teacher, even those that are very savvy. Teachers need support to develop and utilize these tools in the classroom. This includes professional development and hands on training, and this seems to be lacking in schools today.

For instance, the visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learning channels discussed in Gestalt psychology can easily be practiced using numerous tools readily available today. Flickr, Google Images, and other similar tools provide a picture for just about every concept, and most if not all teachers can easily incorporate this into the classroom. Providing a more immersive environment, such as with Second Life and Flash can take these graphics to another dimension or level of understanding where the imagination (and cost) and lack of support in the classrooms are many of the total factors that stand in the way. Anyone who has taken these courses or utilized these technologies can attest to the vast amount of knowledge it requires to develop using these tools.

So technology does make this capable, but not practical in all instances. It requires, amongst other things, support, development, training, and buy-in from those in the classroom.

Winn, W. (2004). Cognitive perspectives in psychology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology

Behaviorism

Pritchard (2009) states that "the adage of practice makes perfect seems to hold good for behaviorists." I remember being in face to face classes all the way into college where we did the same thing each day. We had a lecture or watched a movie, then we did a worksheet to practice (sometimes to critically think) about what we just heard or saw. While I achieved well in school, I always realized that I would have these short exercises, then perhaps in a week or so a review of all the short exercises, then I could move on. This made school somewhat mindless...at least to some degree as I knew what to expect (what Pritchard says is the practice makes perfect manner of learning). In many ways, after seeing an example or two (ie, in math) I would be ready to start my work, but was often hindered by the classroom teacher attempting to maintain control and have all students on the same page and paying attention to her before we could start on our work. Interestingly, according to Burton, J. K., Moore, D. M., & Magliaro, S. G. (1996), "Generalization is the act of responding in the same way to similar stimuli, specically, to those stimuli not present at time of training." So my responses to classes were conditioned behavior based on years of the same. I personally feel this is a definate advantage in online courses where I can start engaging in content (or practice perhaps) when I'm ready without having to wait for the instructor to finish the lecture and this is but one way my behavior has changed in an online course.


I have also adjusted my own behavior in that I no longer wait for the last minute to do assignments and I must be clearly more organized. One other change noted in online is the fact that I can also have time to review materials over and over again (which, personally, I need) and on my own time when I'm mentally prepared to learn. This ability in an online course has not only given me a different perspective on learning, but has also shifted the onus on me to critically think and engage personally with the content more regularly as I do not have an instructor to ask. In other words, there is noone conditioning a response in my learning and the mental processes are all on me (something not necessarily accounted for in behavioral learning theory). While it may not be an efficient way to acquite knowledge in some disciplines, for the social sciences and a broad field such as educational technology, I think this approach works rather well.

While the view is that constructivist thought and cognitive psychological theories are more prevalent in today's education, especially in an online course (ie, practice worksheets and completing problems after having watched a video lecture) many behaviorists theories are still practiced and seen in today's education. While it seems that there are flaws in these theories of learning because it does not account for the mental processes involved, I do not necessarily believe that behavioral learning methodologies are passive in nature. As Burton, J. K., Moore, D. M., & Magliaro, S. G. (1996) learners that are engaged in knowledge are, in fact, being active. In fact, B.F. Skinner, one of the champions of this psychological theory even stated that a learner, does not passively absorb knowledge from the world around him but must play an active role." Behaviorists also believe that learners learn by doing and engaging with content (page 11), so I'm unsure why these theories have received this type of negative reputation.

While behavioral theory does seemingly include mental processes as noted in Burton, J. K., Moore, D. M., & Magliaro, S. G. (1996) citing Skinner state that "operants include both private (thoughts) and public (behavior) activities," in reflecting upon my own educational experiences, one thing that stands out is how little we did critical thinking activities. The focus seemed to be on observable behaviors (did I get the correct answer to mostly factual questions). Also, the ones we did do, I do not remember them being difficult or nearly unmanageable until I got into high school where we were expected to analyze or, at times, synthesize information (with lots of scaffolding and second chances). Since I went to school when the behavioral practices were in practice and I only now feel that I can synthesize information, I might conclude that the focus on scientific observations so central to these theories might fall somewhat short of the target of education. So design wise in a course, something that could be done in an online course might be to consider the age of the student and also the type of learning activities that they do and scaffold those learners with materials that might help them be both successful and critically think about the content. Also, making sure to provide regular reminders to stay on task might be beneficial as this is typically a regular part of face to face instruction. These considerations in design might bridge the gap between typical face to face activities and those that are online.


References

Burton, J. K., Moore, D. M., & Magliaro, S. G. (1996). Behaviorism and instructional technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 46-73). New York: Macmillan.

Pritchard, A. (2005). Ways of learning: Learning theories and learning styles in the classroom. Independence, KY: David Fulton Publishers.

Change Agents in Educational Technology

Luppicini's (2005) stated that educational technologists are change agents. Someone mentioned earlier that this might be a theory all in itself, but being in my position for the past three years as an "Educational Technology Specialist" at our college, I can say that this definition is worth merit, at least in my perception. I tend to introduce even our technology savvy instructors to new tools (many times they end up using) that act as change agents to how they instruct their students. Also, in implementing new systems at our college, they always bring about changes in the way that we do business as a college (ie, the way we engage and instruct our students). So a lot of what I do tends to bring about change. In fact, when Luppicini (2005) was describing other possibilities with the definition of educational technologists and how they "act as learning consultant, an educational materials producer, a manager of learning resources," I thought he was listing my job duties and responsibilities.


Luppicini, R. (2005). A systems definition of educational technology in society. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (3), 103-109. Retrieved September 8, 2010 from http://www.ifets.info/journals/8_3/10.pdf