Admittedly, I found this question difficult to answer, given my style and approach to many things in my life. Most people would say that my reserved ways are more emblematic of a formal style. I try to be careful and safe in my approaches to many situations, so I am more likely to employ a formal style to any instructional environment.
I remember the first time I ever taught at the college-level. I taught, for lack of better term, an “introduction to college life” course. It was an extended orientation course which covered such things as time management, study skills, life management, knowing institutional resources, and others.
My overall goal in the course was to instill in students accountability, not just for themselves, but for their instructors. Whenever a student asked clarifying questions that could easily be answered by reviewing the course contract, AKA the syllabus, my answer was always the same – “Read your syllabus.” I wanted to be the teacher who was strict and orderly, who covered his ass in every aspect and who covered every scenario possible. If students did exactly what the syllabus asked of them, they got the grade they deserved – no grey areas. In sum, I included a lot of needs I had as a student during my undergraduate years and incorporated them into my approach as a teacher.
Now the above was done early on in my career – over 15 years ago. Knowing what I know now, especially in online classrooms (which I have primarily been engaged in during the last several years as a student), the above approach by itself will not work at all. I still firmly believe that a certain level of order must be present in a classroom, regardless of delivery mode. But I also am embracing the need to not be so rigid. So I guess this is where the authentic aspect can come in. I have come to embrace flexibility more and more and am less stuck on order and precision. It is OK to allow some flexibility and creativity, and to consider the wants and needs of the student in creating any learning environment.
Part of this flexibility should include some level of contribution to the classroom experience. If I truly believe in constructionism (which was the topic of my last post), then it is going to be crucial for me to let loose somewhat and allow for individual creativity and participation. I cannot be firm and stick to a script all the time.
To try and use both styles, I may be stricter with task-specific assignments. For other aspects, like dialogue and discussions, I would imagine being a bit less formal (although I would want all students to contribute a certain amount of times and in certain ways – and this can be spelled out in a grade rubric). But, if it does not happen, so be it. And I should be OK with the notion that you get out of it what you put into it.
Monday, February 27, 2017
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
Kolb v Siemens: Dawn of eLearning
Whenever we talk about any teaching/learning approach, applying some sort of principle to your approach is generally expected. We often tend to "stick" to a principle(s), or, for the purposes of this post, a theory(or theories) that seem to work or resonate. In (re) reading Kolb' Experiential Learning and being newly introduced to Siemens' Connectivism, I was reminded of another theory which I've referred to in other contexts involving technology application in education: Constructionism. Given the amount of creation that is going on in this class thus far, I thought it relevant to bring this theory in to this post.
Seymour Papert has used the term “constructionism” to describe the process of knowledge construction resulting from constructing objects. When learners function as designers of objects, they learn more about those objects than they would from studying about them. “Constructionism… shares contructivism’s view of learning as ‘building knowledge structures’ through progressive internalization of actions… It then adds the idea that this happens especially felicitously in a context where the learner is consciously engaged in constructing a public entity, whether it’s a sand castle on the beach or a theory of the universe” (Papert & Harel, 1991, p.1). “Because of its greater focus on learning through making rather than overall cognitive potentials, Papert’s approach helps us understand how ideas get formed and transformed when expressed through different media, when actualized in particular contexts, when worked out by individual minds. The emphasis shifts from universals to individual learners’ conversation with their own favorite representations, artifacts, or objects-to-think with” (Ackerman, 2001, p. 4).
Contextualizing instruction is important for learning, particularly in specialized fields of education. Teachers need to be able to apply their own skills and learning directly to the contexts in which they work. Teaching someone how to create a Smart Notebook lesson without considering the need to adapt such a lesson to specialized situations, like, for example, the special education classroom, can lead to inadequate applications of the technology. Additionally, technology in education often involves creating something tangible (digital or physical) for the use of others. Technology integration training often includes instruction on how to use very software or hardware, with the goal of creating (or constructing) a final product or project, whether it be a class wiki, or website, or blog.
Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory presents a four stage cycle of learning that considers concrete experience (doing - similar to Papert), reflective observation, abstract conceptualization (learning from experience), and active experimental (trying what was learned - also similar to Papert). According to Kolb, learning involves the acquisition of abstract concepts that can be applied in different situations. Over the course of time, we can use these situations to challenge our assumptions, thereby allowing learning to occur at the “interplay between expectation and experience” (p. 28). Every time a person experiences any sort of event, there is potential for learning to occur. One can draw connections between belief systems, reflect on the new information acquired, and apply learning in attitudes moving forward.
Siemens’ (2005) connectivism acknowledges that learning occurs outside of the individual and is influenced mainly by the learner’s connection with a wider network. So while connectivism still begins with the individual, “personal knowledge is comprised of a network, which feeds into organizations and institutions, which in turn feed back into the network, and then continue to provide learning to individual” (p. 6). Connectivsm’s knowledge cycle of knowledge involves not only individuals but their network and the organizations in which they are positioned. Connectivism lends itself to how learning occurs within the Internet and online classrooms because “We can no longer personally experience and acquire learning that we need to act. We derive our competence from forming connections” (p.4). Additionally, connectivism explores the question of not only the process of learning that occurs but the value of what is being learned. Siemens explains that “In a networked world, the very manner of information that we acquire is worth exploring” (p. 3). I believe examining the manner of how we acquire information is an important part of the learning process since there is an increase in the multiple ways that people can now access information.
I believe experiential learning theory and connectivism are not mutually exclusive since they both view learning as a process occurring within particlulr contexts. However, connectivism accounts for learning that moves beyond the individual learner by linking the individual to a network and organizations that are essentially their own unique learning objects.
References
Ackerman, E. (2001). Piaget's constructivism, Papert's constructionism: What's the difference? Future of Learning. Available: http://learning.media.mit.edu/content/publications/EA.Piaget%20_%20Papert.pdf
Kolb, D.A. (1984): Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development
Papert, S. & I. Harel (1991), Situating constructionism. Chapter 1 of Constructionism. Available: http://www.papert.org/articles/SituatingConstructionism.html.
Siemens, G. (2005) Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age
Seymour Papert has used the term “constructionism” to describe the process of knowledge construction resulting from constructing objects. When learners function as designers of objects, they learn more about those objects than they would from studying about them. “Constructionism… shares contructivism’s view of learning as ‘building knowledge structures’ through progressive internalization of actions… It then adds the idea that this happens especially felicitously in a context where the learner is consciously engaged in constructing a public entity, whether it’s a sand castle on the beach or a theory of the universe” (Papert & Harel, 1991, p.1). “Because of its greater focus on learning through making rather than overall cognitive potentials, Papert’s approach helps us understand how ideas get formed and transformed when expressed through different media, when actualized in particular contexts, when worked out by individual minds. The emphasis shifts from universals to individual learners’ conversation with their own favorite representations, artifacts, or objects-to-think with” (Ackerman, 2001, p. 4).
Contextualizing instruction is important for learning, particularly in specialized fields of education. Teachers need to be able to apply their own skills and learning directly to the contexts in which they work. Teaching someone how to create a Smart Notebook lesson without considering the need to adapt such a lesson to specialized situations, like, for example, the special education classroom, can lead to inadequate applications of the technology. Additionally, technology in education often involves creating something tangible (digital or physical) for the use of others. Technology integration training often includes instruction on how to use very software or hardware, with the goal of creating (or constructing) a final product or project, whether it be a class wiki, or website, or blog.
Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory presents a four stage cycle of learning that considers concrete experience (doing - similar to Papert), reflective observation, abstract conceptualization (learning from experience), and active experimental (trying what was learned - also similar to Papert). According to Kolb, learning involves the acquisition of abstract concepts that can be applied in different situations. Over the course of time, we can use these situations to challenge our assumptions, thereby allowing learning to occur at the “interplay between expectation and experience” (p. 28). Every time a person experiences any sort of event, there is potential for learning to occur. One can draw connections between belief systems, reflect on the new information acquired, and apply learning in attitudes moving forward.
Siemens’ (2005) connectivism acknowledges that learning occurs outside of the individual and is influenced mainly by the learner’s connection with a wider network. So while connectivism still begins with the individual, “personal knowledge is comprised of a network, which feeds into organizations and institutions, which in turn feed back into the network, and then continue to provide learning to individual” (p. 6). Connectivsm’s knowledge cycle of knowledge involves not only individuals but their network and the organizations in which they are positioned. Connectivism lends itself to how learning occurs within the Internet and online classrooms because “We can no longer personally experience and acquire learning that we need to act. We derive our competence from forming connections” (p.4). Additionally, connectivism explores the question of not only the process of learning that occurs but the value of what is being learned. Siemens explains that “In a networked world, the very manner of information that we acquire is worth exploring” (p. 3). I believe examining the manner of how we acquire information is an important part of the learning process since there is an increase in the multiple ways that people can now access information.
I believe experiential learning theory and connectivism are not mutually exclusive since they both view learning as a process occurring within particlulr contexts. However, connectivism accounts for learning that moves beyond the individual learner by linking the individual to a network and organizations that are essentially their own unique learning objects.
References
Ackerman, E. (2001). Piaget's constructivism, Papert's constructionism: What's the difference? Future of Learning. Available: http://learning.media.mit.edu/content/publications/EA.Piaget%20_%20Papert.pdf
Kolb, D.A. (1984): Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development
Papert, S. & I. Harel (1991), Situating constructionism. Chapter 1 of Constructionism. Available: http://www.papert.org/articles/SituatingConstructionism.html.
Siemens, G. (2005) Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age
Monday, January 30, 2017
How do I learn online?
I have taken many, many, many (did I say many?) online courses, not only at TC but also at a community college and other similar training settings like Ed2Go. And I've noticed how the methods of delivery have changed over the years.
The starkest change has come in the way instructors engage their students; instructional methods seemed to start off by giving students the benefit of the doubt and trusting that they will have the capacity and fortitude to follow-up on the work without any sort of guidance or structure. Probably the one thing I believe online learners learn the hard way is how to keep motivated and on task. This “benefit of the doubt” makes it very easy for students to become silent observers... In my personal experience, if no one is actively monitoring me in some way, I found it easy to just "disappear." This unfortunately has happened to me on one or two occasions.
Nowadays, online instruction seems to heavily employ constant and consistent engagement, be it through synchronous discussions or regularly assigned discussion posts. Nowadays, it’s harder to become a fly on the wall hoping to fly away (or not!).
Now how have I used online learning to achieve my potential? Well… So while the bulk of my online learning has been for-credit courses to apply towards some degree program, there were a few instances where I sought online learning experiences strictly for edification purposes. Given my current role at the Business School, I’m tasked to be the steward in managing data requests from many constituents. Doing this well required that I learn how to obtain (query) data effectively and efficiently, as the tools that were already provided were canned reports already written by IT staff.
I turned to community college to enroll in courses that were designed for skill building. Learning how to query a database with programs such as Access and MS SQL Server were two examples, both somewhat different to each other. The former required the completion of graded homework and assignments; the latter expected students to complete examples and assignments, but ultimately – your performance on the final exam is what counted. For the former, there was some constructive feedback on my work; the latter was devoid of such feedback.
The one common element to each experience was what I believe to be the element of scaffold learning. You couldn’t move on to the next topic without mastering the prior skill.
I am also a solo student. What I mean by that is, I tend to shy away from courses (be it live or online) that require group work. I like to take complete ownership over assignments. That said, very recently I have come to appreciate group work within an online setting, and I’m not so quick to drop a course that requires group assignments. There is a ton of value in working with others, and that holds especially true given our remote/virtual lives.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Digital Minds
Technology has and continues to change us in so many ways... And I'd like to focus on communication and writing with respect to how our minds become more digital.
I remember getting my first e-mail account during my first year of college. I think my adaptation to e-mail has influenced my slight distaste for talking on the phone. I am able to pre-contemplate what I am going to say, so began communicating with all of my friends and colleagues through instant messenger. I continued to do so throughout college.
Nowadays I continue to communicate mostly through electronic mail communications and texting. This certainly would not be as second nature to me, and I certainly wouldn’t prefer e-mail over phone communications if it were not for this technology.
Do emerging technologies focus our senses or distort them? I personally believe that technologies can focus our senses but without purposeful thought it will distort them. As I mentioned above, I prefer electronic communication. Many people prefer the voice contact because it is more personal. If I thought I was closer to someone simply because we have a lot of electronic communication , I might have a distorted view.
Despite the lack of the "personal," I think written communication has taken a giant leap. I believe that students today are much better writers than ever before. They e-mail, type letters, instant message, and text each other all the time. Even though there is slang that is used in these types of communications it is far more than they were used to writing when writing was solely done on a type writer or even pen and paper.
I would certainly say typed communications has focused our abilities to communicate effectively through written language.
I remember getting my first e-mail account during my first year of college. I think my adaptation to e-mail has influenced my slight distaste for talking on the phone. I am able to pre-contemplate what I am going to say, so began communicating with all of my friends and colleagues through instant messenger. I continued to do so throughout college.
Nowadays I continue to communicate mostly through electronic mail communications and texting. This certainly would not be as second nature to me, and I certainly wouldn’t prefer e-mail over phone communications if it were not for this technology.
Do emerging technologies focus our senses or distort them? I personally believe that technologies can focus our senses but without purposeful thought it will distort them. As I mentioned above, I prefer electronic communication. Many people prefer the voice contact because it is more personal. If I thought I was closer to someone simply because we have a lot of electronic communication , I might have a distorted view.
Despite the lack of the "personal," I think written communication has taken a giant leap. I believe that students today are much better writers than ever before. They e-mail, type letters, instant message, and text each other all the time. Even though there is slang that is used in these types of communications it is far more than they were used to writing when writing was solely done on a type writer or even pen and paper.
I would certainly say typed communications has focused our abilities to communicate effectively through written language.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Cool Things
The most beneficial part of today's class was learning to be aware of the simple (and inexpensive)things one can do to enhance learning in the classroom. It's OK to be creative with resources that are either inexpensive or, simply, ready for the trash heap (so long as these resources are safe).
Here's a cool thing...
Here's a cool thing...
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Augmentative and Alternative Communication
Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) is the use of any
method other than speech and writing to achieve functional communication. It
can be used with residual speech and can be unaided or aided. Unaided
communication may include gestures, signs, voice interpretation or just simply using
the body. Aided devices can be either electronic or non-electronic and they are
used to transmit or receive messages. Devices are further defined as low-tech
and high-tech. Low tech devices are those that do not need batteries,
electricity or electronics and include writing, pointing or using a communication
book. High tech devices permit the storage and retrieval of electronic
messages, with most allowing the user to communicate using speech output.
I would consider these systems as both instructional and adaptive technologies. I say this because:
I would consider these systems as both instructional and adaptive technologies. I say this because:
- they are used with individuals as alternative forms of communication other than the use of one's voice (in other words, adapting to a person's communication abilities) and
- they can be used to teach students.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Planning with Technology
Instead of thinking of students in categories that label
abilities and success in the classroom, teachers can understand and reach their
students more effectively if their strengths, challenges, and interests are
considered. In addition, the incorporation of technology in teaching requires
thoughtful planning and considerations.
This lecture touches upon three networks essential to learning: recognition, strategic, and affective.
Recognition networks are specialized to sense and assign meaning to patterns or objects we see or come in contact with. They enable us to identify and understand information, ideas, and concepts. “To support recognition learning, [one must] provide multiple and flexible methods of presentation” (CAST, Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age).
Strategic networks help generate and oversee mental and motor patterns. They enable us to plan, execute, and monitor actions and skills. Affective networks are dedicated to evaluate patterns and assign them emotional significance. They enable us to engage with tasks and learning and with the world around us. “To support strategic learning, [one must] provide multiple, flexible methods of expression and apprenticeship” (CAST, Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age).
Rather than falling neatly into these categories, learners differ within and across all three networks. Considering student strengths and weakness in the context of the three networks help teachers develop a more wholesome picture of their students, noticing strengths, needs, and interests that easily could be missed if students are considered in categories. “To support affective learning, [one must] provide multiple and flexible options for engagement” (CAST, Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age).
To start thinking about students’ challenges and potentials in the framework of the three learning networks, consider whether a given characteristic relates to their ability to take in information (recognition), to plan and execute actions or skills (strategy), or to connect and engage with learning (affect). Then determine whether ithat characteristic is a strength, a need, or a particular interest.
This lecture touches upon three networks essential to learning: recognition, strategic, and affective.
Recognition networks are specialized to sense and assign meaning to patterns or objects we see or come in contact with. They enable us to identify and understand information, ideas, and concepts. “To support recognition learning, [one must] provide multiple and flexible methods of presentation” (CAST, Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age).
Strategic networks help generate and oversee mental and motor patterns. They enable us to plan, execute, and monitor actions and skills. Affective networks are dedicated to evaluate patterns and assign them emotional significance. They enable us to engage with tasks and learning and with the world around us. “To support strategic learning, [one must] provide multiple, flexible methods of expression and apprenticeship” (CAST, Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age).
Rather than falling neatly into these categories, learners differ within and across all three networks. Considering student strengths and weakness in the context of the three networks help teachers develop a more wholesome picture of their students, noticing strengths, needs, and interests that easily could be missed if students are considered in categories. “To support affective learning, [one must] provide multiple and flexible options for engagement” (CAST, Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age).
To start thinking about students’ challenges and potentials in the framework of the three learning networks, consider whether a given characteristic relates to their ability to take in information (recognition), to plan and execute actions or skills (strategy), or to connect and engage with learning (affect). Then determine whether ithat characteristic is a strength, a need, or a particular interest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)