I am impressed about how timely it is that we read this article by Wendy Drexler. However, it does illustrate some of the sentiments from a previous article we read on how behind education is when integrating and implementing technology. This article is timely for me as it describes Personal Learning Environments (PLEs) as our school is working on implementing Personal Learning Plans (PLPs) due to Act 77 in Vermont six years after this article was written. Firs, let's define what a networked learner is as written by Drexler, "Networked learning refers specifically to 'learning in which information communication technology is used to promote connections: between one learner and other learners, between learners and tutors and a learning community and its learning resources.'"(Australian Journal of Educational Technology, p. 370)
Ironically, this idea of the Networked Student that Drexler refers to and the PLE is very helpful in connecting the ideas and values in and similarities in the PLPs. Both ideas attempt to achieve the same goal, as Drexler writes, "Personal learning suggest learner autonomy and increased self regulation." (Australian Journal of Educational Technology, p. 369) What Drexler seems to realize that many may not, is that students customizing their learning, does not necessarily mean motivation and engagement. "They are required to take an active role in the learning process by making decisions." (Australian Journal of Educational Technology, p. 369) When thinking about PLPs and students getting to design their own pathway based on their interests, there exists a lot of wonder as to how the teacher fits into this equation. Drexler confirms the idea that it creates another challenge as we are suppose to balance the teaching with "Structure and learner autonomy in order to facilitate self-directed and personalized learning." (Australian Journal of Educational Technology, p. 370)
I can get behind the idea that we help students create their PLEs as well as helping students navigate their network. Reading this article also allows me to reflect on my own network and personal learning environment. When I honestly, evaluate how much I use it and depend on my PLE, it helps me realize how important and exactly how crucial they can be for students. In fact, I doubt that most, students do have a well-developed PLE. Nonetheless, whether they are aware of it or not, I am sure they do have bits and pieces of a PLE.
Right now, students use many resources (for better or for worse) such as Spark Notes, to help them understand (or sometimes even cheat) reading texts. They often use sources like Easy Bib to create their works cited pages (rather than learn how to correctly make a works cited page). Students, no longer use dictionaries and most likely defer to an online dictionary for definitions and Wikipedia for answers (even though they may be not be verified). Although many of these cites are not considered desirable or reliable by teachers that students use them, they do help students learn and are the building blocks of a PLE. If teachers help students to structure, develop and responsibly use networks such as these, the resources can become very effective for both teacher and student.
As an instructor, if I depend on a learning network to improve my teaching, I should help students engage a PLE to help their learning. More importantly, if schools and teachers can synchronize some of the apps and networks they leverage, there may be even more support for students if we are all using parts of the same network. Drexler points to this concept of teacher student collaboration when she writes, "Ultimately, the personal learning environments that are constructed by humans become available to others who wish to study the same topics. New learners, only connected via their computer or mobile device, may not have personal contact with the originator of the personal learning environment, but they learn from and contribute to the collection of resources." (Australian Journal of Educational Technology, p. 373)
Furthermore all of the connections to connectivism and contstructivism are beneficial. Students are learning at a three-fold rate. First, by constructing their own knowledge when building the PLE, by making connections with their environment for each resource and by attempting to comprehend the subject matter delivered through curriculum to achieve objectives. Having to build our own PLEs in class this week also demonstrates to me in what way and how the teacher fits into the the networked students PLE and development of their PLE. We are are intricate resources in ourselves, with all the learning resources we use to help students design an efficient and adequate PLE. I will end with Drexler's sentiments which illustrate the important role teachers play when developing a PLE, "A student's success depended upon his or her motivation but also greatly on the strategic guidance of the teacher. The teacher's ability to gauge students' understanding and progress were key to achieving a balance between student autonomy and teacher intervention." As an instructor, if I depend on a learning network to improve my teaching, I should help students engage a PLE to help their learning. More importantly, if schools and teachers can synchronize some of the apps and networks they leverage, there may be even more support for students if we are all using parts of the same network. Drexler points to this concept of teacher student collaboration when she writes, "Ultimately, the personal learning environments that are constructed by humans become available to others who wish to study the same topics. New learners, only connected via their computer or mobile device, may not have personal contact with the originator of the personal learning environment, but they learn from and contribute to the collection of resources." (Australian Journal of Educational Technology, p. 382)
Friday, October 28, 2016
Saturday, October 22, 2016
Constructing Connectivism
I am thoroughly enjoying each study of learning theory. I feel like having reviewed many of the theories has been crucial in creating a holistic and balanced pedegogy of my own, as well as improving my teaching overall. Adding connectivism to the repertoire has been particularly interesting and satisfying as it has validated much of the teaching and digital skills I am implementing now.
At first, I was very concerned about the amount of time the teaching of technology and the time used by creating accounts and troubleshooting the technology was not a justifiable use of time when my primary job is to teach ELA Common Core Standards. For example, we spent an entire class period trying to get 8th graders logged into a free GoAnimate account, which set the final project back at least one day, along with all the restrictions of free trials, class space and the student's inefficiently utilizing the software until they build automaticity, the entire project is probably going to take a week longer than I had planned. Initially, this could look like a huge waste of classroom time-or is it? Like when the authors of Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age, cite Vaill as saying, "learning must be a way of being-an ongoing set of attitudes and actions by individuals and groups that they employ to try to keep abreast of the surprising, novel, messy, obtrusive, recurring events. . ." The authors continue to explain that learning and work activities are no longer separate and that learning is a continual, life-long process. Thus, by me creating the activity, for students to create an animation, the set-backs and trouble shooting of technology are a skill set they will use again and again.
I now realize and believe in the concept that kids using technology to make connections and create their learning through the meaning of the world they are interacting with, merged with their background knowledge and with some guidance and instruction from a teacher will foster next generation, proficiency-based learning, that is not only sought after by the school system, but could be in the best interest of the children. Allowing them to get to the standard through their own connections has to be most effective. It may take more time and be "less" efficient, but learning could be more life-long and internalized. What are we striving for quality or quantity? A final quote to end this post best conceptualizes the age of digital learning theory in that
At first, I was very concerned about the amount of time the teaching of technology and the time used by creating accounts and troubleshooting the technology was not a justifiable use of time when my primary job is to teach ELA Common Core Standards. For example, we spent an entire class period trying to get 8th graders logged into a free GoAnimate account, which set the final project back at least one day, along with all the restrictions of free trials, class space and the student's inefficiently utilizing the software until they build automaticity, the entire project is probably going to take a week longer than I had planned. Initially, this could look like a huge waste of classroom time-or is it? Like when the authors of Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age, cite Vaill as saying, "learning must be a way of being-an ongoing set of attitudes and actions by individuals and groups that they employ to try to keep abreast of the surprising, novel, messy, obtrusive, recurring events. . ." The authors continue to explain that learning and work activities are no longer separate and that learning is a continual, life-long process. Thus, by me creating the activity, for students to create an animation, the set-backs and trouble shooting of technology are a skill set they will use again and again.
I now realize and believe in the concept that kids using technology to make connections and create their learning through the meaning of the world they are interacting with, merged with their background knowledge and with some guidance and instruction from a teacher will foster next generation, proficiency-based learning, that is not only sought after by the school system, but could be in the best interest of the children. Allowing them to get to the standard through their own connections has to be most effective. It may take more time and be "less" efficient, but learning could be more life-long and internalized. What are we striving for quality or quantity? A final quote to end this post best conceptualizes the age of digital learning theory in that
"Connectivism is the integration of principles explored by chaos, network and complexity and self-organization learning theories. Learning is a process that occurs within nebulous environments of shifting core elements-not entirely under the control of the individual. Learning (defined as actionable knowledge) can reside outside of ourselves (within an organization or a data base), is focused on connecting specialized information sets, and the connections that enable us to learn more are more important than our current state of knowing."
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
Constructivism Exercise
Today we created some shapes using Logo Interpreter. The activity and energy it took for me to figure out how to make a square design by inputting code was simple, yet challenging at the same time. I learned some in-depth insights as to how I think and construct reality based on the world around me. I was pulling in information from multiple sources such as the assignment requirements by our instructor, and the learning software and my own background knowledge with design programs. Even so, none of these sources were complete without actually putting the information and experiences into action and practice.
I noticed that the first thing I tried to do was just wing it, and figure out how to operate the software on my own. Of course, I had little success. I copied and pasted code into the field and the result came some pretty awesome looking designs, but I realized that I had not actually created anything or really learned anything. I did make an inference to copy the code into the design box. But all I had done is copy and paste some code. Below is the result.
This image looks very intricate with many colors and is an impressive piece of work. However, I know inside I did not create it. Nonetheless, I had to see how this design materialized from the code entered. Once I saw the pattern, I could begin to deduce which "phrases" of code made which designs, for example the part of the code that says, "repeat 144 times" is probably what created the numerous squares. From this point, I started to reverse engineer the code, by deleting portions of the code to see how the pattern changed. I could make correlations between what certain phrases of code were that create different shapes and colors. From that point, I had more of an idea of what the task required, but I also realized how little I knew about what was necessary to make a simple design. Therefore, I decided to actually look at the tutorial.
When I visited the tutorial, I acquired the final pieces of direction I needed to complete the assignment. However, that information was not the final piece of the puzzle. I still needed to put it into action and that required some trial and error. It took me a few tries to figure out how to make a simple square design. Typing in commands and missing the mark, then clearing the slate and trying again, until I fine tuned the practice. I noticed persistence was an important part of my learning. Many times I just wanted to find the right piece of code that would produce a square and copy that into the line. But wouldn't that in itself still be learning. It would be the same type of trial and error I had been through trying to actually design the square. In the end this is what I made.
When it was all said and done, I appreciated the process it took for me to learn how to create this design. It is simple, but it required me to make many connections from multiple different sources and experiences to build this design. The practice of putting knowledge and information into action was key as well. I can now see how too often I do not require my students to put the concepts we learn into action or practice and in order for learners to learn from and utilize the knowledge we discuss in class education must be interact with the world around them.
I noticed that the first thing I tried to do was just wing it, and figure out how to operate the software on my own. Of course, I had little success. I copied and pasted code into the field and the result came some pretty awesome looking designs, but I realized that I had not actually created anything or really learned anything. I did make an inference to copy the code into the design box. But all I had done is copy and paste some code. Below is the result.
This image looks very intricate with many colors and is an impressive piece of work. However, I know inside I did not create it. Nonetheless, I had to see how this design materialized from the code entered. Once I saw the pattern, I could begin to deduce which "phrases" of code made which designs, for example the part of the code that says, "repeat 144 times" is probably what created the numerous squares. From this point, I started to reverse engineer the code, by deleting portions of the code to see how the pattern changed. I could make correlations between what certain phrases of code were that create different shapes and colors. From that point, I had more of an idea of what the task required, but I also realized how little I knew about what was necessary to make a simple design. Therefore, I decided to actually look at the tutorial.
When I visited the tutorial, I acquired the final pieces of direction I needed to complete the assignment. However, that information was not the final piece of the puzzle. I still needed to put it into action and that required some trial and error. It took me a few tries to figure out how to make a simple square design. Typing in commands and missing the mark, then clearing the slate and trying again, until I fine tuned the practice. I noticed persistence was an important part of my learning. Many times I just wanted to find the right piece of code that would produce a square and copy that into the line. But wouldn't that in itself still be learning. It would be the same type of trial and error I had been through trying to actually design the square. In the end this is what I made.
When it was all said and done, I appreciated the process it took for me to learn how to create this design. It is simple, but it required me to make many connections from multiple different sources and experiences to build this design. The practice of putting knowledge and information into action was key as well. I can now see how too often I do not require my students to put the concepts we learn into action or practice and in order for learners to learn from and utilize the knowledge we discuss in class education must be interact with the world around them.
Saturday, October 8, 2016
Cognitive Theory and Activating Schema
This week's venture into schema activation and cognitive theory was a very interesting look into the accountability and contribution learners bring to teaching and learning events. Thinking of schema as previously built mental structures that people as learners have created through prior experiences helps me as a teacher realize how every student has prior background knowledge that can assist each student's learning in the classroom. Therefore, as a facilitator of knowledge, it is simply my job to connect students' background knowledge to the current curriculum (easier said than done).
There are many parallels between activating schema and Bruner's Folk Pedagogy. Where Bruner prompted teachers to be conscious of the thought process during teaching and learners to probe their thought processes while learning-and vice-verca, activating schema prompts teachers to assist students in recalling background knowledge so that students may support their own learning and for students to actively utilize their prior experiences and education to supplement their own learning.
Uncovering and synthesizing the parallels between Bruner's Folk Pedagogy and cognitive theory could be a very extensive process and would be an interesting venture. Rather than taking up that journey (maybe be a good class discussion), I would like to draw some comparisons between use of schema and behaviorism. Although, behaviorism relies, primarily on conditioned response, which I do not necessarily see as true learning, at least through the lens of critical thinking and higher-order thinking, behaviorism does employ using schema in a more immediate sense through the form of reinforcers and punishers. Simply, the student learns immediately whether a response is correct or wrong through a punishment and/or reinforcement. As soon as the student receives that feedback that student creates a mental structure which that student will then carry into the next question or learning event. Based on the prior knowledge or the schema that student built because of the prior experience (regardless of how recently it happened) that student is still using schema or a previously constructed mental structure to utilize in the student's next learning event. Regardless of whether I feel behaviorism as learning theory is rather primitive, it employs schemata nonetheless.
Looking at building schema through the lens of multiple learning theories has been a fulfilling and beneficial undertaking. Like everything else I have learned in this course, I feel makes me a better teacher and positively reinforces my practice. Very helpful and interesting stuff, I could study this stuff forever!
There are many parallels between activating schema and Bruner's Folk Pedagogy. Where Bruner prompted teachers to be conscious of the thought process during teaching and learners to probe their thought processes while learning-and vice-verca, activating schema prompts teachers to assist students in recalling background knowledge so that students may support their own learning and for students to actively utilize their prior experiences and education to supplement their own learning.
Uncovering and synthesizing the parallels between Bruner's Folk Pedagogy and cognitive theory could be a very extensive process and would be an interesting venture. Rather than taking up that journey (maybe be a good class discussion), I would like to draw some comparisons between use of schema and behaviorism. Although, behaviorism relies, primarily on conditioned response, which I do not necessarily see as true learning, at least through the lens of critical thinking and higher-order thinking, behaviorism does employ using schema in a more immediate sense through the form of reinforcers and punishers. Simply, the student learns immediately whether a response is correct or wrong through a punishment and/or reinforcement. As soon as the student receives that feedback that student creates a mental structure which that student will then carry into the next question or learning event. Based on the prior knowledge or the schema that student built because of the prior experience (regardless of how recently it happened) that student is still using schema or a previously constructed mental structure to utilize in the student's next learning event. Regardless of whether I feel behaviorism as learning theory is rather primitive, it employs schemata nonetheless.
Looking at building schema through the lens of multiple learning theories has been a fulfilling and beneficial undertaking. Like everything else I have learned in this course, I feel makes me a better teacher and positively reinforces my practice. Very helpful and interesting stuff, I could study this stuff forever!
Saturday, October 1, 2016
From Bruner to Behaviorism
I have to say that thus far learning about Bruner's theory of Folk Pedagogy has been much more inspiring than Skinner's Behaviorism. Don't get me wrong, I think there is use and need for assistive technology such as the teaching machine and that technology does employ great concepts such as immediate feedback and self-paced learning. However, learning about learning and empathizing with why people learn, lends itself to a deeper understanding of critical thinking, motivation and a higher-order thought process.
I feel the teaching machine and other programs like it are great pieces to aid the students inside, and more importantly outside of the classroom to promote self-directed learning and supplemental learning. Nonetheless, the bulk of learning taking place inside and outside of the classroom should be experiential, situational and constructive. Collaboration between peers and teachers is key and interpersonal communication and cooperation is very important as well. I reflect back on some of the best training methods in the world such as those that the US military employ, and much of their learning is through simulation and real-life practice. Simulation is a form of a teaching machine, but the bulk of their training is delivered while in the field.
I am against a military industrial complex, but the military probably has some of the best, best practices in education. Students can learn the same way. Through experience, situations and through building with their hands and minds. What about other lessons that kids learn in school? Like how to work in groups and how to advocate for themselves? How will a machine teach them that? Experiential learning will teach them those life skills that they get by interacting with people.
Some of my position is selfish. I think back to charter schools I have worked in where 70% of student learning was done online and the teaching I did do in the classroom were scripted, prefabricated lesson plans. That experience took all the joy out of teaching for me. Interaction with kids and making a real difference is what teaching is all about for me. Teaching kids about the problems in the world and how they can solve them is imperative. Working with the "tougher" cases. Helping kids to believe in themselves, getting them through personal struggles and seeing the looks on their faces when they surmount a challenge they previously thought they could not surmount. That is why I teach, to change the world one kid at a time. Teaching to me is a political act. The machines may dilute that experience.
I feel the teaching machine and other programs like it are great pieces to aid the students inside, and more importantly outside of the classroom to promote self-directed learning and supplemental learning. Nonetheless, the bulk of learning taking place inside and outside of the classroom should be experiential, situational and constructive. Collaboration between peers and teachers is key and interpersonal communication and cooperation is very important as well. I reflect back on some of the best training methods in the world such as those that the US military employ, and much of their learning is through simulation and real-life practice. Simulation is a form of a teaching machine, but the bulk of their training is delivered while in the field.
I am against a military industrial complex, but the military probably has some of the best, best practices in education. Students can learn the same way. Through experience, situations and through building with their hands and minds. What about other lessons that kids learn in school? Like how to work in groups and how to advocate for themselves? How will a machine teach them that? Experiential learning will teach them those life skills that they get by interacting with people.
Some of my position is selfish. I think back to charter schools I have worked in where 70% of student learning was done online and the teaching I did do in the classroom were scripted, prefabricated lesson plans. That experience took all the joy out of teaching for me. Interaction with kids and making a real difference is what teaching is all about for me. Teaching kids about the problems in the world and how they can solve them is imperative. Working with the "tougher" cases. Helping kids to believe in themselves, getting them through personal struggles and seeing the looks on their faces when they surmount a challenge they previously thought they could not surmount. That is why I teach, to change the world one kid at a time. Teaching to me is a political act. The machines may dilute that experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)