Over the last three weeks, the course, ICT’s for Learning Design has sought to introduce us to the principles of teaching and learning with special focus on online learning spaces and how to design such spaces to enhance the learning process.
In essence it has asked three core questions.
· Who are we teaching?
· How are we teaching them?
· And thirdly and most importantly, how will this learning theory and pedagogy frame our own eLearning design?
Through my blog reflections and now this conclusion I hope to synthesize my learning and formulate my own best practice for participation and design in eLearning.
With regards to the question who are we teaching? Kierkegaard (1848) as quoted in Felder and Brent (2005 p.57) says “ Instruction begins when you, the teacher, learn from the learner. Put yourself in his place so that you may understand what he learns and the way he understands it”.
In order to understand the learner we were asked to consider Felder and Soloman and their Learning Styles and Strategies (1991). We were specifically asked to participate in a questionnaire which would highlight our own learning preferences. Felder and Soloman (1991) identified four broad groups when it comes to a particular style of learning preference.
· Active and Reflective Learners.
· Sensing and Intuitive Learners.
· Visual and verbal learners
· Sequential and global learners.
In addition to these learning styles we were also asked to consider Howard Gardner’s (1975) theory of multiple intelligences. Again we completed a questionnaire which would indicate our preferences for learning, are we word smart, musical, logical, interpersonal or visual? We were then asked to post our findings on our blog.
On reflection it was clear to me that asking us to take the online questionnaire wasn’t about trying to pinpoint what kind of learner we were. Rather it was modeling a constructivist style of learning which prompted questions and debate from everyone involved in the course. By asking us to post our results and blog about them, we became involved with each other, we connected, we networked, we sought to discuss what implications this kind of information might have for our own teaching styles and strategies. Our own personal results were probably insignificant, but the result was crucial and that’s because in learning about teaching styles we began to model a constructivist style of learning. Constructivism is a learning theory and will be discussed later on.
In conclusion, with regard to the question, who are we teaching? The answer is we are teaching individuals, each with their own learning style and preferences for learning. However, we are teaching them collectively in a classroom, often in large groups, so we need to find strategies that address this diversity and actively engage the students individually and as a whole. Whilst not strictly a thinking framework, both questionnaires we took encouraged us to think about the profiles of different kinds of learners, this in turn helped us to think about the complex nature of the people we will be teaching , and it guided us into connecting with others on the course to begin collaboratively constructing our own knowledge.
In recent years the question of who are we teaching has become more complicated and the source of much discussion in academic circles and mainstream media, and that’s because of we live in what is now referred to the Digital Age. As Prensky (2001 p.1) states. “A really big discontinuity has taken place. One might even call it a ‘singularity’ – an event which changes things so fundamentally there is no going back. This so called “singularity” is the arrival and rapid dissemination of digital technology”.
Just like Felder and Soloman (1991) and Gardner (1975) before him Prensky (2001) attempts to profile and then label different kinds of learners but he does so specifically for the digital age. Prensky simply identifies the Digital Native, those that have grown up with technology and are fluent in all aspects of it. To the Digital Immigrant, (p 1.) “those of us who were not born into the digital world but have, at some later point in our lives, become fascinated by and adopted many or most aspects of the new technology”. Prenky’s labels are far too polarizing and simplistic to be of any great use, but I do agree with his theory that the digital age has forced us to adapt the way we teach.
On reflection I now realise that the article and the scaffolded wiki activity was just another clever ’disguise’ used by our course coordinators to engage us in the material whilst learning about how we learn. Again we were modelling collaborative constructivism by reading, then reflecting and finally engaging with others and learning to construct our own meaning. Even while sitting at our desk, at home alone we were learning together.
At around this point in the course we were beginning to understand the role that ICT’s will play in our eLearning Design. As we were learning, our course was modeling what will in fact become our own strategy for e-Learning design. ICT’s were being used and considered as integral to the learning process and not just added on because they are available to us. Education Queensland (2008, p.1) says the ideal for eLearning design is to develop “a digital way of learning that is meaningful, engaging and connected. Rather than using technology to do old things in new ways, we want to do new things in new ways and use technology to enable and transform teaching, learning and the curriculum”.
Now that we have identified who we are teaching, and we have identified that students and the world in which we teach them have changed dramatically, the question needs to be asked, how are we teaching them? To address this we need to further explore theories of learning and broadly speaking we were asked to reflect upon four.
Behaviourism is the theory that the mind is like a ‘black box’, (Mergel, 1998) responding to stimuli and that learning is characterized by a change in behaviour. I reflected that my schooling back in the late 1980’s, early 1990’s was modeled on a behaviourist style. Students were guided through a series of instructional steps with a pre-determined outcome. The biggest drawback to this style of teaching is that higher-order thinking skills are not developed.
Cognitivism is another learning theory which was focused on the idea that if you understand how the brain works then you can understand learning.
Finally, Constructivism took learning theory further and personalized it for the learner. Krause et al. (2003 p. 158) outlines the following principles of constructivism, “Learners are active participants in their own learning; Learners are self regulated; Social interaction is necessary for effective learning; and constructivism encourages individuals to make sense of information for themselves.” So in simple terms learners learn best by doing and experiencing. Famous constructivists were Jean Piaget, John Dewey and Lev Vygotsky.
Connectivism is the fourth learning theory we explored and it is known as a learning theory for the digital age. On reflection Siemens’ (2004) theory, made sense when the article stated that it was no longer ‘know how’ or ‘ know what’ that was important but to’ know WHERE’. Siemens’ (2004 p.1) uses the statistic taken from the work of Gonzalez (2004) that states, “The amount of knowledge in the world has doubled in the past ten years and is doubling every eighteen months.” It is therefore simply no longer possible for one person to have all the knowledge. As a teacher and also as a learner we need to find ways to discover how to find good information, and where to find it.
On reflection of the four learning theories we were presented with, what became clear to me that it will not always be possible to pigeon hole a particular type of learning into the specific theory. There will always be overlap and the best practice as a teacher is to take a holistic approach and consider applying parts of each to your own teaching practice. As our course notes state (CQUniversity 2011) “Teaching and learning occurs across a continuum of practice, in most cases we use all of these theories strategically across a learning experience or unit”.
In summary, as we progressed through the activities discussed below, it was obvious to me that eLearning in the digital age favours and is best supported by the theory of constructivism and in particular collaborative construction of knowledge. The best way for us all to learn, is to experience and then reflect and reach our own conclusions about what it all means.
In summary, the key characteristics of a constructivist classroom are;
· Students are constantly asked to reflect on how an activity is helping them gain understanding
· Teachers help students construct their own knowledge rather than repeating and memorizing endless facts and figures.
· Students are active participants in the learning process.
· The focus in the classroom shifts from the teacher to the students.
· The teacher’s role becomes one of asking good questions not telling students the answers. The teacher acts as a guide.
· Group work and collaboration is key. Students learn from each other.
(This summary was paraphrased from Constructivism as a Paradigm for Teaching and Learning, 2004)
Connectivism also plays a vital role in terms of accessing and assessing the information we are asked to read and reflect and in turn apply to our own eLearning design.
Against the background of all of this learning theory participated in a range of wiki-based activities which allowed for all of this theory and focus on learning styles to be put into a practical context. Now was the time to see this learning theory in action. In other words it was time to ‘learn about learning’ by becoming immersed in the technology. In this sense the course was modelling a constructivist style of learning. We became ‘active participants’ in our own learning and it was up to us to make sense of the information ourselves. We began to merge the strands of content, pedagogy and ICT’s in a way that would become “meaningful, engaging and connected”, the exact words used by Education Queensland (2008 p. 1)
All of the online wiki activities were scaffolded for us by the course coordinator. I am choosing to use a definition of scaffolding which is presented in the Cisco Systems article (2008 p.8) and that is that it “is the act of providing learners with assistance or support to perform a task beyond their own reach if pursed independently when ‘unassisted’”.
The profile activity was scaffolded by a series of questions designed to prompt and guide us into revealing interesting characteristics and facts about ourselves. The learning theories wiki was scaffolded using a PMI chart. The mobile phones wiki was scaffolded using De Bono’s Six Hats (1985). All of these ‘thinking tools’ prompted us to think in complex ways and as such they all have implications for our own learning design. Reflection is not a simple process. It requires us to analyse, evaluate and then synthesize our ideas and give them meaning. Scaffolding gives us the structure and guidance to be able to do that and as the definition says it enables us to perform a task that may have previously seemed beyond our reach.
Scaffolding all the activities helped a range of thinking perspectives emerge and then individually and collectively we were asked to reflect upon these. This is the essence of constructivism. We were learning through action. We were reflecting on what we learned and then as a group through the forums and wiki spaces we were collectively constructing our meaning. In essence they were teaching us not what to learn but HOW to learn, and it is this skill for higher order thinking that will become invaluable to your students and can transcend any subject or curriculum. The implications for this in the construction of our own e-Learning design are crucial.
The other benefit of these tools and the online activities is that they catered to a range of different students profiles. For example in the learning theories wiki we were asked to choose a reading and then collaborate. This catered for a range of student profiles by allowing us to read online or print it off. We then teamed up with a partner. Again we were permitted to collaborative via email, phone, face to face or through the wiki itself. People worked in groups of two’s or three’s and in my own personal experience we were joined by a third person who added to our own wiki after we had completed the task days earlier. Different learners were able to choose the method that worked best for them. The wiki allowed everyone’s voice to be heard and everyone’s opinion was important. Through the scaffold of the PMI a range of different perspectives were presented and students learned from each other. Lastly the wiki is still in use. Therefore constructing meaning of the knowledge hasn’t ceased. It is unlimited, allowing students to continually engage and reflect. All of these attributes are considered good practice in a constructivist classroom.
However, constructivism is not all good news. The goal for any educator in today’s world is to develop these higher-order complex thinking skills, but by reading through the blog reflections and forum postings it was obvious that a constructivist style of learning can have drawbacks. It was common for students to complain on the forums that they felt insecure about what they were meant to be doing. The felt unsure about what they should be writing, how they should be reflecting, was what they were doing the right or wrong thing. I now realise that in a constructivist classroom these insecurities are actually part of the learning process. Knowledge in a constructivist classroom is fluid and unending, there really is no such thing as a right or wrong answer. It is okay for students to have ideas that they may later see as invalid or incorrect. Constructivism is about solving problems and it became clear that many students enrolled in the course were uncomfortable with this experience.
However, subsequent posts from Wendy Fasso (2011) and their peers allayed their fears and helped them to construct meaning. We were encouraged to navigate the course, make mistakes, have difficulty completing the tasks but be willing to ask for assistance. We were also called upon to assist others if we felt we knew the answer. Reflection is about working out what went well and what didn’t. This is collaborative constructivism in action.
The drawback to all of this is that I feel some students may become paralysed by this fear and unable to blog about it or post a ‘help needed’ message to a forum. Many of us, myself included were schooled in a behaviourist style of teaching and so we were worried about doing the wrong thing. It is important to consider this when planning our own e-Learning design. Make sure students know that there is no such thing as a silly question or a wrong answer, that we are all on a learning journey and who knows where it might take us.
Siemens (2005 p. 2) wrote that “constructivist principles acknowledge that real-life learning is messy and complex. Classrooms which emulate the ‘fuzziness’ of this learning will be more effective in preparing learners for life-long learning”.
The other problem that I saw is that the technology itself seemed fraught with difficulties, particularly in the beginning. There seemed to be endless problems with the wikis and people’s own abilities when it came to navigating the technology. Readings on the moodle site disappeared overnight and several people were unable to post to the forums. The implications for this in planning our own eLearning design is to make sure we try and choose ICT’s that are robust and able to get the job done. However it is also important to acknowledge when things are not working. This too is constructivism. We are modeling real world learning, and the in the real world things don’t always go to plan.
In conclusion, our course EDED 20491 ICT’s in Learning Design modeled what will become our own goal when it comes time to teach, and in particular teach within the context of e-Learning. Through the moodle site, our own blog, the forums, the online activities such as the wikis, we were modelling a constructivist style of learning and in particular a collaborative constructivist style.
In the real world as a teacher we need to be sensitive but not constrained by profiles that get us to think about who we might be teaching. Allow the profiles to start a conversation and get students thinking, but don’t pigeonhole a particular learner into a particular style. Be aware that they exist and be sensitive to an individual’s needs but balance is the key here. As Felder & Brent state (2005) “It is pointless to consider tailoring instruction to each individual student, it is equally misguided to imagine that a single one-size-fits-all approach to teaching can meet the needs of every student”.
We need to see the background of learning theories as crucial to understanding how we might be teaching them. We need to try and model best practice, and it is clear that constructivism creates an ideal learning environment. However elements of the other theories should also be taken into account.
We need to acknowledge that when planning eLearning design all of those factors should be considered, holistically. Complex thinking is the ultimate goal. We want our students to understand HOW to learn and think rather than exactly what to learn, because this will transcend all curriculum and schooling and be a tool that they can use anywhere in their learning journey.
In the final week we were asked to synthesise all of these ideas by considering three different frameworks Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956), Learning Engagement Theory (1999) and TPACK (2006). These will become our foundations for eLearning design, combined with our knowledge and understanding of WHO we are teaching and HOW we can teach them.
In a post to the course website, Fasso (2011) pointed out that theories and frameworks are like “a recipie that can be changed, moulded and selected to underpin consistently good unit design”. But as we are specifically talking about eLearning design I will give the last word to Education Queensland (2008 p.3) who state that “Digital pedagogy used effectively supports, enhances, enables and transforms teaching and learning to provide, rich, diverse and flexible learning opportunities for a digital generation.” And that is what we should be trying to achieve.
References
Blooms Taxonomy of Learning Domains (1999) Retrieved from CQ University Course Resources Online EDED20491 http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html#cognitive
Church, A. Educational Origami Blooms Digital Taxonomy (2011) Retrieved from CQ University Course Resources Online EDED20491 http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html#cognitive
Constructivism as a Paradigm for Teaching and Learning (2004) Educational Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved from CQ University Course Resources Online EDED20491http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/constructivism/index.html
CQUniversity Australia. (2011) EDED20491 ICT’s for Learning Design. Rockhampton, Qld: Author.
De Bono, E, (1985) Six Thinking Hats: An Essential Approach to Business Management. Retrieved from CQUniversity Course Resources Online EDED20491
http://www.kurwongbss.eq.edu.au/thinking/Hats/hats.htmesources
eLearning for Smart Classrooms. (2008) Smart Bytes, August 2008 1-12 Retrieved from CQUniversity Course Resources Online EDED20491http://education.qld.gov.au/smartclassrooms/pdf/scbyte-elearning.pdf
Fasso, W. (2011) March 7). Retrieved from CQUniversity e-courses, EDED20491 ICT’s in Learning Design,
Felder, R., & Brent, R. (2005). Understanding Student Differences. Journal of Engineering Education, 94 (1), 57-72
Felder, R.M., & Soloman, B.A. (1991). Learning Styles and Strategies. Retrieved from CQUniversity Course Resources Online EDED20491
http://www.engr.ncsu.edu/learningstyles/ilsweb.html
Kearsley, G. & Shneiderman, B. (1999) Engagement Theory: A framework for technology-based teaching and learning. Retrieved from CQUniversity Course Resources Online EDED20491 http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley/engage.htm
Krause, K., Bochner, S., & Duchensne, S. (2003) Educational psychology for learning and teaching. Victoria: Thomson Learning Australia.
Mergel, B, (1998) Instructional Design and Learning Theory. Retrieved from CQUniversity Course Resources Online EDED20491 http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/mergel/brenda.htm#The%20Basics%20of%20Behaviorism
Mishra, P. & Koehler, M.J. (2006) Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record Volume 108, Number 6, June 2006, 1017-1054. Retrieved from CQUniversity Course Resources Online EDED20491 http://site.aace.org/pubs/sigs/sig-Mishra-Koehler-TCR.pdf
Multimodal Learning Through Media: What the Research Says (2008) Cisco Systems 1-24. Retrieved from CQ University Course Resources Online EDED20491 http://www.cisco.com/web/strategy/docs/education/Multimodal-Learning-Through-Media.pdf
Prensky, M. (2001) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, MCB University Press, Vol.9 No. 5, October 2001
Siemens, G (2004) Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Retrieved from CQ University Course Resources Online EDED20491 http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment